Obama Plan To Destroy Gulf Of Mexico Like Ukraine Horrifies Russia

A new report prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNR) circulating in the Kremlin today states that Russian environmental scientists have become “horrified” over the past fortnight after President Obama opened up for fracking (with virtually no public notice) and then abruptly auctioned off 21.6 million acres of the most sensitive areas of the Gulf of Mexico to the major US energy companies that had, in effect, paid to put him in office.

According to this report, on 20 August, Obama ordered his Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) to conduct an auction of these 21.6 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana, and which afterwards BP America, who was responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico catastrophe, was said to be the “big winner”.

Of the greatest danger to Obama’s allowing fracking in this environmentally sensitive region, this report continues, is that it sits in what is called the Lower Tertiary basin (which has been coined as the “final frontier of oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico” worth over $1.5 trillion) and is an ancient layer of the earth’s crust made of dense rock and which is “potentially catastrophic” for current offshore fracking operations.

Like the land-based version, a recent US report points out, offshore fracking involves injecting a mixture of water and chemicals into the seafloor, is understood to be risky, and the risks poorly understood. In a recent Bloomberg investigation, an engineer at Halliburton, the world’s leader in fracking, described deepwater drilling as “the most challenging, harshest environment that we’ll be working in.”

Even when things go right, Emily Jeffers, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, explained to the Salon News Service, there don’t seem to have been any studies of the process’ potential environmental impacts (a representative for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed as much to Bloomberg).

And while drinking water contamination isn’t the main concern here the way it is on land, the potential for air pollution, earthquakes and the general disruption to marine life from increased traffic and lighting are all cited as risks. Most importantly, there’s the question of what happens to fracking’s byproduct.

Under the current, EPA-mandated system, wastewater is treated and then dumped back into the Gulf, “where dilution renders it harmless” — but critics say more needs to be studied about its potential impact. It would help, too, if companies were required to disclose their “proprietary blends” of fracking chemicals. Said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity, “nobody knows what they’ve been discharging and in what amounts.”

But the main concern, emphasized Jeffers, is the potential for a catastrophic blowout, which could cause a disaster of the type we’ve seen with conventional oil drilling — only with the added bonus of those toxic chemicals polluting the water as well.

Important to note, MNR experts in this report say, is that the fracking environmental catastrophe now being allowed to occur in the Gulf of Mexico by Obama is, likewise, being prevented in eastern Ukraine by Russian separatists forces battling neo-Nazi armies from Kiev that have been flooding into the region and have been basically protecting the fracking equipment of Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings, this report says it’s important to note, is currently directing the war in Ukraine through two of its board members, R. Hunter Biden, who is the son of the current US Vice President Joseph Biden, and Devon Archer, a former campaign manager of the current US Secretary of State. John Kerry.

Archer, in fact, in gloating last year of his and Biden’s company’s potential eastern Ukrainian gas reserves stated that “today Burisma Holdings reminds me of Exxon in its early days.”

Standing in the way of Biden and Archer and their plans to destroy the environment of eastern Ukraine (and by extension Crimea and the Black Sea), however, this report says, are the peoples in the region who in February or March, a visitor wouldn’t have heard fear of war but fear of fracking, with residents fearful their land would be destroyed, and not that Obama would unleash Kiev’s neo-Nazi thugs against them.

Kiev’s plan for this region, in fact, was to set up a joint venture with Shell Oil through Burisma Holdings and drill for shale gas around Slavyansk to eventually produce 8 billion to 11 billion cubic meters of gas yearly — nearly 20 percent of what Ukrainian consumers need. A similar $10 billion deal was reached with Chevron for exploration in western Ukraine.

For even daring to sympathize with the peoples of eastern Ukraine fearing their lands and waterways would be destroyed by Burisma Holdings, this report continues, the Secretary-General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, this past June, accused Russia of secretly working with environmental groups campaigning against fracking in an attempt to maintain Europe’s dependence on energy imports from Moscow, a spurious charge angrily responded to by a Greenpeace spokesman who said:

“Greenpeace had thirty of its people locked up in Russian prisons last year, threatened with fifteen years in jail. The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they’re smoking over at NATO HQ. Mr Rasmussen should spend less time dreaming up conspiracy theories and more time on the facts. Fracked gas will probably cost more than Russian imports, there’s little chance fracking will generate more than a small fraction of Europe’s gas needs and it won’t even do that for at least ten years.”

To the real cause of this Ukrainian conflict it is, perhaps most simply, best described by the US based Truthout News Service that elucidates their readers by stating:

“Imagine in this country if President Obama and Vice President Biden were to send troops into upstate New York, which has opposed oil/gas drilling, and bombed Rochester, bombed Buffalo, and began just bombing the cities and shooting the opponents of the fracking.  That’s exactly what’s happening in the Ukraine.  There’s a diversion of water away from agriculture towards the fracking.  Make the Western Ukraine look something like Ireland in the 19th century, when the British landlords owned much of the Irish land, put sheep on it, getting rid of the people on the land.”

Unfortunately for Obama and his oil company backers like Biden and Archer who have left Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya in tatters, they have met their match in President Putin who reminded them all this week that Russia’s armed forces are backed by its nuclear arsenal and was ready to meet any aggression by declaring at a pro-Kremlin youth camp that foreign states should understand: “It’s best not to mess with us.”

August 31, 2014 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

Coup Rumors Abound After Obama Attempt To Kill Feared FBI Director Fails

A stunning new Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today is warning that Washington D.C. intelligence and political circles have been awash in coup and counter-coup rumors this week after President Obama failed in his attempt to assassinate one of the most feared Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Directors in American history.

According to this report, a specialized assassination unit of US Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) commandos this past week attacked former FBI Director Louis Freeh with what intelligence analysts in this report say was a directed-energy weapon (DEW) known as a “Dazzler” which caused Freeh’s vehicle to crash on a rural Vermont roadway on 25 August.

Dazzlers are DEW weapons used for temporarily blinding or stunning a human target, this report says, or to disable a driver in a moving vehicle. Targets can also include mechanical sensors or aircraft and emit infrared or invisible light against various electronic sensors, and visible light against humans, but cause no long-term damage to eyes. The emitters are usually lasers, making what is termed a laser dazzler. Most of the contemporary systems are man-portable, and operate in either the red (a laser diode) or green (a diode-pumped solid-state laser, DPSS) areas of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The DEVGRU commandos who attacked Freeh, this report says it’s important to note, were comprised of the same members of this shadowy team who earlier this month (18 August) brazenly attacked a Saudi Arabian embassy convoy in Paris where in the documents seized, Freeh was implicated (among many others) of planning a massive terror attack in either (or both) the US and EU.

In the immediate aftermath of the DEVGRU attack on Freeh, this report continues, he was flown by a medical evacuation helicopter to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center where he was admitted under armed guard to the intensive care unit of this Lebanon, New Hampshire hospital.

Local news sources contained in this SVR report further state that an unidentified FBI agent, believed to be off-duty, happened to be among the first people at the crash scene and representatives of the FBI in Boston refused Wednesday to transfer phone calls to Special Agent Vincent Lisi, who supervises four New England states, or any of his five assistant special agents in charge.

Vermont State Police further stated that because of the nature of Freeh’s single-vehicle crash, their accident reconstruction team was not called in, and based on the evidence at the scene, the characteristics of the accident were said “consistent” with somebody who either fell asleep, got distracted or experienced a medical issue while driving as there were no brake marks on the roadway.

Freeh, this report continues, was the fifth Director of the FBI and served from September 1993 to June 2001, and whose reign oversaw the longest run of FBI public disasters in its entire history; which included the 1992 Ruby Ridge ambush, the 1993 Waco Siege, the 1993 White House murder of Vince Foster, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and even the 11 September 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks he was directly implicated in.

This SVR report further notes that Freeh himself has been implicated as being one of the “masterminds” of both the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing due to his failure to notify other US intelligence agencies that one of the World Trade Center bombers, Ramzi Yousef, and one of the Oklahoma City bombing conspirators, Terry Nichols, were “known terror associates” in the Philippines where they both lived.

Even worse, this report says, Freeh knew of the identity of “The Third Terrorist” involved in the Oklahoma City bombing whom many believe was Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini, an Iraqi soldier in the first Gulf War, and who was identified by the FBI as “John Doe 2” in the immediate aftermath of this horrific terror attack.

The SVR in this report also notes that Freeh, in his attempt to cover-up his involvement in both the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City bombings forced out of the FBI its top counter-terror expert, John Patrick O’Neill, whose unit not only captured Ramzi Yousef, but also learned of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden after his investigation the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen.

Along with FBI terror-expert Ali Soufan (who came closer than anyone to preventing the 9/11 attacks), this report continues, O’Neill was forced out of the FBI by Freeh in 2001 and started a new job at the World Trade Center on 23 August 2001. In the week prior to the attack he talked to his friend Chris Isham about the job. Jokingly, Isham said, “At least they’re not going to bomb it again”, a reference to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. O’Neill replied, “They’ll probably try to finish the job”…and when they did they finished O’Neill too as he died in the attack.

Critical to note too, this report says, is that Freeh in the coming months was scheduled to testify in two trials, the first involving the intimidation of FBI agents testifying in a Utah Federal Court about the second accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing, and (most importantly) a US Federal Court case involving the mysterious, and powerful, group known as United Against A Nuclear Iran (UANI), and which the Obama regime this week threatened to invoke the “Secrets Act” to prevent from going any further.

UANI, SVR intelligence experts in this report say, was co-founded US Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross, after which they were appointed to positions in the Obama administration by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Among UANI’s current advisory board, this report continues, are Meir Dagan, the former director of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, August Hanning, the former director of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, and has as its chief executive, Mark Wallace who is also the CEO of Tigris Financial Group, an investment company backed by the billionaire American gold investor Thomas Kaplan, all of whom receive substantial “intelligence support” from Freeh’s mysterious company Freeh Group International.

To fully comprehend why Obama has targeted Freeh, SVR intelligence analysts in this report say, one must first understand that Freeh heads the much feared (and extremely deadly) faction within the power corridors of Washington D.C. controlled by the Clintons and financed by American billionaires attempting to start a war with Iran.

And to know Freeh’s full involvement in starting this war, this report says, one must know of his, and Hillary Clinton’s, association with the Iranian terror group known as Muhadedin-e-Khalq (MEK).

The MEK is the terrorist group that assassinated at least six Americans and is now assisting the Israeli government in killing Iranian scientists, a prima facie definition of what constitutes terrorism.

The group was on the US State Department terrorist list from 1997 until 2012, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton de-listed it in response to demands coming from friends of Israel in Congress as well as from a large group of ex-government officials, many of whom were paid large honoraria by the group to serve as advocates.

These paid American “shills” included, along with Freeh, former CIA Directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, and former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. The promoters of MEK in the US Congress and elsewhere claimed to be primarily motivated by MEK’s being an enemy of the current regime in Tehran, though its virulent anti-Americanism and terrorist history make it an unlikely poster child for the “Iranian resistance”, this report says.

In support of the MEK terrorists, this report further notes, this past April, Freeh, during a speech in Paris, told them directly: “There will be regime change. We don’t know when that will be but the MEK and Madam Rajavi you have the organization and more importantly you have the political will and you have the core democratic values that will lead this country and the people back into a great nation that is respected.”

Unfortunately for Freeh, however, this report concludes, is that Obama has split from the Clintons and instead of seeing Iran as an “enemy”, has instead embraced them and identified as his main adversaries Saudi Arabia and Israelboth of whom he “personally blames” for 9/11 attacks upon America…along with Freeh.

August 29, 2014 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

Obama Regime Beheading Horror Stuns Russia

24820141635534173170_2

A wide ranging Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that Russian diplomats at the United Nations (UN) this past week were “stunned” after the Obama regime refused to intervene with Saudi Arabia to stop the horrifying beheadings of 19 people during the past fortnight, while at the same time using the “fake” beheading of an American reporter to justify a new Middle Eastern war.

According to this report, during one of last weeks UN Security Council meetings, of which the Federation and the US are permanent members of, Russian diplomats attempted to put on the “agenda for immediate consideration” a number of resolutions which included: 1.) An immediate ceasefire in the Israeli-Gaza conflict; 2.) An immediate order to Ukraine to turn over all evidence and materials related to the Malaysian Airline disaster; 3.) An immediate ceasefire in the Ukrainian conflict for humanitarian reasons; and 4.)An immediate resolution calling on Saudi Arabia to immediately halt its barbaric beheading of nominally innocent peoples.

Most astoundingly, this report continues, the Obama regime blocked all of these proposed resolutions by forbidding any of them to be discussed in either open or closed sessions leading to a sharp rebuke from the MoFA which, in part, stated:

“If the US opposes an absolutely non-confrontational, reconciliatory text, there can be no doubts that Washington intends to have the armed confrontation in Ukraine [and other regions] continued. It could be seen only as an attempt to ‘undermine’ humanitarian mission(s).

Cynical disregard for the fate of civilians and ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude toward the international humanitarian law when it comes to geopolitical interests, becomes the core of the policy of the United States and its European satellites…

More and more questions are being raised about the ability of the current US administration to participate in the development of realistic and pragmatic approaches to international problems, to adequately assess the situation in the various regions of the world.”

Cited as an example of the Obama regimes “cynical disregard for the fate of civilians and ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude toward the international humanitarian law when it comes to geopolitical interests”, this report details, was the fate of 19 human beings beheaded by Saudi Arabia since 4 August, eight of whom were executed for nonviolent offenses, seven for drug smuggling and one for sorcery, none of whom the US (or its EU allies) would defend.

Important to note, this report continues, is that the Obama regimes failure to stop the beheadings of these 19 human beings this past fortnight follows their actions this past June when they allowed the beheading executions of 175 homosexual men and women in Saudi Arabia, an action which, likewise, stunned the MoFA.

Most outrageous about the Obama regime in regards to these beheadings however, MoFA experts in this report note, was at the exact same time Saudi Arabia was carrying them out, the US and its EU allies were decrying the “alleged” beheading of an American freelance journalist and photojournalist named James Foley by Islamic State (IS) [commonly referred to by Western media sources as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)] forces in Syria.

Although this report doesn’t provide any evidence relating to the true cause of Foley’s death, it does note that many independent analysts in the US have concluded that his beheading video was “faked”, and as one such analysis points out:

1.) The knife his captor uses could no more sever a head than my little finger could punch a hole in the Hoover Dam. It is far too small….and far too small to have produced the cleanly-guillotined appearance of head and body at the end of the film.

2.) The universally advertised ‘gruesome gore’ has been hugely overdone by the media. There is no blood at all in the movie action…and that’s precisely when the director cuts. But I don’t believe the knifeman cuts anything.

3.) We see (very briefly) knifeman sawing away at Mr Foley’s neck – but zero blood. That is medically impossible: when you sever the left and right common carotid arteries, the spray of huge volumes of blood is quite incredible. That’s probably why we cut to a still of head and body at the end.

4.) If James Foley has been beheaded (and the closing still shot looks real enough to me) then he certainly was not killed at the spot and with that implement. Again, there simply isn’t enough blood.

Not just independent US analysts have come to that conclusion either, and as we can further read, in part, as reported by the Infowars News Service:

“Confirming Infowars’ analysis on Thursday, British forensic experts have concluded that the ISIS beheading video involving James Foley was in all likelihood staged using “camera trickery and slick post-production techniques.”

An international forensic science company which does work for police forces across Britain found that, “James Foley’s execution may have been staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera,” reports the Telegraph.

The experts noted that despite Foley’s executioner appearing to draw a knife across the neck area at least six times, no blood is seen. The video itself does not show the actual beheading, merely a still image which purports to show Foley’s decapitated head resting on his body.”

As to why the Obama regime would ignore Saudi Arabia’s brutal beheadings of 19 human beings, while at the same time using Foley’s “alleged” beheading as a justification for war, MoFA experts in this report grimly note, can be explained by simply looking at two maps: 1.) The proposed Saudi-Qatar natural gas pipeline through Iraq and Syria to be built by British Petroleum (BP); and 2.) The area controlled by IS forces in Iraq and Syria, which “amazingly” are nearly identical.

In fact, according to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009 to secure the path for this pipeline: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business”, he told French television: “I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”

This MoFA report further notes that the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report opposed by Obama, but supported by Britain titled: Unfolding the Future of the Long War which noted that “the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource.” As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has “motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states”:

“The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized… For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources… The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.”

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

“Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces… the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace… US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world…. possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

Most perplexing to MoFA analysts contributing to this report is if Obama is even in control of his own government, or if the US is simply being used by the British to further their Middle Eastern aims utilizing America power through its military forces and intelligence agencies whose interests appear to align closer to the UK than their own President.

Though not conclusive, this report does grimly note that IS forces currently operating in Iraq and Syria are being funded by the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel and that the American agenda towards another Middle Eastern war is increasingly being “masterminded” by the US media…one of whose major outlets, NBC News, has been taken over by UK intelligence operative John Toker, who currently is the Director of Communications for Security and Intelligence for the British government, and whose British journalist wife, Deborah Turness, is now President of NBC News.

And to the British governments true feelings towards Obama, this MoFA report concludes, was seen this past weekend when the British Embassy in Washington D.C. held a “White House Barbeque” to celebrate the 24 August 1814 burning of the White House and Capitol during the War of 1812 by British forces…one of the worst attacks against America and its citizens in its entire history.

August 25, 2014 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

“The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, introduced to Congress by U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), will set the US on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.

Any US-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely uponCounterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to preemptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.

RAPA provides de facto NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova via RAPA

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, or RAPA, “Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.” Major non-NATO ally status would for practical purposes give NATO membership to these nations, as it would allow the US to move large amounts of military equipment and forces to them without the need for approval of other NATO member states. Thus RAPA would effectively bypass long-standing German opposition to the US request to make Ukraine and Georgia part of NATO.

Germans rightly fear placing US/NATO troops and US Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) in Ukraine, given the profound and long-standing Russian objections against the expansion of NATO (especially to Ukraine and Georgia) along with deployment of European US/NATO BMD.  Germany is acutely aware of the distinct possibility that the civil war raging in Ukraine could evolve into a Ukrainian-Russian war. Under such circumstances, deployment of US/NATO forces in Ukraine would make it virtually inevitable they would come into fight with Ukraine against Russia.

RAPA would accelerate the “implementation of phase three of the European Phased Adaptive Approach for Europe-based missile defense . . . by no later than the end of calendar year 2016.”  In 2012, Russia’s highest ranking military officer stated that Russia might consider a pre-emptive strikeagainst such BMD deployments “when the situation gets harder.”

RAPA “Directs DOD [US Department of Defense] to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces” and “Authorizes the President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.”  RAPA would have the US quickly supply Ukraine with$100 million worth of weapons and equipment, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, crew weapons, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.

RAPA requires the Obama administration to

“use all appropriate elements of United States national power…to protect the independence, sovereignty, and territorial and economic integrity of Ukraine and other sovereign nations in Europe and Eurasia from Russian aggression.” This includes “substantially increasing United States and NATO support for the armed forces of the Republics of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia,” and “substantially increasing the complement of forward-based NATO forces in those states.”

Consequently, RAPA would produce significant buildups of US/NATO forces into Poland and the Baltic States, accelerate the construction of US BMD systems in Eastern Europe, and authorize substantial U.S. intelligence and military aid for Ukrainian military forces that continue to lay siege to the largest cities in Eastern Ukraine. If RAPA did not result in the deployment of US forces to Ukraine, it would certainly position them for rapid deployment there, in the event that the Ukrainian civil war escalates into a Ukrainian-Russian conflict.

RAPA intensifies support for ethnic cleansing in Eastern Ukraine

In Russia, Putin now is under intense domestic political pressure to send Russian forces into Eastern Ukraine, in order to stop the attacks by the Ukrainian military on the cities there, which were once part of the Soviet Union.These attacks have created an absolute humanitarian catastrophe.

On August 5, 2014, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that740,000 Eastern Ukrainians had fled to Russia. They go there because Russia is close, and because most of the refugees are ethnic Russians, a fact that explains why the Russophobes in Kiev have been quite willing to indiscriminately bombard their cities.

What is taking place in Eastern Ukraine amounts to “ethnic cleansing,” the forced removal of ethnic Russians from Eastern Ukraine. This is a process that is fully supported by the US; RAPA would greatly enhance this support.

Ukrainian military forces have surrounded Donetsk – a city of almost one million people – and have for weeks conducted daily attacks against it using inaccurate multiple-launch rockets, heavy artillery fire, ballistic missiles carrying warheads with up to 1000 pounds of high explosive, and aerial bombardments. Water supplies, power plants, train stations, airports, bridges, highways, and schools have all been targeted, along with the general population. In Lugansk, a city of more than 440,000 people, a humanitarian crisis has been declared by its mayor, because the siege of the city has left it with little medicine, no fuel,intermittent power, and no water since August 3 (three weeks at the time of this writing).

After the separatists of Eastern Ukraine demanded autonomy from Kiev, and then reunion with Russia, the government in Kiev branded them as “terrorists”, and sent its military forces against them in what they euphemistically call an “anti-terrorist operation.” Framing the conflict this way makes it politically acceptable to refuse to negotiate with the separatists, and easier to justify in the US and Europe, which have grown accustomed to “the War on Terrorism.” However, the thousands of Ukrainians being killed and hundreds of thousands of being driven from their homes are just ordinary people, trying to live ordinary lives.

The New York Times reports the Ukrainian military strategy has been to bombard separatist-held cities and then send paramilitary forces to carry out “chaotic, violent assaults” against them. Many of the Ukrainian paramilitary forces were recruited from ultra-nationalistneo-Nazi political parties; theAzov battalion flies the “Wolfs Hook” flag of Hitler’s SS divisions. Considering that more than 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis during World War II, the presence of openly Nazi militias attacking ethnic Russians in Ukraine creates extreme anger in Russia.

RAPA supports plans in Kiev for an attack on Crimea

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act demands that Russia “withdraw from the eastern border of Ukraine,” which is by definition, the Russian border.  In other words, RAPA provocatively demands that Russia remove its own military forces away from its own borders, while Ukrainian military forces are meanwhile massed on the other side, attacking predominantly Russian cities.

RAPA also demands that “Russian forces must have withdrawn from Crimea within seven days of the enactment of the Act.” Not likely to happen, given that

(1) Crimea was part of the Russian empire from 1783 until 1954,

(2) withdrawal from Crimea would require Russia to abandon its only warm water port at Sevastopol, where Russian forces have been based, by internationally recognized treaty, since 1997, and

(3) more than three-quarters of all Crimeans voted “yes” to reunify with Russia, a vote which Russia accepted by its subsequent annexation of Crimea.

Thus, in the eyes of Russia, the requirement to “withdraw from Crimea” amounts to a US demand that Russia surrender Russian territory. Putin has just taken the entire Russian Duma (the Russian House of Representatives) to Crimea, to address them there and strongly make the point that there will be no withdrawal from Crimea.

RAPA, however, stipulates that the US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, and creates sanctions and legal penalties for anyone who does. RAPA therefore provides both military and political support for Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s stated goat that Ukraine will retake Crimea.

This goal was recently echoed by the Ukrainian defense minister, who was applauded by the Ukrainian Parliament when he told them that the Ukrainian army will “have a victory parade in Sevastopol“. These statements are taken seriously in Moscow, where they are viewed as a promise to attack Russia. Thus, Putin’s advisers are telling him he must fight today in Eastern Ukraine, or tomorrow in Crimea.

Any Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine would certainly be described in the West as Russian aggression in pursuit of empire, which would trigger deafening demands that US/NATO forces act to support Ukraine. Should NATO intervene, subsequent Russian military action against any NATO member would trigger the alliance’s Chapter 5 mutual defense clause, committing it to war with Russia.

Any major Ukrainian attack upon Crimea would make war with Russia inevitable. Ukraine appears to be preparing for such an assault by drafting all men of ages 18 to 60 years, in a forced mobilization of its armed forces, which also includes calling up its active reserves of one million men, and bringing more than 1000 battle tanksout of storage.  Putin is being told by his close advisers thatUkraine will have an army of half a million men in 2015.

RAPA would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to train and arm the rapidly expanding Ukrainian armed forces, and position US/NATO forces for rapid intervention on the side of Ukraine in the event of a Ukrainian-Russian war. Thus, the many political and military provisions of RAPA would certainly act to fully encourage Ukraine to carry out its stated policy to retake Crimea. The Republic of Georgia attacked Russian forces in 2008 with far fewer US promises of aid. Of course, RAPA would also arm Georgia, too.

RAPA moves the US towards nuclear war with Russia

A US/NATO-Russian war would instantly put US and Russian nuclear forces at peak alert, with both sides anticipating a nuclear first-strike from the other. Both the US and Russia have changed their nuclear war-fighting plans to include the use of preemptive nuclear first-strikes; both nations have “tactical” nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use.

The US has 180 B61 nuclear bombs deployed on six military bases of five other NATO states, which would be released to these NATO members in the event of a US/NATO-Russian war. Russia also has at least 1300 tactical nuclear weapons, and Russian war doctrine specifies their use against overwhelming conventional (NATO) forces. Any use of “tactical” or “battlefield” nuclear weapons, by either side, would likely trigger an equal or greater response from the other.

During the first Cold War, the US studiously avoided any direct military confrontation with Russia, because it was widely thought that such a war would inevitably escalate to become a nuclear war – which would utterly destroy both nations. However, there seems to be little thought or discussion of this in the US today, despite the fact that both the US and Russia appear to be preparing for such a war.

In May, the increasing tensions in Ukraine led both nations to almost simultaneously conduct large nuclear war games.  Long-range Russian nuclear bombers tested US air defenses16 times in a ten day period (July 29 – August 7). US and Russian leaders are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that such “games” and “tests” are a dress rehearsal for human extinction.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies predict the environmental consequences of a war fought with only a fraction of US and/or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would likely wipe out the human race. Scientists predict that even a “successful” US nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of Russia’s nuclear forces before they could be launched, would create catastrophic changes in global weather that would eliminate growing seasons for years. Most humans and large animals would starve to death.

Nuclear war is suicide for humans, but our leaders still have their fingers on the nuclear triggers. There seems to be absolutely no awareness, either in our Federal government or in the American public, of the existential danger posed by nuclear war. Such ignorance is embodied by The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, which if enacted will put us on a direct course for nuclear war with Russia.

Steven Starr, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility. Global Research.

Ebola Threat: Real Or False Flag?

The mainstream media is hyping the “biggest ever” Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

We are told that the dread disease, which produces symptoms like something out of a horror movie, is spreading to the USA. Some Americans are canceling their vacations and refusing to fly, believing that they might catch Ebola on an airplane.

People are being terrorized by horrific images, fear of a quick and awful death, and fear of airplanes. The fears are out of all proportion to the reality of the threat. Where have we seen this before?

On September 11th, 2001, the American public was subjected to trauma-based mind control – an intensive form of the brainwashing technique known as coercion, described in a book by Douglas Rushkoff of the same name. Trauma-based mind control uses extreme fear or horror to shape the subconscious minds of its victims. It is a highly effective technique for making people submit to authority without realizing what they are doing or why.

In the autumn of 2001, we were brainwashed into believing that radical Muslims, using airplanes, anthrax, and who knows what else, were willing and able to kill large numbers of Americans. As a result, the US went to war against Muslim nations, persecuted Muslims worldwide, shredded the Constitution, threw away trillions of dollars, and risked moral as well as fiscal bankruptcy.

Since then, evidence that the 9/11-anthrax scare was a hoax has left many Americans sadder but wiser. Today, whenever the government and mainstream media begin terrorizing people with a hyped-up menace, knowledgeable observers ask themselves: Is this threat real? Or just another false flag?

In an exclusive interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Dr. Garth Nicolson, a leading expert in emerging diseases and biological warfare, suggested that the Ebola threat has been exaggerated due to the spectacular nature of the symptoms. Indeed, Dr. Nicolson suggested that it is precisely those spectacular symptoms, which show up very quickly, that make Ebola relatively easy to contain:

“If you have a vicious, highly lethal disease like Ebola, that gains a lot of attention. But you can isolate those patients immediately, and that contains the whole process.”

A spectacular disease that gains a lot of attention, but is incapable of killing a large number of people, is ideal for false-flag manipulations of public opinion. One of the leading indicators of a false flag is disproportion between the event’s massive public relations impact and the feeble reality of the alleged threat.

This pattern has existed for centuries.

In early 17th-century England, Robert Cecil’s war party wanted to launch an assault on the Spanish and Portuguese empires, but was constrained by the irenic policies of King James and some of his advisors, and by the recalcitrance of peace-loving public opinion. Since Spain and Portugal were Catholic countries, Cecil needed to convince his countrymen that they faced a terrifying “Catholic threat.” So he found a radical Catholic agitator, Guy Fawkes, put Fawkes and a few barrels of soggy gunpowder in a tunnel beneath the Parliament building, and had him arrested according to plan.

Cecil’s plot worked to perfection. From every Anglican pulpit in the land, preachers denounced the evil Catholic extremists who had nearly blown up the entire British government. The British public entered a state of anti-Catholic hysteria similar to America’s post-9/11 anti-Muslim hysteria. And Cecil got his war.

In fact, British Catholics had posed little or no actual threat to anyone. But due to the enormous public relations impact of Cecil’s gunpowder plot, the public was convinced that a wave of Catholic mayhem was washing over their shores.

The US government, like the British government, has repeatedly convinced its citizens to fear an exaggerated or nonexistent threat. In 1847 Washington fabricated a phony “Mexican invasion.” In fact, Mexico was much weaker than the US and posed no threat whatsoever. But frightening headlines stampeded Americans into war against Mexico, and Washington stole nearly half of Mexico’s territory.

In 1898 a fake “Spanish threat” was fabricated by the false-flag sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor. In reality, Spain posed no threat to the US; being the weaker party, it wanted to avoid war. But once again, Americans were brainwashed into fearing a non-existent threat by a false flag attack. And once again, Washington used the ensuing hysteria to grab large swathes of territory for its bankers and capitalists to feed upon.

Prior to World War I, a nonexistent German threat to the US was manufactured by two public relations stunts: The forged Zimmerman Telegram that convinced Americans Germany was conspiring with Mexico to invade the USA; and the orchestrated sinking of the weapons-laden passenger liner “Lusitania.” Americans arose in hysterical fear of Germans – and went to war on behalf of the British and their Zionist financiers.

Washington and London also dragged the US into World War II through a fabricated threat. They used an Eight Point Plan that included cutting off Japan’s oil supplies to force Japan to attack the US at Pearl Harbor. The shocking, spectacular newsreel footage convinced Americans that they faced a horrific threat from Japan and its German ally. In fact, had the US simply remained neutral, it never would have faced any such threat.

In the 1960s, another nonexistent threat – this time from Vietnam – was fabricated to drag the US into full-scale war against that country. A fake Vietnamese attack on America, the famous Gulf of Tonkin Incident, was arranged.

These are just a few of the many examples showing that media-hyped public hysteria is almost always in service to a hidden agenda.

What might be the hidden agenda of the Ebola scare?

Researcher Anne Sullivan argues that an orchestrated Ebola outbreak in America could be used to “create a level six pandemic emergency that includes mandated vaccines, which will contain their patented weaponized Ebola.” This nightmarish worst-case scenario envisions the eugenicist faction of the global elite using a fake Ebola threat to create a real one.

With or without an actual threat, the US government could use the specter of an emergency pandemic to lock down Americans and remove the few remaining shreds of their Constitutional rights. President Obama recently signed an amendment to George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13295, which authorizes the “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of suspected communicable diseases.” Obama’s amendment broadens the order to allow the detention of unlimited numbers of Americans based on mere suspicion that they have a dangerous illness.

Why would the US government manufacture a disease threat, real or feigned, as an excuse for martial law and mass detentions? It might do so as a pre-emptive measure against the likelihood of popular unrest when the dollar collapses and the American economy implodes. Currently the BRIC nations, led by Russia and China, are pulling the plug on the US dollar, which is swirling with increasing rapidity as it prepares to go down the drain. When the dollar takes its final plunge, Americans will face the full consequences of their government’s squandering of trillions on the 9/11 wars. The likely result: A second American revolution.

If the US government can terrorize Americans with Ebola, militarize society, and lock up thousands or millions of people in concentration camps, it may be able to head off the revolution before it starts. That, at least, might be their plan.

But natural Ebola could not possibly create a pandemic in America. It is not easily transmissible, it lacks a long latency period, and it cannot survive outside the body except in extremely hot, humid temperatures.

So be forewarned: If the mainstream media reports an alleged Ebola pandemic in America, there are only two possibilities: Either they are lying, or they have created a synthetic, weaponized version of Ebola.

If that happens, we had better start the revolution…before they lock us up.

Or kill us.

Source.

US Congress Proposes New Law Prohibiting Body Armor

Police State USA

By the late 1920s, Joseph Stalin became the unchallenged leader of the Soviet Union after having eliminated his opposition.

He topped it off in 1929 by serving a decisive blow to anyone that would dare to oppose him by outlawing private gun ownership in the country.

From that year on until 1953 when Stalin died, it’s estimated that more than 20 million Soviet citizens that were seen as a threat to the country’s leadership.

People were rounded up and either murdered outright, or sent to infamous gulag labor camps.

Stalin is an extreme case. But history is ripe with examples of governments which disarm their citizens, only to engage in serious oppression afterwards.

Communist China. Nazi Germany. Cambodia. Guatemala. Uganda. The list goes on and on. Pacification of the citizens is almost always a prerequisite to totalitarianism.

There have been a lot of attempts to disarm, or at least partially disarm, people in the US throughout history as well.

Each time there’s a major shooting somewhere, the chant to ban firearms grows louder.

But the latest proposal is especially telling.

H.R. 5344 is a bill currently going through Congress that would ban the purchase of body armor.

Violation would carry CRIMINAL penalties, including up to ten years in prison.

Many bullet-resistant items on the market now, such as bulletproof backpacks for school children, would be banned by this legislation.

This is incredible given that the legislation is all about banning something that is purely defensive.

Whatever your stance on firearms, I hope we can agree that it’s pretty damn difficult to hurt another human being with body armor.

People buy body armor for protection. That’s the point. Duh.

So why in the world would they want to ban it?

The government claims that “criminals and rampaging madmen” can “wreck havoc” while wearing body armor, and it’s important to shield police from these nefarious individuals.

Uh, wait a sec– you mean the same police that go around terrorizing ordinary citizens who aren’t breaking any laws whatsoever?

The same police who beat homeless people to death?

The same police who shoot and kill innocent animals in broad daylight in the middle of the street?

The same police who scream “I will f***ing kill you!” with their weapons trained on crowds of protestors exercising their constitutional rights?

Right. Those guys.

This is such a disgusting, yet unfortunately predictable, turn of events in the Land of the Free.

It’s enraging. It’s infuriating. And it’s so obvious: the country has become a giant police state. And the trend is not getting any better.

It’s time to set aside emotion. It’s time to set aside a lifetime of propaganda and programming telling you that you live in a free country.

It’s time to look at the objective evidence all around you.

They spy. They steal. They wage illegal wars. They authorize military detention of civilians. They assassinate citizens.

They intimidate. They terrorize. They torture. They suspend due process when it suits. They destroy anyone who challenges them.

And now they want to take away a non-violent means of protecting yourself.

This is our reality. And at a minimum, it’s time for rational, thinking people to come up with a Plan B. What’s yours?

Source.

Russia-China Launch Biggest Central Asian Military Drill, Testing Surface-To-Air Missiles

More than 7,000 troops from China, Russia and four central Asia countries have gathered in Inner Mongolia for their biggest joint drills “to fight terrorists”. The drills are purportedly to prepare troops to protect the so-called Silk Road economic and transport belt that will run through central Asia from China to Europe from terrorist attack, but as one analyst notes, “it is kind of rare to have an anti-terrorist mission which uses battle tanks.” Furthermore, as part of a drill:

  • *RUSSIA TESTING S-300, S-400 SYSTEMS IN ASTRAKHAN REGION: RIA

So, surface-to-air missile tests? Not very “de-escalation”-y. Perhaps this statement is a clue, “we are trying to exercise together to coordinate our troops to meet any potential eventuality.”

As The Jakarta Globe reports,

A total of 23 Chinese aircraft will participate in Peace Mission-2014, along with tanks, drones and air-defense missiles from countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China’s Xinhua News Agency reported. The SCO groups China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The exercises are another sign China and Russia are willing to work together as both seek to upgrade their military capacity in the face of rising territorial tensions. The drills will prepare troops to protect the so-called Silk Road economic and transport belt that will run through central Asia from China to Europe from terrorist attack, China Radio International reported.

“It is kind of rare to have an anti-terrorist mission which uses battle tanks,” said Matthew Sussex, head of politics and international relations at the University of Tasmania. “It says: ‘We are trying to exercise together to coordinate our troops to meet any potential eventuality’ — in other words war.

China’s President Xi Jinping, the head of the Central Military Commission, has made it a priority to better prepare the People’s Liberation Army for combat, while Russia’s Vladimir Putin has embarked on the biggest overhaul of his country’s armed forces since the Cold War.

Russia and China in May held their first joint naval exercises near Japanese-controlled islands that are at the center of a Chinese-Japanese rift. Russia further inflamed tension with Japan last week when it started military exercises in the disputed Kuril Islands.

But then, as Reuters adds…

  • RUSSIA TESTS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES IN MILITARY EXERCISES IN SOUTHERN RUSSIAN PROVINCE – STATE NEWS AGENCY RIA
  • *RIA CITES RUSSIA DEFENSE MINISTRY SPOKESMAN ON MILITARY DRILLS

De-Escalation? Doesn’t look like it…

Source.

Subscribe By Email for Updates.