noworldsystem.com


The War is in Pakistan Right Now

Scahill: ‘The war is in Pakistan right now’
Military drones show no remorse on Pakistan civilians, creating U.S. hatred

Raw Story
December 4, 2009

In the wake of President Obama’s plan to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan, questions are being raised about the use of private contractors in US operations there. The acknowledgement by Eric Prince, founder of military contractor Blackwater, that he has been serving for years as a CIA asset only intensifies these concerns.

For Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestselling book Blackwater, however, the real concern is not Afghanistan but Pakistan, where according to an article in the New York Times, “the White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program.”

“We need to view this sober reality,” Scahill told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “The war is in Pakistan right now. There’s no question about it. The question, though, is how much it’s going to expand. … These are actions that are going to destabilize Pakistan and are going to create new enemies for the United States because of the high civilian casualties. … Here you have military operations inside a country that we don’t have a declaration of war against.”

Scahill emphasized that the most destabilizing actions come not from the CIA but from Blackwater mercenaries, whom he recently described in The Nation as working for US special forces to “plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan.”

The drone attacks outsourced to Blackwater are the source of the highest numbers of civilian casualties. Scahill told Maddow that one of his sources is a “very well-placed military intelligence source [who] is offended at the idea that you have these operations happening outside of the military chain of command and with no oversight from the Congress.”

“Blackwater has been operating under the cover of a training program,” Scahill explained. “Blackwater is training the Pakistani Frontier Corps, which is a federal paramilitary force that is hunting down high-value targets in the frontier province. A former Blackwater executive told me that the line is being crossed — that Blackwater guys are actually going out on these raids.”

Scahill also revealed a few interesting tidbits about Eric Prince’s decision to out himself as a CIA asset, saying, “I see this sort of as Eric Prince taking out an insurance policy for himself. … Eric Prince is in the cross-hairs now of the Congress, the federal investigators, and others … and it’s a way of trying to insulate himself from future attacks.”

This video is from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast Dec. 3, 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COSFrTB1Uk
Rachel Maddow: Obama is Continuing The Bush Doctrine

 



Obama’s Troop Surge to Begin by Christmas

Obama orders 30-35,000 more troops for Afghanistan, surge to begin by Christmas

AP
November 30, 2009

After months of debate, President Barack Obama will spell out a costly Afghanistan war expansion to a skeptical public Tuesday night, coupling an infusion of as many as 35,000 more troops with a vow that there will be no endless U.S. commitment. His first orders have already been made: at least one group of Marines who will be in place by Christmas.

Obama has said that he prefers “not to hand off anything to the next president” and that his strategy will “put us on a path toward ending the war.” But he doesn’t plan to give any more exact timetable than that Tuesday night.

The president will end his 92-day review of the war with a nationally broadcast address in which he will lay out his revamped strategy from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He spent part of Monday briefing foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls.

Before Obama’s call to Britain’s Gordon Brown, the prime minister announced that 500 more U.K. troops would arrive in southern Afghanistan next month — making a British total of about 10,000 in the country. And French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose nation has more than 3,000 in Afghanistan, said French troops would stay “as long as necessary” to stabilize the country.

Obama’s war escalation includes sending 30,000 to 35,000 more American forces into Afghanistan in a graduated deployment over the next year, on top of the 71,000 already there. There also will be a fresh focus on training Afghan forces to take over the fight and allow the Americans to leave.

Read Full Article Here

 



NO CHANGE: Obama Admin Refuses Landmine Treaty

NO CHANGE: Obama Admin Refuses Landmine Treaty

Raw Story
November 24, 2009

After reviewing the Bush-era policy, the Obama White House has decided to maintain the prior administration’s refusal to sign an international treaty banning land mines, according to published reports.

“More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty’s provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines,” the Associated Press noted. “Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.”

“We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs, nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly reportedly said.

Advocacy organizations like Human Rights Watch had urged administration officials to sign the treaty. The United States is the largest worldwide contributor to the recovery of undetonated mines, which still pose a severe danger to civilians in 70 countries. No land mines have been produced by the U.S. since 1997, when the Land Mine Ban Treaty took effect. The last time American forces deployed the weapon was during the 1991 invasion of Iraq.

According to the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines (ICBL), efforts undertaken in 1999 to recover mines “have saved millions of lives through the removal of more than 2.2 million emplaced antipersonnel mines, 250,000 anti-vehicle mines, and 17 million” explosive remnants of war.

 

Change?

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
November 25, 2009

President Barack Obama, November 24, 2009:

“It is in our strategic interests, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively… We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks… It is my intention to finish the job,”

President George W. Bush, October 11, 2006

“Stay the course also means don’t leave before the job is done. And that’s – we’re going to get the job done.”

“Finishing the job” and “staying the course” – they mean the same thing – you can take that to the bank.

 



War tax proposed to pay for protecting Afghan opium fields, bribing Taliban

Obama Allies Want New Tax To Pay For Cost Of Protecting Afghan Opium Fields, Bribing Taliban

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 20, 2009

Not content with savaging American taxpayers with two huge new financial burdens during an economic recession, in the form of health care reform and cap and trade, close allies of Barack Obama have proposed a new war surtax that will force Americans to foot the bill for the cost of protecting opium fields in Afghanistan, paying off drug lords, and bribing the Taliban.

Warning that the cost of occupying Afghanistan is a threat to the Democrats’ plan to overhaul health care, lawmakers have announced their plan to make Americans pay an additional war tax that will be taken directly from their income, never mind the fact that around 36 per cent of federal taxes already go to paying for national defense.

“Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for,” the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of Obama, said in a joint statement on the “Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010 (PDF),” reports AFP.

The move is being led by the appropriately named House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, Representative John Murtha, who chairs that panel’s defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.

The tax would apply to anyone earning as little as $22,600 per year in 2011.

The proposal is described as “heavily symbolic” with little chance of passing, but it once again illustrates the hypocrisy of an administration that swept to power on the promise of “change” to the Neo-Con imperial agenda and a resolve to reduce U.S. military involvement overseas. In reality, there are more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now under Obama that at any time during the Bush administration.

At the height of the Bush administration’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.

According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.

What precisely would this extra tax be used to pay for? Namely, bribing the Taliban, paying off CIA drug lords, and protecting heroin-producing opium fields.

Numerous reports over the past two weeks have confirmed that the U.S. military is paying off the Taliban with bags of gold to prevent them from attacking vehicle convoys, proving that there is no real “war” in Afghanistan, merely a business agreement that allows the occupiers to continue their lucrative control of record opium exports while they finalize construction of dozens of new military bases from which to launch new wars.

The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world’s opium, with the equivalent of at least 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year.

This racket is secured by drug kingpins like the brother of disputed president Hamid Karzai. As a New York Times report revealed last month, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors, is on the CIA payroll.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA’s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a “war on terror” that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn’t even exist.

 



U.N. Chief Meddles in the U.S. Senate

New World Order Arrives

U.N. Chief Meddles in the U.S. Senate

Washington Post
November 11, 2009

The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.


U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon (R) speaks to the media with Joe Lieberman (L) and John Kerry following the committee’s meeting on global climate change, including the steps leading up to December’s International negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, where Obama is to sign a global climate treaty that will surrender U.S. national sovereignty to a World Government controlled by the United Nations.

It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

“I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that’s what I have encouraged the senators,” he told reporters as a trio of lawmakers stood at his side. He added an admonition for the chamber to deliver “as soon as possible.”

The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a “legally binding” commitment to “25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? Glenn Beck was going to burst a blood vessel.

But the man who orchestrated this putsch by the New World Order, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Switzerland), did not appear concerned by the imagery. He called the secretary general “Your Excellency.” Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana (a Republican, but he drives a Prius) was equally deferential as he spoke of “the privilege of this distinguished visitor.”

And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hailed Ban for “the accelerated leadership role” that the United Nations has taken. “Your vision, that in Copenhagen there can be a politically binding agreement that will lead to a legally binding agreement to follow . . . is a very reasonable, sensible and hopeful course.”

Somewhere in Manhattan, Sean Hannity was tearing up his script for the night’s broadcast.

Kerry invited Ban to lecture the Foreign Relations Committee, but it’s not clear what the chairman hoped to gain from the photos of him standing with Ban in the Capitol’s Brumidi Corridors. Indeed, it seemed quite possible that a U.N. endorsement of Kerry’s climate efforts would embolden its foes, who like the world body even less than they like cap-and-trade. In the pantheon of conspiracy theories, the United Nations is right up there with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations — which, as it happens, Kerry addressed a couple of weeks ago.

Even Americans who don’t come from the grassy-knoll tradition tend not to regard the United Nations with great confidence. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of respondents thought it was doing a bad job, compared with 26 percent who think it is doing a good job. Ban himself is not terribly nefarious, if only because he is unknown. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of those surveyed didn’t know who he was. The others may have confused him with the Unification Church’s Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Ban’s profile could become much higher, and not in a good way, if Americans start to perceive him as meddling in Senate consideration of climate legislation. Even before he stormed the Capitol, Fox News was drawing a connection between global warming talks in Copenhagen next month and One World Government.

“America, if you believe this country is great but you’re not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out,” Fox News Channel’s Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that “at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations.” Earlier on Fox News, Dick Morris informed Hannity that President Obama “believes in One World Government.” And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity’s show to warn about a One World Government in which “our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates” of the United Nations and other international organizations.

The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.

Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. “Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen,” he said. “They must conclude a robust global agreement,” that is “comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair.”

Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that “the world is not standing still,” and that “all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States.”

After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. “Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport.”

Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

 



Schiff: Obama is accelerating the U.S. collapse

Schiff: Obama is accelerating the U.S. collapse

 



Taliban Still Working for the CIA?

Taliban Still Working for the CIA?

Henry Makow Ph.D.
November 8, 2009

As President Obama ponders whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, there is mounting evidence the Taliban is supported by the CIA. If correct, the Afghan war is a charade with a hidden agenda.

First, we have many reports that unmarked helicopters are ferrying the Taliban to targets, and relieving them when cornered.

“Just when the police and army managed to surround the Taliban in a village of Qala-e-Zaal district, we saw helicopters land with support teams,” an Afghan soldier said. “They managed to rescue their friends from our encirclement, and even to inflict defeat on the Afghan National Army.”

This story, in one form or another, is being repeated throughout northern Afghanistan. Dozens of people claim to have seen Taliban fighters disembark from foreign helicopters in several provinces.

“I saw the helicopters with my own eyes,” said Sayed Rafiq from Baghlan-e-Markazi.

“They landed near the foothills and offloaded dozens of Taliban with turbans, and wrapped in patus (a blanket-type shawl).”

“Our fight against the Taliban is nonsense,” said the first soldier. “Our foreigner ‘friends’ are friendlier to the opposition.”

CIA AIR BASES IN PAKISTAN

Last February, there were reports of CIA airbases within Pakistan used for drones. If this is true, Pakistanis are being attacked by drones based in their own country. Obviously, the CIA helicopters supporting the Taliban could also come from these bases.

In May, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, told NBC News that the CIA and the U.S.-Funded Pakistani ISI intelligence service “has created the Taliban.”

Zardari said that the CIA and the ISI are still supporting the Taliban.

On Oct 29, 2009, Hillary Clinton told Pakistani officials that she found it “hard to believe” the Pakistani ISI didn’t know where Al Qaeda leaders were hiding. Her role is to maintain the illusion that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not CIA creations.

Just the day before, Oct. 18, four American citizens were caught photographing sensitive buildings in Islamabad. All four were dressed in traditional Afghan outfits and were found to be in possession of illegal weapons and explosives.

Their vehicles contained 2 M-16A1 rifles, 2 handguns and 2 hand-grenades. The police held the American citizens in custody for an hour before the Interior Ministry interfered and had them released without charge even as preliminary investigation was being carried out.

Clearly, the CIA could be involved in the recent attacks on Pakistani institutions. Who knows? In some cases, the “Taliban” could be CIA mercenaries.

In Feb. 2008, the British were caught planning a training camp for the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan supposedly to make them “change sides.” Karzai expelled two top British “diplomats.” This was all part of the ongoing charade.

THE HIDDEN AGENDA

All wars are charades. This is true of the world wars, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, 9-11 and the current war on terror. The human race is caught in a hologram controlled by the Illuminati Rothschild central bankers.

War are necessary to keep the human race divided, distracted and dehumanized. Otherwise, we might focus on the fact that a small network of Masonic families, based in London, control government credit. Therefore, the central banking cartel incites wars using pawns like Bush and Obama, and intelligence agencies like the CIA, Mossad, MI-6 and ISI. They finance these wars by issuing debt repayable to them by the taxpayer.

As I have said, their ultimate goal is to translate their monopoly over government credit into a worldwide monopoly over power, wealth and culture; in other words, to disinherit and enslave the human race. This is called world government.

I’m not an expert on the politics of the Asian subcontinent. But it appears that the
Afghanistan war should be seen in a larger regional context. Zbigniew Brzezinski advocated a “global-zone of percolating violence,” that included all of Central Asia, Turkey, southern Russia, and the western borders of China. It also included the entire Middle East, the Persian Gulf (Iran), Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The plan was outlined in Brzezinski’s book, “The Grand Chessboard” (1997) . Ostensibly, the
purpose was to prevent Russia from becoming an imperial power again. But that’s not the real reason. What do these countries have in common? They are Muslim. Islam is the last redoubt of faith in God.

The Illuminati are Satanists. Put two and two together. The Afghan war has some immediate benefits: perpetual war, arms spending, drugs, pipelines etc. But it is part of a larger “war of civilizations” designed to degrade and destroy Islam. Look for this war to expand and go on forever.

———————–
On a related note, The New York Times reported Oct. 28, 2009 that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been getting regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, citing current and former U.S. officials.

”Ahmed Wali Karzai is a suspected player in Afghanistan’s opium trade and has been paid by the CIA over the past eight years for services that included helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the CIA’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar,” the newspaper reported.

 



Dems Looking To Raise Debt Ceiling To $13 Trillion

Dems Looking To Raise Debt Ceiling To $13 Trillion

Washington Post
October 22, 2009

Within the next few weeks, probably as soon as the votes on health-care reform have been taken, the Senate faces the painful duty of once again raising the statutory limit on the national debt, as the House already has done.

It is never fun for the party in power, but this year will be harder than ever on the Democrats. The final accounting on the just-ended fiscal year, delivered last week, showed a record deficit of $1.4 trillion, a gap that is the largest since the end of World War II when measured against the size of the overall economy.


This is what $1 Trillion dollars looks like. The Obama administration spent One-Trillion-Four-Hundred-Billion dollars in just one year.

The Republicans are poised to pounce. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell accused the Democrats of “acting like a teenager on a spending spree with his parent’s credit card with no regard to who pays the bill.”

The Democrats, in turn, blamed the George W. Bush administration for starting the deficit spending and say that they themselves had no choice but to spread the red ink in order to deal with the potential economic collapse they inherited.

The one barely possible benefit from this predictably futile partisan bloodbath is the opportunity it could offer to leverage support for a long-standing bipartisan effort to force Congress to confront the hard steps needed to put the nation on a safer fiscal course.

Read Full Article Here

 



Senator to Obama: “Don’t Create an Enemies List”

Senator to Obama: “Don’t Create an Enemies List”

Keith Koffler
Roll Call
October 22, 2009

A top Senate Republican took to the Senate floor Wednesday morning to suggest that the Obama White House is plotting a political strategy similar to that of ex-President Richard Nixon and may be on the verge of preparing its own “enemies list.”

Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), who served in the Nixon White House, offered what he said was a “friendly suggestion” to the White House not to repeat the errors he saw committed by the staff of the disgraced former president.

“Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House: Don’t create an enemies list,” Alexander said.

Describing the actions of Vice President Spiro Agnew and Nixon operative Chuck Colson, Alexander said he sees “symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.”

Alexander read off a list of examples he says support his contention, including: a reported effort by the White House to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a supposed effort by the Health and Human Services Department to put a “gag order” on the insurer Humana, the White House move to take on Fox News, Obama’s repeated criticisms of banks and investment houses, his alleged “taking names” of “bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts,” and the president’s move to make insurers the bogeyman of the health care debate.

Alexander claimed that the incipient White House “enemies” campaign extends even to Congress. He suggested that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was the victim of a sort of payback, saying that after Kyl suggested the stimulus plan wasn’t working, the White house subsequently wrote the governor of Arizona that, “If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it.”

He said that after he and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) questioned the power of White House “czars,” they both were “called out” on the White House blog.

“This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants,” Alexander said. “If the president and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they’re likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of us who served in the Nixon White House know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.”

After Alexander’s remarks, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) rose to speak on a different topic, but he first commented that it appeared Alexander was accusing the administration of “Nixifying” the White House — adding that he hoped the term would enter into “the lexicon.” Alexander replied that he was “seeing some signs” in the Obama White House that he had seen “at the early stages of Nixon.”

 



Obama turns to Big Bankers for campaign cash

Obama turns to Big Bankers for campaign cash

WSWS
October 21, 2009

Under conditions of growing unemployment and deepening social misery for working people throughout the US, President Barack Obama flew into New York City Tuesday to raise millions of dollars in campaign donations from America’s financial elite.

He was expected to clear at least $3 million, largely from a Manhattan bash with an entry fee of $30,400 per couple—the maximum contribution allowed by law.

According to the Los Angeles Times, four of the seven co-chairs of the event and about a third of the guests come from the big banks and Wall Street.

Behind all the rhetoric about “change,” this is Obama’s most important constituency. In his run for the presidency in 2008, he captured the lion’s share of donations from Wall Street, taking in $15 million from securities and investment firms, $3 million from commercial banks, and $6 million from other financial institutions.

Read Full Article Here

 



Americans gave up liberty for homeland security

Americans gave up liberty for homeland security
This educational video made in 1948 should remind us all how America has lost so much freedom since 9/11 when the American people believed the government that Alqaeda hates our liberties and that we should let them wiretap without a warrant and violate your privacy for the good of the homeland and that we must wage expensive wars or the terrorists might hit us again. Benjamin Franklin once said “If you give up your liberty for a bit of security, then you deserve to lose both”. Watch the video:

 



“Fall of the Republic” movie now available on YouTube

Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack H. Obama (FULL MOVIE)
Alex Jones’ latest film “Fall of the Republic: Presidency of Barack H. Obama” hits the internet, this is the sequel to Alex’s last film “The Obama Deception”.

 



Truth Movement De-Programming Obama Supporters

Truth Movement De-Programming Obama Supporters

 



Obama Lies 7 Times in 2 Minutes

Obama Lies 7 Times in 2 Minutes

 



Ron Paul Gets Heated Over The Afghanistan War Policy

Ron Paul Gets Heated Over The Afghanistan War Policy

 



Obama Steps Up Drone Bombings Despite Civilian Deaths

Obama Steps Up Drone Bombings Despite Civilian Deaths

Sherwood Ross
Prisonplanet.com
October 20, 2009

“Even if a precise account is elusive,” writes Jane Mayer in the October 26th The New Yorker, “the outlines are clear: the C.I.A. has joined the Pakistani intelligence service in an aggressive campaign to eradicate local and foreign militants, who have taken refuge in some of the most inaccessible parts of the country.”

Based on a study just completed by the non-profit, New America Foundation of Washington, D.C., “the number of drone strikes has risen dramatically since Obama became President,” Mayer reports.

In fact, the first two strikes took place on Jan. 23, the President’s third day in office and the second of these hit the wrong house, that of a pro-government tribal leader that killed his entire family, including three children, one just five years of age.

At any time, the C.I.A. apparently has “multiple drones flying over Pakistan, scouting for targets,” the magazine reports. So many Predators and its more heavily armed companion, the Reaper, are being purchased that defense manufacturer General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, of Poway, Calif., can hardly make them fast enough. The Air Force is said to possess 200.

Mayer writes, “the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force.” Today, Mayer writes, “there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy.” And according to Gary Solis, who teaches at Georgetown University’s Law Center, nobody in the government calls it assassination. “Not only would we have expressed abhorrence of such a policy a few years ago; we did,” Solis is quoted as saying.

David Kilcullen, a counter-insurgency warfare authority who co-authored a study for the Center for New American Security, of Washington, D.C., has suggested the drone attacks have backfired. As he told The New Yorker, “Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.”

And because of the C.I.A. program’s secrecy, Mayer writes, “there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war.”

The New Yorker further reports the Obama Administration has also expanded the sphere of authorized drone assaults in Afghanistan. An August Senate Foreign Relations Committee report said the Pentagon’s list of approved terrorist targets held 367 names and included some 50 Afghan drug lords “who are suspected of giving money to help finance the Taliban,” Mayer reports. She quotes the Senate report as stating, “There is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds goes to Al Qaeda.”

It is the military’s version of the drone assaults that operates in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the C.I.A.’s drones hunt terror suspects in countries where U.S. troops are not based and is “aimed at terror suspects around the world,” Mayer writes. The C.I.A. effort was launched by Obama’s predecessor, and a former aide to President George W. Bush says Obama has left nearly all the key personnel in place.

Running the C.I.A. program is a team of operators that handle Predator flights off runways in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Once aloft, the Predators are passed over to controllers at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., who maneuver joysticks and monitor events from a live video feed from the drone’s camera.

The magazine article reports the government plans to commission “hundreds more” of the drones, including “new generations of tiny ‘nano’ drones, which can fly after their prey like a killer bee through an open window.”

 



Obama Will Surrender America To World Government

Obama Will Surrender America To World Government

NoWorldSystem.com
October 17, 2009

“Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a New World Order – can emerge. . . Now, we can see a New World Order coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect for a New World Order. . .A world where the United Nations, freed from a Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” -George H.W. Bush

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned the American people to stop Obama from signing a ‘global climate treaty’ at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December 7-18 that will ultimately surrender U.S. sovereignty to a World Government under the guise of helping the environment.

With every passing day it becomes more evident that Obama is nothing more than a globalist, it is obvious from health care reform that he doesn’t care about the middle class, he is in the pocket of the internationalist elite like Kissinger and the rest of the global elite that wish to establish a World Government Dictatorship under the auspices of the United Nations.

If this international climate change treaty passes, Americans will have no choice but to pay a global climate tax that will be paid directly to the United Nations, at first the tax will be introduced to the public gradually such as a barely noticeable tax at the gas pump, which will later be increased once it has been officially established.

The Bilderberg Group has discussed this new global tax this year among many other things like creating a fast-but-painful depression to better establish a New World Order. The IMF, a United Nations entity has already declared itself the global central bank that will set regulations and issue a global currency to the nations. People like George Soros, IMF and the World Bank are betting against the dollar and with the help of the Federal Reserve will topple the dominance of the U.S. dollar in the world market to destroy the U.S. economy and force the global dictatorship on the western hemisphere.

We are beginning to see the emergence of a New World Order this year, with talks of a new global currency, a global climate tax, a global police force with access to a worldwide database of DNA, biometric and fingerprint records, an international gun-control treaty, an international criminal court treaty, the internet moving towards world government it’s crystal clear what is about to happen in this country.

 



Obama to Announce 45,000 Troop Surge in Afghanistan

Obama to Announce 45,000 Troop Surge in Afghanistan

Obama tops Bush in troop buildup

AntiWar.com
October 14, 2009

The Obama Administration has reportedly told the British government that it intends to announce an escalation of another 45,000 troops in Afghanistan, potentially as soon as next week.

The report comes despite claims that the Obama Administration is continuing to hold talks about the strategy, though this seems to be more based on the question of whether to emphasize the failed battle against the Taliban or focus what will soon be over 100,000 troops on fighting the roughly 100 al-Qaeda members reportedly in the nation.

Britain announced that it intends to send another 500 soldiers to Afghanistan to bolster its 9,000-strong force. The announcement reportedly came as a result of the US assurances, and despite the growing domestic opposition to the war.

Several Democrats, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, have expressed reservations about the massive escalation, particularly coming just seven months after the administration’s last escalation. Yet Rep. Hoyer urged fellow Democrats to go along with whatever President Obama decides.

 

Obama tops Bush in troop buildup

Bill Van Auken
WSWS
October 14, 2009

The combined US troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have now reached a higher level than existed at any time under the presidency of George W. Bush. This surge past the record set by its predecessor marks another grim milestone in the Obama administration’s escalation of American militarism.

In addition to the 21,000 US soldiers and Marines that Obama ordered deployed to Afghanistan as part of the escalation he unveiled last March, another 13,000 “support” troops are being quietly sent to the country with no official announcement, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.

This stealth buildup is a replay of the methods used by the Bush administration in its Iraq surge, when it announced the deployment of an additional 20,000 combat troops while saying nothing about the 8,000 support troops sent with them.

In neither case was the failure to declare the full number an oversight. Obama, like Bush before him, recognizes that the military interventions he oversees are deeply unpopular with the majority of the American people.

According to the troop numbers provided by the Post, there are now 65,000 US troops in Afghanistan, with another 124,000 still in Iraq, for a total of 189,000 American military personnel waging two colonial-style wars and occupations. At the height of the Bush administration’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, for a total of 186,000.

There is every indication that the policies being pursued by the Obama White House will send these numbers significantly higher.

Over the weekend, military officials revealed to the media that the proposal for increased troop levels in Afghanistan submitted by the American commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, included a high-end figure of 80,000—in addition to the 68,000 that are to be deployed by the end of this year.

The New York Times, echoing official sources, commented that this highest request was “highly unlikely to be considered seriously by the White House.” While this may well be true—for now—the leaking of the number serves a definite political purpose, making Obama’s ultimate agreement to a smaller surge—still involving tens of thousands of additional troops in Afghanistan—seem like a reasonable compromise between the White House and the Pentagon.

While visiting Britain this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed the US commitment to continuing the Afghanistan war. “We are not changing our strategy, our strategy remains to achieve the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and denying them safe haven and the capacity to strike us here in London, or New York or anywhere else,” she said in a radio interview. “One should never doubt our commitment or our leadership, we intend to pursue the goal,” Clinton continued. “We will not rest until we do defeat Al Qaeda.”

Clinton’s remarks make clear that the Obama administration, while dropping the term “war on terrorism” coined by the Bush White House, continues to embrace the methods underlying this terminology—in particular, the attempt to terrorize the American people into accepting US wars of conquest and aggression.

The claim that 68,000 US troops—with tens of thousands more likely to follow—are in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and prevent another 9/11 is a transparent pretext. Top US security and military officials have concurred that there are a grand total of approximately 100 individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda presently in Afghanistan, without any means of carrying out an attack on another country. If and when McChrystal’s request for additional troops is met, there will be 1,000 or more US soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan for every Al Qaeda member.

The target of the military escalation is not Al Qaeda, but rather the people of Afghanistan. Washington is attempting to suppress growing popular resistance to the occupation and is prepared to sacrifice the lives of untold numbers of Afghans, as well as those of hundreds if not thousands more US soldiers, to that end.

The defeat of “terrorism” is no more the strategic aim pursued by Washington in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. US military might has been unleashed in both countries to assert the hegemony of American imperialism over Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, which are the two largest sources of the world’s energy supplies.

The potential costs of this venture are immense. A report prepared by the Pentagon last January describes the stated US goal of achieving a stable client state in Afghanistan as an operation that “will last, at a minimum, decades.” Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret.) was slightly more optimistic, saying that it would take “10 years of $5 billion a month,” in addition to major fighting.

In Iraq, meanwhile, there is no reason to believe that the stated deadline for pulling US troops out by 2012 will be met. On the contrary, the instability and continued resistance created by the American occupation and the destruction of Iraqi society will be used as a justification for continuing the occupation and asserting US control over the country’s oil fields.

And the threat that the US interventions will provoke new and potentially far bloodier conflicts is growing, as evidenced by the mounting crisis in Pakistan and increasing tensions throughout the Indian subcontinent flowing from the war in Afghanistan.

The debate that is now taking place in the Obama White House is over committing generations of young Americans to endless wars and occupations.

Under conditions in which resources are being denied for desperately needed jobs and basic social services, even more social wealth will be diverted to build up the US military.

Expanding the ranks of the Army is necessary if any significant escalation of the war in Afghanistan is to be sustained. The military is stretched to the breaking point by the two occupations. Even if Obama approves 40,000 more troops, nowhere near that number are immediately available.

While the American political establishment is no doubt counting on a double-digit unemployment rate driving jobless youth into the military, there is growing objective pressure for the reintroduction of conscription, with youth once again drafted to fight in colonial wars.

Millions of people voted for Barack Obama last November in the vain hope that his election would reverse the escalation of militarism initiated under Bush. Their votes, like the growing popular sentiment against the Afghan war, have been disregarded as the Obama administration continues this escalation in the interest of the financial oligarchy that it serves.

 



Jerome Corsi: America Will Be Sold To World Government

Jerome Corsi: America Will Be Sold To World Government

 



Obama Approved 13K More Troops To Afghanistan Unannounced

Obama Approved 13K More Troops To Afghanistan Unannounced

AFP
October 13, 2009

In an unannounced move, President Barack Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 US troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced publicly in March, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The additional forces are primarily support forces — such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police — the Post said, bringing the total buildup Obama has approved for the war-torn nation to 34,000.

“Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000,” a defense official familiar with the troop-approval process told the daily.

The report, posted on the newspaper’s website late Monday, came as Obama weighs a request from the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for more combat, training and support troops, with several options including one for 40,000 more forces.

But the newspaper noted that the maximum number of US service members expected in Afghanistan by year’s end — 68,000 — would remain the same.

Major deployments of support troops have not been publicized by the Pentagon and the White House in the past. When former president George W. Bush announced a US troop increase in Iraq, he only mentioned 20,000 combat troops and not the accompanying 8,000 support troops.

The troop increase approved by Obama brought the level of US forces deployed in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters to a total greater than during the peak of the surge in Iraq in late 2007 and early 2008.

At the start of this month, some 65,000 US forces are currently in Afghanistan and about 124,000 in Iraq, compared to around 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq at the height of the Iraq surge, according to a troop count by the Post.

 



Senate panel approves Patriot Act renewal

Dem-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee extends PATRIOT Act provisions

Capitol Hill Blue
October 9, 2009

Key US lawmakers passed legislation Thursday extending three key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, the sweeping intelligence bill enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Backing a White House request, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure 11 votes to 8 to extend until 2013 three clauses that would have expired by 31 December. The bill now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

The provisions include the “roving wiretap” clause, used to monitor mobile communications of individuals using multiple telephone lines, and the “lone-wolf” provision, which enables spying on individuals suspected of terrorist activity but with no obvious connection to extremist groups.

Lawmakers also extended the life of controversial section 215, known as the “library records provision” that allows government agencies to access individual’s library history.

The committee had earlier met in a closed-door meeting with members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the intelligence community on ensuring their actions would not impede investigations already underway.

The senators also debated freeing up law enforcement actions that have been hampered by legislation and court rulings since the first program was launched by former president George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, which enabled collecting sensitive information for years without a court order.

Republicans senators have remained critical of placing restrictions on the intelligence community, saying they should more of a free hand in the early stages of investigations.

But their Democratic counterparts have decried the fact that the provisions still do not in their view adequately respect the privacy of ordinary Americans.

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold said he feared handing a “blank check” to law enforcement agencies and criticized the Democrat-controlled committee for not passing safeguards that even Republicans supported during the Bush administration.

“Among the most significant problems is the failure to include an improved standard for Section 215 orders, even though a Republican controlled Judiciary Committee unanimously supported including the same standard in 2005,” he said in a media advisory.

“But what was most upsetting was the apparent willingness of too many members to defer completely to behind the scenes complaints from the FBI and the Justice Department, even though the administration has yet to take a public position on any of the improvements that I and other senators have proposed. … [While] I am left scratching my head trying to understand how a committee controlled by a wide Democratic margin could support the bill it approved today, I will continue to work with my colleagues to try to make improvements to this bill.”

Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office said the rights group was “disappointed” that further moves were not made to protect civil liberties.

“This truly was a missed opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the PATRIOT Act,” he said.

“We urge the Senate to adopt amendments on the floor that will bring this bill in line with the Constitution.”

 



Telephone Companies Are An Arm Of Government Admits DOJ

Telephone Companies Are An Arm Of Government Admits DOJ

Wired News
October 9, 2009


AT&T was the first of many telcos sued for helping the NSA spy on Americans without warrants

The Department of Justice has finally admitted it in court papers: the nation’s telecom companies are an arm of the government — at least when it comes to secret spying.

Fortunately, a judge says that relationship isn’t enough to squash a rights group’s open records request for communications between the nation’s telecoms and the feds.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to see what role telecom lobbying of Justice Department played when the government began its year-long, and ultimately successful, push to win retroactive immunity for AT&T and others being sued for unlawfully spying on American citizens.

The feds argued that the documents showing consultation over the controversial telecom immunity proposal weren’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act since they were protected as “intra-agency” records:

“The communications between the agencies and telecommunications companies regarding the immunity provisions of the proposed legislation have been regarded as intra-agency because the government and the companies have a common interest in the defense of the pending litigation and the communications regarding the immunity provisions concerned that common interest.”

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffery White disagreed and ruled on September 24 that the feds had to release the names of the telecom employees that contacted the Justice Department and the White House to lobby for a get-out-of-court-free card.

“Here, the telecommunications companies communicated with the government to ensure that Congress would pass legislation to grant them immunity from legal liability for their participation in the surveillance,” White wrote. “Those documents are not protected from disclosure because the companies communicated with the government agencies “with their own … interests in mind,” rather than the agency’s interests.”

The feds were supposed to make the documents available Friday, but in a motion late Thursday, the Obama administration is asking for a 30-day emergency stay (.pdf) so it can file a further appeal.

Read Full Article Here

 



U.S. Will Disregard Borders In Terrorist Hunt Says Obama

U.S. Will Disregard Borders In Terrorist Hunt Says Obama

Press TV
October 7, 2009

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the Pentagon’s sole targets in its war on terror, says Obama adding that the US will not hesitate to attack anywhere it deems a threat.

US President Barack Obama, speaking at the Counterterrorism Center in McLean Virginia on Tuesday, pledged that the US would target al-Qaeda “wherever they take root” and do everything to wipe out safe havens, where Osama bin Laden’s network can plot against the United States.

“The United States and our partners have sent an unmistakable message: We will target al-Qaida wherever they take root,” he said, Xinhua reported.

The US president cited East Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe and the Persian Gulf in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the hotbeds for terrorist activities and what he called threats against Washington.

Obama’s speech was reminiscent of his predecessor George W. Bush’s notorious ‘Bush doctrine’, which says the United States has ‘the right’ to launch preemptive strikes on countries that pose a threat to the US security.

“We will not yield in our pursuit; and we are developing the capacity and the cooperation to deny a safe haven to any who threaten America and its allies,” said Obama.

With its primary mission to synchronize the fight on terrorism, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was established in 2001 on the hills of the 9/11 attacks on the US soil.

The center, a government agency under the Director of National Intelligence, coordinate and share data with US government departments and agencies and US foreign partners.

 



War President Obama Wins ‘Peace Prize’

War President Obama Wins ‘Peace Prize’

 



Obama: The Biggest Liar In Presidential History

Obama: The Biggest Liar In Presidential History

 

SNL Skewers Obama: So Far I’ve Accomplished Nothing!

 



NYPD swarms tiny anti-war demonstration

NYPD swarms tiny anti-war demonstration

 



Obama making Guantanamo off-limits to press

Obama making Guantanamo off-limits to press

Press TV
September 29, 2009

The Obama Administration is denying journalist access to the Guantanamo detention facility despite pledging ‘transparency’ about the infamous prison.

The reporters, who were previously allowed to peek into the prison while covering military trials of the detainees there, are no longer given such authorization, FOXNews reported on Monday.

Arguing in favor of the decision, Defense Department Spokesman Bryan Whitman said “Past experience has led me to believe it is best to keep these visits focused on the purpose of the trip, which in this case is military commission motions,” not the detention camps.

“…the decision, according to multiple sources, is coming out of Washington and the Defense Department,” said the network’s Catherine Herridge.

“…it is clearly not consistent with the administration’s stated goal of transparency,” she added.

Under the banner of the war on terror, former president George W. Bush set up the facility in a US naval base in Cuba shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Ever since, the prison has earned notoriety for conducting torture-aided interrogations of alleged ‘terror’ suspects.

The White House has now even adjourned the military trials at the Guantanamo, taking away the only opportunity journalists had to access the prison.

Shortly after his inauguration in January, Obama signed an official order to shut down Guantanamo within a year, describing it as a “sad chapter in the American history.”

Recently, however, the White House reportedly decided against the closure, citing legal and logistical complexities surrounding the detention and prosecution of inmates held without any charges.

The recent news blackout came, according to Herridge, after a May incident in which two Chinese detainees at Guantanamo’s Camp Iguana compound “held up signs questioning whether the president was a communist or a Democrat and they questioned whether Mr. Obama was oppressing them because they had not been released five months after the president promised to close Guantanamo within a year.”

“…multiple sources have told us this incident was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” asserted Herridge. “It was highly embarrassing for the Defense Department and for the White House and this was, interestingly enough, the last trip for the journalists to the camps to cover the commission hearings.”

Over 220 inmates are currently held at Guantanamo, widely regarded as one of many American torture chambers reserved for Muslims with “suspected” ties to anti-US terrorism. Many inmates remain in prison unaware of any charges against them and with no right to a legal counsel.