We will be your insurgency

So it’s come to this. Obama’s gotta wage his war, and I gotta sit in the street.

It’s not that I like blocking traffic or getting arrested or dealing with the fall-out when I could be reading a book. It’s that I can’t live with endless war and I must end it or surely die.

I’m not leaving this country. This is my mess, so help me, and I’ll scrub it till my fingers bleed. I will not compromise with genocide. I will not run from those behind it.

Endless war is the promise of our time, signed in blood and sealed with death’s own kiss. Its stench hangs around us heavy smog. While I dare not breath for fear of intoxication, I cannot hold much longer.

This is the American nightmare, and it’s shattering my heart like glass.

As I stepped to the microphone outside West Point Military Academy Tuesday, all I wanted was to go home, honestly. Good lord, don’t let me cry in front of these people, I thought. Why must I play out this misery for all to see?

Obama’s only doing exactly what he said he’d do, but still, I’m heartbroken. I can’t go on like this.

I’ve been a mess. When I try to imagine the future of this country, I see nothing. I have no faith that good always triumphs anymore. I think where there’s a will to change there’s a way to subvert it. I taste the world I am to inherit, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

But as I admitted to the crowd my feelings of hopelessness and despondency, I realized once again, that I am not alone. People stared into my eyes with equally heavy brows and clenching teeth. When they came close, I saw tears in their eyes as well, and they seemed thankful to see them in mine.

Our suffering is one. We are the disenfranchised. In our lives, our jobs, our politics; we have been denigrated to utter impotence. People are not meant to live this way, and we cry out in one voice through history for liberation. Again and again, we’ve had our voices ignored and our mutual bonds dissolved by paranoia and fury.

But I couldn’t let him get away with it. They think his slick speeches and skin color will keep the left at home. Someone had to go down for this, even if it was me.

We marched to the installation gate where a line of cops and troops were waiting. When we sat down in front of the barricades, they didn’t seem all that concerned. Young and old alike joined us on the pavement. I was left awestruck by the singular dedication of the burgeoning crowd to ending our Global War of Lies and Terror.

For 30 minutes, the hundreds of us shouted down the full winter moon. We chanted our opposition to escalation. We lamented the change we were promised and denied. The message was loud and in no unmistakable terms: Obama, this is the death of your presidency!

When we moved into the traffic lane after he started his speech, I felt a great warmth from within for the first time in weeks. While through my head streamed images of Satyagrahas past, my heart pounded reassurance, for it knew I was there for a reason.

This government refuses to respond to the needs and demands of its people. It’s come to this. I refuse to be ignored. I pledge to be peacefully ungovernable.

The police carried my crutches while I limped to the car in hand-cuffs. A sense of satisfaction settled in as I waited in the back and counted those who’d be joining me ‘downtown.’ Six of us in total. We’d done it. At least to us, Obama had not gotten away with it.

Not an hour later, we were released. The officers who I dealt with were beyond respectful to us and our cause. While I didn’t make any friends, I didn’t find any enemies. At some point during the evening, I cut my finger on the pavement, but beyond that, we walked away with little more than disorderly conduct charges and a notice to appear Dec. 15 at 6:30 p.m. at the Town Court at 254 Main St. Highland Falls, NY 10928. (Come join us!)

As we left the station, I was thrilled to see a sidewalk full of activists waiting and to find a prominent lawyer in town already representing us. While Obama had shattered our dreams of peace, we felt we’d won the day. Even with the impending escalation, we found the strength to joyously declare the birth of a new peace movement!

The government won this round. 30,000 more troops is a clear loss for us and more importantly the people of Afghanistan. But from what I saw, we are ready to rededicate ourselves to unwavering resistence from within. In the words of our former dictator, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…see, you can’t get fooled again.”

Obama is a war president and we are a peace movement. As long as we’re moving, Obama, and you refuse to be governed, we’ll refuse to be governed. Your racist wars will end and this world will know peace in our lifetimes. Until that day, rest assured that WE WILL BE YOUR INSURGENCY!

American Iraq War Veteran,

Matthis Chiroux

Zionist neocons have been pushing an Iran war since 1996 – and hard since about 2005. israel asked bush if they could fly through Iraq to drop 3 nukes on Iranian nuke facilities (these facilities were pushed on Iran by dick cheney decades ago to create ENERGY – LEGALLY because they signed the 1968 NNPT, which israel that has 200 ILLEGAL NUKES has not signed). THEY have also attempted to get the USA to attack Iran just like they did to get us to attack Iraq FOR THEM.

The LIE about “wipe israel off the map” was deliberately distranslated propaganda by meyrav wurmser (traitor) that signed the 1996 “A Clean Break” war plan FOR ISRAEL. ALL International news from the Middle East is “TRANSLATED” by MEMRI (founded by treasonous meyrav wurmser). Most of “our” intel from the Middle East comes from israeli mossad. “Our **ALLIES** in the Middle East” = israel (the name we shall not speak).

FYI: israel is NOT a US Ally by definition because they refuse to sign a treaty with us because they refuse to define their ever-expanding borders.

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”

First neocon report calling for Iran invasion.  Delivered to Israel, 1996.

With contributions from top DUAL-CITIZEN Pentagon officials: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser all members of the “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy,” and all key Iraq-war players in Bush administration.

“The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses (7/7).”

“Securing the Northern Border”

“Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.”

“recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.”

Now that you understand, watch israeli cheerleaders naively attempting to swindle us into ANOTHER war.

John Bolton: Israel will attack Iran by end of 2009

No One Should Be Surprised That Israel Is Getting Ready To Attack Iran! John Bolton

President Obama On His Push To Stop Nuclear Proliferation In North Korea, Iran, & Around The World

“Ahmadinejad Denies The Holocaust! While Preparing The Next One! “

Iran War Games To Protect Nuclear Facilities

More Israeli Airstrikes In Gaza!

Israel Freezes Settlement Building! Palestinians Dismiss Temporary Move

“Nuclear Ambiguity”

for more information, see:
http://americanbuilt.us/videos/israeli-occupation.shtml

By Ray McGovern

November 25, 2009 “ICH” — “It took a lot of courage on Kennedy’s part to defy the Pentagon, defy the military – and do the right thing,” said Col. Larry Wilkerson, USA (ret.), according to Robert Dreyfuss in his recent Rolling Stone article “The Generals’ Revolt.“

Wilkerson, who was chief of staff at the State Department (2002-2005) and now teaches at George Washington University, was alluding to President John F. Kennedy’s courage in 1962, when he faced down his top generals and refused to bomb Cuba and risk nuclear war.  That was as close as we came to nuclear calamity during the entire Cold War.

Despite the urgency of the threat posed by the Russian military buildup in Cuba (we now know the Russians had already placed nuclear weapons on the island), Kennedy’s deliberate decision-making style allowed enough time for cooler heads to prevail and yielded a peaceful solution.

A hallmark trait of John Kennedy was his ability to listen and learn.  At the same time, he did not hesitate to challenge conventional wisdom.

Call that “dithering,” if you wish.  I, for one, applaud President Barack Obama for following Kennedy’s calm, deliberative style, as Obama faces similar pressure from the military to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan.

Kennedy: Out of Vietnam

The Cuban crisis was not the only time JFK found himself at loggerheads with generals who thought they knew better and who verged on the insubordinate.  Kennedy’s sustained arm wrestling with his senior generals over whether to send more troops to Vietnam was just as tense, and much more sustained.

In the end, he concluded that they had it wrong and he decided against them.  In short, he opted to behave like a president-a “decider” (pardon the odd word).  His overruling of the U.S. military brass on Vietnam had huge implications, both short- and long-term.  This “real history” is highly relevant today.

The 46^th anniversary of John Kennedy’s assassination passed by last Sunday virtually unnoticed.  The unfortunate thing is this: his legacy on Vietnam is so widely misunderstood that it is easy to miss the relevance of his decision making in the early Sixties to the dilemma faced by President Barack Obama today as he decides whether to stand up to-or cave in to-the Pentagon’s plans for escalating another misbegotten war in Afghanistan.

Faux history has it that President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s infusion of hundreds of thousands, up to 536,000, combat troops into Vietnam was a straight-line continuation of a buildup started by his slain predecessor.  Kennedy did raise the U.S. troop level there from about 1,000 to 16,500 “advisers” – a significant increase.

But as he studied the options, cost, and likely outcomes, Kennedy came to see U.S. intervention in Vietnam as a fool’s errand.  Few Americans are aware that, just before he was assassinated, Kennedy had decided to pull all troops out of Vietnam by 1965.

The Pentagon was hell bent on thwarting such plans, and Defense Secretary McNamara found it an uphill struggle to enforce the President’s will on the top brass.  Senior military officers were experts at “slowrolling” politicians who favored a course that the Pentagon didn’t like.  When in May 1962 Kennedy ordered up a contingency troop-withdrawal plan, it took more than a year for the military brass to draw one up.

As the President encountered continuing resistance, he paid increasing attention to more levelheaded military and civilian advisers as well as to his own intuition and instincts.  Kennedy asked the Marine Commandant, Gen. David M. Shoup, “to look over the ground in Southeast Asia and counsel him.”  Shoup told the President:

“Unless we are prepared to use a million men in a major drive, we should pull out before the war expands beyond control.”

Kennedy concluded that there was no responsible course other than to press ahead for a phased withdrawal regardless of the opposition from his senior national security advisers.  He decided to pull 1,000 troops out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 and the rest by 1965.

How To Do It

My Irish grandmother called Kennedy “a clever lad” and she was right.

Realizing that he had to exercise the utmost care in navigating choppy military and political waters, Kennedy employed the artifice of sending Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor on a “fact-finding” trip to Saigon.  At the end of the trip they would “recommend” the course the President had already chosen.

Stopping in Hawaii en route back to Washington, McNamara and Taylor were given “their” report, which had been written by John and Robert Kennedy.  It was instantly named the “McNamara-Taylor report” and the two travelers presented it to the President on the morning of Oct. 2, 1963.  Wasting no time, the President convened a National Security Council meeting that evening to discuss the report.

The senior military saw through the subterfuge and strongly opposed the key recommendations of the report.  In his memoir, In Retrospect, McNamara wrote that the NSC meeting saw “heated debate about our recommendation that the Defense Department announce plans to withdraw U.S. military forces by the end of 1965, starting with the withdrawal of 1,000 men by the end of the year.”  In McNamara’s words, there was “a total lack of consensus.”

However, there is only one “decider” on the National Security Council – the President.  Kennedy stepped up to the plate and decided, bypassing the majority opposed.

Thirty-two years later in a Sept. 12, 1995 letter to the New York Times, McNamara took strong issue with a charge in an earlier op-ed that  “the groundwork was being laid for our tragic escalation of the war” before President Kennedy was killed.  McNamara described the President’s reasoning in deciding to go ahead, despite the lack of consensus:

“…[T]he President nonetheless authorized the beginning of withdrawal, believing that either our training and logistical support led to the progress claimed or, if it had not, additional training would not change the situation and, in either case, we should plan to withdraw.”

His decision made, Kennedy wasted no time in acting, well, like a President.  He told McNamara to announce it immediately in order to “set it in concrete,” according to McNamara.  As the defense secretary was leaving the NSC meeting to tell White House reporters, the President called to him, “And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too,” according to Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers in their book, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye.

Action Memorandum

The President’s policy was formalized nine days later in his National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 of October 11, 1963.  That document put into effect the McNamara-Taylor recommendations, which provided that:

“A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time….[and] the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.”

Whether Kennedy truly believed that the U.S. training program would succeed in helping the South Vietnamese prevail is doubtful.  Clearly, he wanted out.  He carried around in his conscience, and from time to time spoke of, the number of American troops already killed.  (Eight died under Eisenhower; about 170 during Kennedy’s tenure.)

Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, to whom fell the task of announcing President Kennedy’s death on Nov. 22, 1963, told James Douglass, author of JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, that Kennedy’s mind was fixed on Vietnam the day before.  Instead of rehearsing for a press conference that day, Kennedy told Kilduff:

“I’ve just been given a list of the most recent casualties in Vietnam.  We’re losing too damned many people over there.  It’s time for us to get out.  The Vietnamese are not fighting for themselves.  We’re the ones who are doing the fighting.

After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change.  There is no reason for us to lose another man over there.  Vietnam is not worth another American life.”

A month before, during his last visit to Hyannis Port, Kennedy told his next-door neighbor Larry Newman, “I’m going to get those guys out [of Vietnam] because we’re not going to find ourselves in a war it’s impossible to win.

Kennedy understood that decisions on Vietnam were far too important to be left to myopic generals.  They were still chafing at what they considered Kennedy’s failure in 1962 to seize the moment and obliterate Cuba-and perhaps also the U.S.S.R., while we were at it.  Add Kennedy’s clear desire to work closely (often secretly) with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in a priority effort to prevent another Cuba-type crisis, and then letting generic “Communists” take over Vietnam-with dominoes likely to fall all over the place-and the military brass became convinced they needed to strongly oppose such “appeasement.”

“Best and Brightest”

And it was not only the generals.  Far from it.  The “best and the brightest,” first and foremost McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy’s national security adviser, were also strongly opposed to Kennedy’s decision to pull troops out of Vietnam.  Bundy disagreed with the recommendations in the McNamara-Taylor report.  He also resisted Kennedy’s frequently expressed doubts that foreign troops, even in large numbers, could prevail in guerrilla war, and Kennedy’s determination never to send combat troops to Vietnam.

Bundy thought he knew better, refusing to believe that the President would ever “let South Vietnam go.”  Years later, Bundy’s memoirs defended his views and advice to Kennedy on Vietnam.

However, after McNamara published In Retrospect in 1995, in which he concluded that “we were wrong, terribly wrong” on Vietnam, Bundy went back to the drawing board to rethink his assessment.

Bundy hired a man half his age, Gordon Goldstein, as research assistant to help him in what turned out to be Bundy’s personal quest to discover the roots of his own mistakes which, for the most part, were the result of hubris, pure and simple.

Early this year, author William Pfaff reviewed what started out as the Bundy Memoir Part II (McGeorge Bundy died in 1996), but ended up as Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam by Goldstein.  In his review, Pfaff highlights Bundy’s pedigree: tops at Groton, professor of government at Harvard and youngest dean of faculty; his mother a Boston Brahmin, his father a diplomat.  Pfaff is ruthlessly on point in describing Bundy’s attitude:

“American had to ‘win’ in Vietnam because America always wins.  America knows better than everyone else because of that intellectual firepower deployed at Harvard and other elite universities.  America does not have to know about other people because other people are not worth knowing.

“Goldstein’s decisive clue to why Bundy failed came by accident.  He found a note written in 1996, when Bundy was asked what had been most surprising about the war.  He answered, ‘the endurance of the enemy.’  Goldstein writes: ‘He didn’t understand the enemy ‘because, frankly, he didn’t think they warranted his attention.’”

The good news for today comes from press reporting that top officials of the Obama administration, including the President, have read Goldstein’s book.  Drawing a connection between Kennedy’s challenge on Vietnam and Obama’s on Afghanistan, a Wall Street Journal report of Oct. 7 noted, “For opponents of a major troop increase … ‘Lessons in Disaster’ encapsulates their concerns about accepting military advice unchallenged.”

Obama Must Decide

There are hints that Obama is more Chicago than Harvard-and that, like Kennedy, he carries casualty figures around in his conscience.  His late-night, early-morning appearance at Dover Air Force Base a few weeks ago to salute what the Washington Post called “transfer cases” coming home from the war is, I believe, a telling sign.  Obama knows they are not just “transfer cases.”

This young President, too, is a “clever lad;” he is also a politician.  Intellectually, he is surely equipped to understand the March of Folly that would be involved, were he to send substantial additional forces to Afghanistan.  And he is surely aware that the majority of Americans are no longer deceived by the pundits at Fox News.  Recent polls show broader and broader popular opposition to sending more troops.

The choice, in my view, is between courage and cowardice cloaked as politics of the possible.  Let me guess what you’re thinking – “But that’s asking too much of the young President; “cowardice” is too strong a word; Obama cannot possibly face down the entire military establishment.”

Yes He Can

John Kennedy did.  So the question is whether Barack Obama is “no Jack Kennedy,” or whether he will summon the courage to stand up to the misguided military brass of today.  We are talking, after all, about thousands more being killed-and for what?

I would suggest to the President that he give another close read to Goldstein’s “Lessons in Disaster” and then ponder the lessons that leap out of Barbara Tuchman’s The March to Folly: From Troy to Vietnam.

Obama may also wish to ponder the words of W.E.B. Dubois:

“Now is the accepted time, not tomorrow, not some more convenient season.  It is today that our best work can be done and not some future day or future year.  It is today that we fit ourselves for the greater usefulness of tomorrow….”

Note:  In his book JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass has arrayed-and documented-his narrative with such care, that it has been all too easy for me to plagiarize from it.  Actually, the book takes the JFK story much further, to include a thorough discussion of what-and who-Douglass believes killed the President.  I recommend the book highly.

An earlier version of this article first appeared at www.Consortiumnews.com .

Source: -

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24063.htm

Congress Launches Climategate Investigation

Climategate: E-mail Scandal Could Melt Copenhagen Plans

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.

The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed “our [inadequate] observing system.” Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the “Climategate” bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical “trick” he used to “hide” data. Or perhaps they mean Mann’s reference to climate change skeptics as “idiots.”

Now that AGW is revealed as a farce, will big-spending politicians in the U.S. Senate halt efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system to ostensibly combat greenhouse gases and global warming? Of course not. Cap and trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over.

Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol? Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their “green” agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the “science” supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed. No doubt they will continue to demand retributions for climate debt from the United States and the largely agreeable EU, despite Trenberth’s observed “lack of warming.”

The good thing is that even more than in the past, these false scientists and their alarmism will be countered with their own words. Even now reliable researchers are compiling the information in apublication that should shake our nation — and maybe even a few Democratic politicians.

Climategate: George Monbiot’s Lament

CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

WALL STREET JOURNAL:
Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’
About those emails and ‘peer review.’
[note: the title of this post was CHANGED FROM "How to FORGE a Consensus" which WAS the title when the article was first published - and BEFORE it was 'reviewed']

Michael Mann first of climate change scientists to be investigated

Climategate: Penn State Professor Mann under investigation

Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1qa9xprJ4s

Climate-Gate (Alex Jones)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPQIm9yXA1I

BBC: CLIMATE GATE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV1XlJLVeOs

Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government’ as foundation of new world order, splitting of America

RELATED: CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change

One of the leaked climate emails was apparently a press release from “Earth Government” Newsletter dated 27 Mar 2003. The document calls for a ‘democratic’ world government that would amalgamate and reform the prevailing global institutions including the United Nations, IMF, World Bank WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and others “for the good of all.”

It further refers to an “Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Management of the Earth.” The document also makes mention of the “Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government” and “The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the good of all.” Is this a revelation of the true intentions of certain environmental advocates, or just one of many emails in the background of calls to “hide the decline” of global temperatures (despite intense claims of global warming).

It is eerily similar to newly named EU President Herman Von Rompuy’s calls for Copenhagen to establish “global management” of the planet and Queen Elizabeth’s recent declaration during her throne speech at the opening of Parliament that “My government will seek effective global and European collaboration through the G20 and the European Union to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the Copenhagen summit next month.”

Climategate: The Phil Jones University could break into children’s television, big time

Damian’s revelation that Futerra has gone so far as to train even CBeebies researchers in “green” communication may offer a lifeline to embarrassed academics at the beleaguered “University” of East Anglia. The ever-helpful BBC might be able to channel them towards a less challenging audience than those brutal sceptics who are holding the Phil Jones University up to so much painful ridicule. Might there not be very promising alternative careers for Phil Jones and Michael Mann if a happy collaboration between CBeebies and, say, Blue Peter could be devised?

“And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”

“Hello, children, I’m Phil. Can anyone tell me what Michael is holding? Yes. It’s a hockey stick. Does anybody know what that is for? No, Timothy, it is not to beat the crap out of nasty sceptic Pat Michaels, though that is a very good thing to do. It is to save the world. No, Prunella, Mr Brown did not do that last month, he was only speaking metaphorically. Michael…”

“Right, children. Now, watch what Phil is doing. That thing with steam coming out of it is called a computer. What do you think Phil is putting into it? It’s called data. There we go… lots and lots of lovely codes and nice warm data… Oh, look! Phil is frowning. Something isn’t quite right… So, children, now Phil is feeding in his lucky number… and his doggie’s birthday… and his social security number. It’s getting warmer, that’s good. Now he’s adding in the number he first thought of and – wow! It’s getting really hot. Look at all that smoke coming from the computer – don’t try this at home. I’ll just print off that graph and let you see the pretty picture.”

“Hi, kids, now I’ve finished working with the computer, let’s see what Michael is holding. It’s a graph, showing how hot the world is getting because of motor cars and American Republicans and horrid people called Deniers – Oh, look, Michael is holding his graph upside down. No, he’s not being silly, he’s being responsible. Because, you see, although the words are upside down, the lines are pointing upwards, which is what matters. And when we send it to our colleagues in New Zealand, who are becoming almost as famous as we are, the words will be the right way up, because it’s an upside-down country…”

“Thanks, Phil. That was good. Now, kids, if you’ll watch very carefully, Phil will show you how to fill in a very useful piece of paper called a grant application form. You can send that to some very nice people in America – they’re like Father Christmas, but all the year round, and they give out lots of lovely money that people all over America pay them. Phil…”

“And what do we do now, children? Just like tidying away your toys at home before bedtime? We wipe the computer clean, in case burglars try to break into it and let people see what we’ve been doing. After all, it’s none of their business!”

Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

CC2009: November 11-22, delegates representing The People of the fifty states will join together in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and their Continental Congress of 1774. Continental Congress 2009 will convene as a national assembly of We The People and attest to the increasing abuses of Constitution.
http://cc2009.us/

CC2009 LIVE BROADCAST starts at 2pm CST November 11. The live video will begin 30 minutes to 1 hour befor 2PM.
http://freedom.tv/live

The Bill of Rights: Amendment I Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A video featuring quotes about a “New World Order” from 3 popes, richard nixon, dan quayle, bill AND hillary clinton, BOTH george w & gw bush, gordon brown, walter cronkite, george soros, henry kissinger, barack obama – and Lady GaGa gives the most important performance of her life.

1915 – Nov 27, Columbia University president Nicholas Murray Butler (on the executive committee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) delivered an address, “A New World Order is Being Born” to the Union League of Philadelphia in which he stated: “The old world order changed when this war storm broke–the old world order died with the setting of the day’s sun and a New World Order is being born while I speak.”

1976 Congressman Larry P. McDonald: “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”

1972 Robert Welch – May, page 10 “Or, as fellow Insider Mr. James Reston of the New York Times enthusiastically puts it, deliberately using the two-hundred years old language and slogan of the Conspiracy — ‘Mr. Nixon cannot become the head of a new world order (Novus Ordo Seclorum) unless the Communist nations are brought into the world order….’ ”

1972 Robert Welch – Sept, page 29 “This plan is to establish – very soon – the first stages of a ‘new world order.’ This will be the novus ordo seclorum for which a self-perpetuating inner circle of Conspirators has been working and scheming relentlessly during some six generations.”

1972 Robert Welch – Oct, page 28 “There should be no surprise for longtime readers of the Bulletin….that those plans include the conversion of the United States into a socialist nation – and the merger of that enslaved segment of mankind with other Communist nations into a New World Order. That goal, under that very name – originally written in bastardized Latin as novus ordo seclorum – has been envisioned by a Master Conspiracy for the past two hundred years as the ultimate product of all its crimes against humanity, and of all its subversive onslaughts against western civilization.”

2-25-1972: “and the hope that each of us has to build a new world order.” – nixon

1991 gw bush: “When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

1993 – July 18: CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in The Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system….a first step toward a new world order.”

1995 – Jan 27: Billionaire financier George Soros at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, says the world needs a “new world order,” and he further warns: “I am here to alert you that we are entering a period of world disorder.”

2001 – “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this [9-11] disaster to carry out = a new world order.” (Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, DC 9/14/2001)

Israeli spying devices that were planted during the 2006 war with Hezbollah have been discovered in southern Lebanon, the UN has said.

UN peacekeepers discovered the buried devices when they were blown up by remote control by Israel on Sunday.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused Israel of blatantly violating the UN Security Council resolution that led to the end of fighting.

Mr Siniora said an Israeli plane flying above peacekeepers and Lebanese troops investigating the blasts constituted further violation of the resolution.

The suspected spying device was seen in the southern village of Houla.

Source: BBC News

During a conference in Singapore this week, delegates to the Interpol-United Nations meeting agreed: the budding global police force needs more power.

According to reports, the international group is aiming to step up its efforts to battle crime worldwide, claiming the need for its own special passports, shared global DNA and biometric information databases, cooperation with the UN’s military arm and much more. “It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a ‘global policing doctrine,’” reported the New York Times in an article entitled “Interpol and U.N. Back ‘Global Policing Doctrine.’’’

“As the world’s largest police organization, Interpol needs to remain at the forefront of all activity which enhances member country security and safety,” explained Interpol President Khoo Boon Hui. The organization — officially known as ‘THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION – INTERPOL’ — is comprised of more than 180 member nations, including a wide array of repressive regimes like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sri Lanka (which is currently operating concentration camps), and even Zimbabwe. It was originally founded in 1923 and is based in Lyon, France.

The government ministers and high-level police representatives in attendance endorsed a special declaration that would create a “roadmap” for international police to fulfill their “full role” in so-called “peacekeeping challenges,” an Interpol press release explained. The UN already has over 12,000 civilian law-enforcement officers deployed around the globe.

“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” said Interpol Secretary-General Ronald Noble, known as the “Enforcer” for his role in the infamous Waco siege, murders, and subsequent coverup in his position as Undersecretary of Enforcement at the U.S. Treasury. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”

The group also began issuing its own passports on Tuesday, aimed at eliminating visa requirements so global cops can get anywhere quickly. “That a person is traveling with an Interpol passport for official business should be all the information a country needs in order to grant them access,” explained Noble, the first American to head the organization. “By agreeing to waive visas, member countries will ultimately be assisting themselves.”

Source: The New American

The Washington Post reported on October 13 that the U.S. military is deploying 13,000 additional troops to Afghanistan — in addition to the 21,000 extra combat soldiers approved by President Obama last March.

Pentagon officials said that the latest deployment is made up of support troops, such as engineers, medical personnel, and intelligence experts, and and military police, rather than combat troops. However, in military operations such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the enemy is comprised of insurgents waging a guerilla operation, support personnel and civilians can become targets as well.

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase in troop strength to 34,000. A report in the British Guardian noted that both the White House and Pentagon announced earlier this year that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan would be raised by 21,000, bringing the total to 68,000 by the end of the year.

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai, speaking to ABC’s Good Morning America on October 13, expressed support for U.S. General Stanley McChrystal’s request for an extra 40,000 troops, saying: “I’m fully behind him for what he’s seeking in this report.”

The Guardian quoted a U.S. military planner’s statement to the Army Times: “We’ve increased forces in Afghanistan before we’ve reduced forces in Iraq in a meaningful way. If they want forces sooner than 2010, there are no additional forces available. You’ll have to pull them from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan.”

Kagan, who earned her Ph.D in ancient history, and who heads the Institute for the Study of War, previously has taught at West Point, Yale, Georgetown, and the American University. In an essay in Foreign Policy magazine for August 10 entitled “Why the Taliban Are Winning — for Now,” Kagan asserted:

McChrystal might adopt a different campaign design — perhaps requiring additional military resources — when he submits his formal assessment to the U.S. secretary of defense and NATO secretary-general sometime after the Afghan elections.

The fact that we have not been doing the right things for the past few years in Afghanistan is actually good news at this moment. A sound, properly resourced counterinsurgency has not failed in Afghanistan; it has never even been tried. So there is good reason to think that such a new strategy can succeed now. But we have to hurry, for as is often the case in these kinds of war, if you aren’t winning, you’re losing.

Dr. Kagan was, of course, part of McChrystal’s formal strategic assessment team, whose input served as the basis for the general’s well-known request for additional troops.

But if Kagan seems to be well-connected with America’s foreign policy establishment, her credentials are nothing in comparison to her husband, Frederick W. Kagan. The male Dr. Kagan (who received his Ph.D in Russian and Soviet military history from Yale) was an American resident scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (with which he shares an affilation with prominent neocons such as William Kristol) and was also a professor at West Point. Frederick along with his brother, Robert (who is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group), and their father Donald are all signatories to the Project for the New American Century (cofounded by Robert Kagan and William Kristol) manifesto entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

Frederick Kagan and his father David Kagan (a Yale professor and a fellow at the Hudson Institute) coauthored While America Sleeps: Self-Delusion, Military Weakness, and the Threat to Peace Today, in which they argued in favor of a large increase in military spending and warned of future threats, including the now-discredited claim of a threat from Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program.

Robert Kagan is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and is married to Victoria Nuland, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, who has twice been a visiting fellow at the CFR.

Back to Dr. Kimberly Kagan, who, along with husband Frederick, was part of the strategic assessment team sent by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last July to meet with McChrystal and advise the commander about improving U.S. military strategy. As we noted in our July 31 article, “Advisers Call for Afghanistan Troop Buildup,” other members of the team included Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who was once a national security assistant to Senator John McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. We noted that the CSIS has been described by some as “a CFR front group” because of the connections of some of its more prominent members to the CFR.

Likewise, Senator McCain, Defense Secretary Gates, and General McChrystal are all CFR members.

Lest we belabor a point, however, the CFR is by no means the only “think tank” (as such elite policy groups generally like to be labelled) exerting disproportionate influence on our government’s foreign policy. Though we often describe the CFR as “internationalist” in its philosophical bent, the association of organizations to which members of the extended Kagan family are affiliated include several that are “neoconservative” (neocon) in orientation. (For a brief introduction to neoconservatism, read “The Passing of Irving Kristol.”)

As we noted previously, William Kristol (Irving’s son) collaborated with Dr. Frederick Kagan (husband of Dr. Kimberly Kagan) in cofounding the neocon Project for the New American Century.

While these interconnected affiliations may be a bit much to absorb in a single sitting, those who would understand the dynamics behind the never-ending succession of wars in which our military has been entangled since (and including) World War II should make a serious effort to follow the trails. Not to do so, is to remain vulnerable to the next propaganda barrage purporting to show why we must send military forces to one backwater satrapy or another — “for our national security.”

Source: The New American