Obama Administration Approves Killing Americans Abroad

by Noel Brinkerhoff
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obama_Administration_Approves_Killing_Americans_Abroad_100205
Friday, February 05, 2010
Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans. This policy was acknowledged by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair while testifying on Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee.   Blair tried to reassure lawmakers that the government would be careful before making the decision to kill Americans. “I just don’t want Americans who are watching this to think that we are careless about endangering—in fact, we’re not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country,” Blair said   One of the Americans most likely to be targeted is U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, now living in Yemen. Born in New Mexico, al-Aulaki earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering at Colorado State University and an M.A. in Education Leadership at San Diego State University. He has has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and to Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day.   Apparently the U.S. did try to kill al-Aulaki in an air strike in Yemen the day before Abdulmutallab’s attempted plane bombing, but it would appear that he is still alive. -Noel Brinkerhoff   Intelligence Chief Acknowledges U.S. May Target Americans Involved in Terrorism (by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post) US May Kill American Extremists Abroad (Agence France-Presse) Imam Says Fort Hood Killer Asked about Killing GIs a Year Ago.
Advertisements

Google Attacks China as Washington-Beijing Hostility Deepens – Webster G. Tarpley www.tarpley.net

Webster G. Tarpley
www.tarpley.net
January 18, 2010

Washington, January 18, 2010 — In an interview with Dina Gusovsky of Russia Today, Webster Tarpley pointed out that the escalating clash between Google and the People’s Republic of China comes in the context of rapidly deteriorating relations between the two countries on a broad front. Google is part of a cartel of Internet companies which notoriously works closely with the US intelligence community for political purposes, including the subversion and overthrow of foreign governments. We need only recall the central role of Twitter in the CIA’s attempted coup d’état in Iran last summer. Political manipulation by means of the Internet is an indispensable part of the CIA’s recipe for color revolutions, velvet revolutions, people power coups, and postmodern coups. When the Internet is introduced into previously authoritarian countries, it is often possible to dupe, manipulate, and stampede large numbers of enthusiastic young people who are not politically sophisticated. The results are often disastrous. In Georgia, a color revolution installed into power the madman Sakaashvili, who has already started one war. Yushenko, the beneficiary of the Orange Revolution of 2004, has just been massively repudiated by voters after a catastrophic presidency. The hangover of disillusionment surrounding Obama is related to the fact that he took power in something of the same way. The Chinese government therefore feels that there are valid reasons to prevent Western intelligence agencies from massively pumping black propaganda into China using the Internet. This is in any case a purely domestic Chinese issue, and Americans in particular ought to focus on putting their own house in order before starting to give lectures to the rest of the world.

On the morning of January 4, it was reported by the Los Angeles Times that the Great Firewall maintained by the Chinese government to filter Internet content had momentarily come down. Was this the handiwork of the United States, or did China believe that it was the handiwork of the United States? About 10 days later, Google, Adobe, and Northrop Grumman accused Chinese hackers of entering their sites to gather information. The Chinese government has informed Google if they insist on violating Chinese law, they cannot continue to operate, and Google has announced their imminent departure from the Chinese market. Rumors of espionage swirl around the Google offices in China.

Many press accounts allege that Google is opposed to censorship in principle. This is pure baloney. Google supports censorship to the extent that it is dictated by the United States intelligence community. Analysts and researchers delving into questions about the September 11 attacks or the London 7/7 bombings of 2005 are familiar with the many ways that Google attempted to hinder public access to facts and analysis that were not part of the official narrative. Google has been fundamentally hostile to anyone criticizing the US government official versions of these false flag terror provocations. To say that Google is opposed to censorship is therefore monumental hypocrisy.

US-Chinese relations are now rapidly deteriorating towards a new Cold War or something worse. The entire foreign policy of the United States is strongly motivated by anti-Chinese considerations.Pakistan is targeted for destruction in large part because it could function as an energy corridor between Iran and China, to the benefit of the latter. What is done by the United States inYemen, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and many other points across the globe is fundamentally dictated by a desire to checkmate China. The news is that China is fighting back far more effectively. At the recent Copenhagen climate change conference, the basic strategy of the US and the British was to use the big lie of global warming to institute a world carbon dictatorship which could then be used to strangle the economic development of China, India, and other developing sector nations. As accounts in the British Guardian have pointed out, Chinese Prime Minister Wen directed a successful blocking operation with the help of countries such as Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and others, personally snubbing Obama several times in the process. When it comes to sanctions against Iran, the Chinese are signaling that they will block them in the UN Security Council, and they are also circumventing them in various ways.

China has now passed Germany to become the world’s largest exporter, and is estimated to possess about 2.5 trillion dollars of foreign exchange, much of it denominated in dollars. A trade war between China and the United States over such issues as tires and steel is now a distinct possibility. The US is keeping up a ceaseless whining about the alleged dirty float of the Chinese currency unit, the renminbi. The US is on the verge of a major arms sale to the Republic of China on Taiwan, something which Beijing is bound to oppose. Even worse is the visit of the Dalai Lama to Obama’s White House, which is now reported as imminent. The Dalai Lama, although lionized by a gaggle of Hollywood degenerates, is in fact a notorious Western intelligence asset who was the figurehead of a brutal regime of feudal oppression which kept the majority of the population as serfs and a significant minority as slaves. The United States government continues to transfer significant sums of money to the sinister Rebiya Kadeer and her “World Uighur Congress,” which the Chinese government accuses of being responsible for the murder spree in Xinjiang province (Chinese Turkestan) in July of 2009 for which two dozen death sentences have now been handed down. A British citizen accused of functioning as a drug pusher has just been executed by the Chinese, who have not forgotten the three Opium Wars waged against them by London for the purpose of forcing deadly narcotics onto the Chinese market.

More important perhaps than any other single concrete disagreement have been the new self-assurance, self-confidence, and assertiveness of the Chinese government emerging after the bankruptcy of the United States and British banking systems in the fall of 2008. For a number of decades, Chinese diplomacy was typically extremely cautious, with a very low profile and a low-key approach. Prime Minister Wen’s successful operations in Copenhagen are a clear indication that major changes are afoot in this department. The Chinese evidently see Google as a symbol of arrogance and hegemonism which they are no longer disposed to tolerate

The New American Plutocracy

by Paul Kurtz
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 20, Number 4.

Plutocracy: (1) government by the wealthy, (2) a controlling class of the wealthy. From the Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos, wealth, and kratia, advocate of a form of government.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections there is little or no debate on what I consider to be a central issue for the American future: the emergence of a new and powerful plutocracy wedded to corporate power. Regrettably, none of the major candidates will deign to even discuss this vital question. Only Ralph Nader has identified it. But he has largely been ignored or parodied by the mass media. Typically, Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, has ridiculed Nader precisely for his attacks on “corporate power.” Senator John McCain did raise the issue of the special interests and soft money corrupting the political process. But he has been rebuffed and has climbed into the same bed with Bush. Many do not consider Nader to be a viable candidate, for the Green Party does not represent an effective political coalition. Neither Free Inquiry nor the Council for Secular Humanism can endorse political candidates, but this should not preclude me from presenting my own personal views about the deeper humanist issues at stake.

A plutocracy is defined as “government by the wealthy.” The critical question that should concern us is whether the United States is already a plutocracy, and what can be done to limit its power. This question, unfortunately, will not be taken seriously by most voters-but it damned well ought to be.

Ancient Greek democracy lasted only a century; the Roman republic survived for four, though it was increasingly weakened as time went on. As America enters its third century we may well ask whether our democratic institutions will survive and if so in what form.

As readers of these pages know, I have been concerned by the virtually unchallenged growth of corporate power. Mergers and acquisitions continue at a dizzying pace, as small and mid-sized businesses and farms disappear; independent doctors, lawyers, and accountants are gobbled up by larger firms; and working men and women are at the mercy of huge global conglomerates, which downsize as they export jobs overseas.

I have also deplored the emergence of the global media-ocracy, whereby a handful of powerful media conglomerates virtually dominate the means of communication. A functioning democratic society depends upon a free exchange of ideas; today fewer dissenting views are heard in the public square, as diversity is narrowed or muffled.

Full Article

THE ATLANTIC: The Quiet Coup

FACTSNEWS- MUST READ! Lengthly, we will only post the first paragraph.

Full Article

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

ONE THING YOU learn rather quickly when working at the International Monetary Fund is that no one is ever very happy to see you. Typically, your “clients” come in only after private capital has abandoned them, after regional trading-bloc partners have been unable to throw a strong enough lifeline, after last-ditch attempts to borrow from powerful friends like China or the European Union have fallen through. You’re never at the top of anyone’s dance card.

The reason, of course, is that the IMF specializes in telling its clients what they don’t want to hear. I should know; I pressed painful changes on many foreign officials during my time there as chief economist in 2007 and 2008. And I felt the effects of IMF pressure, at least indirectly, when I worked with governments in Eastern Europe as they struggled after 1989, and with the private sector in Asia and Latin America during the crises of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Over that time, from every vantage point, I saw firsthand the steady flow of officials—from Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and elsewhere—trudging to the fund when circumstances were dire and all else had failed.

Every crisis is different, of course. Ukraine faced hyperinflation in 1994; Russia desperately needed help when its short-term-debt rollover scheme exploded in the summer of 1998; the Indonesian rupiah plunged in 1997, nearly leveling the corporate economy; that same year, South Korea’s 30-year economic miracle ground to a halt when foreign banks suddenly refused to extend new credit.

But I must tell you, to IMF officials, all of these crises looked depressingly similar. Each country, of course, needed a loan, but more than that, each needed to make big changes so that the loan could really work. Almost always, countries in crisis need to learn to live within their means after a period of excess—exports must be increased, and imports cut—and the goal is to do this without the most horrible of recessions. Naturally, the fund’s economists spend time figuring out the policies—budget, money supply, and the like—that make sense in this context. Yet the economic solution is seldom very hard to work out.

No, the real concern of the fund’s senior staff, and the biggest obstacle to recovery, is almost invariably the politics of countries in crisis.

Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.

In Russia, for instance, the private sector is now in serious trouble because, over the past five years or so, it borrowed at least $490 billion from global banks and investors on the assumption that the country’s energy sector could support a permanent increase in consumption throughout the economy. As Russia’s oligarchs spent this capital, acquiring other companies and embarking on ambitious investment plans that generated jobs, their importance to the political elite increased. Growing political support meant better access to lucrative contracts, tax breaks, and subsidies. And foreign investors could not have been more pleased; all other things being equal, they prefer to lend money to people who have the implicit backing of their national governments, even if that backing gives off the faint whiff of corruption.

But inevitably, emerging-market oligarchs get carried away; they waste money and build massive business empires on a mountain of debt. Local banks, sometimes pressured by the government, become too willing to extend credit to the elite and to those who depend on them. Overborrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country. Sooner or later, credit conditions become tighter and no one will lend you money on anything close to affordable terms. Full Article

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails

Infowars
June 21, 2009

It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Herr Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.

It is significant Kissinger went on television and said this — it means flattening Iranian cities and killing babies is more than likely the position of the globalists if the “green revolution” currently underway fails. Kissinger is a big muckamuck Bilderberger and David Rockefeller minion.

Attacking Iran, as the neocons have long called for, will prove to be disastrous. The Iranians will shut down the Strait of Hormuz where around 60% of the world’s oil passes if they are attacked by the United States. This will take down the world economy overnight.

But then the globalists and banksters want to take down the world economy so they can impose their globalist banking and control structure. Attacking Iran and killing thousands will kill two birds with one stone.

Chatham House Rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chatham House Rule is a rule that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states[1]

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

The rule originated in June, 1927, at what is now best known as Chatham House (formally known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs) with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. The original rule was refined in October 1992 and again in 2002.

Meetings, or parts of meetings, may be held either “on the record” or “under the Chatham House Rule”. In the latter case, the participants are understood to have agreed that it would be conducive to free discussion that they should be subject to the rule for the relevant part of the meeting. The success of the rule may depend on it being considered morally binding, particularly in circumstances where a failure to comply with the rule may result in no sanction.

The Rule allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. Speakers are then free to voice their own opinions, without concern for their personal reputation or their official duties and affiliations.

The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations.

*********************************************************************************
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085589.html
“There is no official list of who’s who in Bilderberg and there are no press conferences about the meetings. This is because the group operates under the“Chatham House Rule,” and no details of what goes on inside are released to the press.”

This secrecy has led to many claims that the Bilderberg Group are the world’s real “kingmakers,” and, some even suggest, behind the global financial crisis.



Demonstrations against the secret meeting of the Bilderbergs in “Aster Palace” hotel

Reposted from http://www.GRREPORTER.INFO

Demonstrations against the secret meeting of the world leaders, calling their elite club “Bilderberg”, took place in front of “Aster Palace” hotel in Athens. For the past few days the hotel has been guarded by divers, agents, and paratroops- just like in a Hollywood movie, because this has been the location of the meeting of some of the most powerful people on the planet, including kings and ministers, diplomats and businessmen, journalists and scientists.

The discussions of the economical brains of the planet started with analysis of the results from the G20 meeting in Washington, and how they can be implemented. The conversations emphasized on the issue of banks’ public subsidizing and the best ways it can be used for revitalizing the market. A lot of theories were developed, and the speakers showed off knowledge and decisiveness on particular topics but a specific decision, however, was not reached, said the participants at the meeting to “Vima” newspaper.

In the first part of the meeting the guests had the chance to get to know each other informally and share views, mainly on political subjects. The topics discussed by the closed company were related to the crisis in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what would be the consequences if American troops withdrew from Iraq. Other issues of interest for the world political leaders are the power industry, China’s strengthening and the relationships between USA and Europe, i.e. what is their condition during the current economic crisis.

According to the club rules, the members talk on one specific subject for 7 minutes, and comments, additions or questions may be introduced by the rest within 1 minute. Their only obligation is not to publish or disclose anything discussed.

A record is made of the club’s discussions in which, however, the name of the speaker is never published. The official language is English, and the conversation notes are later published in a book. The most impressive fact is that at the round-table talks everybody can say whatever they want and make any suggestions they want, without facing the risk of being judged or opposed with regard to their words.