[Ellen Brown] Escaping the Sovereign Debt Trap

By Ellen Brown / www.webofdebt.com 

— President John Adams is quoted as saying, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.  One is by the sword.  The other is by debt.”  The major conquests today are on the battlefield of debt, a war that is raging globally.  Debt forces individuals into financial slavery to the banks, and it forces governments to relinquish their sovereignty to their creditors, which in the end are also private banks, the originators of all non-cash money today.  In Great Britain, where the Bank of England is owned by the government, 97% of the money supply is issued privately by banks as loans.  In the U.S., where the central bank is owned by a private consortium of banks, the percentage is even higher.  The Federal Reserve issues Federal Reserve Notes (or dollar bills) and lends them to other banks, which then lend them at interest to individuals, businesses, and local and federal governments.

That is true today, but in the past there have been successful models in which the government itself issued the national currency, whether as paper notes or as the credit of the nation.  A stellar example of this enlightened approach to money and credit was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which operated successfully as a government-owned bank for most of the 20th century.  Rather than issuing “sovereign debt” – federal bonds indebting the nation to pay at interest in perpetuity – the government through the Commonwealth Bank issued “sovereign credit,” the credit of the nation advanced to the government and its constituents.

The Bank’s achievements were particularly remarkable considering that for its first eight years, from 1912 to 1920, it did not have the power to issue the national currency, and it operated without startup capital.  Sir Denison Miller, Governor of the Bank from its creation in 1912 to 1923, was quoted in the Australian Press on July 7, 1921 as saying, “The whole of the resources of Australia are at the back of this bank, and so strong as this continent is, so strong is the Commonwealth Bank. Whatever the Australian people can intelligently conceive in their minds and will loyally support, that can be done.”

This was not just hype.  In a 2001 article titled “How Money Is Created in Australia,” David Kidd wrote of the Bank’s early accomplishments:

“Australia’s own government-established Commonwealth Bank achieved some impressive successes while it was ‘the peoples’ bank’, before being crippled by later government decisions and eventually sold.  At a time when private banks were demanding 6% interest for loans, the Commonwealth Bank financed Australia’s first world war effort from 1914 to 1919 with a loan of $700,000,000 at an interest rate of a fraction of 1%, thus saving Australians some $12 million in bank charges.  In 1916 it made funds available in London to purchase 15 cargo steamers to support Australia’s growing export trade.  Until 1924 the benefits conferred upon the people of Australia by their Bank flowed steadily on. It financed jam and fruit pools to the extent of $3 million, it found $8 million for Australian homes, while to local government bodies, for construction of roads, tramways, harbours, gasworks, electric power plants, etc., it lent $18.72 million.  It paid $6.194 million to the Commonwealth Government between December, 1920 and June, 1923 – the profits of its Note Issue Department – while by 1924 it had made on its other business a profit of $9 million, available for redemption of debt.  The bank’s independently-minded Governor, Sir Denison Miller, used the bank’s credit power after the First World War to save Australians from the depression conditions being imposed in other countries. . . . By 1931 amalgamations with other banks made the Commonwealth Bank the largest savings institution in Australia, capturing 60% of the nation’s savings.”

Harnessing the Secret Power of Banking for the Public Good

The Commonwealth Bank was able to achieve so much with so little because both its first Governor, Denison Miller, and its first and most ardent proponent, King O’Malley, had been bankers themselves and knew the secret of banking: that banks create the “money” they lend simply by writing accounting entries into the deposit accounts of borrowers.

This banking secret was confirmed by a number of early banking insiders.  In a 1998 paper titled “Manufacturing Money,” Australian economist Mike Mansfield quoted the Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told shareholders of the Midland Bank on January 25, 1924, “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. We know how this is effected. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit.”

Dr. Coombs, former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, said in an address at Queensland University on September 15, 1954, “[W]hen money is lent by a bank it passes into the hands of the person who borrows it without anybody having less. Whenever a bank lends money there is therefore, an increase in the total amount of money available.”

Ralph Hawtrey, Assistant Under Secretary to the British Treasury in the 1930s, wrote in Trade Depression and the Way Out, “When a bank lends, it creates money out of nothing.”  In his book The Art of Central Banking, Hawtrey clarified this, writing, “When a bank lends, it creates credit.  Against the advance which it enters amongst its assets, there is a deposit entered in its liabilities.But other lenders have not the mystical power of creating the means of payment out of nothing. What they lend must be money that they have acquired through their economic activities.”

Banks can do what no one else can: “create the means of payment out of nothing.”  The Commonwealth Bank’s far-sighted founders roped this guarded banking secret into the public service.

The Bank Collapse of 1893 Spawns a New Public Banking Model

The Commonwealth Bank was founded under conditions like those prevailing today: the country had just suffered a massive banking collapse.  In the 1890s, however, there was no FDIC insurance, no social security, no unemployment insurance to soften the blow.  People who thought they were well off suddenly found they had nothing.  They could not withdraw their funds, write checks on their accounts, or sell their products or their homes, since there was no money with which to buy them.  Desperate people were leaping from bridges or throwing themselves in front of trains.  Something had to be done.

The response of the Labor government was to pass a bill in 1911 which included a provision for a publicly-owned bank that would be backed by the assets of the government.  In a rare move for the time, the bank was to have both savings and general bank business.  It was also the first bank in Australia to receive a federal government guarantee.

Jack Lang was Australia’s Treasurer in the Labor government of 1920-21 and Premier of New South Wales during the Great Depression.  A controversial figure, he was relieved of his duties after he repudiated loans owed to the London bankers.  In The Great Bust: The Depression of the Thirties (McNamara’s Books, Katoomba, 1962), Lang described the Commonwealth Bank’s triumphs and tribulations in revealing detail.  He wrote:

“The Labor Party decided that a National Bank, backed with the assets of the Government, would not fail in times of financial stress. It also realised that such a bank would be a guarantee that money would be found for home building and other needs. After the collapse of the building societies, there was a great scarcity of money for such purposes.

“. . . Chief advocate of the cause of a Commonwealth Bank was King O’Malley, a colorful Canadian-American . . . Before coming to Australia, he had worked in a small New York bank, owned by an uncle. . . . He had been much impressed by the way that his uncle had created credit. A bank could create the credit, and at the same time manufacture the debit to balance it. That was the big discovery of O’Malley’s banking career. A born showman, he itched to try it out on a grand scale. He started his political career in South Australia by advocating a State Commercial Bank. In 1901 he went into the first Federal Parliament as a one-man pressure group to establish a Commonwealth Bank, and joined the Labor Party for that purpose.”

King O’Malley insisted that the Commonwealth Bank had to control the issue of its own notes, but he lost on that point – until 1920, when the Bank did take over the issuance of the national currency, just as the U.S. Federal Reserve was authorized to do in 1913.  That was the beginning of the Commonwealth Bank’s central bank powers.  But even before it had that power, the Bank was able to fund infrastructure and defense on a massive scale, and it did this without startup capital.  These achievements were chiefly due to the insights and boldness of the Bank’s first Governor, Denison Miller.

The other bankers, fearing competition, had thought that by getting one of their own men in as the bank’s governor, they could keep it in line.  But they had not reckoned on their independent appointee, who saw the opportunity posed by a government-backed bank and set out to make it the finest institution the country had ever known.  As Lang tells the story:

“The first test came when a decision was required regarding the amount of capital needed to start a bank of that kind. Under the Act, the Commonwealth had the right to sell and issue debentures totalling £1 million. Some even thought that amount of capital would be insufficient, having in mind what had happened in 1893. . . .

“When Denison Miller heard of it, his reply was that no capital was needed.”

Miller was wary of going to the politicians for money.  He could get by without capital.  Like King O’Malley, he knew how banking worked.  (This, of course, was before the modern-day capital requirements imposed from abroad by the central banker’s bank, the Bank for International Settlements.)  Lang went on:

“Miller was the only employee. He found a small office . . . and asked the Treasury for an advance of £10,000. That was probably the first and last time that the Commonwealth lent the Bank any money. From then on, it was all in the reverse direction.

“. . . By January, 1913 [Miller] had completed arrangements to open a bank in each State of the Commonwealth, and also an agency in London. . . . [O]n January 20th, 1913 he made a speech declaring the new Commonwealth Bank open for business. He said:

“‘This bank is being started without capital, as none is required at the present time, but it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of Australia.’

“In those few simple words was the charter of the Bank, and the creed of Denison Miller, which he never tired of reciting. He promised to provide facilities to expand the natural resources of the country, and it would at all times be a people’s bank. ‘There is little doubt that in time it will be classed as one of the great banks of the world,’ he added prophetically.

“. . . Slowly it began to dawn on the private banks that they may have harbored a viper. They had been so intent on the risks of having to contend with bank socialisation that they didn’t realise they had much more to fear from competition by an orthodox banker, with the resources of the country behind him.

“. . . One of the first demonstrations of his vigor came when the Melbourne Board of Works went on the market for money to redeem old loans, and also to raise new money. Up to that time, apart from Treasury Bills and advances by their own Savings Banks, Governments had depended on overseas loans from London. . . . In addition to stiff underwriting charges, they found that the best they could expect would be £1 million at 4 per cent., at 97 1/2 net.

“They then decided to approach Denison Miller, who had promised to provide special terms for such bodies. He immediately offered to lend them £3 millions at 95 on which the interest rate would be 4 per cent. They immediately clinched the deal. Asked where his very juvenile bank had raised all that money, Miller replied, ‘On the credit of the nation. It is unlimited.’”

Another major test came in 1914 with the First World War:

“The first reaction was the risk that people might start rushing to the banks to withdraw their money. The banks realised that they were still vulnerable if that happened. They were still afraid of another Black Friday.

“There was a hurried meeting of the principal bankers. Some reported that there were signs that a run was already starting. Denison Miller then said that the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of the Commonwealth would support any bank in difficulties. . . . That was the end of the panic. But it put Miller on the box seat. Now, for the first time, the Commonwealth Bank was taking the lead. It was giving, not taking, orders. . . .

“Denison Miller . . . was virtually in control of the financing of the war. The Government didn’t know how it was going to be achieved. Miller did.”

And so this interesting story continues.  Miller died in 1923, and in 1924 the bankers got back in control, throttling the activities of the Commonwealth Bank and preventing it from saving Australians from the ravages of the 1930s Depression.  In 1931, the bank board came into conflict with the Labor government ofJames Scullin.  The Bank’s chairman refused to expand credit in response to the Great Depression unless the government cut pensions, which Scullin refused to do. Conflict surrounding this issue led to the fall of the government, and to demands from Labor for reform of the bank and more direct government control over monetary policy.

The Commonwealth Bank received almost all of the powers of a central bank in emergency legislation passed during World War II, and at the end of the war it used this power to begin a dramatic expansion of the economy. In just five years, it opened hundreds of branches throughout Australia.  In 1958 and 1959, the government split the bank, giving the central bank function to the Reserve Bank of Australia, with the Commonwealth Banking Corporation retaining its commercial banking functions.  Both banks, however, remained publicly-owned.

Eventually, the Commonwealth Bank had branches in every town and suburb; and in the bush, it had an agency in every post office or country store.  As the largest bank in the country, it set the rates and set policy, which the others had to follow for fear of losing customers.  The Commonwealth Bank was widely perceived to be an insurance policy against abuse by private banks, serving to ensure that everyone had access to equitable banking.  It functioned as a wholly owned state bank until the 1990s, when it was privatized.  Its focus then changed to maximization of profits, with steady and massive branch and agency closures, staff layoffs, and reduced access to Automated Teller Machines and to cash from supermarket checkouts.  It has now become just another part of the banking cartel, but proponents say it was once the lifeblood of the country.

Today there is renewed interest in reviving a publicly-owned bank in Australia on the Commonwealth Bank model.  The United States and other countries would do well to consider this option too.

Special thanks to Peter Myers for reproducing major portions of Jack Lang’s book in his weekly newsletter.

Ellen Brown is the author of Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. She can be reached through her website.

The Congo war resource

http://www.congowarresource.org/index.htm  

Today, 45,000 Congolese die from war related causes each month. The war in the DR Congo has killed more people than any conflict since World War II - 5.4 million dead and growing at this horrible rate. This is Africa 's most brutal resource war ( think: cellphones, materials for electronics, gold and other natural resources ). While going largely underreported the DR Congo has suffered pillage, rape and murder. Long (more than 13 years) and ongoing it sits at the top of the world's humanitarian disasters. The crimes against women and children stand out and cry out for justice.

Please use this link yourself. Forward this notice to anyone that you feel would find it useful. Feel free to put this link in your class syllabus, and on your own website or networking page. You can access websites, articles and documents, hours of video and thousands of photos plus maps. You can not survey this resource in a single day so please preserve this link. Go to the issues page and see for yourself how this relates to you and to your educational mission.

Access is free. The CongoWarResource provides the tool needed to cast light on a very dark subject. See: www.congowarresource.org 

An Open Letter to Potential Whistleblowers: Wikileaks May be a State Department “Honeypot”- You Have Other Options

from American Everyman

by Scott Creighton
(Part 2 and 3 will be published tomorrow. I accidentally hit the “publish” button instead of “save”.. oops)


Attention future whistleblowers: Contrary to “popular opinion” (conveniently being forged by the complicit MSM on both the contrived ”left” and the complicit ”right”) there is ample reason to be extremely cautious about using Wikileaks as the publishing venue for information you wish to make public.
While the evidence mounts that seems to lead one to the conclusion that Wikileaks is indeed a State Department/CIA ”Honeypot” type operation, there are many other options for disseminating the important information you may be in possession of (such as Project Censored, The Center for Research on Globalization(available in 7 languages as well as English),Press TV,  RT, and many, many others).  At least, that is true just as long as the internet remains open and free of unwarranted government control.
To be clear, I am not saying that the State Department merely provided pre-screened and hand-selected materials to be fed to a dupe or an agent then “leaked” to Wikileaks as some others have suggested.
I am stating unequivocally that Wikileaks itself is a construct of the State Department and the CIA, from the beginning,  for the sole purpose of luring potential whistle blowers into exposing themselves and their material prior to releasing such information and harming the Global Free Market Wars agenda.
Whistleblowers: prior to contacting Wikileaks, you owe it to yourself and to the people who need to see the material you are in possession of (us), to consider what I have compiled here today. And you should consider it very, very carefully. Remember Wikileaks is not the only option, there are other, more credible options (some of which will be detailed at the end of this article)

Part 1: The Genesis of the Whistleblower Honeypot, Wikileaks

(The following is my estimation of the kind of ‘action item report’ generated in either a globalist think tank or a Psyops/PR contractor’s brainstorming session addressing the growing concern of whistleblowers and how best to deal with them. This is how and why I believe Wikileaks started. It is only an estimation.)

Problem: Until a reasonable justification can be orchestrated to explain the need to shut down “parts” of the internet to the general population of the United States and other contributing nations (such as the outbreak of a new large-scale war or another “Pearl Harbor type event” or the complete breakdown of the nation’s economy via hyperinflation …ect.) which will ultimately provide us the greatest measure of control and therefore the greatest internal and external flexibility in our actions, the potential threat posed by whistleblowers (which have already proven to be extremely costly to our overall global agenda to the point of near catastrophic results) remains as the most unforeseeable, unpredictable, and incalculable risk facing our collective efforts today.
Solution: Ideally, any solution will involve augmenting our current corrective measures, ie. to quickly generate narrative controlling “reactions” to any given development via our control of the main stream media outlets as well as through opinion manipulation contractors and their social media searching/steering software tools. The inherent weakness of these current measures is that they are reactionary in nature and the potentially damaging information is already being freely disseminated by time they begin to take action. What is needed is a more pro-active solution; one that allows our damage control to begin BEFORE the information is set free upon the public.
Therefore the ideal solution would involve the creation of the illusion of a world-wide respectable and recognizable publishing house “brand” specializing in the dissemination of “perceived” high value whistleblower material. This site, this “whistleblower brand-name”, must remain highly respectable within the ever-growing dissident communities so that potential whistleblowers will contact us and offer not only their information but also their identities as well, feeling completely safe and secure due to “word of mouth” advertising coming from the rest of the communities themselves.
Once contact is made and the actors have submitted their potentially damaging material and their identities to the publishing house, naturally they will be told there is a period of time required to verify the information. During that time, while the whistleblower expects nothing, decisions can be made as to the best course of action to be taken to either disarm the scope of the threat of the information (by various means of undermining the source or discrediting the information itself prior to release) or, in the more extreme cases, to terminate the threat altogether by the deployment of “other assets”
 Summary: Let’s quit playing “catch-up” and “spin control” with potentially disastrous and game-changing information leaks; it’s a losers game of Russian Roulette with only one outcome that is absolutely certain. Instead, let’s use all available resources immediately to manufacture another dissident honeypot which will, if ideally created and received, hand over potentially damaging information and informants to us BEFORE they ever see the light of day or feel the heat of the international press’ spotlight.
In short, rather than playing “whack a mole”, we will hang out our shingle and let the rats come to us, thus dramatically reducing the threat of catastrophic political, financial, and ideological restructuring at this critical juncture of our overall agenda.

Yes, this is only an estimate of what may have been the kind of thinking that created a honeypot like Wikileaks. But you can see how painfully obvious the need for something like this must have been to people who were in the business of lying to the American and the British people on a daily basis. Lies that could easily cost Prime Ministers their jobs or presidents their freedom.  My estimated “action item memo” doesn’t even address the cost/benefit analysis of setting up an operation like this.
Yes, this is only an estimate. But when put in simple terminology like this, one has to wonder if it is at all possible that a memo nearly exactly like this one doesn’t in fact already exist. How could they not have come to these conclusions given the magnitude of their agenda and the frequency of their lies and criminal behavior?
So now, let’s look at the hard evidence surrounding Wikileaks and see if we are on the right track.
[Parts 2 & 3 tomorrow]

"Change": S510 - Illegal To Grow, Share, Trade, Sell Homegrown Food

From New World Order 101 :

S510 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510 )

"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice.

It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food." ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower. 

It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals,

It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency.

It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforce
___________


Related: How Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Biology, Nanotechnology, & Human Enhancement Herald the Dawn of Techno-Dimensional Spiritual Warfare - (Part II of Vatic spiritual warfare series)

War by Memorandum

From Winter Patriot

Recently, Kenny's Sideshow posted an article on various warnings of an impending unilateral military strike against Iran by Israel. Featured was an article entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR: The President written by Ray McGovern and Phillip Giraldi, both former CIA officers, and a video interview of Michel Chossudovsky being questioned on the concerns raised by the McGovern/Giraldi article. I believe this article is disinformation and Chossudovsky in his interview provides the key to start the unlocking process. (This interview is also featured at Twelfth Bough) That key is the fact that the military command structures of Israel, NATO and the US are all integrated.
This should not come as a surprise if one thinks about the possiblity (likelyhood) of war with Iran escalating into WW3. It is what you would expect because the US and NATO would want to be able to operate on a co-ordinated world-wide basis. So a number of things flow on from this fact.

It is actually impossible for Israel to start a war without-
1. Any hope of doing it without forewarning the US
2. Any hope of continuing it by themselves
3. Any hope of having co-ordinated defence of Israel ready for implementation because they have acted outside prearranged plans
4. Any hope of being included in on going and future planning as they are now a wildcard actor
McGovern and Giraldi would be fully conversant with all this. Yet, they behave as if-
1. It is of no importance (untrue)
2. Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would not be aware of this (untrue)
3. The public readership is largely unaware of this (probably true)
So who is the intended audience here? Obviously the public and that is so often the case with these “open letters”. It's a rhetorical device and, though it is reasonably open itself, it never-the-less works to deceive at more subtle levels. It tends to frame the readers understanding of the apparent target of the letter's perceptions and power regarding the issue; in this case, Obama and his position and power as 'Supreme Commander' and that this undeclared war on Iran is a part of a whole.


I believe the purpose of the letter is to place the following ideas in the minds of the public-
1. That Israel can, and likely will, act alone to start the war with Iran (which it can't)
2. That the US will be obligated, indeed, 'left with no choice' but to enter the war and 'finish it' (which it isn't)
3. That Israel will be completely to blame (which it won't be)
4. That Obama is the ultimate controlling figure here. (which he isn't)
5. That there is no higher co-ordinating power than the political leaders of these two respective countries and that there isn't another agenda (which, inductively, there obviously is on both points)
6. That there is no agenda for world dominion and that it has not been in play for some years now (which is also obviously the case on both points)
7. That this can all be stopped by writing to your local congressman or congresswoman. (which won't do shit)
8. That Israel is the most dangerous of the the three belligerents. (which it isn't) The other two, of course, being NATO and the US.
9. Paint US leaders, past and present, as being repeatedly duped by Israeli leaders and not having their own agenda or more to the point, not having their own marching orders as have the various Israeli leaders over the decades (which, again inductively, they clearly have)
10. Nuclear power is the issue and not oil or oil sales in $US


I have not included the article from McGovern and Giraldi as i was originally intending. I was going to inject my comments into it pointing out the multiple inaccuracies but decided it would fast become tedious and these inaccuracies would likely be obvious now (if not before!) if I have made good my points above.


The question has been raised before and I think it is worth considering again, “Is there any such thing as an ex-CIA agent?”
And given their various oaths of secrecy and loyalty, how is it that the members of VIPS (listed below) can run with the 'opposition' on the net in apparent direct opposition to the interests of government on 'National Security matters' for so long?
Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Phil Giraldi, directorate of operations, CIA (20 years)
Larry Johnson, directorate of intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years)
W. Patrick Lang, colonel, USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: defense intelligence officer for Middle East/South Asia; director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years)
Ray McGovern, U.S. Army intelligence officer; directorate of intelligence, CIA (30 years)
Coleen Rowley, special agent and Minneapolis division counsel, FBI (24 years)
Ann Wright, colonel, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service officer, Department of State (16 years)
At the end of that great Irish film, "The Commitments", the main character looks in the mirror (as I am figuratively doing, now) and asks himself, "But, what does it all mean, Jimmy?"
He then answers himself, "I'm fooked if I know"!


I have listed lots of things I think the authors are trying to do with the article but the big question is "Why go to the trouble and why now?" Unless, of course, they really mean to . . . . No. . . They wouldn't would they?

Folks, your thoughts would be welcome.
Here is the link to the article, "MEMORANDUM FOR: The President" again.

GORDON DUFF: NEW “AL QAEDA” LEADER MAY BE ISRAELI

Must read of the day, by Gordon Duff 
veteranstoday.com 
August 7, 2010 

PHONY TERRORIST LEADER BEING “BRANDED” BY ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE “VOICE OF ISRAEL” 

Adnan Shukrijumah, 35 formerly of Brooklyn, New York and Miami Beach is more likely to carry the real name Levine or Goldstein. The “legend,” intelligence jargon for a false background constructed for an imaginary person, created for Shukrijumah is paper thin. An FBI Agent named Brian LeBlanc in an “exclusive interview” with the Associated Press warned the world of this new “bin Laden” clone. 

Another term is “branding.” This is what was done with Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative and minor player in Afghanistan during the 1980s. He was branded as a terrorist mastermind, blamed for 9/11 though there isn’t a single shred of proof of his involvement and has been chased around the world for the last nine years though he has been dead that long. Bin Laden died December 14, 2001. Adnan Shukrijumah, or whoever he really is, may well be the next “patsy” blamed for a “much too convenient” terror attack meant to send the United States to war with Iran, another war fought for Israeli business. 

Now we are told that Adnan Shukrijumah of Miami Beach, probably enraged at the closing of Wolfie’s “Rascal House,” a really excellent deli, is the greatest threat America faces. An FBI agent has crowned him “king of Al Qaeda.” 

One other problem is that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist, never has. 

We simply made it up. There has never been such an organization, there has never been an organized world terrorist conspiracy of any kind. There have never been terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Has anyone ever seen a photo of one? Of course not. In our nearly ten years scouring every square foot of Afghanistan, we have never found any of those “monkey bar” things we seeing the the films put on the internet. Journalists joke about these films along with the phony bin Laden videos. We call the Israeli group that puts them out “Bin Laden Studios.” 

Arabs with box cutters had nothing to do with 9/11. This is a cover story. It was all made up. There is no proof of their involvement and, quite to the contrary, six of the supposed dead terrorists are alive and well and screaming for press interviews. 9/11 had nothing to do with terrorism, nothing to do with Arabs and everything to do with money. Follow the money. 

Why is this game being played, attacks in London and Madrid, New York and Detroit now, why the games? The answer is simple. The Caspian basin has trillions of dollars in gas and oil, controlled by new and highly corrupt countries whose governments turned to Israel years ago for technical support. With Russia, the Gulf States and Nigeria controlling most of the world’s oil supply and money supplies almost exhausted, every loose cent that can be stolen already stashed away, looted by the banksters with the help of the Rothschilds and the Federal Reserve, this is the last great prize. 

Chasing trillions of dollars of hydrocarbons, the last great source of collateral in the world, has brought about more than just the creation of phony terrorist organizations, false flag terror attacks and two phony wars. 

Yes, we mean up to twelve trillion dollars in gas and oil is sitting there to be stolen from weak and corrupt governments. For this kind of money, we can easily expect another 9/11 or perhaps something worse, something “nuclear.” The people making these decisions care nothing for human life, nothing for America and certainly, one thing I can assure you, not a single one of them is a Muslim. 

The process of funding the corruption of these governments has taken billions of dollars. That money has come from the narcotics trade re-instituted by the Bush administration after the invasion of Afghanistan. What was no opium production at all is now, not just opium but heroin, with refining now done in Afghanistan and new poppy fields being planted every day with American guarding, not only the harvest but helping with the export as well. This is why America has used “contractors” to such an extent. 

It isn’t only Afghanistan, we are planting poppies in Iraq as well. In case, ok, let’s face it, when America loses the war in Afghanistan, it is likely the Taliban will destroy opium production again. The only thing keeping Afghanistan afloat is drug money, American payoffs to the Taliban to let our supplies into the country, estimated at nearly $800,000,000 a year paid to the enemy by America’s military, keeps them awash in cash. Taliban leaders have to travel to Pakistan. It is the only way they can fly to Dubai to bank their American cash. They share hotels there with the druglords tied to our “friends,” all involved in the same sick game. 

In the end, gas and oil will be piped through Afghanistan from the narco-republics of the Caspian. These negotiations have been going on since the 1990s. Our invasion of Afghanistan was only part of it, part of the negotiations. The Taliban was looking for too big a cut of the profits. We thought we could brush them aside and take over. 9/11 and the carefully planned and staged disinformation campaign attempting to tie it to Afghanistan was nothing personal, it was business. People die in business every day. Ask any banker. 

This is the reason an FBI agent’s uncontrolled blithering to an AP reporter is now in hundreds of newspapers as the branding of a new leader of a non-existent terrorist organization. It is also the reason we are likely to see a new terrorist attack in the United States after Labor Day. Attacks are time for news cycles. Check on that. We can expect one in September and another one around Christmas with one more on the run up to Easter. 

What could we find out about Shukrijumah? Air Force pilots who have flown him and his family, yes, you have it right, United States Air Force, claim the photos and likenesses are totally phony. These pictures are someone else entirely. This isn’t the first time this has happened as the strange transformations of Osama bin Laden showed us. My how much bin Laden changed after his death. 

It took minutes to get multiple confirmations on this. Everything about our “terrorist” and his family is being misrepresented. These aren’t even the same people. This is too easy. 

If a several questions didn’t just come to mind after reading this, you aren’t getting enough sleep. 

There are no people hiding in Afghanistan planning these attacks. There are no terrorist leaders. No, Mullah Omar, the imaginary leader of the Taliban is not planning a major offensive against American troops or attacks on anyone. Even if he does have one of those encrypted Israeli satellite phones that the rest of the insurgents are using to defeat American signals intelligence operations, he is unlikely to be doing anything other than waiting. 

America, along with the “Karzai Incorpated” drug cartel has created a monstrous situation in Afghanistan. General Petraeus inherited a nightmare, 9 years of wrong direction, wrong country, wrong everything. Yes, there is corruption, evil. Yes, America is being victimized by violent men, planning the downfall of the United States. 

We call them “congress.” 

When something blows up, be it a dirty bomb in Cleveland, not too close to Shaker Heights, or a school in Little Rock, a “branded” terrorist leader, one with a storybook background, Saudi born, evil extremist Muslim dad, will be dragged out. As with most of our phony terrorists, he will be a ghost, a Mossad agent like the dozens, maybe hundreds of violent Muslim terrorists they dress up and parade out when needed. 

Simply put, there is no Islamic terrorist movement of any kind other than the groups promoting a just and peaceful settlement in Gaza, groups that strike back against Israeli violence, really Israeli terrorism. They have no reason to attack the United States. Millions in the United States support them. 

The cover for 9/11, the idea that Americans were “defiling” the religious shrines of Saudi Arabia is equally insane. Nobody in their right mind believes that. Extremists exist. They ran the United States. If you want to ask someone about 9/11, someone who could tell you why, tell you how, go to Dallas. Ask George “W” Bush about 9/11. He knows.
______________


Related: Zionist Goals: False Flags to Justify Attack on Iran

There is NO Down side for Israel for the coming Zionist instigated, USA Attack on Iran

The Pope of Hope Is Starting Another Massacre in Yemen

By Conn Hallinan, FPIF, Aug 5 2010:


How involved is the US military in Yemen, and is the Obama administration laying the groundwork for a new foreign adventure? According to several news agencies, including AFP, UPI and the WaPo, very involved and likely to be more so in the future. WaPo’s Dana Priest says:

US military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops, including the US military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command, whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists.

The quarry of these assassination teams are supposed leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but the deepening US alliance with the authoritarian government of Yemen may soon entangle it in two complex civil wars, a rising by disenfranchised Shiites in the north, and an increasingly powerful secession movement in the country’s south. According to UPI, the White House is quietly expanding “the footprint” of “elite forces inside Yemen.” One military official told the news agency:

The numbers are definitely going to grow.

The Obama administration increased “security” funds for Yemen from $67m to $150m. Navy Seals, Delta Force troops, and intelligence units are working closely with the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, providing weapons, training and intelligence. And sometimes more. On Dec 17 2009, a US BGM-109D Tomahawk cruise missile attacked the village of al-Maajala in south Yemen, killing 55 people, the bulk of them women and children. The Tomahawk, launched from a US surface ship or submarine, was armed with a cluster warhead that spread a storm of razor sharp steel and incendiary material over 500 sq ft. Amnesty International’s Mike Lewis said:

AI is gravely concerned by evidence that cluster munitions appear to have been used in Yemen. Cluster munitions have indiscriminate effects and unexploded bomblets threaten lives and livelihoods for years afterwards.

The target was a supposed al-Qaeda training camp, but the Saleh government draws no distinction between AQAP and the Southern Movement, a group advocating an independent south Yemen. The SM has a long list of grievances reflecting problems going back to 1990, when North Yemen and the southern Democratic People’s Republic of Yemen were unified. That merger between the conservative north and the better educated and socialist south was never a comfortable one and led to a particularly nasty civil war in 1994. The north won that war by using jihadists freshly returned from fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Since the end of that four-month war, the SM charges that the north siphons off the south’s oil without adequate compensation, discriminates against southerners on access to jobs, and has cornered the country’s vanishing water supplies. Southern protests are met with tear gas and guns, and, according to SM leaders, some 1,500 “secessionists” have been imprisoned and more than a hundred killed. According to UPI:

The regime’s heavy-handed response to the southerners has only fueled the demand for independence and encouraged the disparate southern groups to come together.

Saleh claims the SM is closely tied to AQAP, which immediately gets Washington’s attention, and has allowed his government to tap into the resources of the US “war on terrorism.” Southern independence leaders, like Tariq al-Fadhli, deny any ties to AQAP and say the Southern Movement is non-violent. Whether it will remain so under the Saleh government’s continued assaults is an open question. The December cruise missile strike is not likely to encourage pacifism. The fighting in the north between the Saleh government based in the capital, Sanaa, and the Shiite Houthi, who inhabit the north’s forbidding terrain, is long-standing. While Saleh and his supporters in Saudi Arabia say Iran is stirring up the trouble, there is no evidence for ties between Iran and the Houthi. The tensions between the Saleh government and the Houthi are local and generally have to do with access to political power. But by bringing Iran into the picture, Saleh can claim he is fighting terrorism, thus making his regime eligible for arms, intelligence, and training. The US is ratcheting up the use of Special Operations Forces worldwide. The administration has increased the number of countries in which SOFs are deployed from 60 to 75, and upped the SOF budget 5.7% to $6.3b for 2011. The White House also added an additional $3.5b for SOFs to its 2010 budget. One military official told the WaPo that the Obama administration had given the military “more access” than Bush:

They are talking publically much less but that are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly.

In a recent talk that sounded very much like the Bush administration’s doctrine of pre-emptive war, the White House’s Brennan said that US strategy was not to just “respond after the fact to terrorism,” but to “take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates, whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond.” If the US does increase its military footprint in Yemen, it will be expending hundreds of millions of dollars in the poorest country in the region, a country where 40% of its 22 million residents are jobless and where water is becoming a scare commodity. The US shares much of the blame for the current economic crisis in Yemen. When Yemen refused to support the 1991 Gulf War against Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia expelled 850,000 Yemeni workers, and the US cut $70m in foreign aid. The effect of both actions was catastrophic, and Yemen never recovered from the one-two blow. US support for the Saleh regime will inevitably draw it into the conflicts in the north and the south, with disastrous results for all parties. The Independent’s Middle East reporter Patrick Cockburn says:

In Yemen the US will be intervening on one side in a country which is always in danger of sliding into a civil war. This has happened before. In Iraq the US was the supporter of the Shia Arabs and Kurds against the Sunni Arabs. In Afghanistan it is the ally of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara against the Pushtun community. Whatever the intentions of Washington, its participation in these civil conflicts destabilizes the country because one side becomes labeled as the quisling supporter of a foreign invader. Communal and nationalist antipathies combine to create a lethal blend.

_______________

Related: Another Nuremberg in the Making: Intelligence Agencies Employ Physicians to Torture Detainees

'Fallujah cancer rate up by 3800%'