Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Who Killed JFK?" is a new book from investigative reporter, Jerome Corsi. This first interview with Corsi was outstanding! (There are three mp3's available on request). The Dallas assacination was the third attempt to kill JFK, and Corsi insists that JFK was aware of the first two attempts. JFK knew the risk of going to Dallas. The first attempt was in Chicago, followed by one in Tampa Bay in August. The coupe was carried out by the CIA and primary planners included the Dulles brothers, Lyndon Johnson, Herbert Hoover, General Curtis Lemay as well as key mafia figures. The plan itself was a copy of a 1957 CIA coupe in Ecuador, hatched by E Howard Hunt. And yes, both Nixon and Poppy Bush were in Dallas that fateful weekend. Date: 09-17-13 excerpt: As we prepare for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, author and columnist Jerome Corsi discussed his extensive research into the killing of Kennedy. The ballistics evidence proves that more than one shooter was involved, and that the lone gunman theory is false, he said. When Kennedy was brought into the Parkland Hospital after the shooting, the doctors recorded an entrance wound in the front of the head. But in examining frames from the end of the Zapruder film, when the car was about to go under the underpass, you can see the back of JFK's head is blown out. Lee Harvey Oswald, shooting supposedly from the Book Depository, was positioned behind Kennedy, and therefore couldn't have been the only shooter, Corsi stated. "A shot from the front means there was two shooters at least." One reason for JFK's assassination was that he wouldn't go along with an arranged New World Order, and refused to use the US military to support business interests, and he planned to dismantle the CIA, Corsi outlined. He named Allen Dulles, the former head of the CIA, as one of the planners of the JFK assassination and detailed how that in addition to Dallas, there were 2 other attempts to kill the President in November 1963

Wrong link and title here, Gary.

The article adds more detail than quoted. The picture that emerges is that John Kerry and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius carried water for the Israelis and Saudis to blow up the negotiation at the last moment, after all sides had preliminarily agreed to a text, by substituting a new and very substantially different text without consulting the other P-5+1 members or Iran. That is a down and dirty negotiation tactic; no wonder the negotiation failed. It should be kept in mind that the Israeli and Saudi governments' real goal is not halting Iran's development of a nuclear industry but is instead to persuade or trick the U.S. into bombing Iran back into the Stone Age, as the U.S. did to Iraq in the early 1990s under Emperor Bush 1 with a repeat performance by Emperor Bush II a decade later.  As to Kerry's preposterous claim that no nation has a right to enrich uranium, in reality every nation has that right jus cogens, with the only limitations being on nations that are members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which nations still retain the right to enrich up to 20 percent as Iran has been doing. Claims to the contrary are either misinformed or mere false propaganda. See http://armscontrollaw.com/2013/11/07/scope-meaning-and-juridical-implication-of-the-npt-article-iv1-inalienable-right/

I'm reserving judgment on this deal until I can read it. I am deeply suspicious of the mainstream media coverage of the deal, which is driven entirely by the White House and by spokesmen of AIPAC-founded organizations known to represent the views of the right-wing pro-war Israeli government (although not identified as such). As reported in the NY Times, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera-America, and the Jerusalem Post, the deal so lopsidedly disfavors Iran -- along with other factors -- as to provoke the suspicion that I'm reading propaganda rather than accurate reporting. Certainly, the accounts make no effort at all to present the Iranian government's reaction. Not a single sentence. The Iranian Press so far has only a few paragraphs that read as though they might have been garnered from what has been published by western mainstream media, although I did see a statement attributed to an anonymous Iranian government official who said that the deal recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium. Obviously there is not yet an official statement by the Iranian government.  The mystery at this point is why America's Israel-Firsters fought to scuttle this negotiation so hard but are suddenly bubbling with enthusiasm for the interim deal. My strong sniff is that Obama has secretly promised the Israeli government a carrot that they could not refuse. Keep in mind that this entire charade is not in reality about Iranian nuclear weapons plans that do not exist. It's been about whether the U.S. will buckle to Israeli and American Zionist pressure to commence a war against Iran. So did Obama just secretly agree to launch that war via a false flag excuse? Something else? What is that carrot? Something reeks here.

Poor Bibi and crew. Their justification for goading the U.S. into war against Iran just got taken off the table. And they're upset about it because it never was really about the mythical Iranian nuclear weaponization. It was about removing the only military force in the region capable of stopping an Israeli invasion. Iran, the nation that came to the aid of Syria when the Izzies and the Saudis wanted to destabilize Syria and break it into smaller pieces and almost persauded the U.S. to launch missile strikes against Syria under the pretext of a false flag nerve gas attack actually carried out by Saudi puppet jihadis. Poor Bibi. No U.S. war against Iran. And to be told this by a black president. (Israel's right-wing is far from kind to black Africans in Israel. They get treated like they were Arab Palestinians.) But Bibi can't burn that bridge with the U.S. and stay in power. U.S. support is the only reason that Israel still exists.        

A desired result in search of evidence, not what one would call a principled investigation. Who could trust the results of such an investigation with its pre-determined outcome? With the Israeli intelligence community's long history of false reports in furtherance of government goals, any such report will bear a heavy presumption of relying on fabricated or staged evidence.

The drive for a US/UK military strike on Syria is beginning to bog down. The UN Security Council could not reach agreement on a resolution to authorize the strike; resistance in Congress is rising with a call for full debate before launching such a strike, and I just watched the UK House of Commons forbid UK participation in the strike. ("Heated moments in the UK debate" video is on the linked page.) Unsurprising in the U.S. because last weekend's Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that public resistance to U.S. military action against Syria is actually stiffening, with only 9 percent supporting military action. Obama has scheduled a telephone conference with key members of Congress to encourage them not to interfere, but reportedly the phone conference will use non-secure connections so classified information will not be discussed.  Personally, I want the raw intelligence data on the alleged use of sarin by the Syrian government to be publicly released, including audio recordings, so that it can be subjected to debate by the public. Based on my monitoring of news on the Syrian conflict for more than a year, it seems clear that the Syrian foreign "rebels" have the ability to manufacture Sarin and have used it repeatedly in Syria. And the Syrian government has very strong incentives not to use Sarin, particularly at the moment the gas attack occurred. A UN team had just arrived, at Syria invitation, to investigate prior incidents involving alleged gas attacks in which both sides blamed the other. Not a good time for the Syrian government to launch such an attack but a great time for the rebels to stage a false flag attack, blaming the Syrian government.  So I want to see the evidence Obama claims to be relying upon. Supposedly, it is an intercept of a panicked conversation between a Syrian commander and a lower officer in the field. But that too could have been staged. Making it public would go a long way toward resolving the authenticity issue and determining whether it w

Excellent roundup of evidence that the Fukushima disaster recovery process has gone badly awry and is devolving quickly to looming further disasters. Political momentum is gathering to wrest the recovery efforts away from the Japanese government and to place its leadership in the hands of an international group of experts. The disaster was far worse than its portrayal in mainstream media, is continuing, and even worse secondary disasters now loom. 

Excellent article Paul! But it left me in tears. The bastardos are destroying the currency. Quick Count of The U.S. defaulting on its debt obligations: ... Continental Currency in 1779 ... Domestic debt between 1782 through 1790 ... Greenbacks in 1862 ... Liberty Bonds in 1934 ... 1933 Dollar to GOLD devaluation (1/35 th per ounce) ... 1971 Nixon ends GOLD backing of dollar, violating the terms of the Bretton Woods Agreement ... 1979 Treasury defaults, refusing to redeem maturing treasury bonds The only thing keeping the American Economy going is the massive rush to convert the fiat currency the Federal Reserve is churning out into hard assets; like land and corporate stock. In 2008 the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel pumped $29 Trillion into the world banking system. They continue to pump $85 Billion per month into Bankster financial markets, buying up bad mortgage paper and backstopping the many insured derivatives scams now unwinding. The Banksters were bust in 2008, but are now flush with more dollars than anyone knows what to do with. Instead of "loaning" this money out, and investing in traditional business productivity, they use the freshly minted dollars to purchase hard assets. Business loans would provide profit based on interest - a gambit that requires confidence in the value of the dollar since the dollar is the measure of the economic reward. The purchase of hard assets is different. The "value" is not in the profitability of the investment, as measured in fiat currency. The value is in hard asset and any future economic power that asset holds through the expected currency crash. The only mystery here is that of military might. How do the banksters and global elites protect their assets in the future collapse they have made certain? Oh wait - private security companies capable of waging war. It's no accident that the early geopolitical energy wars of the 21st century saw a massive buildup of private corporate military and i

Sy Hersh walks us through his investigation into the reasons behind Obama's last-minute decision to postpone missile (and as it turns out, B52) strikes on Syria. His trail leads through the Benghazi incident and the CIA's running of weapons from Libya to jihadists in Syria (the "rat line") through Turkey engineering a false flag gas attack in Syria to draw Obama into attacking Syria for crossing his "red line" against Syrian use of chemical weapons. Note that Hersh's account of the "red line" events largely fits with the earlier accounts by Yossef Bodansky.  http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Syrian-Chemical-Attack-More-Evidence-Only-Leads-to-More-Questions.html http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/09/new-granular-evidence-points-to-saudi-involvement-in-syrias-chemical-weapons-terror-attack/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack Note however that Hersh's account omits Bodansky's evidence that the U.S. State Department and CIA were part of the planning for the false flag attack.

See also Hersh's article in December 2013, establishing that the White House had "cooked" the alleged evidence offered in support of Obama's claim that Syria had been responsible for the attack. It also establishes Obama's prior knowledge that the "rebel" forces had sarin weapons. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

"The Red Line and the Rat Line: Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels excerpt/intro: In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the 'red line' he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons.​＊ Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad's offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous. Obama's change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn't match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army's chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn't hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria's infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack."

Until the late 1940s, the U.S. had a "War Department." But in 1949, having just completed the largest foreign war in U.S. history, the War Department ironically was renamed as the "Defense Department." Ever since, the U.S. has waged nothing but foreign wars, none that could literally be characterized as necessary to defend the U.S. As John Pilger eloquently encapsulates in this article, perhaps it's past time to return the Department to the "Department of Wars of Aggression."  

Marbux is right - this report is filled with stunning information! "TEL AVIV - NATO countries are strongly considering the possibility of an international deployment to Syria if the Syrian opposition does not make major advances in the next few weeks, according to informed Middle Eastern diplomatic and security officials. Egyptian security officials, meanwhile, outlined what they said was large scale international backing for the rebels attacking the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad - including arms and training from the U.S., Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

One key point is that this article was published on February 24, 2012, long before the false flag sarin gas attack in late August of 2013 that was falsely attributed to the Assad government of Syria. Planning for a Libya-like NATO invasion of Syria was underway long before that attack. And the report gives us the information that the shipment of arms to and training of the Syrian opposition was already underway at that early date, if the report is accurate. All such activities were later confirmed by mainstream media, although I have not found any such reports that provide a beginning date. Hence the value of this report. The report also goes into some detail on the emerging international law norm of Responsibility to Protect ("RTP"), but misses some key aspects. RTP doctrine was an innovation in international law in response to massive genocidal events such as the Rwandan and Srebrenica Massacres. As international law stood before RTP, what happened entirely within the borders of a nation was an aspect of national sovereignty that international law could not interfere with. RTP cracked that barrier, holding that some human rights were so important that they deserved protection by international law, therefore the United Nations Security Council would be empowered to authorize intervention in cases involving wholly domestic genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. But omitted from the article is the fact that it is a doctrine to be exercised only by the U.N. Security Council; individual nations gain no license under the doctrine to launch their own wars to protect the citizens of another nation, whether directly or through proxies such as jihadi mercenaries. Russia has, quite properly in my opinion, vetoed U.S. sponsored draft resolutions based on RTP for Security Council authorization to intervene in Syria, because the U.S. is already an unlawful belligerent in Syria and because the U.S. so severely abused the Security Council's RTP r

Excellent article with video demonstration explaining the drought in California, and how chemtrails are used to break up a low pressure zone. Amazing stuff. Using chemtrails, the counter clockwise spinning rotation of a low pressure zone is neutralized and even reversed, with the low pressure zone breaking up and dispersing. After watching this video, I noticed that three low pressure zones off the mid and southern coast of California were broken up with the clouds dispersing as they passed over California, Arizona and New Mexico. And guess what? The clouds came together in a new giant low pressure zone over Texas - where four days of thunderstorms and tornadados wrecked havoc. The farm land in California is being laid waste, and farm land in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa is getting more water than the land can handle. "California is embroiled in a crisis of epic proportions as it continues to struggle through one of the worst droughts in state history. But emerging evidence suggests that the Golden State's water woes aren't a natural occurrence at all, and that a covert military operation involving "chemtrails" and other weather modification weaponry may be to blame. A recent episode of The HAARP Report, which tracks the activities of the U.S. military's so-called "High Frequency Auroral Research Program" (which the federal government falsely claims has been shut down), provides five pieces of compelling evidence from recently captured satellite imagery that points to deliberate weather modification as the cause of California's drought. You may have heard of "chemtrails" before -- those unnatural-looking cloud trails occasionally produced by airplanes that don't dissipate normally, and that end up blanketing the skies with a hazy muck. They differ entirely from water vapor contrails produced when water vapor condenses and freezes around small aerosol particles released from aircraft exhaust. The following image shows a sky filled with chemtrails:"

In a desperate but successful eleventh-hour media campaign, Benyamin Netanyahu during the recent Israeli election campaign peeled off enough votes from other ringt-wing political parties to keep his Likud Party in power and to continue Netanyahu as Israel's prime minister. He accomplished that by promiosing that there would never be an indepndent state of Palestine and by a racist false claim that  Palestinians with Israeli ciitzenship were transporting voters to the polls by the busload to gain more seats in the Parliament. But those statements got Netanyahu in very hot water with European government leaders and the Obama Administration because Netanyahu had publicly repudiated the 2-state solution that has been the supposed object of U.S. diplomacy since the Carter Administration. Netanyahu promptly walked back his statements.  But now he has done it again because East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory that Israel seized during its 1967 Six Day War, and has illegally retianed it since. Under the 4th Geneva Convention, Israel was required to promptly relinquish the occupied territory upon the cessation of hostilities but still retains it today. Netanyahu's latest statement is sure to set off fireworks again in European governments and in the Obama Administration. Watch for further sanctions from Europe and more pressure from the Obama Administration. See also similar statements by Netanyahu at http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-jerusalem-only-ever-the-capital-of-the-jewish-people/  

Surprise. Surprise. Neocon Secretary of Defense under G.W. Bush Donald Rumsfeld says Obama hasn't made a case for U.S. military strikes on Syria. Ironically, Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense who masterminded the US invasion of Iraq based on false intelligence. 

Shia Iran providing IED weapons to Sunni militants in Iraq? Preposterous. The latest Israel lobby false propaganda blast aimed at shooting down the agreement with Iran in Congress.