Archive | July 28th, 2012

Guess What % of Americans Know Military Spending Is Increasing

By David Swanson

And keep guessing some more, because pollsters are unlikely to ask that question.

A year and a half ago, a poll found that Americans drastically underestimate how high U.S. military spending is.

This fits with consistent polling showing slim majority support for cutting military spending, but strong support for major military cuts when the people polled are told what the current budget it.

Setting aside, however, the absolute size of the U.S. military budget, its size in comparison to the rest of the world’s militaries, or its size in comparison to the rest of the federal budget, are people able to process the fact that it’s been growing every year for the past 15 years — in the face of the steady news reports that it’s shrinking?

I doubt it.

(The Office of Management and Budget can be expected again this week to claim that military spending is low as a percentage of GDP. But the idea that we should spend more on war because we can is probably best left to psychiatrists to handle.)

Meanwhile, three GOP senators are touring the country warning that mythical military cuts will endanger us and hurt our socialistic jobs program.

Here are some basic facts missing from the discussion:

Money invested in non-military programs or even in tax cuts for non-billionaires creates more jobs than does military spending, enough to justify the expense of a conversion program to retrain and retool.

In much of the world, spending money on killing people in order to produce jobs is viewed as sociopathic.

Candidate Obama promised to increase military spending and size and President Obama has done so.

Military spending has increased dramatically in the past decade, in the Department of so-called “Defense” and in other departments, including “Homeland Security,” Energy, State, etc., plus increased secret budgets and the militarization of the CIA, totaling well over a trillion dollars a year now.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week voted to limit next year’s DOD spending to last year’s level, with some loopholes.  Making use of the loopholes, the House increased spending by over $1 billion.

Last year’s Budget Control Act, and the failure of the Super Congress, requires minimal cuts to military spending, but Congress is proceeding in violation of its own law.

When we’re told that cuts have already happened, usually what has been cut is future dream budgets.  But cutting the Pentagon’s wish list can still leave it with more than it had before.

When we’re told that big numbers will be cut, such as $500 billion “over 10 years,” this means that cutting $50 billion out of the budget sounds bigger if you multiply it by 10.  That’s all it means.

The U.S. military costs roughly what all other nations spend on their militaries combined, and more than the rest of U.S. discretionary spending combined.  This, combined with tax cuts for billionaires and corporations, or either factor alone, explains why many poorer nations have better schools, parks, energy systems, and infrastructure.

The U.S. military has troops in more nations each year, and bases in more nations each year.  It continues to be more privatized and more profitable each year.  It has not been and refuses to be audited.

Drone strikes in nations where no other type of war was underway or contemplated are an escalation of violence, not a reduction.

For less than 10 percent of U.S. military spending, we could make state college tuition free.

Americans with college educations are more likely to . . .

1) have job options other than the military, and
2) oppose obscene levels of military spending, and
3) be able to grasp that often the truth is the opposite of what the television keeps saying.

Posted in USAComments Off on Guess What % of Americans Know Military Spending Is Increasing

Chavez Riding High in Polls


by Stephen Lendman


Bolivarianism remains overwhelmingly popular. So is Chavez. He heads the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

In 1999, he transformed the nation into a Bolivarian republic. It’s based on “solidarity, fraternity, love, justice, liberty and equality.”

He changed it politically, economically and socially. He established participatory democracy. Venezuela’s process shames America’s, Britain’s, France’s, and other Western states.

He constitutionally instituted basic social rights for everyone. They include universal health care, education, affordable housing, land reform, indigenous rights, and much more.

Venezuala’s oil wealth is used responsibly. It’s elections are free, open and fair. Freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly are institutionalized. So are other fundamental rights sorely lacking or eroding in America, across Europe, and elsewhere.

Venezuela today and pre-Chavez are worlds apart. Venezuelans overwhelmingly approved constitutional reform by national referendum. Everything changed for the better.

Americans can’t imagine rights afforded all Venezuelans. Washington’s duopoly power condemns them to eroding public services, growing poverty, unemployment, hunger, homelessness, despair, and repression enforcing policy on non-believers.

Reform is a work in progress. Transforming generations of government of, by, and for privileged elites alone takes time.

Venezuela’s transformation has miles to go. But it’s accomplishments in 13 years under Chavez are impressive by any standard. Most Venezuelans wholeheartedly endorse them. They deplore returning to pre-Chavez days.

Henrique Capriles Radonski is Washington’s man in Caracas. He represents money power, neoliberal extremism, and pre-Chavez harshness. He heads the opposition umbrella group Table for Democratic Unity (MUD).

Venezuelan and Western media scoundrels support him. His Primero Justicia party was involved in Washington’s aborted April 2002 coup. At the time, Capriles was Baruta mayor. He and other party members were involved.

At a July rally, Chavez told supporters:

“We have made the vital strategic decision that every time there’s aggression from the imperialists and the bourgeoisie….we will respond by deepening the socialist revolution.”

No wonder a Columbia University Earth Institute study called Venezuela South America’s happiest country. A 2011 Gallup poll ranked it fifth globally. A GISXXI survey found 84% of Venezuelans are “satisfied” with their lives. An equal percent call themselves “happy” or “very happy.”

On October 7, Chavez and Capriles face off. Voters have final say. After 13 years as president, poll numbers predict another sweep.

Social investment is why. Around 60% of government revenues go for healthcare, education, and other social and cultural benefits.

America’s budget goes largely for militarism, imperial wars, homeland repression, internal spying, banker bailouts, corporate giveaways, and tax cuts for rich elites already with too much.

Capriles now serves as Miranda governor. He represents wealth and privilege. He promises a “better Venezuela.” He doesn’t explain how.

He was born to wealth. He’s taken funds from Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and International Republican Institute (ISI). They tolerate democracy nowhere, including at home.

His campaign endorses market based solutions. Anything government does business does better so let it, he believes.

Borrowing from Margaret Thatcher’s TINA ideology (There Is No Alternative), his campaign highlights “There is Only One Way.” Most Venezuelans know better.

On July 16, the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC) headlined “Hugo Chavez is running high in the polls; Venezuela’s right plot not to recognise the people’s verdict,” saying:

Based on International Consulting Services (ICS) June 23 – 27 poll numbers, Chavez holds an overwhelming 25.2% advantage. He leads Capriles by a 59.1% to 33.9% margin.

Results show Capriles “badly stagnated in the recent period.” It’s not surprising. Most Venezuelans deplore returning to the bad old days. Sacrificing Bolivarianism for money power rule is unthinkable.

Asked to evaluate governmental performance, 71.4% rated Chavez positive compared to 28.3% judging him negatively. Heading toward October, he looks unbeatable.

So does PSUV. It’s got a 59.9% advantage. Primero Justicia is MUD’s strongest coalition partner. It registered a meager 17.9%. UNT got an embarrassing 3.8%. Worse still, Proyecto Venezuela, Copei and Adeco scored 1.8%, 1.8%, and 1.3% respectively.

MUD’s combined strength is less than 27%. In December 2005, Accion Democratica (AD), Copei and Proyecto Venezuela withdrew from National Assembly elections. At issue was lack of support. They claimed no trust in electoral legitimacy. In fact, it’s beyond reproach.

Perhaps MUD will find reason to back out for equally spurious reasons, or if participate will cry foul when results are announced. Scoundrels who can’t win fairly denounce systems rejecting them.

In June, Chavez said he knows of a “hidden” right-wing scheme to “boycott” or not recognize electoral results. On public television he explained that he’ll “respond with a lot of vigor (to any) threat to the independence of Venezuela.”

He’s mindful of preventing an April 2002 repeat. He’s likely ready to confront lawless outbreaks if they occur.

ICS also asked respondents about each candidate’s “Vision for Venezuela as a country.” Chavez scored 67.6% approval. On a related question about how much they knew about his vision, 78% said they were well informed. Most like what they see.

Asked “(w)hich of the two candidates would guarantee the country’s sovereignty,” respondents rated Chavez 56.2%. Capriles scored 28.4%.

ICS figures are consistent with voter sentiment since July 2011.

IVAD, Datanalisis, Hinterlaces, GISXXI, and other pollsters give Chavez a lead ranging from 15 – 35 points. In response, MUD already refuses to say if they’ll respect October results.

Chavez called on Capriles to state his intentions publicly. He said he’ll accept whatever results turn out.

Capriles didn’t respond in kind. Nor did anyone in his campaign.

According to VSC, refusing “is puzzling given the highly efficient, competent, impartial and clean manner in which Venezuela’s Electoral Council (CNE) conducts elections.”

Independent international observers rate them highly. They include EU, OAS, and Carter Center representatives.

Venezuela’s electoral process shames America’s sham system. It entirely lacks credibility. Big money controls it. Voters have no say. They get the best democracy money can buy.

According to VSC, refusing to publicly agree to accept October’s results “is particularly worrying, and acquires sinister overtones, when it was this very opposition that formally requested this very CNE to conduct their” February 2012 primaries.

Capriles emerged victorious. Nonetheless, most Venezuelans reject him for good reason. He and those around him deplore “adherence to democratic principles,” says VSC.

Pre and post-Chavez, destroying them is policy. Ending Bolivarian change is prioritized. Close ties to Washington are maintained. Millions of covert dollars provide aid.

At issue is replacing Chavez. All options are considered. Destabilization, media attacks, coups, targeted assassinations, and wars are favorites. Covert plots may be planned.

VSC believes “undemocratic methods” may follow October’s electoral defeat. Rejecting legitimate results, disruptive protests, and perhaps other tactics will be employed.

Despots play hardball. Washington perfected the art. It controls what may play out post-election. Extending congratulations to Chavez isn’t planned. Delegitimizing and denigrating him will be featured. It’s the American way.

A Final Comment

As long as he’s president and looks certain to win reelection, Chavez is vulnerable. No tactics are too dirty to defeat, discredit, denigrate, or oust him.

His health remains an issue. He had three cancer operations and multiple rounds of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. In early July, he told Venezuelans he’s “(f)ree, free, totally free” of cancer.

Recovery isn’t easy. Reoccurrence can follow remission. Eva Golinger writes often on Venezuelan issues. On May 30, she discussed false reports about Chavez’s health.

Since diagnosed with cancer, “all kinds of rumors, lies and speculations” circulated. Anti-Chavez media scoundrels featured it. So do right-wing extremists.

Chavez reported forthrightly about his health, surgeries, treatment and recovery. Evidence shows no metastasis. Many cancer patients recover fully and live long, healthy, productive lives.

Chavez got superb care. He maintains a rigorous schedule. In early July, he began campaigning for reelection. Health issues won’t deter him.

“Every day I feel in better physical condition,” he said. “I strongly believe that this expression of ‘physical limitation’ (one reporter used) isn’t going to be a factor in this campaign.”

He expressed faith for a full recovery. “There are millions of Venezuelans who have reasons to trust me as a person and believe in (Bolivarianism).”

“The revolutionary hurricane begins now. (W)e’ll wage a general offensive until 7 October.”

Based on consistent poll numbers showing overwhelming support, he looks certain to win big. Venezuelans reject returning to their ugly past. As long as Chavez runs and remains healthy, he’s their man.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Chavez Riding High in Polls

Zionists Behind Destabilization of Syria?


Watch the video: Syria Gangs act for americanzionist empire

Press TV

The infrastructure of Syria is facing dangerous levels and the fighting between the Syrian army and the armed groups is spreading to other cities as well.

Syria has been the scene of violence by armed groups since March 2011. The violence has claimed the lives of hundreds of people, including many security forces.

The Syrian government says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving factor behind the unrest and deadly violence while the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Kevin Barrett, author and Islamic studies expert, to further discuss the issue.

The video also offers the opinion of an additional guest: Lawrence J. Korb from the Center for American Progress.

The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Why do you think Syria has come under such a fierce campaign by the West, Washington’s Arab allies and Turkey?

Barrett: Well this is part of a destabilization campaign in the Middle East and I think there are two overall strategic reasons for this. One is that the US empire is trying to consolidate its position worldwide as it has been eclipsed by the fastest growing economies of the BRIC countries and secondly I think that the hard line like…Zionist in Israel are hoping to redraw the map of the Middle East in a way that is more favorable to them while they have the chance in their using American military power to do it.

And Zionists I think are hoping to break these countries up into smaller units that would never be able to pose any kind of strategic threat to Israel and we have seen this happen with Sudan, we have seen it happen to a certain extent with Iraq and we might see it happen in spades in Syria because Syria is perhaps the most right candidate for this kind of destabilization.

There are ethnic divisions, there are confessional divisions in Syria, they can be exploited by the masters of empire in their dividing conquer strategy and that is what they are doing and it is a tragedy that the Muslims of Syria in particular and the Christians as well are falling for this and in particular that the hard line Sunni Muslims who are sometimes called al-Qaeda, many of them are playing the game of the Zionist-American empire.

They have done this before, these are the same people who have run drugs for the CIA and harassed the Russians on paramilitary missions for the CIA and today some of these same people are back, are taking money and funding and direction from the US and Zionist empire in this war in Syria and it is a real tragedy.

I think Muslims need to unite against this kind of imperial meddling and against this kind of Zionist destabilization of the Middle East.

Press TV: Mr. Barrett the debate is going towards the fact that the opposition is trying to gain the upper hand in Syria. I mean we have referendum that was held in Syria and the reforms have been made there, why has this gone unseen in Syria?

Barrett: Well I think that the big international media, the Western media in particular is presenting only one side of the story here and I would like to take issue with one thing the other guest said which is that he is claiming that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are Muslim countries who are presumably not acting on behalf of any outside interest and of course that is complete nonsense.

Turkey is a member of NATO and it has been run by these hard line operation Gladio of NATO people forever who controlled Turkey partly through drug smuggling and criminality and yes, Turkey does have a more democratic and Islamic government now than it did in the past but the reason that it is taking NATO’s side in Syria is not because the Muslims of Turkey want that, it is because NATO is leaning on Turkey likewise Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the Zionist-American empire that props up the Western financial system by putting all of its oil money into the American dollar and in other ways helping to prop up the Western financial system.

And so these actors are not acting on behalf of the global Muslim community. They are acting on behalf of the American-Zionist empire which is ultimately controlled by eight big banking families.

So let us be very clear about that. The plan to destabilize Syria is a lot bigger than just the fact that asserts many of the Syrian people want reform and I agree with them . Syria needs reform, Syria does need a kind of a compromise between the different factions and it needs to change but the trend towards a foreign funded terrorist war on the government in Syria is a terribly destructive trend.

The only possible outcome of this as President Putin recently said is eternal civil war in Syria and this would be a horrifying prospect, anybody who cares about the outcome for the Syrian people. It might be a good prospect if you are somebody like Netanyahu who wants Syria to be taken out of the equation, wants Syria to not have any kind of military strength or unity with which it could confront the stolen Golan Heights and demand the rights of the Palestinian people.

So I think if the opposition in Syria had made the smart move and not accepted all of this military help from the outside and turned to terrorism, if instead they had bravely continued to demonstrate peacefully and they were brutally suppressed a couple of times but they should have kept with that high road as to the people of Tunisia and Egypt, and when certain groups in Syria did not and decided to join with this terrorist version on behalf of the Zionists and the Americans, this was a terrible, terrible mistake and I hope that it can still be rectified.

Press TV: Mr. Barrett, we have the West, the Arab League is in Turkey obviously seeking a regime change in Syria. Why is there this obsession with getting rid of the Bashar al-Assad government? Let me put forward the quotes to you by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, he says that ‘we fear that if the current government is toppled by non-constitutional means, the opposition and the current government might simply swap places’?

Barrett: That is a good point and then there will be a civil war in the future. It is a terrible situation and you ask why is there this dedication to destabilizing Syria and pushing for regime change in Syria? And the answer is that these outside powers that are arming the armed gangs that are fighting against the Assad government in Syria are not interested in democratic rights of the Syrian people, they are obviously not interested in democratic rights of the people of Arabian Peninsula either.

Instead what they are interested in is destabilizing Syria, it is a thorn in the side of Israel and they are also interested in getting Syria out of the way of a perspective war on Iran or at least military pressure on Iran.

So it is a strategic move, it is certainly not any genuine concern with human rights and democracy.

Press TV: Mr. Barrett, the West says it is concerned according to Mr. Korb [the other guest of the program], the West is concerned about Syria but why isn’t it concerned about Bahrain or Saudi Arabia?

Barrett: Well again it is a strategic thing. I do not really believe the other guest is completely convinced by his own rhetoric, I am sure that he has gone to school long enough to learn that international strategic relations are governed by matters other than sort of concern with democracy and human rights for the Syrian people that he professes.

In fact the regimes in the [Persian] Gulf oil states are at least as oppressive and unrepresentative of their people as the Syrian government and the West is far from trying to push for any kind of democratization in those countries particularly Bahrain which is the base of US Fifth Fleet I believe and there it is the Khalifa regime is being propped up by the West in the face of a genuine peaceful popular uprising whereas over in Syria we have what may have begun as a peaceful popular uprising quickly morphing into a terrorist war against the regime supported by outside players.

And this is pretty outrageous. I mean if here in the US we had other countries funding terrorist attacking the US government that would be universally reviled and likewise I think that if outside Paris were meddling in any other country it would likewise be reviled.

I am not really sure where these masters of empire in places like Washington DC ever got the right to decide which nations can be destabilized by terrorism, by outside players and that is okay whereas other nations would never allow that to happen and I think ultimately it is just a matter of power, it might make rights and that is what is really going on and what I am hearing from this other guest really I am sorry to say, it sounds like just rank, it is admitting the stench of rank hypocrisy just like almost everything else we are hearing from the Western capitals these days.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Zionists Behind Destabilization of Syria?

Economic Crises Set Stage for World War 2


Left, Hjalmar Schacht and Montagu Norman

The Weimar government introduced a program of crippling austerity measures. This all fed into the hands of Nazis.

Deja Vu all over again? 

by David Richards


The Illuminati set the stage for WW2 from 1925 -1931 with a program of economic warfare.

The program was designed to destroy the world economic system beyond repair.  It included two seismic events – the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the British gold default in 1931.

The Bank of England was the hub of Illuminati operations. The other major central bank chiefs took orders from BoE Chairman Montague Norman, who ‘was built up by the private bankers to such a position where he was regarded as an oracle in all matters of government and business.’ (Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley, pg. 325)


The Wall Street Crash of 1929 

Britain returned to the gold standard in 1925. As the pound sterling was the only world currency, this meant that world trade was put back on the gold standard.

The pound was purposely brought back at a grotesquely over-valued rate of £1 equaling $4.86. For a world gold standard to operate around an over-valued pound sterling, the dollar had to be devalued. This was the pretext the Illuminati used to launch a bubble economy in the US.

Webster Tarpley records how the central bank chiefs conspired to create inflation in the US:

‘In 1925, as the pound was returning to gold, Montague Norman, Hjalmar Schacht and Charles Rist, the deputy governor of the Banque de France visited Benjamin Strong in New York to mobilize his network of influential insiders for easy money and low interest rates in the US.

Strong was able to guarantee these policies.  Norman & Co. made a second pilgrimage to Wall Street between 28 June and 1 July 1927 to promote American speculation and inflation.’

The easy money was used to feed the stock market bubble and provide loans for indebted countries, particularly Germany.

The Wall Street bubble was burst by raising the central bank discount rate. They raised the BoE Bank Rate to a whopping 6.5%, a full point above the Fed. This move was imitated immediately by British satellites such as India, Denmark, the Irish Republic and Norway. This generated a giant sucking sound as money was pulled out of New York across the Atlantic.

This was the start of the Great Depression that would be worsened by the withdrawal of money from circulation. Milton Friedman has said, “The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.”

The Great Depression allowed the Illuminati to bring in Franklin D Roosevelt with his ‘New Deal’, greatly expanding the power of the American government, and by extension the Fed and the Illuminati.

The  ‘New Deal’ was a resounding failure. In 1938, unemployment was still at 20%. The depression was only relieved after World War 2. I.e. America was not allowed to recover until it had fulfilled its role in the war.

The Wall Street crash had another purpose: bring Hitler to power.

Plunging Germany into Crisis

The German economy had been dependent on short-term loans from US banks to pay their WW1 debts and fund industrial activity. 

After the crash, struggling US banks started calling loans in. German firms cut back production dramatically, creating huge unemployment. The Weimar government introduced a program of crippling austerity measures. This all fed into the hands of the Nazis.

Then in 1931, the Rothschild’s purposely destroyed the German banking system by allowing their Austrian mega bank Kreditanstalt to declare bankruptcy in 1931. The bankruptcy of Kreditanstalt is widely credited with crashing the central European banking system.

Kreditanstalt defaulted on debts of $76m. Do we really believe that the Rothschild’s couldn’t stump up $76m? International efforts to save the bank were suspiciously weak. The Berlin correspondent for The Economist reported at time:

“It was clear from the beginning… that such an institution [as the Kreditanstalt] could not collapse without the most serious consequences, but the fire might have been localized if the fire brigade had arrived quickly enough on the scene. It was the delay of several weeks in rendering effective international assistance to the Kreditanstalt which allowed the fire to spread so widely.”

Shortly after the failure of Kreditanstalt Germany’s 2nd biggest bank Danatbank failed, and the rest followed like dominos.


The Bank of England goes off the Gold Standard – 1931

The Illuminati put the world back on the gold standard in 1925 with the intention of destroying the gold backing at a later date. This took place 21st September 1931, when Britain left the gold standard.


The British gold default destroyed orderly world trade. The ‘world monetary system’ of that time was a pound sterling system based on the gold standard.

Jackson E. Reynolds, then President of the First National Bank of New York, has said, “When England went off Gold it was like the end of the world.”

The world fractured into competing currency blocs, including the British pound sterling bloc, the US dollar bloc, the Franc bloc, the Soviet ruble area and the Japanese yen zone.

Webster Tarpley explains how this trade war would lead to a world war:

“The currency chaos meant that there was no reliable means of settling commercial payments among these blocs. World trade atrophied. The situation was difficult for everyone, but it was worst for those blocs which had the greatest dependency on exports and on importing oil, metals, rubber, and strategic raw materials.

The pound sterling, dollar, franc and ruble each had some raw materials backing. But the German mark, Japanese yen and Italian lira had virtually none. Each of these states embarked on an economic regime of autarky so as to conserve foreign exchange. For Germany, Italy, and Japan, aggressive territorial expansion towards possible sources of oil and metals became the only available surrogate for foreign trade.”

The Illuminati effectively started WW2 in 1931.

American congressman Louis McFadden clocked on to what had happened. In 1932 he made a speech in the House of Representatives, in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression, “It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all”.

For this and other similar tirades, McFadden received numerous death threats. He died in 1936 after being poisoned at a banquet.



In the “Red Symphony,” (1937)  Illuminati insider Christian Rakovsky describes how the Illuminati use economic turmoil to achieve political control.

He says Oct 24, 1929, the date of the New York Stock Exchange crash ( “the beginning of the so-called ‘depression'”)  was more important than the 1918 Bolshevik revolution. It broke the “classical American” individualism and resulted in “a flourishing of parasitism, and capital is a large parasite.” It began “a real revolution.”

“Although the power of money is political power; before, it had only been used indirectly, but now the power of money was to be transformed into direct power. The man through whom they made use of such power was Franklin Roosevelt. Have you understood? Take note of the following: In that year 1929 the first year of the American revolution, in February Trotsky leaves Russia; the crash takes place in October…the financing of Hitler is agreed to in July 1929.

You think that all this was by chance? The four years of the rule of Hoover was used for the preparation for the seizure of power in the United States and USSR; there by means of a financial revolution, and here [Russia] with the help of war and the defeat [of Stalin]  which was to follow.” (Full text in Des Griffin, “Fourth Reich of the Rich,” p.273)

The Illuminati used economic crises for political purposes in the thirties and they are doing it again. This time they are debasing and destroying faith in currency, first the Euro and later the $US Dollar. Since they are all based on unpayable debt, economic collapse is a constant threat. And with collapse comes war…  

Posted in EducationComments Off on Economic Crises Set Stage for World War 2

Obama signs IsraHell military aid bill on eve of Romney visit


By Olivier Knox,

President Barack Obama signs the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act. From left: Richard Stone, …

On the eve of Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel, President Barack Obama signed into law a military aid bill for that staunch American ally at a much-publicized White House ceremony that highlighted the political advantages of incumbency.

“What this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really, at an unprecedented level between our two countries that underscore our unshakable commitment to Israel security,” Obama said as he signed the measure at his desk in the Oval Office.

The president also announced he would speed another $70 million to Israel to advance the so-called “Iron Dome” short-range missile defense system, a response to sustained rocket fire from Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

“This is a program that has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for the Israeli families,” he said. “We are standing by our friends in Israel when it comes to these kinds of attacks.”

The signing ceremony, a relatively uncommon event in the Obama White House, fit a pattern this week of the administration trumpeting relations with Britain, Israel and Poland—the three countries on Romney’s trip overseas to polish his diplomatic credentials.

“I hope that, as I sign as this bill, once again everybody understands how committed all of us are—Republicans and Democrats—as Americans to our friends in making sure that Israel is safe and secure,” said Obama.

The president also deplored the “tragic” attack on Israelis in Bulgaria and said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would shortly travel to Israel to “find additional ways that we can ensure such cooperation at a time when, frankly, the region is experiencing heightened tensions.” That was a reference to escalating worries over Iran’s nuclear program—and Israel’s repeated warnings that it cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Tehran and may resort to military force.

While abroad, Romney has muted his usually sharp criticisms of Obama’s handling of U.S.-Israel relations. A spokeswoman for his campaign welcomed the new law, but hit out at White House press secretary Jay Carney over an awkward, cringe-inducing exchange during his daily briefing on Thursday in which he declined to say what Israel’s capital is.

“Gov. Romney has long called for enhancing security cooperation with Israel and is happy to see that steps are being taken in that direction,” said the spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg. “Unfortunately this bill does nothing to address yesterday’s evasiveness from the White House on whether President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which raised doubt about the president’s commitment to our closest ally in the region.”

(Longstanding U.S. policy is to regard the status of Jerusalem, which Israel has long declared its capital, as something to be resolved in so-called “final status” negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Henneberg’s comments highlighted one of the political advantages of being the challenger. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said Jerusalem was Israel’s capital. But since taking office, he has lined up behind every president before him in delaying the transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.)

Recent public opinion polls show Obama with a commanding lead over Romney among Jewish voters—but less than his advantage over John McCain in 2008. And with both sides predicting a hard-fought election, neither candidate is writing off any potential gains.

In a “fact sheet” on the signing, the White House underlined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s May 2012 praise for Obama’s “ironclad commitment to Israel’s security.” “He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented,” the prime minister told the American Israel Political Affairs Committee. “And he has backed those words with deeds.”

Netanyahu, who was to play host to Romney on Saturdayhas had a frequently tense relationship with the American president. In November 2011, Obama told French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who branded Netanyahu “a liar,” that “you’ve had enough of him, but I have to deal with him every day.”

Obama’s more conciliatory message got a boost from Israel’s veteran ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, who expressed “profound gratitude” to the president for signing the bill. Oren dubbed the legislation “the most comprehensive commitment on the part of the United States to the short- and long-term security of its unshakable ally, Israel.”

“The Enhanced Security Cooperation Act sends an unequivocal message of support to the people of Israel at a time of great uncertainty throughout the entire Middle East, and reminds the region of the unbreakable bond between our two nations,” Oren said in a statement.

The military aid bill sailed through Congress—just two “no” votes in the House of Representatives in May, a voice vote to clear the Senate last week.

White House press secretary Jay Carney denied politics played a role in the bill signing. “The timing of the passage and signing of this legislation was not up to us, but up to Congress,” he said.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Obama signs IsraHell military aid bill on eve of Romney visit

Zio-Nazi war tourists flock to the Golan


ed note–remember the pics of the Jewish brats who came out to watch the carnage taking place during Cast Lead?–What’s the difference? Now, we can just imagine the reverse, if Israel were in the same kind of turmoil and upheaval and a bunch of A-RABS flocked to their borders to watch Jews die…Just one more in a never-ending litany of ‘crimes against humanity’ on the part of non-Jews towards their ‘better brethren’.

The raging civil war in Syria has created a new spectator sport for Israeli vacationers: war tourism. Mortar shells from Syria are now landing in the demilitarized zone in the northern Golan Heights, and residents in the area say they can hear gunfire as well. Many Israelis are foregoing the pool or the beach, flocking instead to the Israel-Syria border for a little action. As Maarivreported Tuesday, the intrigue attracts “dozens” of Israelis who arrive each day with their binoculars, inspired by the broadcast images of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “watching the shelling of Jobata al-Khashab across the border in Syria.”

“We saw a few days ago how Defense Minister Barak watched the battles in the Syrian village of G’ovta with binoculars,” Yosi, a resident of Tel Aviv, told Maariv. “I know that it’s dangerous and the border becomes explosive, but it is still intriguing.”

According to The Times of Israel, tour guides have caught on to the fad and are adding the “Syrian unrest” to their agendas. Police in northern Israel are on alert in case any curious travelers try to get into any sensitive army installations on the border. Hopefully we won’t be reading any stories about overly adventurous tourists. 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Zio-Nazi war tourists flock to the Golan

Iran blames IsraHell for planning Bulgaria bombing


A deadly attack against Israeli tourists in the Black Sea city of Burgas, located some 400 kilometers (248 miles) east of the Bulgarian capital Sofia, on July 18 killed at least seven people and injured dozens.

A deadly attack against Israeli tourists in the Black Sea city of Burgas, located some 400 kilometers (248 miles) east of the Bulgarian capital Sofia, on July 18 killed at least seven people and injured dozens.

Such a terrorist operation could only be planned and carried out by the same regime whose short history is full of state terrorism operations and assassinations aimed at implicating others for narrow political gains.”

Iran’s UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaei

The Iranian ambassador to the UN has rejected Israel’s claim of Tehran’s role in a recent bombing in Bulgaria, pointing a finger of blame at the Tel Aviv regime for the attack.

A deadly attack against Israeli tourists took place in the Black Sea city of Burgas, located some 400 kilometers (248 miles) east of the Bulgarian capital Sofia on July 18.

Israeli officials were quick to accuse Iran and the Lebanese resistance movement of Hezbollah of carrying out the attack.

“It’s amazing that just a few minutes after the terrorist attack, Israeli officials announced that Iran was behind it,” Mohammad Khazaei told a UN Security Council meeting.

He said that Iran condemns any form of terrorist act, emphasizing that such acts could only be carried out by Israel itself.

“While condemning any terrorist attack in whatever form and manifestation, with regard to the terrorist attack in Bulgaria, I should make it clear that we have never [engaged] and will not engage in such a despicable attempt,” he added.

“Such a terrorist operation could only be planned and carried out by the same regime whose short history is full of state terrorism operations and assassinations aimed at implicating others for narrow political gains,” he said.

The Iranian envoy said that he could provide many examples showing that the regime “killed its own citizens and innocent Jewish people during the last couple of decades.”

He said that Iran was itself a victim of terrorism, citing the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists as an example.

Since 2009, five Iranian nuclear scientists have become the target of terrorist attacks, which killed four of them.

Iran blames the US and Israel for the strings of deadly attacks against its nuclear experts.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Iran blames IsraHell for planning Bulgaria bombing

German intel.: Qaeda behind terror in Syria


Members of a foreign-backed armed gang in Syria (file photo)

Members of a foreign-backed armed gang in Syria (file photo)A member of a foreign-backed terrorist group in Syria (file photo)
Members of a foreign-backed armed gang in Syria (file photo)
The German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) has revealed that al-Qaeda is responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in Syria, including the Houla massacre.

The BND estimates that al-Qaeda has carried out “about 90 terrorist attacks” in Syria between late last December and early July, German daily Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote in an article on July 16.

The revelation was made public by the German government in response to a parliamentary question.

The German government also confirmed that it had received numerous reports from the BND on al-Qaeda’s involvement in the May 25 massacre in the Syrian town of Houla in the central province of Homs, in which 108 people, including dozens of children and women, were killed execution-style.

However, the German government stated that the reports were supposed to remain classified “by reason of national interest.”

The West and the Syrian opposition blamed the Syrian government for the carnage, but a Syrian government-appointed fact-finding mission had said that armed groups had carried out the massacre to frame the government and foment sectarian strife.

The intelligence reports raise several questions about the terrorist nature of the self-proclaimed Free Syrian Army, and even more so about the fact that many of the armed terrorists, killed in clashes with Syrian security forces, carried foreign passports.

On Thursday, The New York Times published an article, stating that “the evidence is mounting that Syria has become a magnet for Sunni extremists, including those operating under the banner of al-Qaeda.”

Syria has been the scene of violence by armed groups since March 2011. The violence has claimed the lives of hundreds of people, including many security forces.

Damascus blames “outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorist groups” for the unrest, asserting that it is being orchestrated from abroad. The West and the Syrian opposition accuse the government of killing the protesters.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and most western countries have supported and funded the violence in Syria by providing logistics, arms, and intelligence to anti-government elements.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on German intel.: Qaeda behind terror in Syria

Zionist Shapiro: Not clear whether Iran talks will continue


US ambassador says Obama is working with IsraHell, international community to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability.

The world powers negotiating with Iran have not decided how – or even whether – negotiations that began in April should continue, US Ambassador Dan Shapiro said Thursday.

Shapiro, speaking to Israel Radio’s Arabic department during a tour of Netanya, said US President Barack Obama was committed to preventing Iran from getting nuclear arms.

Low-level talks between Iran and an EU official were held this week in Istanbul, and another meeting is expected in the coming days between EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, representing the P5+1 – the US, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany – and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

This high-level coordination between Israel and the US on the matter is expected to continue next week with the arrival for talks of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking Wednesday at the National Defense College, of the coordination with the US, said that there was “continuous, intimate and open dialogue with the US administration – even if we don’t always agree.”

Barak admitted to differences with the US regarding Iran that had to with the “paces of our ticking clocks, the differences in capabilities, as well as other power discrepancies.”

These differences, he said, meant that each country had “its own particular conclusions and points of view…sometimes they are different.”

At the same time, he said, the US understood that Israel alone had ultimate responsibility for decisions affecting its security.

Barak made clear that he did not think that either the stepped-up sanctions or diplomacy currently being pursued would be enough to stop Iran.

“The Iranians are determined to continue deceiving the entire world, in order to achieve nuclear weapons.

Whoever wants proof, just needs to look at the talks over the last few months,” he said. “The Iranian nuclear program presents a challenge to Israel, a unique challenge, with the potential to develop into an existential threat. We have no responsible way of ignoring this.”

During that speech Barak indicated that the price of militarily stopping Iran now would be much less than the price of stopping Tehran after it gets a nuclear weapon. He also said that one of the lessons Israel needed to draw from the world’s inability to act to stop the butchery in Syria was that the international community cannot always “mobilize political will, unity of purpose, or ability to function – even when the situation demands it.”

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on Zionist Shapiro: Not clear whether Iran talks will continue

Syria: Washington’s Latest War Crime


Paul Craig Roberts

One wonders what Syrians are thinking, as “rebels” vowing to “free Syria” take the country down the same road to destruction as “rebels” in Libya. Libya, under Gaddafi a well-run country whose oil revenues were shared with the Libyan people instead of monopolized by a princely class as in Saudi Arabia, now has no government and is in disarray with contending factions vying for power.

Just as no one knew who the Libyan “rebels” were, with elements of al Qaeda reportedly among them, no one knows who the Syrian “rebels” are, or indeed if they are even rebels (

Some “rebels” appear to be bandit groups who seize the opportunity to loot and to rape and set themselves up as the governments of villages and towns. Others appear to be al Qaeda. (

The fact that the “rebels” are armed is an indication of interference from outside.

There have been reports that Washington has ordered its Saudi and Bahrain puppet governments to supply the “rebels” with military weaponry. Some suspect that the explosion that killed the Syrian Defense Minister and the head of the government’s crisis operations was not the work of a suicide bomber but the work of a US drone or missile reminiscent of Washington’s failed attempts to murder Saddam Hussein. Regardless, Washington regarded the terror attack as a success, declaring that it showed the rebels were gaining “real momentum” and called on the Syrian government to respond to the attack by resigning. (

The following is from a leaked intelligence document describing a previous Western terrorist intervention in Syria just in case any reader is so naive as to think that “our government would never do that.”
In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, … 
Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus … 
Further: a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957) (
Obama has not said why his government is so desperate to overthrow the Syrian government. The current president was an eye doctor in London who was brought back to Syria to replace his father, who had passed away, as president of the country. Washington is reticent about its real motives, which it masks with high-sounding humanitarian rhetoric, but Washington’s motives are transparent.

One motive is to get rid of the Russian naval base in Syria, thus depriving Russia of its only Mediterranean base.

A second motive is to eliminate Syria as a source of arms and support to Hizbullah in order that Israel can succeed in its attempts to occupy southern Lebanon and acquire its water resources. Hizbullah’s fighters have twice defeated the Israeli military’s attempts to invade and to occupy southern Lebanon.

A third motive is to destroy the unity of Syria with sectarian conflict, as Washington destroyed Libya and Iraq, and leave Syria to waring factions to dismember the country, thus removing another obstacle to Washington’s hegemony.

Syria, a secular Arab state, like Iraq was, is ruled by a political party composed of Alawis, more or less Shia Muslims. The Alawis comprise about 12% of the Syrian population and are regarded as heretics by the Sunni Muslims who comprise about 74% of the Syrian population. Thus the orchestrated “uprising” appeals to many Sunnis who see the opportunity to take over. (In Iraq it was a Sunni minority that ruled a Shia majority, and in Syria it is the opposite.)

The divisions among Arabs make Arabs vulnerable to Western interference and rule. The Sunni-Shia split makes it impossible for an Arab country to unite against an invader or for one Arab country to come to the aid of another. In 1990 the Shia Syrian government lined up with the US against the Sunni Iraq government in the First Iraq War. Neither Lawrence of Arabia, Nasser, nor Gaddafi succeeded in creating an Arab consciousness.

Washington’s cover for its violent overthrow of other governments is always moralistic verbiage. First the target is demonized, and then Washington’s naked aggression is described as “bringing freedom and democracy,” “overthrowing a brutal dictator,” “protecting women’s rights.” Any assortment of cant words and phrases seems to work.

Hillary Clinton has been especially strident in advocating the overthrow of the Syrian government. The silly woman even issued threats to Russia and China for daring to block Washington’s attempt to use a UN resolution as cover for invading Syria. Washington misrepresents the Syrian government’s resistance to being overthrown as a government conducting terror against its own people. But Washington had no condemnation for the terror attack, whether its own or that of a suicide bomber, that killed high-level Syrian government officials. Washington’s double standard prompted the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, to accuse Washington of having “a sinister position.”

Indeed, Washington does. But what is surprising about Washington’s sinister position after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan? Undoubtedly, after Syria is overthrown, Washington will move on to Iran. Russia itself is already being surrounded by US missile bases, and the Russian government has a disloyal and traitorous political opposition financed by American money. China is confronting a rapid buildup of US air, naval, and troop bases in the Pacific. How long before China’s government has a disloyal opposition financed by Washington?

The hegemon is on the march, but what Syrian Sunnis see is a chance to overthrow the Alawite Shia. The Syrian Sunnis will ally with Washington despite the fact that Washington overthrew the Iraqi Sunnis. Few Arabs, it seems, mind being puppets of a foreign regime that hands out billions of dollars.

Washington loosely refers to Syrian President Assad as a “dictator” or “brutal dictator,” but obviously if Assad is a dictator he is not very effective in that role. Normally, dictators don’t permit an opposition to rise, much less arm itself. It would be more accurate to say that the ruling party is authoritarian, but the ruling party has introduced elements of democracy with the new constitution.

As Iraq has proved, Arab governments have to be authoritarian if their Sunni and Shia populations are not to be constantly engaged in civil war. Both Bush and Obama claim that Washington brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq. However, the ongoing violence in Iraq is as intense or more intense than under the American occupation. Here are the reports for the last three days:

July 23: “A wave of bomb attacks and shootings in Baghdad and north of the capital has killed at least 107 people. At least 216 were wounded.”

July 24: “A second day of intensified attacks left at least 145 Iraqis killed and 379 more wounded.”

July 25: “Attacks continue across Iraq: 17 killed, 60 wounded.”

This is what Washington did for Iraq. Far from bringing “freedom and democracy,” Washington brought endless mayhem and death. And this is precisely what Washington is in the process of bringing to Syria.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria: Washington’s Latest War Crime

Shoah’s pages


July 2012
« Jun   Aug »