noworldsystem.com


Obama gave $400,000 to Gaddafi family

Obama gave $400,000 to Gaddafi family

NoWorldSystem.com
February 27, 2011

The U.S. continues to support dictators around the world militarily and financially.

Last year the Obama administration contributed $400,000 of taxpayer money to the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and to ‘Wa Attassimou’ which is another charity run by Gaddafi’s daughter, Aisha.

    The money would be divided between two foundations run by the family of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. A $200,000 share is set to go to the Gadhafi Development Foundation, which is run by Gadhafi’s son, Saif, and another $200,000 are to go to Wa Attassimou, an organization run by Muammar Gadhafi’s daughter, Aisha.

    Kirk says the grants should be withdrawn in light of the recent return to Libya of Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Megrahi. The terminally ill prisoner was released from in Scotland on compassionate grounds, and got a hero’s welcome from Muammar Gadhafi and other Libyans upon his return.

    Saif Gadhafi was involved in negotiating for Megrahi’s release, and accompanied him back to Libya.

    “Just weeks after the Gadhafi family celebrated the return of a terrorist responsible for the murders of 189 Americans, the U.S. taxpayer should not be asked to reward them with $400,000,” Kirk wrote to the president. “For the sake of the victims’ families who have endured so much pain these last few weeks, I ask you to withdraw your Administration’s request.”

Clearly there has been no ‘change’ in the U.S. supporting dictators that are a menace to the population. America funds so many dictators around the world, the most famous are; Hosni Mubarak, Anwar El Sadat, Saddam Hussein, Papa Doc, Pol Pot, Noriega, Fahd bin’Abdul-Aziz, and many more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtj1uqXqKok

Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

 



Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

NoWorldSystem.com
February 26, 2011

Many signs are pointing to the potential U.S. military invasion of Libya, much like how the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, to topple Saddam and replace him with a brand new puppet dictator.

Obama announced that he will send CFR member and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns to Europe and the Middle East. According to Obama, Mr. Burns will “intensify our consultation with allies and partners.” In other words Burns will serve as the point man ahead of the coming intervention in Libya, where there is around 46 billion barrels of estimated oil reserves.

According to the White House spokesman Jay Carney, “no options” have been taken off the table when it comes to the situation in Libya. “Our job is to give options from the military side, and that is what we are thinking about now,” “We will provide the president with options should he need them.” By saying that “all options” are being considered, that is basically a way for the Obama administration to threaten Gadhafi without actually coming right out and threatening him.

It’s quite humorous how Obama is calling out Gaddafi when it was only just last year that Obama contributed $400,000 to Gaddafi’s family. This should be no surprise as the U.S. routinely gives military and monetary aide to dictators including Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.

The similarities of the Iraq invasion and the coming Libyan invasion are overwhelming, According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. government is concerned about “weapons of mass destruction” Gaddafi apparently has:

“The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn’t destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.”

The Wall Street Journal article also stated that U.S. officials believe that Gadhafi possesses “1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake” which they believe are a serious threat to the international community.

There are also rumors of Al-Qaeda being in Libya, earlier today it was reported that Al-Qaeda has set up an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, headed by a former U.S. prisoner from Guantanamo Bay.

Does this sound familiar? Remember the Bush administrations main reasons for invading Iraq were; 1) Saddam has WMDs 2) Al-Qaeda was there. But currently the excuse to invade Libya would be about humanitarian issues.

(Libya’s Justice Minister is saying Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing)

More troubling signs that the U.S. is preparing for something. The U.S. embassy in Libya has been closed, sanctions imposed, and U.S. personnel have been pulled out of the country.

The White House said on Thursday that enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya was among the options on the table. “When we are examining all options, and that option has been tabled, at least in the press, but certainly has been discussed in other venues, that by exploring those options we are looking at feasibility, and I mean that broadly,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

This was one of the options ordered by the Bush administration that impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on almost a weekly basis, especially after the intense “Desert Fox” bombing campaign of 1998. The Anglo-American military used these zones to prevent Saddam’s government from using military aircraft to attack the Kurds and Shiite Muslims, but in time the no-fly zones became a means to force Iraq to comply with the UN and Coalition demands to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq. A likely scenario would be implementing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop the government from bombing protesters again if the protest situation persists.

Ynetnews.com says that an anonymous “European official” is claiming that the U.S. and NATO have already been very busy making plans for military action against Libya….

“The source said NATO and US warplanes stationed in Italy may be ordered to take down Libyan planes, and that electronic warfare against them may already have been implemented.”

“The source told al-Quds al-Arabi that NATO forces may launch an aerial attack on Libya or fire missiles from warships positioned in international waters near Tripoli. Libyan army weapons caches may also be targeted, the source said.”

The truth is that Libya is not a place we want to be sending U.S. troops to take out Gaddafi and his government. Like Iraq, Libya is a deeply divided nation made up of a large number of tribal factions that hate each other. That isn’t a place we want troops in the middle of.

Not only that, but the people of Libya are not too fond of the United States. Any U.S. military intervention, no matter how desired, would soon be deeply resented. Our soldiers would rapidly become targets just like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not only that, but when the U.S. military gets into a country they almost never leave. The U.S. would remove Gaddafi and replace him with a better U.S. puppet dictator who will also be hated if not more by the Libyan people.

The U.S. military is stretched way to thin to even think about invading another country, the U.S. is in a financial crisis and have already spent over $2.5 TRILLION dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Neocons Fueling Another Invasion

Military intervention “is something which I hope doesn’t happen, but it looks as though at some point that it should happen,” Simon Henderson, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told CNN.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a fanatical neocon operation. It supports the positions of the Likud and other racist warmongers in Israel. It was founded by Martin Indyk, the former research director of AIPAC.

WINEP is also involved with the Council on Foreign Relations in policymaking on the bogus war on manufactured terrorism and the intelligence created network of radical Islamists.

“What’s an acceptable number of civilian deaths? I don’t know. Choose your figure,” Henderson said. “At the very least, instead of having a casualty list certainly in the hundreds, possibly in the thousands, we don’t want a casualty list numbering in the tens of thousands, or 100,000 or so.”

WINEP was intimately involved with Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans making the case – including cooking up bogus intelligence and scary WMD stories – for the illegal invasion of Iraq that ultimately resulted in the murder of over a million Iraqis, so any crocodile tears over the lives of Arabs is disingenuous, to say the least.

Bush era diplomat Nicholas Burns, who sits on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is more or less a permanent fixture at the Pentagon psyop CNN these days, says Moammar will probably go out in destructive fashion. “You’ve got to assume the worst about Moammar Gaddafi,” he said. “With his back to the wall, he’s going to go out in a blaze of vicious attacks.”

Other prominent neocons seem to be a bit more reticent. Propagandist Robert Kagan, who served as an advisor for the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq – or rather the committee for the invasion and destruction of Iraq – told CNN the global elite are not “talking about immediate military actions now.” In other words, attacking Libya is a distinct possibility. It may just take some time to get things rolling.

Kagan is a founding member of Project for the New American Century – the organization most responsible for creating the ideological underpinnings of the Iraq invasion – and is also a globalist stooge at the Council on Foreign Relations. He worked in the State Department.

Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, interpreted Kagan’s statement as indicating that military force remains a possibility. “In my opinion, it’s still premature to talk about U.S. military intervention in Libya at this point, but we should not eliminate it completely,” Sharqieh said.

The Brookings Institute takes money from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations, JP Morgan Chase, Shell Oil, the World Economic Forum, and no shortage of other transnational banks and corporations. It is a premier globalist operation.

Finally, it should be noted that Libya has refused to obey the IMF and the Wall Street banksters. It’s not just about oil, dictator Gaddafi made a fatal mistake by attacking his own people thus allowing the globalists the opportunity to invade his country.

The people of the Middle East and Libya are pawns in this Anglo-American New World Order of the middle east and are doing their bidding by buying into the protests that are engineered by the U.S. and Britain.

Organizers who ran the “Egyptian Revolution” attended a CIA-coup college that is partnered with a neocon institution called International Republican Institute (IRI) that includes the board of directors John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Brent Scowcroft.

There will be no change for the Libyan people when Gaddafi is gone, but they will be in for a surprise after their oil is stolen and they are reduced to groveling at the feet of the banksters and their loan sharking operations run out of the IMF and the World Bank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_J76ddRJRE

Related:
Neocon Analysts Push for Invasion of Libya

Is Barack Obama About To Order The U.S. Military To Invade Libya?

Obama Prepares Invasion Of Libya Under Humanitarian Cover

Castro: U.S. to Invade Libya for Oil

Gaddafi blames unrest on al-Qaeda

 



U.S. maintains ownership of Egypt’s military

U.S. maintains ownership of Egypt’s military

James Petras
Information Clearing House
February 18, 2011

The mass movements which forced the removal of Mubarak reveal both the strength and weaknesses of spontaneous uprisings. On the one hand, the social movements demonstrated their capacity to mobilize hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a successful sustained struggle culminating in the overthrow of the dictator in a way that pre-existent opposition parties and personalities were unable or unwilling to do.

On the other hand, lacking any national political leadership, the movements were not able to take political power and realize their demands, allowing the Mubarak military high command to seize power and define the “post-Mubarak” process, ensuring the continuation of Egypt’s subordination to the US, the protection of the illicit wealth of the Mubarak clan ($70 billion), and the military elite’s numerous corporations and the protection of the upper class. The millions mobilized by the social movements to overthrow the dictatorship were effectively excluded by the new self-styled “revolutionary” military junta in defining the political institutions and policies, let along the socio-economic reforms needed to address their basic needs of the population (40% live on less than $2 USD a day, youth unemployment runs over 30%). Egypt, as in the case of the student and popular social movements against the dictatorships of South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia, demonstrate that the lack of a national political organization allows neo-liberal and conservative “opposition” personalities and parties to replace the regime .They proceed to set up an electoral regime which continues to serve imperial interests and to depend on and defend the existing state apparatus .In some cases they replace old crony capitalists with new ones. It is no accident that the mass media praise the ‘spontaneous’ nature of the struggles (not the socio-economic demands) and put a favorable spin on the role of military (slighting its 30 years as a bulwark of the dictatorship). The masses are praised for their “heroism”, the youth for their “idealism”, but are never proposed as central political actors in the new regime. Once the dictatorship fell, the military and the opposition electoralists “celebrated” the success of the revolution and moved swiftly to demobilize and dismantle the spontaneous movement, in order to make way for negotiations between the liberal electoral politicians, Washington and the ruling military elite.

While the White House may tolerate or even promote social movements in ousting (“sacrificing”) dictatorships, they have every intention in preserving the state .In the case of Egypt the main strategic ally of US imperialism was not Mubarak, it is the military, with whom Washington was in constant collaboration before, during and after the ouster of Mubarak, ensuring that the “transition” to democracy (sic) guarantees the continued subordination of Egypt to US and Israeli Middle East policy and interests.

Read Full Article Here

 

Egypt Revolution orchestrated by US?

Barry Chamish
Future Fastforward
February 17, 2011

[FF Editorial: This and the other articles are posted to the website to give readers another perspective of the events in Egypt. Whether, the Egyptian revolution is in fact a US orchestrated operations or a genuine revolution, the acid test will be whether the Rafah Crossing will be opened to lift the criminal blockade imposed by the Mubarak regime at the behest of the US and Israel. Only time will tell.]

Elad Pressman, editor of a major Israeli political website, was my guest on my radio show and did he have news! The Daily Telegraph had dug into Wikileaks documents and pieced together a report that convincingly proves the US was behind the violent Egyptian protests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk…

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police. On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011. He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily Telegraph.

The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police.

At least five people were killed in Cairo alone yesterday and 870 injured, several with bullet wounds. Mohamed ElBaradei, the pro-reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was placed under house arrest after returning to Egypt to join the dissidents. Riots also took place in Suez, Alexandria and other major cities across the country.

The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarak’s regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East. In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for regime change to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.

The memo, which Ambassador Scobey sent to the US Secretary of State in Washington DC, was marked “confidential” and headed: ‘April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt’.

It said the activist claimed “several opposition forces” had “agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections”. The embassy’s source said the plan was so sensitive it cannot be written down.

Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an “unrealistic” plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington. The embassy helped the campaigner attend a “summit” for youth activists in New York, which was organized by the US State Department.

Cairo embassy officials warned Washington that the activist’s identity must be kept secret because he could face “retribution” when he returned to Egypt. He had already allegedly been tortured for three days by Egyptian state security after he was arrested for taking part in a protest some years earlier. The protests in Egypt are being driven by the April 6 youth movement, a group on Facebook that has attracted mainly young and educated members opposed to Mr Mubarak. The group has about 70,000 members and uses social networking sites to orchestrate protests and report on their activities. The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses.

Elad strongly suggested that I investigate who was behind Mohammed ElBaradei. Look what I discovered! Just a few months ago, Mohammed ElBaradei was paraded on the front cover of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) rag, Foreign Affairs, with a headline asking if he could be Egypt’s savior.

What uncanny foresight, for on the second day of Egyptian protests he showed up in Cairo and was named as the negotiator of The Muslim Brotherhood. So where did he come from? It turns out from the board of an NGO run by CFR muckrakers George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Against the regime, the opposition groups – of which there are at least ten – are just as hamstrung by their failure to produce a leader able to stand up and challenge the president. For lack of any representative figure, they picked the retired nuclear watchdog director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradi to speak for them in negotiations over the transfer of power. Hardly anyone in Egypt knows him: He is better known outside the country having spent many years abroad. Yet, at the same time, ElBaradei sits on the board of a Soros/Brzezinski foundation. Go to the George Soros/Zbigniew Brzezinski Crisis Groups Website and you will see that the Egyptian clashes have hit surprisingly close to home for them. That’s because none other than their own Mohamed ElBaradei, sitting on their board of trustees, is the self-proclaimed leader of the unrest unfolding across the streets of Cairo. The International Crisis Group’s recent condemnation of ElBaradei’s detention and admission of his membership amongst “the Group” is accompanied by calls for the government to stop using violence against the protesters.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx

A few board members: George Soros Chairman, Open Society Institute Mohamed ElBaradei Director-General Emeritus, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Nobel Peace Prize (2005) Javier Solana Former EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, NATO Secretary-General and Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain And then, we have The Muslim Brotherhood meeting with Obama. From the Egyptian press: ‘Obama met Muslim Brotherhood members in U.S.’; U.S. President Barack Obama met with members of Egypt’s Islamist opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, earlier this year, according to a report in Thursday editions of the Egyptian daily newspaper Almasry Alyoum. The newspaper reported that Obama met the group’s members, who reside in the U.S. and Europe, in Washington two months ago.

As for Israel, which should be terrified of a potential Muslim Brotherhood government, who else is pushing for one but President Shimon “Mad Dog” Peres? Mubarak appointed Peres’ buddy Omar Suleiman (search for pics of the two all over the internet) as his Vice-President, meaning upcoming interim President when Hosni climbs down from the post. And look who Peres got to say what Peres can’t, his rabbi and Vatican representative, David “Mad Man” Rosen:

http://euobserver.com/9/31729/?rk=1

Rabbi David Rosen, a prominent commentator on religious affairs, has said that EU diplomats should start talking to Islamic faith leaders in Egypt in order to keep the revolution on a peaceful path.

Yes, Israel’s President thinks it would be terrific to begin negotiations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel’s issues are the same as Egypt’s but are hidden behind a charade of democracy. This year’s figures reveal that 25% of all Israelis, including over 850,000 children, live beneath the poverty line. The middle class has all but disappeared at 15%, leaving a vast number of poor and unemployed to be ruled by a tiny group of immensely wealthy oligarchs.

If you thought Cairo had a big turnout for its protests, Israel with 1/5 of Cairo’s population, drew over 200,000 to protest the “Oslo “peace” and the evacuation of Gaza’s Jews…to no avail. The government had flipped the organizers with names like Wallerstein and Leiberman and the protests were harmless steam blowing.

It’s time Israel joined the Middle East. Get those 200,000 back, led by homeless Gazan Jews and joined by all who live in daily fear of the Shabak (Secret Service), the police, the courts and get them to the President’s House to physically oust Shimon Peres from his office.

After that, on to the Knesset!

Egypt Revolution Staged for U.S. Coup on Iran

US ALREADY TRYING TO BRIBE NEW EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT

 



Hillary: Too much money in drugs to legalize

Hillary: Too much money to be lost if you legalize drugs

Drug War Chronicle
February 2, 2011


Hillary Clinton: There’s just too much money in drugs to legalize

In an interview on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a very precise demonstration in how to dramatically misconstrue the fundamentals of drug prohibition. It’s one of those perfectly incoherent explanations that would be almost comedic if it weren’t for the tens of thousands who get murdered in the streets thanks to logic like this.

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

That’s interesting, because I don’t see the drug cartels taking over the coffee trade, even though it’s more addictive than space-meth and grows vigorously on the hillsides of Colombia. I can’t help but wonder what everyone on the left would say if this preposterous analysis came from Sarah Palin, rather than Hillary Clinton. It’s the sort of profound nonsense that ought to get you skewered by Jon Stewart, yet our Secretary of State will almost certainly get a free pass on misunderstanding literally everything about the escalating violence below our border.

More here if you can handle it.

 

Hillary and Bill Clinton Laundering Cocaine Money

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8438833120507357139#

 



Obama Plans National Internet ID System

Obama Plans National Internet ID System

Washington Times
January 13, 2011

Federalized security screening at airports has been such a success that President Obama wants to apply the same government “expertise” to the realm of online commerce and commentary. The White House cybersecurity adviser joined Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Jan. 7 to announce what amounts to a national ID card for the Internet.

Their plan is straightforward. Instead of logging onto Facebook or one’s bank using separate passwords established with each individual company or website, the White House will take the lead in developing what it calls an “identity ecosystem” that will centralize personal information and credentials. This government-approved system would issue a smart card or similar device that would confirm an individual’s identity when making online credit-card purchases, accessing electronic health care records, posting “anonymous” blog entries or even logging onto one’s own home computer, according to administration documents.

Officials insist this would be a voluntary program and deliver significant benefits to the public. Mr. Locke explained last week that “robust identity solutions can substantially enhance the trustworthiness of online transactions. They can not only improve security, but, if done properly, can enhance privacy as well.”

Put another way, Mr. Locke is saying, “Trust us, we’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” Congress, the technology industry and the public need to run as far away as they can from this purported assistance. The government is no more capable of securing information than it is of protecting airports. Just look at the WikiLeaks case, in which a disaffected private was able to grab hundreds of thousands of classified documents from U.S. Army computers. Agencies ranging from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Department of Veterans Affairs have proved equally incapable of dealing with personal data.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), for example, lost a hard drive crammed with material about the Clinton White House and its employees. The same agency sent a hard drive containing the Social Security numbers of about 75 million veterans to a private contractor for “recycling” without bothering to delete the personal information. To this day, the agency is unable to determine what happened to the device. “While each case of data breach, loss or undue risk of loss represents a unique stanza, the chorus of the song remains the same,” Paul Brachfeld, NARA’s inspector general, said in a 2009 congressional hearing. “Internal control weaknesses, lapses and exercises of questionable judgment tied to other incidents I have spoken of today regularly leave me and my staff frustrated and bewildered.”

There’s little reason to think Mr. Brachfeld’s frustration will ever be eased. Civil-service employees, who can’t be fired, have little reason to be careful with sensitive medical records, or even nuclear secrets. A careless attitude pervades federal agencies, rendering the government particularly unsuited to the task of directing an identity-assurance program. Like most ideas dreamed up around a multiagency boardroom table, this one will never accomplish its stated goal.

Centralizing access to personal information only makes it easier for the bad guys because it means they only need to steal one key to unlock a vast wealth of financial and personal information. It’s likely that the real motivation for this is to ensure the feds always have backdoor access into what people are doing in the online realm. Congress should take steps to ensure this Big Brother scheme is
deleted.

Obama ‘Internet kill switch’ plan approved by US Senate panel

 



US Government Helped Underwear Bomber Through Security

US Government Helped Underwear Bomber Through Security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoDqUyqsxgg

US Government Allowed Flight 253 to Happen

Terrorist Allowed on Plane Without Passport

Flight 253 Terrorist Was Aided by Wealthy Indian Man

 



Iraq ‘Withdrawal’ Incites More Attacks on U.S. Soldiers

Iraq ‘Withdrawal’ Incites More Attacks on U.S. Soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03FP0t5-Xjc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nLiQ9_TgAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzK5W3aqGMg

Iraqi soldier kills 2 U.S. soldiers

12 die in attack on Baghdad military headquarters

Obama’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ Speech