Alex Jones Announces Loose Change Role Founding Father of 9

Alex Jones Announces Loose Change Role
Founding Father of 9/11 Truth Movement is an executive producer for Final Cut, David Ray Griffin on board as script editor and consultant

Alex Jones has publicly announced his role as an executive producer for Loose Change: Final Cut as Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe and Jason Bermas gear up for their much anticipated appearance on The View with Rosie O'Donnell next week.

Alex will also reveal on his show today that he has been helping with financing the production and release of the film.

Professor David Ray Griffin was also enlisted as a script editor and fact checker, ensuring the final release will be absolutely watertight and immune to the debunking attempts that will inevitably follow.

Tune in to the Alex Jones Show today for full details on what is shaping up to be a very exciting few months as the movie nears its expected cinema release.

The Loose Change crews will feature on ABC's The View on Thursday May 24th, it was announced yesterday. William Rodruigez will also appear on the show. 9/11 truthers will not go head to head with debunkers, but it is expected that the pioneers of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing's Popular Mechanics, will be given an opportunity to spew their deceit at a later date, though this has not been scheduled as yet.

==============================================================================================

Colbert adds his two cents in as to why the GOP candidates' answers on torture were so warmly received and slams McCain for being soft on "enhanced interrogation techniques."

==============================================================================================

===============================================================================================

===========================================================================================

Cops spied on hippies, hip-hoppers
NYPD eyed everyone from stars to pols before '04 GOP bash in city

The NYPD kept tabs on the biggest names in hip hop as well as peaceniks, anarchists, anti-war bloggers, a city councilman and at least one hippie pie-tosser as cops girded for protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

The list of the spied upon was revealed yesterday in 600 pages of secret NYPD intelligence files released by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the city on behalf of hundreds of demonstrators arrested during the convention.

Sean (Diddy) Combs, Jay-Z, LL Cool J and Alicia Keys were among the notables the NYPD monitored in the months before the convention arrived in New York. Each was expected to attend a protest rally during the convention staged by the Hip Hop Summit Action Network.

Among the activists eyed by the NYPD was Aron Kay, aka the Yippie Pie Man, who earned his moniker by tossing pies into the faces of authority for more than two decades.

Mostly, the NYPD intelligence squad crisscrossed the Internet, peeking in on Web sites like one for Camp Shut Down that urged viewers to Resist the GOP and offered advice for those caught up in an NYPD dragnet.

The cops kept tabs on anti-Bush groups like Cabbies Against Bush and Bands Against Bush, as well as Billionaires for Bush, a group not really for Bush at all.

Police also were watching City Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn), a onetime mayoral candidate who was expected to demand that the GOP hold the convention elsewhere "unless the RNC indicates that it is willing to address issues of the impoverished, such as HIV/AIDS, housing and welfare."

The NYCLU says cops went too far in their surveillance of lawful political activism, while the city says the work of the intelligence unit justified the cops' high profile during the convention.

"The surveillance spanned the globe," said Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

But Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, "I think a close examination of those documents will show the NYPD did an outstanding job of protecting the city during the convention."

The city tried unsuccessfully to block the documents' public release. Two weeks ago, Manhattan Federal Judge James Francis dismissed city claims that potential jurors in the NYCLU case will be prejudiced by their release.

The NYPD posted all of the documents, as well as a 26-page overview, on its Web site last night.

=================================================================================================

FOX's Gibson Stretched Thin Over Rosie's 'Imagination'
O'Donnell Allegedly Pushing Phony Numbers for Iraqi Deaths, Found Guilty for Not Believing in Bogeymen "Terrorists" and 'Imagining' Government-Sponsored False-Flag Attacks by U.S.

Rosie is attacked by FOX's John Gibson for making more provocative statements about government-sponsored terrorism yesterday on The View . Gibson objected to the insinuation that the United States has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism and considered absurd Rosie's statement that "most Americans don't fall for the trick of the bad 'terrorists' anymore" as she emphasized the word 'terrorists' by making a quote mark gesture.

Gibson and his guest also accuse her of using bad figures for the number of Iraqis killed, though the real number is much higher than the 655,000 estimate Rosie quoted-- which was based on an MIT study that mainstream-media TV news and the Bush Administration tried to refute. That number itself now more than 6 months old.

In addition Documents obtained by the BBC under a Freedom Of Information Act request have proven that despite public dismissal of last year's Iraq Death Toll study, published in The Lancet Medical Journal, British Government officials actually backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion.

============================================================================================

Here we are in the immediate aftermath of the attempted attack on Fort Dix, an attack that was being planned by men who immigrated illegally to the United States, and the Senate is getting ready to support another amnesty of illegal immigrants. This is just a much larger replay of the amnesty that was enacted in 1986. In that amnesty three million illegals were legalized, with false promises of a Democratic Congress to enact strict border security. Somehow they never got around to that part.

This time they want to legalize twelve million people who broke the law, and they give us more empty promises of border security. It is probably an inevitability that this becomes law. Senate Republicans will cave, vainly believing that something will actually be done on enforcement, and Congressional Democrats will gleefully open up the border to every criminal, terrorist, and parasite all to continue the balkanization of America and get themselves more votes.

Call it what you will, but I call it America's elected leaders selling out Americans. Apparently foreigners, esepecially foreigners that broke the law in coming here, are now more important than citizens. They violate immigration law, and usually they violate many other laws once they're here(don't believe the stories for one second that they are just honest hard working people looking for a better life. If that were true they would come into this country legally.) and we reward their criminal behavior. I can't see any other group of people getting a free pass on breaking the law. But since Democrats see votes in legalization, and Republicans see cheap labor they are williing to go for it. Maybe we can solve the overcrowding of American prisons the same way. Instead of arresting people we can legalize the criminals so long as they vote Democrat, and work cheaply for corporations. Why not? Once we've got the ball rolling why try to stop it?

Every year over one million people enter this country illegally. That is one million too many. Instead of rewarding the lawbreakers we must secure the border, first and only. We don't bother to assimilate our new arrivals any more. While it should come as no surprise that immigrants bring their old culture with them it should outrage us that they retain their old allegiances. For example, many Mexicans don't think of themselves as Americans who came from, or who can trace their ancestry to, Mexico. They just think of themselves as Mexicans who live in the United States with their loyalty to Mexico City and not to Washington. Muslims think of themselves as Muslims first. They are willing to take advantage of everything this country has to offer them, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the right to vote, things they won't find in their own countries, but they are more loyal to Islam than to America. We give Mexicans( and other hispanics) bi lingual education, we let Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up people who are carry alcohol, and give them seperate facilities.

This is Balkanization, where a person is more loyal to ethnicity, religion, or their old nationality, over the United States. There is no room for any flag but the American flag, no room for any loyalty but loyalty to the United States. We can't even bring ourselves to ask that immigrants learn English, is it any wonder that we can't get them to see America as their country?

What was once the melting pot has now become divide and conquer, and we have reached critical mass. Yet, Washington, led by President Bush(who should no better) is bound and determined to keep pushing things. America simply can't take any more of the worlds poor and huddled masses. We need a freeze on immigration to give us time to deal with the millions that are here, amnesty is not the way to do that. It will only invite more immigrants, most of whom will come illegally. Flaunting our laws and stealing the jobs of American citizens.

We can't afford amnesty. If there are any patriots left in Congress they need to remember that, and stop it before it's too late.

================================================================================================

In a clip from the start of the debate, Fox's Brit Hume intones, "This event is being sponsored by Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party." Quips Stewart, "Isn't that redundant?"

==============================================================================================

Lou Dobbs reports on an amnesty bill that may be passed without giving time for anyone to read it thoroughly.

===============================================================================================

Donald A. Collins
Friday, May 18, 2007

On Tuesday, May 15, 2007, Grassfire's website has summarized a copy of a leaked plan for a new 'comprehensive immigration reform' proposal being developed behind closed doors by the Bush Administration and some Republicans in the Senate. Its dreary points confirm the same old, same old, only with greater cost and less likely scrutiny.

These open border Senators will sell us out in a New York minute and constantly keep hoping that by using the old Nazi propaganda expert Joseph Goebbels' technique of telling the Big Lie over and over that they can hornswoggle voters into thinking they have made a silk purse from a sow's ear.

They can't because you have heard all these tired, bad ideas (e.g. lies) before.

Examples from the Grassfire summary of the Bush plan, it calls the "Z" Amnesty Plan:

Provides guaranteed three-step path to citizenship for 12-20 million illegals.

Immediately creates a legal status for 12-20 million illegal aliens.

Allows current illegals to stay legally in our country indefinitely.

Does not require a "touch back" to obtain Z-visa (only for Green Card app).

Gives illegals healthcare/education benefits and back credit for Social Security wages.
Here are the Grassfire details, again simply hyping the same old song at more cost to American Citizens:

Z Visa for Illegals. Under the proposal being floated by the Bush Administration, a new classification of visas, the "Z Visa," would be created for all illegal aliens living in the United States at a certain point in time.

Instant Legalization for illegals. As a first step toward receiving the Z Visa, illegals would have 12 months to come "out of the shadows" and receive a probationary card, which in essence grants them transitionary legal status in the country. No "touchback" to home country required to obtain probationary card. It is unclear if they must pay fines or fees at this point.

After "Triggers", Z Visas Issued. After certain "triggers" are met (border security, fence, background check, etc), those with probationary cards would be issued "secure long-term Z visas." $2,000 fine and $1,500 fee due every three years. No "touchback" to home country required to obtain Z Visa.

Taxpayer-Funded Benefits. Z-visa holders are eligible for medical care and primary/secondary education. Illegals would also be eligible for SS wages for wages earned as illegal if they used their own SSN. No "touchback" to home country required to obtain benefits.

Long-Term Legal Status. Z visa holders can stay legally in our country on an indefinite basis as long as they re-up every three years for $3,500. No "touchback" to home country required to stay in country indefinitely under Z Visa.

Direct Path to Citizenship. Z visa holders would then be able to apply for a Green Card, paying a $2,000 fine and an $8,000 application fee. Head of household would then have to "touch back" to home country, with guaranteed re-entrance on Z-visa.

This latest effort levies heavy environmental, cultural, and economic costs, which are again being happily hoisted by these special interest power blocks on us citizens. These evil amnesty promoters know this and yet they rush ahead. We can only pray a few level heads like Senator Jeff Sessions can keep this from getting through. As a Democrat, I am clearly ready to vote in the future for anyone from either party or an independent who can show me promise of real reform, not these hackneyed regurgitations from the bellies of the greedy.

Folks, how long are we going to keep dogs like these in office? We have no choice on Bush, since no one has the guts to impeach him, but surely in the next cycle anyone who signs on to this amnesty band wagon should be voted out of office. The same greedy employers, some religious leaders and the ethnic lobbies are trying to change the will of the vast majority of American citizens who for years have asked for real reform and gotten bad legislation and lip service promises of reform. Disgusting.

==================================================================================================

Media Pushes for Children to be Microchipped
Maddy nightmare gives establishment platform to promote the tracking of every child

Tobias Cunningham
Friday, May 18, 2007

Europe’s largest newspaper the London Times has come out with an article that I and many others who have their eyes open to the New World Order agenda have been expecting over the past 2 weeks since the tragic abduction of four-year-old Leicestershire toddler Madeleine McCann.

That article is the imminent push for our children to have implantable microchips embedded under their skin.

The majority of the British public and indeed that of the wider international community, particularly those with children will willingly take in what the press subconsciously tells us when these kinds of seemingly caring journalists step up and ask questions such as “Would an implanted chip help to keep my child safe?”.

People with children are going to answer yes to this question. The majority of those without children are still going to answer yes to this question. The reason for this is that they fail to see the underlying motives behind the seemingly rational suggestion that we should all know where our children are and therefore ensure they are safe.

Of course we want our children to be safe. Of course we want them to be kept well away from the grips of an abductor such as the person or persons who have taken young Madeleine in Praia da Luz and of course we want these kinds of people brought to swift justice, but microchipping the entire child population is certainly not the answer and it simply never will be.

As Aaron Russo revealed on the Alex Jones show in January of this year, the true intentions of the global elite, in particular the Rockefeller family, is a microchipped society. A society where you have no privacy, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, whether you’re innocent, guilty, indifferent or impaired. This is the true face of the London Times article quoted above and this is what we have to fight.

Let me make myself clear. On the surface this idea, be it for children only, is a good one. The reasoning sounds good, the media feeds it to you and your emotions lead you to believe that this is the way forward. But the notion that these chips are “just for children, to keep them safe” is a theory which will eventually evaporate if this plan comes to true fruition.

Hear this. Your child has been implanted with a microchip. You, the police and the government can track your child wherever he or she goes. Good idea? “Of course,” you think to yourself, “my child will never be lost again…and if the worst comes and my child is taken, the police can identify exactly where they are and locate them immediately.

But what about when your child grows up. Your child is now a teenager…they’re still chipped…they’re still trackable by the police and the government and they still lack the privacy and freedom that was so readily taken away from them in the name of safety when they were in their early years of life.

But that’s even if this system would work. The UK Government’s own research shows that CCTV is not a crime deterrent, yet here in the UK we have 1 camera for every 14 people and there are tonnes more going up all around us. We are the most surveilled nation on the planet, yet we have one of the biggest crime rates…and that is simply because the CCTV that plagues your everyday life…the CCTV that watches you almost every step you walk on every day of your life is not there to prevent crime or preserve public safety as the nice yellow stickers will have you believe. They are their to serve the purpose they were built for. To watch…watch YOU!

Make no mistake, the New World Order’s plan to microchip the entire human population will begin in this manner. With children. If it were ruled tomorrow that every child on the planet should be microchipped from this point on then where will Earth be in say 50 years down the line? An almost entirely microchipped population. Everyone trackable. This is what we have to fight, because it is wrong in every single way. There are better ways to help keep our children safe from the evils that lurk in our world.

I sincerely hope that the McCann family have their daughter returned to them safe and well as does the rest of our nation and the rest of the world who have seen this case unfold over the past fortnight.

=============================================================================================

Jim DeMint
Thursday, May 17, 2007

May 17th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator DeMint made the following statement:

"I hope we don't take a thousand page bill written in secret and try to ram it through the Senate in a few days. This is a very important issue for America and we need time to debate it."

"But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

Senator DeMint is chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators that includes the majority of the Republican Conference.

================================================================================================

NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably
More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the facts

In a report detailing Rosie O'Donnell's confirmed plans to have 9/11 truthers debate the attacks on The View before she leaves in June, The New York Times has responded by penning an extremely poor attack piece which cites previous shoddy debunking efforts while completely ignoring key evidence often referred to by the many scientific experts, ex government officials, whistleblowers and truthers in general that have declared the event an inside job.

Skipping over the fact that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan were able to coordinate a total stand down of US air defenses, and completely ignoring the mountains of evidence of prior knowledge, the Times makes four main points in an effort to debunk solely the controlled demolition aspect of the 9/11 truth movement's assertions.

1. The buildings collapsed from the top down and because controlled demolitions are carried out from the bottom of buildings they were not controlled demolitions.

Many witnesses, including WTC janitor William Rodriguez and firefighters , reported explosions at the base of the buildings and white smoke was also seen emerging from the base of the north tower immediately prior to its collapse and after a boom shook cameras and registered on microphones. Initial reports cited FBI statements which suggested they believed some form of explosion had occurred at the base of the towers in addition to the plane impacts above. I posted videos of these reports in this recent article .

The Times also ignores the fact that all 3 buildings fell at almost free fall speed with no resistance whatsoever, a feat which defies the laws of physics.

2. The steel did not melt, it was weakened by fire which caused the buildings to gradually collapse.

Molten steel was found under all three collapsed buildings . Firefighters described "rivers of molten steel, like flowing lava". According to, among other experts, former Brigham Young Physics professor Steven Jones buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted melted that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.

3. The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the building's lower levels. The fuel was meant to power emergency generators.

The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by a New York Times article in 2002 and is pure speculation. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7.

Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. In any case raging fires could still not cause simultaneous and symmetric damage needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

4. Explosives would have had to have been pre-placed in the buildings and no witness has ever reported such suspicious activity taking place.

Yes they have . Power downs of both towers were reported the weekend before 9/11. In addition rescue workers , EMT's and witnesses on the ground were warned WTC 7 was going to be intentionally brought down by explosives.

The Times article, like any other poorly researched piece, cites Popular Mechanics, the now infamous Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as their bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce.

================================================================================================

WASHINGTON (AP) - A bipartisan group of senators is pushing legislation that would force the CIA to release an inspector general's report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The CIA has spent more than 20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.

The agency is the only federal office involved in counterterrorism operations that has not made at least a version of its internal 9/11 investigation public.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and two other intelligence committee leaders - chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and senior Republican Kit Bond of Missouri - are pushing legislation that would require the agency to declassify the executive summary of the review within one month and submit a report to Congress explaining why any material was withheld.

In an interview, Wyden said he is also considering whether to link the report's release to his acceptance of President Bush's nominations for national security positions.

``It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this,'' Wyden said. ``The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it.''

Completed in June 2005, the inspector general's report examined the personal responsibility of individuals at the CIA before and after the attacks. Other agencies' reviews examined structural problems within their organizations.

Wyden, who has read the classified report several times, wouldn't offer any details on its findings or the conversations he has had with CIA Director Michael Hayden, former CIA Director Porter Goss and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

But he did say that protecting individuals from embarrassment is not a legitimate reason for protecting the report's contents from public review. He also said the decision to classify the report has nothing to do with national security, but rather political security.

Hayden declined to be interviewed about the report. In a statement Thursday, his spokesman Mark Mansfield said the CIA director wants the agency to learn from any past mistakes, but doesn't want to dwell on them.

``Given the formidable national security challenges our nation faces, now and down the road, General Hayden believes it is essential for the Agency to move forward,'' Mansfield said. ``That's where our emphasis needs to be.''

The agency's actions prior to Sept. 11 have gotten renewed attention with the release of a memoir by former CIA director George Tenet. He has been criticized for not doing more to warn Bush about the al-Qaida threat.

In interviews about his memoir, he has said instead he worked the bureaucracy beneath the president by asking then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others for action.

Bond said some intelligence officials have dismissed the inspector general's report as ``ancient history,'' which he doesn't accept. He said the report has additional information which would be useful to the public.

``We have no desire to embarrass or throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the great men and women of the CIA, but let's just take a clear and open look at what the IG found and see if we have all of those problems corrected,'' Bond said.

In an October 2005 statement Goss said the officers involved in counterterrorism were ``stars who had excelled in their areas'' singled out by the CIA to take on difficult assignments. ``Unfortunately, time and resources were not on their side, despite their best efforts to meet unprecedented challenges,'' he said.

Goss rejected a recommendation from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson that the agency form accountability review boards to examine any personal culpability. Bond said that move was regrettable.

In his statement, Goss also noted that the agency had received a Freedom of Information Act request for the report, and that a review process was ongoing. But the CIA has not released any documents to The Associated Press or other organizations that began requesting the information at least 20 months ago.

The law requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days, but officials rarely meet those deadlines and often blame lengthy backlogs.

Groups including the National Security Archive have clashed with the agency over its FOIA policies. Last year, the archive gave the CIA its prize for the agency with the worst FOIA record. Called the ``Rosemary Award,'' it's named after President Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, who erased 18 minutes of a key Watergate conversation on the White House tapes.

The citation noted that CIA's oldest FOIA requests could apply for drivers' licenses in most states. ``CIA has for three decades been one of the worst FOIA agencies,'' archive Director Thomas Blanton said this week.

Many of the individuals highlighted in the inspector general's report are likely to have retired. But some are believed still to be in senior government positions, making the report's findings even more sensitive at the CIA and perhaps elsewhere within the intelligence community.

The AP has reported that the two-year review of what went wrong before the suicide hijackings harshly criticized a number of the agency's most senior officials.

That includes Tenet, former clandestine service chief Jim Pavitt and former counterterrorism center head Cofer Black, according to individuals familiar with the report, who spoke in 2005 on condition they not be identified.

===================================================================================================

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) did not fundamentally change its mandate after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the wake of the Cold War, NATO continued to expand. In 1999, before the NATO war against Yugoslavia, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe.

NATO is determined to expand its membership circle and to expand its mandate. Ultimately NATO is slated to become a global military force. Moreover, part of the objectives of NATO as a global military alliance is to ensure the “energy security” of its member states. What this signifies is the militarization of the world’s arteries, strategic pipeline routes, maritime traffic corridors used by oil tankers, and international waters.

U.S. Senator Richard Lugar has called for NATO to come to the aid of any member of the military alliance, such as the United States, whose energy sources may be threatened. The justification of such an intervention would be under NATO’s Mutual Defence Clause (Article 5). Senator Lugar’s idea has received strong support from the Eastern European members of NATO and the E.U., which are dependent on the Russian Federation for their energy supplies.

Senator Lugar was quoted as saying that, “[NATO] should recognize that there is little ultimate difference between a member being forced to submit to coercion because of an energy cutoff and a member facing a military blockade or other military demonstration on its borders.” [1]

Article 5 is the raison d’être of NATO. It construes any attack on one member as an attack on all NATO members. Article 5 of NATO’s charter is the basis for the formation of NATO, “mutual defence.” Any interpretation of the clause in regards to energy security would mean that any NATO member whose energy sources are cut off would be able to rely on assistance from the rest of the military alliance. Article 5 could also be interpreted to insinuate that the cutting off of energy to any NATO member would be defined as an act of aggression or an act of war. It should be noted that almost all NATO members lack their own energy resources.

It is no surprise that Russia has been greatly angered and unnerved by this strengthening energy security notion within NATO. If such a doctrine were adopted by NATO, it could be used as a justification for the imposition of economic and political sanctions against Russia and other energy producing countries. The clause could also provide a mandate for attacking Russia or any other energy exporting country, including Iran, Turkmenistan, Libya, and Venezuela, with a view to commandeering the energy and natural resources of such countries.

The E.U. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has also released a statement saying “Both [Russia and the E.U.] believe the other is using the energy weapon as an instrument of politics.” The E.U. Trade Commissioner also added that relations between the E.U. and Russia were at their worst levels in the post-Cold War era and that “Europe wants security of [energy] supply…” [2]

For this reason, amongst several others, Russia and her allies perceive the U.S. and NATO's global missile shield project as a means of commandeering Russian and global energy supplies and natural resources through the threat of force. Russia, like China and Iran, is also being encircled by a military frontier, which it sees as part of the efforts of NATO to surround it and its allies.

“…NATO has been transforming from its Cold War and then regional incarnation of the 1990s into a transatlantic institution with global missions, global reach, and global partners. This transformation is most evident in Afghanistan where NATO is at work, but the line we've crossed is that that ‘in area/out of area’ debate that cost so much time to debate in the 1990s is effectively over. There is no ‘in area/out of area.’ Everything is NATO's area, potentially. That doesn't mean it's a global organization. It's a transatlantic organization, but Article 5 now has global implications. NATO is in the process of developing the capabilities and the political horizons to deal with problems and contingencies around the world. That is a huge change.”

-Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (April 17, 2007)

NATO is also contemplating a process of “global reach” which would transform it into a global military force with member states outside of North America and the European continent. Although not yet official, NATO has already initiated a transition towards the “globalization” of its military forces and operations. NATO is heavily involved in Afghanistan and is tangled in Central Asia; NATO bases exist in Afghanistan, on the immediate borders of China and Iran. NATO has also extended its presence in the Balkans (highlighted by its involvement in the former Yugoslavia). NATO has also envisioned large military operations in the Sudan and more generally in the African continent, under what is referred to by its opponents as the “masquerade of peace-keeping.”

NATO is also involved on the ground in Lebanon, albeit informally. [3] A naval armada of NATO warships is also deployed in the waters of East Africa, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The naval forces of NATO countries such as Germany and Denmark are also present in the Eastern Mediterranean and can strike Syria in the event of war. [4]

Creeping towards Iran, NATO Expansion in the Persian Gulf: The “Gulf Security Initiative”

NATO has formally stepped into the Persian Gulf, even though in reality the forces of several NATO nations have been operating there since the Cold War. Kuwait’s Deputy Director of National Security Apparatus, Sheikh Thamer Ali Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, announced that Kuwait signed a security agreement with NATO during a GCC-NATO Conference that took place from December 11 to December 12, 2006. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) which has been renamed The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. The GCC already has a military agreement amongst its members, the Gulf Shield Defence Force, and individual bilateral security agreements with the U.S. and Britain. NATO has been in dialogue with Qatar, Kuwait, and the other members of the GCC in pursuit of establishing a more formal NATO presence in the Persian Gulf and a new security arrangement against Iran.

This new regional balance in the Persian Gulf is part of a broader alliance in the Middle East that is linked to NATO. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the United States, Britain, and NATO, besides the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are all part of this coalition in the Middle East. [5] This militiary alliance or coalition essentially represents an eastern extension of NATO’s “Mediterranean Dialogue.” The Middle Eastern members of this coalition, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, are labeled the “Coalition of the Moderate,” whereas Iran and Syria are said to lead a “Coalition of Radicals/Extremists.”

Aside from the implications of a confrontation with Iran, this cooperation between the GCC and NATO confirms that NATO is preparing to become a global institution and military force. The Middle East is an important geo-strategic and energy-rich area of NATO expansion. The vanguards of NATO in the region are Turkey and Israel.

The United States has also been building its missile arsenal in the Persian Gulf and transporting large amounts of military hardware and radar systems into the Persian Gulf. Originally, the justifications for the deployment of military hardware into the Persian Gulf was the “Global War on Terror,” then the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and now the new justification has become protecting America’s Persian Gulf allies, including the U.A.E., Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, against an Iranian ballistic missile threat.

The GCC-NATO Conference is mandated under the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and will be held under the theme of “Facing Common Challenges,” which directly denotes Iran as the target of military-security cooperation between the GCC and NATO. [6]

Furthermore, the GCC-NATO Conference took place after military games were held in the Persian Gulf by GCC members, the United States, Britain, France, and Australia— which also demonstrates that cooperation between the two branches of NATO, the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance, was initiated before the historical 2006 NATO Conference in Riga, Latvia. [7]

The GCC agreements with NATO are also significant because they mean that the Persian Gulf is potentially being shared and divided by the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance.

Although Sheikh Thamer Ali Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah and Kuwaiti leaders have tried to play down the meaning of the cooperation between Kuwait and NATO, the cooperation between both sides gestures towards NATO expansion and likely confrontation with Iran. The Kuwaiti official also highlighted that the goal of the conference was to make use of NATO’s diverse experiences given its multinational composition.

With the Anglo-American military build-up and the extension of NATO into the Persian Gulf, the leaders of the GCC have been emboldened in their cooperation with the U.S. and British militaries. Recently the Defence Minister of Bahrain, Shaikh Khalifa bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, has said that the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf have “the capability to respond to any attack from neighbouring Iran,” and would “respond with force” if Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz as a result of any U.S. military strikes or attack on Iran. [8] It is also no coincidence that the leaders of Kuwait have also declared that they are ready for an American-led attack against Iran and the eruption of war in the Middle East. [9]

It should be noted that any attacks by Iran on the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf would be in response to their cooperation with the U.S. and their approval of the use of their airspaces, waters, and territories against Iran by the U.S. military and its allies. The leaders of these nations also supported the U.S. and Britain in their war and invasion of Iraq and are the hosts of large U.S. ground, air, and naval bases.

"The first and most important area where change must come is in further developing our ability to project stability to the East”

The February 7, 2007 Congressional testimony of the U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who was presenting the Pentagon’s 2008 military budget, confirms that the United States, aside from Iran, still considers China and Russia as potential adversaries. Secretary Gates told the U.S. Senate that both Russia and China posed threats to the United States: “In addition to fighting the ‘Global War on Terror,’ we also face (…) the uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs.” [10]

The real question is: are the Russians and Chinese a threat to the United States or is it the reverse? Also, do China and Russia constitute an economic threat to the United States?

The Russian Foreign Ministry and government almost immediately demanded for an official explanation from the White House for the threatening remarks.

The reaction of the Russians has steadily become more and more apprehensive as they realize that they are being encircled. It has been for quite some time that Russia, China, and their allies have slowly been surrounded. China faces a militarized eastern border in Asia, while Iran has virtually been surrounded, and Russia’s western borders have been infiltrated by NATO.

NATO expansion continues despite the end of the Cold War and promises from the military alliance that it would not expand. Military bases and missile facilities are encircling China, Iran, and the Russian Federation.

On February 2007 at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany, President Vladimir Putin stated that NATO was targeting the Russian Federation and also reminded NATO that it had pledged that the military bloc would not move eastward. [11] The late Boris Yeltsin also made similar statements about NATO expansion in regards to the entry of the Baltic States into the military bloc. President Vladimir Putin’s speech was the most significant Russian statement yet and is a sign that Russia is beginning to feel the threat on its immediate borders, from the Russian Far East to the border with Georgia and in Eastern Europe.

From a Russian perspective, NATO is no longer committed to “peaceful co-existence.” General Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff and First Deputy Minister of Defence, warned Russians that they now face even greater military threats than during the Cold War. Both the Russian President and General Baluyevsky have called for a new Russian military doctrine to respond to the growing and emerging threats from the U.S. and NATO. [12]

The military projects being propelled by the United States, several NATO allies in Europe (namely Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic), and the Japanese for the establishment of two parallel missile shield projects, threatens both Russia and China. One missile shield will be located in Europe and the other missile shield in the Far East. These missile shields are being elevated under the pretext of hypothetical Iranian and North Korean threats to the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Japan.

“This [meaning the missile shields being planted on Russia’s borders] is a very urgent and politically important issue, and could drag us into a new arms race,” Colonel-General Yuri Solovyov, a commander of the Russian military has commented in regards to the facilities that are part of the missile shield project that are going to be set up near the Russian border in Eastern Europe. [13]
There is also discussion of another missile shield being erected in the Caucasus, or even possibly in the Ukraine. The Republic of Azerbaijan and Georgia are potential candidates for housing the missile shield project in the Caucasus.

“Our analysis shows that the placing of a radio locating station in the Czech Republic and anti-missile equipment in Poland is a real threat to us [Russia],” clarified Lieutenant-General Vladimir Popovkin, Commander of Russia’s Space Forces, and additionally explained, “It’s very doubtful that elements of the national U.S. Missile defence system in Eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated [by U.S. officials].” [14]
The U.S. missile project in the Czech Republic is also opposed by the majority of the Czech population. [15] The wishes of the Czech people are being ignored, just as the wishes of the American, British, Italian, Canadian, and Japanese people are continuously being ignored by their respective governments. In other words, these so-called democratic governments are extremely undemocratic when it comes to military planning and foreign wars.

The borders of Russia and China are being militarized by NATO and the broader network of military alliances organized by the United States. Surprisingly, Turkey which is a Middle Eastern member of NATO, Iran’s direct neighbour and a logical choice for any missile shield facilities meant to protect against an alleged Iranian ballistic missile threat, has not been selected as a location for a missile defence shield. The fact that the missile shield project is being positioned in Poland and the Czech Republic rather than Turkey and the Balkans suggests that the project is not directed mainly against Iran, but against Russia.

The other missile shield project, in the Far East, aside from North Korea will be adjacent to China’s heavily populated eastern provinces and the resource-rich Russian Far East. This Asiatic missile shield will be roughly located in Japan, with the possibility of facilities in South Korea. Japan and the United States began a joint missile defense research project in 1999, coincidently the same year as NATO expansion and the NATO war against Yugoslavia. [16] Taiwan is also a vital link in the militarization of the frontier with China.

Once the formation of this international military network is completed, the genuine basis for the creation of the two parallel missile shield projects will be fully apparent. These two military projects are not separate but interlinked with each other. They are part of the globalization of NATO and a broader military alliance that is in the process of encircling Russia, China, and their allies.

Alongside the development of this global military network, NATO and the U.S. have started an endeavour to control the world’s oceans. The high seas, international trade, and maritime traffic are also the focus of a solidifying control regime spearheaded by the U.S. government.

Putting a Leash around China: The Importance of Strategic Maritime Oil Routes, Taiwan, and Singapore

The United States has strong military links with Taiwan because Taiwan provides a logistical hob for military engagement against China and Chinese energy security. Taiwan is geo-strategically important because the island is located between the South China Sea and the East China Sea. The U.S. puts the outmost importance on Taiwan’s position in regards to the critically important and strategic maritime shipping lanes that transport oil and other resources to China.

Much has been discussed about the important geo-strategic oil routes in Central Asia and about important land corridors, but attention should also be remunerated to the strategic maritime oil routes or international shipping lanes. Energy supplies are closely linked to Chinese national security, Chinese development, and Chinese military strength. Should China’s oil supplies be cut off in the event of a war or, more likely, delayed it would be vulnerable and could potentially be paralyzed and suffocated. A maritime cordon around China would serve such a purpose.

The Straits of Taiwan and Malacca are geo-strategically vital to transporting oil and resources to China. Whoever controls both straits controls the flow of energy to China under the present status quo. It would be a harsh blow to China, should the straits be blocked and the stream of oil tankers stopped or delayed, just as it would be a blow to the U.S. and E.U. should the Straits of Hormuz be blocked by Iran. It so happens that the U.S. Navy dominates these shipping lanes. Until China has a secure source of inflowing energy from a route that is not controlled by the United States it will continue to be vulnerable to the U.S. Navy which continuously monitors both the Straits of Taiwan and Malacca.

Both Taiwan and Singapore are close allies of the U.S. because of these realities. Also, Singapore and Taiwan are heavily militarized with a view to exerting control over these two vital straits. Should there be a war between China and the United States, both Singapore and Taiwan, in alliance with the U.S. Navy, have contingency plans to block oil traffic from reaching China.

Although the Straights of Malacca lie within the sovereign maritime territory of Malaysia, the rapid militarization of Singapore is aimed at controlling and, if need be, halting the flow of oil tankers from the Straits of Malacca. This would cut the flow of energy to China in the event of a war between the U.S. and China. The naval facilities of Singapore are also highly specialized to service warships and submarines and are heavily used by the U.S. Navy.

China knows that it is vulnerable to military invention against its energy supplies. This is why the Chinese have been developing their naval bases and pushing for oil terminals and energy corridors to be built over land routes directly from Central Asia and the Russian Federation to China. Chinese cooperation with Russia, Iran, and the republics of Central Asia serves the purpose of creating a trans-Asian energy corridor that would ensure a continuous flow of energy to China in the event of an American-led naval blockade of the high seas. Discussions are underway for developing a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, India, and China with the collaboration of Russia. [17]

The Chinese have also objected to the proposals and initiatives being put forward on global warming. China argues that the climate debate is a calculated challenge to the economic growth of China and the Developing World. The Chinese believe the purpose of the U.S. and E.U. climate change initiative is to pressure them to cut their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to such an extent that it would upset their industrial and economic drive. [18]

There has been a gradual naval build-up around China. This includes an increase in the submarine squadrons of the Asia-Pacific region. An Australian report published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has warned that an Asiatic arms race is underway. The report writes; “In an arc extending from Pakistan and India through Southeast Asia and up to Japan there is a striking modernization and [military] expansion underway.” [19]

China has also been reported by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times to be “building up military forces and setting up bases along sea lanes from the Middle East to project its power overseas and protect its oil shipments, according to a previously undisclosed internal report prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.” [20]

China has engaged in a proactive naval policy aimed at securing the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean. These bodies of water all correspond to the international energy maritime route(s) that transport African and Middle Eastern oil to China. The Chinese aim is to protect the Chinese energy lifeline from the U.S. Navy and its allies. The Pentagon refers to these naval bases as the “the string of pearls,” because of their geo-strategic importance to the balance of naval power in the Indian Ocean. [21]

Chinese naval facilities are being constructed all along this vital maritime corridor. The naval port of Gwadar in Pakistan, on the shore of the Arabian Sea, has been designed and constructed by the Chinese. An agreement has also been signed with Sri Lanka (Ceylon) that will give China access to the port of Hambatota on the southern edge of the island. [22]

China has also planned the construction of a naval port in Myanmar (Burma), a geo-strategically important Chinese ally. The creation of a port in Myanmar would terminate any need or threats from both the straits of Taiwan and Malacca. China borders Myanmar directly and a railroad network and transport route exists from the coast of Myanmar to Southern China. [23]

The United States has also been trying to obstruct any possible means of allowing oil to directly reach China through any trans-Asian oil cooperation aside from the traditional and vulnerable sea route(s), which are under the watchful eye of the U.S. Navy. Any trans-Asian energy arrangement, such as the Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline, is detrimental to the Anglo-American and NATO agenda for controlling Eurasia.

The U.S. Pacific Fleet is also placing greater strategic importance on the island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean as the U.S. deepens its collaboration with Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Japan to militarily encircle China further. [24] The subject of North Korean ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons is presently being used as an ideal basis for further encircling China in the Far East. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) started by the Bush Jr. Administration in 2003, just after the invasion of Iraq, is also a means of controlling the movement(s) of international traffic and cutting energy supplies to China should a juncture of aggression against the Chinese arrive.

Control of Strategic Waterways, the Naval Cordon of the Seas, and a “Global Navy”

Controlling the high seas and trade is an additional line of attack being set up to envelop the Eurasian giants, China and Russia. This is precisely what the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and the establishment of a “global naval force,” under the command of the U.S., has the objectives of accomplishing. China is in deeper danger from an ocean-based threat than Russia in this regard.

The naval network that is being created by NATO and NATO allies is beginning to emerge. Over 40 countries have been participating in naval movements in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. [25] This is a threat to Chinese energy supplies and international trade going through the Indian Ocean between Africa and Eurasia.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, has stated that the U.S. seeks to craft and establish “a thousand-ship navy” to take charge of international waters. [26] This strategy outlined is the eventual amalgamation of NATO and allied navies in what has been termed by the U.S. Navy as a “global maritime partnership” which “unites navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers and many other government and non-government agencies to address maritime concerns.” [27]

The initial areas where this new strategy is coming to play are the Persian Gulf, the waters of East Africa, and the Arabian Sea. Admiral Mullen also cited the existence of a predominately NATO group of 45 warships deployed in the Persian Gulf and around the waters of the Middle East as part of this global naval force. [28] The operations in the waters of the Middle East and in the Arabian Sea include Combined Task Forces (CTFs) 150 and 152. Combined Task Forces (CTF) 150 operates in the waters of the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea and the North Arabian Sea, where several French warships are positioned. Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, which includes Italian, French, and German warships operates in the Persian Gulf and has its operational headquarters in Bahrain.

It is significant to note that Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, which is part of the group of 45 warships cited by Admiral Mullen as being part of the global naval force, is under the command of the U.S. Navy and CENTCOM. This includes the naval operations in the Persian Gulf and around the Middle East. Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Persian Gulf and Operation Enduring Freedom off the Horn of Africa are just two of the operations that these predominately NATO warships are actively operating under.

The growing naval armada is comprised of three primary coalition Combined Task Forces (CTFs) and seven supporting naval forces. Amongst the 45 ships that constitute the force of warships are those of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands (Holland), Canada, Australia, Pakistan, and other NATO partners, aside from U.S. Navy and British warships.

The global naval force is mandated under the combined auspicious of NATO and the naval operations wing of CENTCOM. The formation of this large, and relatively unheard of, armada of warships is only possible with the consent of the Franco-German entente within the framework of NATO. These warships have gathered under the pretext of fighting the “Global War on Terror.”

Controlling International Waters, Movement, and Global Trade: The “Proliferation Security Initiative”

Aside from the global naval force being created by the U.S. and NATO, a strategy has been devised to control international trade, international movement, and international waters. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), under the mask of stopping the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components or technology and the systems for their delivery (missile technology or components), sets out to control the flow of resources and to control international trade. The policy was drafted by John Bolton, while serving in the U.S. State Department as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

The strategy was initiated on May 31, 2003, by the White House and outlined authorizing an open violation of international law. Under international law the U.S. Navy or NATO warships are not allowed to board and search foreign merchant ships that they encounter in international waters. Under Part VII (7) of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea the U.S. operations are internationally illegal, unless authorized by the home country the merchant ship originates from. Warships can only board and search or detain ships that are from the same country, unless a bilateral agreement has been signed with another nation granting the right to search merchant ships carrying their flag.

In international waters foreign ships can only be searched if polluting near the waters of a naval force’s home country or on the reasonable suspicion of piracy. Additionally, in international waters ships owned by a national government have immunity from stops, inspections, and seizures from the vessels of other countries. Under these international guidelines it would be illegal for the U.S. Navy to stop a vessel belonging to the government of North Korea or Syria or China in international waters. With the new international waters regime proposed and presently being exercised on North Korea by the U.S. government all this has started to change, especially in the waters of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The governments of several Asian nations have openly criticized and doubted the legality of the new operations, including the Malaysian government. [29]

China naturally was suspicious of the U.S. initiative for international waters and has refused to participate in the 2003 scheme. The Chinese see this as a way for the U.S. and its allies to further control international waters and international trade. Russia on the other hand joined the scheme because Moscow is not in a position, like China, where its lifeline is based on maritime traffic and international waters. Furthermore, the Russia Navy under the scheme can reciprocally halt and board U.S. merchant vessels.

It is no coincidence that Singapore, Japan, and the South China Sea, all in close proximity to China, have been picked as the main vicinities of the many naval exercises under the banner of this new scheme. The U.S., Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, Singapore, France, Italy, and Germany, along with Russia all have taken part in the naval exercises under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

Many North Korean vessels have been illegal halted and badgered since the initiation of the naval initiative, but China, like other countries, is also under threat too from the internationally illegal naval operations that are reminiscent of the internationally illegal “no-fly zones” forced over pre-invasion Iraq by the U.S., British, and French governments. The precedent has been set for one day stopping Chinese ships and maritime traffic going to China.

The global military standpoint and the geo-political ambitions of NATO increasingly underline and give a glimpse of NATO operations and military directives. The system of military alliances is tightening and its main targets seem to be the Eurasian giants; Russia, China, and possibly India. NATO expansion is not just limited to Europe and the former Soviet Union, but is in pursuit of a global characteristic. In Asia an Asiatic parallel sister-alliance to NATO is being formed from the network of existing military alliances in the Asia-Pacific Rim. [30] China, Russia, and Iran now are in the forefront of a reluctant Eurasian alliance that is taking shaping to oppose NATO and the United States. Ultimately it may be in the Middle East that the pace for NATO expansion will be established. If the Middle East falls under the total control of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO the stage will be set for a new phase of the “long war” that will lead all the way into the heart of Eurasia.

Riga , the Latvian capital, was the place of a historical NATO conference which involved all the major decision makers, parties, corporations, and individuals within the NATO alliance. The Belarusian Opposition was also invited.

[14]

U.S.

anti-missile shield threatens Russia-general, Reuters, January 22, 2007 .

[20] Bill Gertz, China builds up strategic sea lanes, The Washington Times, January 18, 2005 .

“

China

is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect

China

's energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives,” said the report sponsored by the director, Net Assessment, who heads Mr. Rumsfeld's office on future-oriented strategies.

=================================================================================================

The US House of Representatives authorized Friday night a sum of $205 million dollars for financing joint US-Israel missile defense system projects, Israel Radio reported.

205 million dollars will go to projects currently being developed in Israeli factories. According to the report, the defense systems are meant to be able to withstand missiles developed by Iran.

================================================================================================

On Monday, the US Department of Defense announced that a number of social networking and media sites would be blocked on its network, citing bandwidth concerns. "This is a bandwidth and network management issue. We've got to have the networks open to do our mission. They have to be reliable, timely and secure," a US Strategic Command spokeswoman told Stars & Stripes. (Marshall Kirkpatrick has a good blog post summing up the reaction across the blogosphere.)

For their part, YouTube isn't accepting the ban without a fight. Today, YouTube told the Associated Press they would challenge the US Defense Department's decision. "Watching or uploading online video does use bandwidth and can slow or tie up a network, but [CEO Chad] Hurley expressed doubt that soldiers' use of YouTube could have any real effect on the military's massive network," reported the AP.

Hurley joked that since the Defense Department invented the Internet, bandwidth shouldn't be a problem. But he vowed to work with the military to figure out how to keep YouTube available to American soldiers. Hurley, and CTO Steve Chen seemed to believe that content was more likely the issue behind the ban. They said YouTube policies about violence already mean they remove most graphic videos being uploaded from Iraq and Afghanistan, but they would be willing to hear what sort of controls the Pentagon would require to keep the site up.

"We want to protect the [YouTube] community from being exposed to something violent, but at the same time, we want to educate people on what's happening around the world," Hurley said. "It's hard for us."

Even more baffling to YouTube was the apparent contradiction by the Pentagon, who a couple of weeks ago launched their "boots-on-the-ground" YouTube channel in order to present its own combat videos. In light of this, YouTube was "especially puzzled" by the block, said the AP.

What do you think about the US military's ban on YouTube, MySpace, Hi5, and other social networking and media sites? Do you think YouTube has a chance of getting the block lifted?

=============================================================================================

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.

Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.

The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.

The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

Prison Planet.tv members can watch this groundbreaking presentation right now. Subscribe here to get access to this and hundreds of other special video reports.

So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.

It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.

Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.

We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.

We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.

=================================================================================================

Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

In 1954, the most powerful men in the world met for the first time under the auspices of the Dutch royal crown and the Rockefeller family in the luxurious Hotel Bilderberg of the small Dutch town of Oosterbeck. For an entire weekend they debated the future of the world. When it was over, they decided to meet once every year to exchange ideas and analyze international affairs. They named themselves the Bilderberg Club. Since then, they have gathered yearly in a luxurious hotel somewhere in the world to decide the future of humanity.

In more than fifty years of meetings that brings together unprecedented power and money in the same time and place, never has any information been leaked as to what subjects were debated during the Bilderberg Club meetings. Bilderberg, one of the world's most powerful secret organizations is run out of an 18m2 offices, staffed by one person, using one telephone line and a single fax number. There is no web page and no brass name plate on the door. The independent press has never been allowed in, and no statements have ever been released on the attendees' conclusions nor has any agenda for a Bilderberg meeting been made public. How, in God's name, can this be possible when Bilderberg´s elite membership list includes all of the most powerful individuals who run the Planet?

Leaders of the Bilderberg Club argue that this discretion is necessary to allow participants in the debates to speak freely without being on the record or reported publicly. Otherwise, Bilderbergers state, they would be forced to speak in the language of a press release. Doubtlessly, this discretion allows the Bilderberg Club to deliberate more freely, but that does not respond to the fundamental question: What do the world's most powerful people talk about in these meetings?

Any modern democratic system protects the right to privacy, but doesn't the public have a right to know what their political leaders are talking about when they meet the wealthiest business leaders of their respective countries?

What guarantees do citizens have that the Bilderberg Club isn't a centre for influence trafficking and lobbying if they aren't allowed to know what their representatives talk about at the Club's secret gatherings? Why are the Davos World Economic Forum and G8 meetings carried in every newspaper, given front page coverage, with thousands of journalists in attendance, while no one covers Bilderberg Club meetings even though they are annually attended by Presidents of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Federal Reserve, chairmen of 100 most powerful corporations in the world such as DaimlerChrysler, Coca Cola, British Petroleum, Chase Manhattan Bank, American Express, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Vice Presidents of the United States, Directors of the CIA and the FBI, General Secretaries of NATO, American Senators and members of Congress, European Prime Ministers and leaders of opposition parties, top editors and CEOs of the leading newspapers in the world. It is surprising that no mainstream corporate media outlets consider a gathering of such figures, whose wealth far exceeds the combined wealth of all United States citizens, to be newsworthy when a trip by any one of them on their own makes headline news on TV.

This year's delegation will once again include all of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European Commissioners and executives of the western corporate press. They will be joined at the table by leading representatives of the European Royalty, led by Queen Beatrix , the daughter of the Bilderberg founder, former Nazi, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Bilderberger President, Etienne Davignon , Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel from Belgium. According to Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as official Bilderberg attendees for this year's conference (In alphabetical order):

George Alogoskoufis , Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece); Ali Babacan , Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey); Edward Balls , Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK); Francisco Pinto Balsemão , Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister (Portugal); José M. Durão Barroso , President, European Commission (Portugal/International); Franco Bernabé , Vice Chariman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Nicolas Beytout , Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France); Carl Bildt , Former Prime Minister (Sweden); Hubert Burda , Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Philippe Camus , CEO, EADS (France); Henri de Castries , Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian , Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Kenneth Clark , Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins , Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (USA); Bertrand Collomb , Chairman, Lafarge (France); George A. David , Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA); Kemal Dervis , Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anders Eldrup , President, DONG A/S (Denmark); John Elkann , Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy); Martin S. Feldstein , President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA); Timothy F. Geithner , President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot , Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Dermot Gleeson , Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Donald E. Graham , Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA); Victor Halberstadt , Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings (the Netherlands); Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium); Richard N. Haass , President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Richard C. Holbrooke , Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer , Secretary General, NATO (the Netherlands/International); Allan B. Hubbard , Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director National Economic Council (USA); Josef Joffe , Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); James A. Johnson , Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr ., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (USA); Anatole Kaletsky , Editor at Large, The Times (UK); John Kerr of Kinlochard , Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (the Netherlands); Henry A. Kissinger , Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Mustafa V. Koç , Chariman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey); Fehmi Koru , Senior Writer, Yeni Safek (Turkey); Bernard Kouchner , Minister of Foreign Affairs (France); Henry R. Kravis , Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis , Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Neelie Kroes , Commissioner, European Commission (the Netherlands/International); Ed Kronenburg , Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters (International); William J. Luti , Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA); Jessica T. Mathews , President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Frank McKenna , Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada); Thierry de Montbrial , President, French Institute for International Relations (France); Mario Monti , President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie , Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust , Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway); Matthias Nass , Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Adnrzej Olechowski , Leader Civic Platform (Poland); Jorma Ollila , Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland); George Osborne , Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK); Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa , Minister of Finance (Italy); Richard N. Perle , Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Heather Reisman , Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); David Rockefeller (USA); Matías Rodriguez Inciarte , Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank, (Spain); Dennis B. Ross , Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA); Otto Schily , Former Minister of Interior Affairs; Member of Parliament; Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Germany); Jürgen E. Schrempp , Former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Tøger Seidenfaden , Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark); Peter D. Sutherland , Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Giulio Tremonti , Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy); Jean-Claude Trichet , Governor, European Central Bank (France/International); John Vinocur , Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA); Jacob Wallenberg , Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Martin H. Wolf , Associate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial Times (UK); James D. Wolfensohn , Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA); Robert B. Zoellick , Deputy Secretary of State (USA); Klaus Zumwinkel , Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge , Foreign Correspondent, The Economist.

Amongst the names appearing on the initial list of invitees which this journalist had access to in January 2007 stand out the names of the now disgraced John Browne, British Petroleum's Chief Executive Officer and the disgraced and fired former chief of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. It will be interesting to see if either of these men makes an appearance at Bilderberg 2007. The Bilderbergers have no trouble accepting criminals into the fold as long as their misdeeds are conducted away from public spotlight and scrutiny. Once exposed, the culprits are generally discarded. Lord Conrad Black, former chief executive of Hollinger media group is a case in point.

Two others names on the original January 2007 list should raise a few eyebrows. One of them is Bernard Kouchner , the newly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the right wing Nicolas Sarkozy government in France. Kouchner is a former founder of ONG Doctors without Borders. He was absent from Bilderberg 2006 in Ottawa, Canada. Could his government position been arranged prior to the French national elections? For my money, the surprise appearance of year award should go to Mahmood Sariolghalam , Associate Professor of International Relations, School of Economic and Political Sciences, National University of Iran. What is an Iranian doing at a NATO alliance controlled Bilderberg conference? We will know soon enough. Bilderberg 2007 is indeed a good time to look behind the scenes.

Aside from the Irak quagmire, energy problems continue to dominate Bilderberger discussions. Oil and natural gas are finite, non-renewable resources. That's because once used up it cannot be replenished. As the world turns, and as oil and natural gas supplies dwindle while demand soars dramatically, especially with Indian and Chinese booming economies who want all the trinkets and privileges of an American way of life, we, as the Planet, have crossed the midpoint of oil production and discovery. From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world's financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle. Goldman Sachs oil report, [another full time member of the Bilderberger elite] published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US$105-150/barrel. No wonder Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced several months ago during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a “post-industrial age.” To bring the world into the post industrial age, you first need to destroy the world´s economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don´t spend money, they don´t travel, and they don´t consume.

As the economic impact sinks in, and as the after effects of Peak Oil become evident in the face of breakdown of civilization, the United States will be forced to challenge Europe, Russia and China for the hegemony of control and the ever depleting hydrocarbon, non-renewable reserves most of which are contained in the Middle East. That will be point number two on the Bilderberg 2007 agenda.

Third item on the agenda is European relations with Russia not only in Europe but also in Central Asia. With Moscow making a deal with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan over the transport of gas to Europe, the US geo-strategic goal of driving a wedge between the Central Asian countries and Russia lies in shambles. While the US says this is "not good for Europe", the Europeans are divided. Iran, overnight has become America's last hope in the energy war.

Iran war, after two years of huffing and puffing by the Bush government is definitely off the table. Furthermore, with France, Russia, Japan and China investing heavily in Iran, the world has drawn a line in the sand and the U.S. will be told at the conference not to cross it. There is blood in the water, and blood in the water usually leads to a good fight.

That notwithstanding, the United States needs to control the region, not only for its oil reserves but, most importantly to help it sustain world economic hegemony. Under this strategic design, regional states will be turned to weak domains of sectarian sheikhs with little or no sovereignty and, by implications, a pathetic agenda of their economic development. Regional chaos favours the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of political and social disintegration supported by the Bilderbergers.

With Blair leaving, the UK will be told yet again, that they must, at all cost, do what is necessary to integrate the country into the European Community.

Finally, with Wolfowitz resigning from the World Bank, Bilderberg luminaries will try to come to a consensus on how best to overhaul not only the bank but its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), led by a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato . Wolfowitz became entangled in controversy seven weeks ago after World Bank whistleblowers leaked to the Washington-based non-governmental organization Government Accountability Project (GAP) documents that showed Wolfowitz pushing a high pay raise in a secondment deal to the US State Department for his girlfriend.

We, as a society, are at a crossroads. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture. The roads we take from here will determine the very future of humanity. It was former British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, who stated that “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

It is not up to God to bring us back from the “New Dark Age” planned for us. IT IS UP TO US. Whether we go into the next century as an electronic global police state or as free human beings depends on the action we take now. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don't ask the proper questions.

==================================================================================================

One of Shakespeare's most oft-quoted phrases comes from Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet asks Romeo: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Accordingly, President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call their immigration bill by any name they want to, but it is still amnesty, and it still stinks!

Hopefully, readers are aware that the Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill is being debated in the U.S. Senate this week with both the White House and senate leaders hopeful of quick passage.

If it passes, the proposed immigration bill would immediately give all 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the United States "probationary" citizenship. It would also put an estimated 60 million immigrants on the path to citizenship over the next 20 years. In exchange for granting U.S. citizenship to tens of millions of illegals, the bill promises to better protect America's borders.

However, what is abundantly clear is that the federal government's idea of border enforcement is totally without meaning or merit. Consider the fact that the United States already has copious laws against illegal immigration, including punishment for businesses that hire illegals. So, what good have these laws done? Very little.

No one with any sense of objective truth believes that the Bush administration is serious about border enforcement. No one. Therefore, how can anyone believe that more promises of border enforcement will accomplish any more than with existing laws?

The plain truth is, President George W. Bush, Senators Ted Kennedy, John McCain, et al., are simply hell-bent to provide amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens, and this bill will give them the power to do it.

Do I need to convince readers that any kind of amnesty will put America on the fast track to ruin? The United States simply cannot absorb upwards of 60 million, mostly unskilled, non-English-speaking, migrants in the next few years. It just is not possible.

Already, America is reaping the consequences of unbridled illegal immigration. Americans are being squeezed out of work by illegal immigrants who will work at significantly reduced wages. Of course our unemployment is low: Americans are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

Add to the strain of the loss of good paying jobs the strain of an ever-growing financial burden to taxpayers. For example, Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector recently released a new study entitled, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer." In the report, Rector notes that two-thirds of the millions of illegal aliens in this country fall into the category of "low-skill" households. Contrast that with just 10% of native-born Americans falling into that category.

Writing for National Review Online, Byron York states, "Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household--the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits.... Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes.... In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes..."

According to World Net Daily, "If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the [current] total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion."

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to calculate that with an added 60 million mostly unskilled immigrants moving into the country, the financial cost would be more than taxpayers could possibly pay for.

Consider also the toll upon America's safety and security. Already, law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge of Latin American "ultra-violent" gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 U.S. states. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, "When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America."

Retired lawman Jim Kouri recently wrote, "According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens."

As I have previously noted in this column, illegal aliens already murder at least 12 Americans every day. Think of the potential violence that another 60 million aliens will bring. Not to mention the threat of potential terrorism.

America's law enforcement communities are keenly aware of the probability that international terrorists have already infiltrated the United States due to our lack of border control.

For example, William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), recently said, "MS-13 and other illegal immigrant gangs are bringing in the illegals, drugs, heavy weapons, and possibly terrorists. The biggest threat from their members is contained in the multiple intelligence reports provided to Congress indicating that Al-Qaeda and MS-13 are now working together to smuggle terrorist operatives and materials into the U.S."

In light of all of the above, how in the world can President Bush and senate leaders proceed with plans to explode the growth of unskilled immigrants into the United States? Perhaps the answer lies within the details of the bill.

According to World Net Daily, "The controversial 'Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,' which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration, WND has learned.

"The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites the SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada March 23, 2005--an agreement that has been criticized as a blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America.

"'It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration,' the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m."

Aw! There is the underlying reason President Bush is willing to incur the wrath of his conservative constituents: he is determined to implement the SPP and pave the way for the emerging North American Union before he leaves office. The amnesty bill being pushed through the Senate this week is absolutely essential to this end.

As Juliet said, "What's in a name?" Bush, Kennedy, McCain and Company are playing word games with us. They know this is amnesty. You know this is amnesty. And millions of illegal aliens know this is amnesty.

If it walks like amnesty, talks like amnesty, looks like amnesty, and smells like amnesty, it's amnesty! Now, the question is, Will the American people sit back and let it happen?

Dear Reader, this might be our last chance to stop the push for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. If you have never voiced your protest to your civil leaders, I urge you to do so now!

Here are two links for information on how you can make your voice heard in Washington, D.C. Don't delay! We must act TODAY!

=================================================================================================

Council on Foreign Relations Pushes for Three Regional Currencies in the World

Create a global lending institution that weakens the economy of wealthy nations, enslaves Third World countries, and prevents those nations from rising out of their impoverished conditions. Blame that institution for creating a plethora of global financial crises over the past fifty years. Then offer a solution of consolidating all of the economies of the world into three different regions, each of which will use one type of currency.

Were that scenario to be played out in the latest issue of Mad Magazine, it might be good for a laugh or two. But when it is published by the most influential foreign policy journal in the world, it is cause for more than a little concern. Foreign Affairs is considered by many to be the "playbook" that our nation's leaders use in creating foreign policy. It unabashedly promotes the concept of "globalism," which is a softball term used to describe a utopian one world government. Regardless of the political party in power, our government has worked to implement the journal's agenda for many years.

Benn Steil, the CFR's Director of International Economics, argues that the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) practice of "lending" money to poor countries causes them to give up a portion of their sovereignty. The IMF is funded by the wealthy nations of the world, the U.S., Britain and Japan, to name a few.

However, since the dollar is the currency of choice for much of the world, the lion's share of funds in the IMF and World Bank are made up of U.S. dollars. The United States, having the fortunate position of possessing the money that the rest of the world has faith in, will then sell government bonds to foreign governments that have just borrowed from the IMF to offset the deficit spending (such as funding the IMF) that Congress approves. To use an analogy, it is like buying a suit from a tailor and then receiving that same money back the next day in the form of a loan. Because of this process, he rightly calls the dollar an absurdity supported only by blind (or stupid) faith in man's wisdom.

The logical answer from the perspective of a free marketer is for the U.S. to return to the gold standard, which is what gave the dollar a worldwide prominence in the first place. Not according to Steil, who says: "A revived gold standard is out of the question. In the nineteenth century, governments spent less than ten percent of national income in a given year. Today, they routinely spend half or more, and so they would never subordinate spending to the stringent requirements of sustaining a commodity-based monetary system."

There we have it. Since those governments have become more socialist in nature, they must be emancipated from the restraints a hard metal currency would place on them from spending us all into paradise.

What does Steil propose as an alternative solution? He writes: "Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area."

But didn't he just called the dollar an absurdity that is supported only by faith? Why the supposed turnaround? Who will control the dollar in this scenario, the IMF or the United States government? Were Steil and his cohorts honest, they could simply say, "we created the problem, now we're offering the solution ... and the American taxpayers have and will pay for both.”

Most readers of Foreign Affairs believe they are getting the "cream of the crop" when it comes to global developments. What they don't realize is that the problem to which Steil presents this preposterous solution was caused exclusively by members of the CFR. Their members have run the Federal Reserve System for decades. And it was CFR member Harry Dexter White who served as the first Executive Director for the United States at the IMF. British Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes was the mastermind behind the conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the IMF and World Bank came into existence in 1944.

The stated goal of the two newly created institutions was to lend money to nations who were torn apart by war or other calamities. That is exactly what they did and have done. After CFR member Richard Nixon signed an executive order abolishing the gold standard in America's currency in 1971, it gave the Fed a virtually unlimited supply of money to lend and an unlimited amount of power over the hapless nations who are suckered into borrowing.

Always remember the golden rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." This solution is nothing more than a piecemeal approach to a global economy operated by the United Nations.

History shows that only when an economy uses a commodity, such as gold, to back up its currency, is it ever successful. Americans are not rich; they are incredibly broke and they don't even realize it. It is not the wisdom of men that made America great; it was the application of wisdom gleaned from thousands of years of history that made it prosperous and free.

America's role as the world's policeman and the world's welfare provider has come at a great expense to her citizens. Let's try non-intervention and sound economics and see how that works for a change.

================================================================================================

Debunkers Deny Existence Of NAU, JFK Conspiracy
Attitude of blind denial and dismissal threatens future of America

A recent Seattle Times article that scoffs at the very thought of a North American Union being implemented and dismisses it as a conspiracy theory sums up the biggest threat to freedom in America today, blind ignorance in the face of troubling facts.

"Forget conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, black helicopters, Sept. 11, 2001. This is the big one." writes Philip Dine

"We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatán to the Yukon. This "SuperCorridor" would allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say goodbye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language.

The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the Commerce Department. "

Dine goes on to surmise that the entire subject of the North American Union is an urban myth that "feeds on American fear of immigration and globalization".

The John Birch Society has an excellent response to Dine, which goes something along the lines of:

If the NAU is a myth why is it that...

We would add that if the North American Union is a myth why is it that Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) documents released under the FOIA show that a wide range of US administrative law is being re-written in stealth under this program to "integrate" and "harmonize" with administrative law in Mexico and Canada, just as has become commonplace within the EU.

The documents contain references to upwards of 13 working groups within an entire organized infrastructure that has drawn from officials within most areas of administrative government including U.S. departments of State, Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Mr Dine simply dismisses the SPP by quoting a spokesman for the Commerce Department who describes SPP as "standard intergovernmental diplomacy and coordination that occurs all the time". The fact is though that standard intergovernmental coordination is required by law to adhere to Congressional oversight, something which the SPP agreement completely bypassed.

Dine also calls the slated single North American currency, the amero, a myth despite the fact that Robert Pastor, "the American University professor to whom conspiracy theorists point as 'the father of the NAU'" as he puts it, has authored a book and chairs confabs promoting the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.

Just a conspiracy theory huh? Not according to Steve Previs of Jefferies International who stated on CNBC, "I think one thing for people who are dollar based need to focus on is the Amero, that's the one thing that nobody is talking about that I think is going to have a big impact... on everybody's life in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico..."

The recent news that the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards "harmonized" and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, is also presumably a conspiracy theory.

The most telling aspect of Dine's Seattle Times article is his immediate connection of The NAU to "conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination", a sure fire way of spotting a debunkaholic from a mile off.

A recent poll indicates that 80% of Americans believe the JFK murder was a conspiracy, older polls have been as high as 90% - are all these people misinformed or are they simply aware that the facts do not fit the story they have been sold on that issue?

For further clarification of what constitutes a debunkaholic, witness a classic piece of debunking here on the JFK assassination by a former Clinton official and lobbyist for the nation of Pakistan prior to 9/11, Lanny Davis:

Davis cites little green men and suggests that anything posted on the internet is a conspiracy. He also states that rattling around the internet now is the absurd suggestion that new evidence indicating a conspiracy in the JFK murder has come to light. He fails to mention that the new information comes from a former top FBI scientist along with Texas A&M University researchers and was reported in the Washington Post. Davis also neglects to mention new revelations from E. Howard Hunt, the former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator, who admitted on his deathbed that he was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

This is the mind set of the debunker. It has become all too easy for those who do not have the strength of character to stand up and be counted to dismiss anything they do not like the sound of as urban myth or conspiracy theory.

While there are many valiant truthseekers and active minds among us, on the opposite side a whole generation of debunkers has also emerged. A society of people who almost instinctively seize upon any issue and automatically explain any worrisome aspects as untrue or misunderstood because to do otherwise would mean having to set aside a great deal of their lives to search hard to find out what is really happening in the world around them.

The debunker generation, the fallout from a fast food culture of rampant consumerism, culturally and spiritually exhausted yet still yearning for more and more in less and less time, would rather look away than face the reality of what is really unfolding before their eyes.

Worse still are the high priests of the debunking generation who seem to declare themselves as some kind of pseudo psychologists, who rather than debate the bare facts of an issue will continually slip into an analysis of the internal mind. These debunkers dismiss anything they don't want to hear as "comfort seeking" or "reality escapism" conspiracy. 9/11 truthers for example are often roundly categorized as "people who want to believe they cannot do anything about the dangers we face in the world because they are too lazy and so invent theories and fit the facts to them".

The great irony here of course is that it is the debunkers themselves who are guilty of the crimes they have charged everyone else with and not the other way round.

==============================================================================================

G8 summit is "litmus test" for U.S. on warming: U.N.

NAIROBI (Reuters) - A meeting of rich nations next month in Germany will be a "litmus test" of how the United States plans to help the world fight climate change, the head of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said on Tuesday.

The United States, the world's biggest polluter, said this month it would continue to reject targets or plans to cap greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming that it fears could jeopardize economic growth.

Germany, which hosts leaders of the G8 industrialized countries next month, wants them to agree to halve carbon emissions by 2050, and UNEP boss Achim Steiner said no one should prejudge Washington's position as the pressure mounts.

"There is no option but to move forward, and I think that is the debate now taking place in the U.S. as a whole, but also in the U.S. administration: how to bring U.S. initiatives to the table that can help," Steiner told a news conference.

"We are just few days away from a major litmus test of that. That will be a moment we will see how the U.S. administration sees itself playing that constructive and positive role in building an international consensus."

Amid growing public concern about climate change and damning scientific reports on its effects, nations remain in gridlock in talks to widen action to brake warming beyond the end of the first period of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

President George W. Bush opposes Kyoto-style emissions caps he says will cost U.S. jobs and wrongly exclude poor nations. Some climate experts believe new talks on any Kyoto successor will have to wait until he leaves office in 2009.

But Steiner said domestic pressure was building, with a "remarkable alliance" of major corporations now asking the U.S. government to introduce emissions targets and more than 450 U.S. cities committing voluntarily to reduce emissions.

Last week, Democratic congressional leaders also urged Bush to "reverse course" and strengthen the U.S. stance on climate change ahead of the G8 summit.

=============================================================================================

Global web censorship on the rise

The number of governments that routinely block web sites is increasing, according to the most comprehensive survey of internet filtering yet. Meanwhile, the same study suggests that techniques for blocking undesirable content are growing ever more sophisticated.

Previous reports of government internet filtering have been limited to specific countries, such as China, Iran and Cuba, says Rafal Rohozinski, of the Open Net Initiative (ONI), which produced the report. The ONI is a partnership between the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and Toronto University.

Rohozinski says such reports have been based largely on anecdotal information and spot sampling. "This is the first attempt to create a rather comprehensive survey across a large number of countries, looking comparatively at whether they filter, what they filter and for what reasons," he says.

In its report, the ONI states that governments in at least 25 countries regularly block access to internet sites for political, social or security reasons. It says that Burma, China, Iran, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam filter political content, such as sites belonging to political opposition parties. Elsewhere, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Tunisia and Yemen filter for social reasons: for example by blocking access to pornography, gay and lesbian content and gambling sites.

Wider restrictions

By comparing their findings to earlier reports, the authors conclude that filtering is currently increasing worldwide. They also believe that governments are extending restrictions beyond just information websites to other online services, such as internet telephony network Skype.

Furthermore, the team discovered so-called "event-based" filtering – an upsurge in restrictions during significant political periods such as elections.

In 2006, the ONI created software that automatically visits a list of web sites and reports back to a central computer on whether the site is available. The software runs simultaneously on a computer inside a country being tested, and in another country.

This makes it possible to distinguish between active filtering and a temporary outage.

But Rohozinski adds that, in many countries, filtering probably goes well beyond what the tests reveals.

Oppressive controls

Based on other evidence, he says 16 further countries may control internet access in ways not detected by the ONI tests, for example, by arresting people who visit certain sites at internet cafes, something that has happened in Uzbekistan. "We may be understating the problem in a rather big way," says Rohozinski

"As internet censorship and surveillance grow, there's reason to worry about the implications of these trends for human rights, political activism and economic development around the world," says Jonathan Zittrain, a principle investigator at the ONI.

===============================================================================================

Mainstream Media Still in Denial Over North American Union

"Forget conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, black helicopters, Sept. 11, 2001. This is the big one. We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatán to the Yukon," snidely commented the Seattle Times.

While the mainstream media blackout remains essentially still in effect on the effort to merge the United States into a North American Union (except for the likes of the Seattle Times ), cracks in the system continue to propagate down into local media outlets.

Today, the number one morning talk show in Greensboro, North Carolina offered a case in point as to how those who are willing to keep chipping away at the system might eventually succeed. Going into their interview with Congressman Howard Coble this morning, Brad and Britt read a letter from Roxane Premont of the ad-hoc grassroots group North Carolinians to Stop the North American Union .

Roxane had complained that the screener for their show was not letting calls come through that were trying to link the pending amnesty sell-out by our U.S. Senate to the larger effort to effectively erase our borders with Canada and Mexico via the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) launched by the Bush administration in March of 2005. While it was an honorable gesture to read Roxane's letter on the air, Brad and Britt went on to say that trying to equate the SPP to a EU like North American Union sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory." The "C" word being employed, no further explanation was apparently necessary.

In defense of Brad and Britt's current opinion on the matter, I can concede this much: Yes, the effort to expose the North American Union scheme is rife with members and sympathizers of The John Birch Society as well as avid supporters of Ron Paul , who Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin have on their black list. Peter Brimelow, who is supposedly on the Brad and Britt show's own black list, is also saying mean things about the North American Union scheme.

However, here are the facts that Brad and Britt continue to ignore for some reason or other:

I could go on, but I'll close on this: Lou Dobbs, who has been talking non-stop on the North American Union for almost two years, has watched his rating double over that time period. And, he has just landed an additional gig on CBS. Really, it is not like discussing this topic occasionally is going to sink the ratings of Brad and Britt in the Morning, or even the ongoing dwindling circulation of the Seattle Times .

Against all this though, Brad and Britt and the Seattle Times seem willing to stand their ground on nothing better than the arguments of fact vs. myth put out by the same Bush Administration apparatchiks who told us to trust them on WMD. They wouldn't being lying to us now, would they?

By keeping organized pressure on these media mavens, we will eventually meet with success either by gaining air-time or influence with others in the community through the media's continued silence in the face of a growing mountain of facts.

================================================================================================

WASHINGTON — Forget the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, the black helicopters, Sept. 11 or any others. This is the big one — as big, in fact, as the entire continent.

We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatan to the Yukon, with an immigration and trade center in Missouri. This "SuperCorridor" is to allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say goodbye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language.

The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the ultra-establishment Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the U.S. Commerce Department.

As do many modern rumors, the fears of a North American Union begin with a few grains of truth and leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

"Nobody is proposing a North American Union," says Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University in Washington to whom conspiracy theorists point as "the father of the NAU." They cite his 2001 book, Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New , as the basic text for the plan. They also point to his co-chairmanship of a Council on Foreign Relations task force that produced a report in 2005 on cooperation among the three countries.

This is no backwoods rumor, no small-time concern. Google "North American Union" on the Internet and you'll find 85,600,000 references (as of Tuesday evening). When a Commerce Department official appeared on a C-SPAN show recently, most callers asked about the North American Union.

Pastor says fears of Mexicans and Canadians taking over the country are a product of "the xenophobic or frightened right wing of America that is afraid of immigration and globalization."

Not that he doesn't think cooperation — short of a merger — is a good idea. He's testified before Congress on improving coordination within North America.

Writing in the current edition of Range magazine, Tom Findley explains: "Under the plan, more than 500 million people are meant to be literally incorporated into the North American Union as early as 2010. They are expected to share natural resources, military defense and a universal system of education that will alter long-held values, customs and traditions and even change their languages. Law enforcement, health care and cultural activities as well as virtually all trade will be financed with the new currency of the North Americans: the 'Amero.' "

================================================================================================

Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe

G8 summit is "litmus test" for U.S. on warming: U.N.

Global web censorship on the rise

Wider restrictions

Oppressive controls

Mainstream Media Still in Denial Over North American Union

Police: 'Spitting' Teen Shocked With Taser At Disney