The United States plans to withdraw about 7,000 US troops as part of its new 10-year defense strategy giving strategic priority to the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said two brigade combat teams, roughly 7,000 US troops, of the 81,000 troops based in Europe will be withdrawn from the continent.

“The Secretary and other senior Department officials have consulted closely with our European allies on our new strategic guidance,” said Pentagon spokesman George Little, adding that “Our security commitments to Europe and to NATO are unwavering.”

The new US defense strategy comes at a time when the US economy is facing a national debt of more than $15 trillion after a decade of costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and is preparing for 487 billion dollars in defense cuts over the next 10 years.

On January 5, US President Barack Obama announced the shift in Washington’s defense strategy to reduce the expenses. He said reductions will not be arbitrary, linear or unilateral and that the defense budget would be spent in accordance with strategic needs.

Panetta said that the US will continue to maintain its presence “both in the Middle East and Asia.”

“Yes, we’ll have the Navy and the Air Force, but in my experience, in any conflict you need to have the potential use of ground forces.”

The United States is concentrating its military might in Asia as it is alarmed over China’s growing navy and arsenal of anti-ship missiles that could threaten America’s military supremacy in the Pacific.

Meanwhile Britain has warned that Russia is also not overlooked in the US shift of position to Asia, describing the US as an ‘unpredictable force on the global stage’.

Source.

Iran is caught up in the same pre-war swirl of activity. Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani spent two days in Ankara this week. But Turkish leaders failed in their bid to sell their good offices as brokers for averting the expected collision between Tehran and the West. Before flying out of Ankara Friday, Jan. 13, Larijani commented: “We have different ways of doing things.”

DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources quote the Iranian official as telling his hosts that his country is prepared to take on any military aggressors. One of the responses weighed in Tehran to meet the rising military pressure might be an open declaration of Iran as a nuclear power. By accepting a visit by IAEA inspectors on Jan. 28 – to investigate charges that Iran is running a clandestine nuclear bomb program – Tehran may be moving toward that irreversible admission – or possibly its first nuclear test.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 528 disclosed exclusively on Nov. 25, 2011 that Iran may soon publicize its attainment of a nuclear weapon, a step still being debated intensely at the highest levels of the Islamic regime in Tehran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will make the ultimate decision, is very much in favor of facing the world as a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic. He calculates that this fait accompli has a good change of warding off a Western and/or Israeli military attack.

Thursday night, Jan. 12, President Obama put in a call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss coordinating US and Israeli moves for a military operation against Iran, which many US media believe to be imminent.
The New York Times wrote Friday under the caption: Dangerous Tension with Iran, “Many officials, experts and commentators increasingly expect some kind of military confrontation.”

Obama had similar conversations with other Middle East leaders this week. The and Saudi and Qatari foreign ministers, Prince Saud al-Faisal and Sheikh Hamad al-Thani, spent two days on Jan. 10-11 in Washington talking to the US president. The contents of their talks were kept under tight wraps. Friday, British premier David Cameron suddenly turned up in Riyadh for talks with Saudi King Abdullah and Crown Prince Nayef.
Discussions on military preparations centering on Iran inevitably concern the need for urgent action to halt the unending carnage in Syria, Iran’s close ally.

Thursday, the Russian National Security Adviser Nikolai Patrushev, one of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s closest advisers, said ominously: “We are receiving information that NATO members and some Persian Gulf States working under the ‘Libyan scenario’ intend to move from indirect intervention in Syria to direct military intervention.”

Moscow has consistently spoken out against any foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict – or even tough UN sanctions.

Russia’s NATO ambassador Dmitry Rogozin has suggested more than once that the West would use a military adventure in Syria as the jumping-off point for an attack on Iran.

Another sign that Syria is under the military eye of the West came from an indiscreet comment Israel’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz made Tuesday, Jan. 10 in a briefing to a Knesset panel. Israel, he said, is preparing to absorb members of Bashar Assad’s Alawite sect after his downfall.

He later detracted his words. DEBKAfile disclose that the context of the general’s comment was Israeli preparations to establish a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the Golan border to shelter Alawites fleeing the vengeance of their compatriots.

Turkey too has gone back to talking about setting up in northern Syria a Turkish buffer zone for refugees and anti-Assad dissidents.

Further fueling the war scare, two helmeted bombers on a motorbike assassinated the Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, deputy director of the Natanz uranium enrichment center, in central Tehran Wednesday. Friday, Ayatollah Khamenei accused the United States and Israel of a CIA-Mossad master plan, which Iranian sources claimed bore the title “Red Windows” and focused on training Iranian dissidents for hit and sabotage operations in Iran.

Source.

The markets are popping champagne. The traders are clapping and cheering. The media is awash with the phrase “the crisis is over”.

But for a default to be averted, a vote on the agreement reached today still needs to be voted on and approved.

Democratic and Republican leaders have conceded that while it’s possible it may get the OK from the Senate, its passage through Congress is by no means assured.

For example, the Tea Party firebrands of the GOP are viciously opposed to raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances, and they’re going to be some of the ones voting tomorrow.

Irrespective of the consequences, the more radical elements within the GOP feel a default necessary to force revolutionary spending cuts.

Another interesting twist is the Armed Services Committee who yesterday vowed to repel any attempt by Obama to slash over $900 billion from the defence budget over the next ten years.

They declared that they would “not let the greatest military the world has ever seen” go quietly into the night at the expense of political deal-making. Considering the strength and scope of the US military-industrial complex, this is a rather significant statement.

And then there’s the rogue Democrats who oppose any short-term deals being made. The knives are already coming out with many of them saying Obama has “surrendered” to the GOP.

Together, this all paints a very disturbing portrait of what has now turned into gunboat diplomacy.

So it begs the question: why are the media outlets parading the agreement as “the end of the debt crisis”. Moreover, how can they say that a default has been averted?

The reason that this announcement received blanket coverage worldwide was because the Asian markets opened today. Plain and simple.

If they hadn’t timed the announcement this it would have been a bloodbath when the bell rang at every stock exchange from Tokyo to Beijing.

But that’s in the past now.

What the mainstream media may have a difficult time explaining tomorrow if the deal is not passed through the Senate or Congress is how they got away with saying “crisis over” today.

Let’s be clear about this: yes, there has been an agreement of sorts, but that agreement must now receive safe passage through the US Senate and Congress.

So until it does, it’s no use popping the champagne bottles yet.

There may be a much bigger headache to awake to tomorrow than a hangover.

Source.

An amazing report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by the Federal Security Service (FSB) states that the ever-growing scandal in the United Kingdom related to the phone-hacking and police bribery claims being made against the global media empire of the man Time Magazine in 2007 called “The Last Tycoon” is, instead, due to the Australian-American billionaire Rupert Murdoch planning to publish a new book claiming that the American President, Barack Obama, is a “direct-line” descendent of Jesus Christ.

According to this report, the global media empire controlled by Murdoch has been financed and controlled for over a century by “secretive elements” of the Knights Templar that operated through the Free Church of Scotland after their historic break with the Church of Scotland in 1843.

Murdoch’s paternal grandfather was a minister with the Free Church of Scotland, this report says, and upon his fathers, Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch (1885-1952), immigration from Cruden, Scotland to Victoria, Australia in 1884 the Knights Templar provided the resources upon which the global media empire of The News Corporation currently stands today.

An important part of Murdoch’s global empire as it relates to today’s scandal, this FSB report continues, is a little known publishing company located in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Zondervan that is an international publisher of Christian media founded in 1931 by brothers Peter and Bernard Zondervan who were the nephews of publisher William B. Eerdmans (1880-1966) and acquired by News Corporation in 1988.

The importance of the Dutch immigrant Eerdmans moving to the United States in 1902 was, according to this FSB report, his being able to publish for an American audience the works of Clive Staples (C.S.) Lewis (1898-1963), most important of them being the Knights Templar “coded” The Chronicles of Narnia.

Important to note about The Chronicles of Narnia is the Knights Templar symbolism contained in the central figure Aslan, otherwise known as the“Great Lion” and the “savior” of mankind, who was modeled after one of their most beloved leaders, Richard the Lionheart.

The FSB further states in this report that the Knights Templar “controlled and directed” efforts by Murdoch’s Zondervan and Eerdmans publishing companies encompass some of the greatest Christian writers of the last century, most important of them being the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth(1886-1968) whom critics hold to be among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century and described by Pope Pius XII as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

Though many still believe today that the Knights Templar were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, the recently discovered Chinon Parchment proves that in 1308 by Pope Clement V secretly absolved the last Grand Master Jacques de Molay and the rest of the leadership of the Knights Templar from charges brought against them by the Medieval Inquisition.

The significance of Pope Clement V’s absolution of the Knights Templar, this report says, lies in his being born in the French region known as Aquitainewhich was not only a protectorate of their secretive order, but also the region legend holds the direct descendents of Jesus Christ were, also, protected.

The reason these holy descendents had to be protected, this report continues, lies in their being the offspring of the “union” between Jesus Christ and the“Supreme Goddess Queen” of Ethiopia Mahram Magda, otherwise known to history as Mary Magdalene.

Now the greatest problem facing the “offspring” of Jesus Christ and his Ethiopian “Goddess Queen” Mahram/Mary lies in the fact that their skin colour was not white, but black, and which the early founders of the Catholic Church vowed to eradicate and began their war against those forces, including the Knights Templar, loyal to the “Black Madonna.”

This war against the “black” descendants of Jesus Christ have been detailed in the book by American researcher Ean Begg titled “The Cult of the Black Virgin” wherein he details Gnostic-Christian underground stream that flowed west with the cult of Mary Magdalene and resurfaced in Catharism at the time of the Crusades, especially with the Knights Templar.

To how brutal and ruthless the Roman Catholic Church was in the eradication of the threat the descendants of Jesus Christ posed to them we can read:

“The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, thirty years later was “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”—“Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own.”

The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.

What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, “Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.”

While the Roman Catholic Church believed in the 13^th century it had destroyed this major threat to their power they couldn’t have been more mistaken, and according to this FSB report the “final chapter” in this saga is soon to be written.

For according to the FSB, Murdoch has ordered the printing of millions of books through his Zondervan publishing company relating to the “true” history of Christianity that many Russian religious experts believe will “shake the world to its core.”

The first book in this series is titled “Teaching Through the Art of Storytelling” that Zondervan says “gives theological, philosophical and practical insight into how to create fictional stories that can be used to open student’s hearts and minds to God’s Redemption Story.”

The second book to this series, this FSB report says, is the one most feared by the Western powers and has ignited the current firestorm against Murdoch and is titled “Barack Obama, The Christ Child Among Us.”

According to the FSB, this astonishing book claims that that Obama is a direct descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene who since birth has been protected by the Knights Templar and whose“mission” is to forge a world-wide peace among all mankind, but not before first destroying the “Old World Order” (like Samson “Man of the Sun” destroying the pillars of the temple) that has brought our planet to the brink of destruction.

Should this knowledge about Obama be understood by the masses, the FSB reports, the stability of the United States “could not be assured” as tens of millions of Americans would immediately revolt against him believing him to be the feared “Anti-Christ” prophesied to come in the last days of our Earth.

Most interesting to note in all of these events is that it does appear likely that Obama is of a mysterious origin as all of his past has been concealed leading many to believe he isn’t even an American citizen. And, with this new information one must now wonder if he is even a true citizen of this world.

© July 21, 2011 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.

I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.

Today, I would like to talk about this change – the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

This lack of self determination – the chance to make of your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”

In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”

In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”

In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.

That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.

We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.

And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest– today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.

That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad

Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.

We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.

In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.

Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with US and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

My administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate … Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”

That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, ‘peaceful,’ ‘peaceful.’ In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union – organizing, marching, and protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa – words which tell us that repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Source.

KINGSTON, NY, 4 May 2011— From the fans at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia to the mobs at the White House gates, “USA, USA,” was the chant heard across the nation. Jubilant Americans celebrated the breaking news that Public Enemy No.1, terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden was dead.

Ten years have passed since the Twin Towers toppled and the Pentagon was whacked. After two failing wars and billions of dollars spent on the global manhunt to bring in Bin Laden “Dead or Alive,” America has now claimed victory. “This is bigger than the moon landing, this is huge,” exclaimed Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera.

“Justice has been done,” intoned President Barack Obama announcing Bin Laden’s death. He not only called it “a good day for America,” but also declared that “The world is safer. It is a better place because of the death of Osama Bin Laden.”

While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the sentiment that “justice has been served,” she evidently took issue with the Presidential vision of a “safer” world, warning that terror “won’t stop with the death of Bin Laden, we must redouble our efforts.”

If it’s a “safer” world, why the need to “redouble our efforts”? These were but two of the contradictions coming from the White House in the early hours of the breaking story, and many discrepancies would follow. Some of them would be noted and debated, but totally absent from the 24/7 news coverage, political “high-fives” and patriotic triumphalism was the simple question: Why did Osama Bin Laden, former mujahedin ally of the United States, turn against it to become Public Enemy No.1?

Was it that he and his Al Qaeda fighters suddenly decided to hate America’s “freedom and liberties” as George W. Bush maintained? Or was it remotely possible that the attacks were motivated by US foreign policy – with its unconditional support of Israel and concomitant support of the same Middle East monarchs, autocrats and dictators now being toppled in the wave of revolution?

Also absent from America’s non-stop exultation and self-congratulation, absent from the acres of newsprint and the countless hours of air time, was any discussion of the practical consequences of the death of Bin Laden who, before making it back into the headlines, had been both a fading memory and a non-issue.
Osama Bin Who?

So irrelevant had Bin Laden and his jihad rhetoric become that, in the months preceding his assassination, every one of the uprisings occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa was secular and in direct opposition to Bin Laden’s militant pan-Islamic vision.

In a sentence: There were no practical consequences whatsoever attending the death of Osama Bin Laden. It would do nothing to:

Help America win losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Lower the unemployment rate.
Stop the US or European nations from sinking deeper into recessions and depression.
Revive failing real estate markets or solve the debt and deficit crises.
Lower oil and food prices.
Reverse the damage or stop the radioactive fallout from Fukushima.

What Osama’s death did do was boost the President’s sagging poll numbers and deflect public attention from the news that really mattered.

On Wednesday, April 27th, just four days before Bin Laden was killed, a new Public Enemy No.1 held his organization’s first ever press conference. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the world that the United States would continue its low interest rate polices and, in effect, continue to flood the world with cheap money.

The global equity markets immediately responded to the predictably destructive consequences. Before Bernanke ended the press conference, gold prices shot up $20 an ounce, silver $2, and the dollar fell to a 3 year low against a trade-weighted basket of currencies. Despite the Chairman’s claims to the contrary, the US dollar would continue to devalue and subsequently dollar based commodity prices would soar.

Needing neither a mountain lair nor sequestration behind closed Fed doors, the new Public Enemy No.1, “Osama” Ben Bernanke committed, in broad daylight, an act of financial terrorism that would have far reaching and long lasting implications for the American public. As the value of the dollar went down, the cost of nearly everything would go up…excepting the cost of “risk.”

This meant that financiers could continue to speculate and exploit the equity markets, with the profits going only to the 10 percent of Americans that owned 90 percent of the stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Moreover, the Fed reasoned the cheap dollar would also give a competitive edge to big US exporters. But as exports rose, so did the price of imports, putting further strains on average consumers whose real wages fell ever further behind the pace of inflation.

Bombs Away

What Osama Bin Laden’s death also did was to deflect attention from the US/NATO “humanitarian” mission in Libya, which, just two days earlier, had delivered several humanitarian bombs upon the home of Muammar Qaddafi’s son, killing him and three of his children.

The bungled attempt to assassinate Qaddafi (who had been visiting his son) was condemned by Russia, brought recriminations against NATO from other UN members for overstepping the UN mandate, and called into question the legality of the air strike. With a groundswell of public sympathy building around the world for Qaddafi’s murdered grandchildren, the very purpose and future of the entire mission was being called into question.

Trend Forecast: With the death of Osama Bin Laden, the restored, rebuilt, new and improved terror bandwagon rolls again…and it will keep rolling until Election Day 2012. Whether a real terror attack happens or not, Barack Obama, as he has done before, will take a page from the G.W. Bush playbook and keep the American public in a state of fear and hysteria.

And should terror strike the US, UK, France or other NATO ally, their governments, media “presstitutes,” pundits, and the public at large will debate and deplore the “cowardly act” and demand “swift justice.” They will blame Bin Laden sympathizers, Al Qaeda cells, Muammar Qaddafi, radical Islamists…but never will they blame themselves. They will refuse to acknowledge that what they called “terror” was nothing more than “revenge”; reprisal for foreign meddling in the domestic affairs of other nations, or retaliation for military invasions launched by the US, UK, France or other NATO ally upon a sovereign nation.

Meanwhile, back in DC, the Chairman of the Fed, Public Enemy No.1, “Osama” Ben Bernanke, will mastermind the destruction of the American dollar, the US economy and the purchasing power of the American people.

As we have been forecasting for years, gold, despite its recent pull back, is on-trend to reach $2000 per ounce (and possibly higher). And while Ben Bernanke claims that inflation is merely “transitory,” considering his penchant for printing trillions of digital dollars not worth the paper it’s not printed on, we see inflation as both entrenched and rising.

Press TV – An invitation by US Republican lawmakers for the Israeli prime minister to address the Congress has exposed an Israeli plan to divide senior officials within the US government.

The Republican invitation for Tel Aviv’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a high-profile speech at a joint session of the US Congress next month underscores standing rifts between US President Barack Obama and the Israeli premier and sets in motion a “bizarre diplomatic race” over which party will be the first to offer a plan to reignite the deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian talks, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

“America and Israel are the closest of friends and allies, and we look forward to hearing the prime minister’s views on how we can continue working together for peace, freedom and stability,” said Republican Speaker of the US House of Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio in a statement announcing his intent to invite Netanyahu.

While the Obama administration has been pondering in recent months whether the US president should deliver a major address on the growing upheaval in the region and the Arab world, Netanyahu, distrustful of any Obama plan, “has been considering whether to pre-empt the White House with a proposal of his own, before a friendly US Congress,” the times reports, citing remarks by American officials and diplomats in the region.

The report quotes former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy as saying that whoever first lays out a plan will gain the upper hand. “If Bibi (Netanyahu) went first and didn’t lay out a bold peace plan, it would be harder for Obama to say, actually, despite what you said to Congress and their applause, this is what I think you should do,” the paper writes, quoting Levy, who currently heads the US-based New America Foundation.

The article also states that the “political gamesmanship” reflects what ‘officials’ have described as “personal animosity between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu.”

The report also makes clear that the growing Obama-Netanyahu tensions as well as the intensifying rivalry between Republican and Democratic lawmakers to show total loyalty to the Israeli regime, stems from efforts by powerful pro-Israeli lobby groups in the US.

The Netanyahu address in the US Congress, according to the times article, “gives American elected leaders the opportunity to publicly demonstrate their support for Israel before the politically crucial Israel lobby.”

Meanwhile, national security expert Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress has accused Republican lawmakers of trying to “make Israel a partisan wedge issue.”

“And that’s bad for Israel, and that’s bad for the United States,” said Katulis, adding that the Obama administration “would never … oppose the notion of an Israeli leader addressing Congress.”
Pro-Israeli lobby groups in the US reportedly provide financial and election campaign support to over 90 percent of American legislators.

Human – Barack Obama’s presidency has entered a new, and possibly terminal, stage of crisis, as Vice President Joe Biden has called for his impeachment.

“I made it clear to the President,” a furious Biden declared, “that if he takes this nation to war without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.  That is a fact.”

Biden’s comments reflect growing Democrat anger at President Obama’s unilateral military action.  In the House, where the impeachment process must begin, Representative Dennis Kucinich has already begun talking about removing Obama from office, which is consistent with his previous stance on President George Bush’s invasion of Iraq.  Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), the only Muslim representative in Congress, has said “impeachment should be on the table.”

While not willing to go as far as joining Vice President Biden’s open call for impeachment, current House Minority Leader, and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is angry that Obama went to war without consulting Congress.  “”I do believe that Congress should assert itself and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Libya,” Pelosi stated.

Things are looking grim in the Senate, too.  Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has introduced legislation stating that “no funds … may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Libya, or within the territorial waters of Libya, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress.”  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated his support for this legislation.  Speaking for the freshman Democrat class in the Senate, a recently elected senator told the Boston Globe that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The impeachment drive has gathered strength among Democrats outside of Congress as well.  Most remarkably, the state of Vermont has voted to impeach the President, condemning him for launching an “unnecessary” war.  They also want Obama impeached for “conspiring” with the rogue soldiers who murdered a civilian in Afghanistan and photographed themselves posing with the corpse, even though the President had no direct connection with these actions, did not order them, and has supported a prompt investigation of the incident.

Vermont voters were also angered by Obama’s “indefinite detention” of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, “without charges, without legal counsel, and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention.”

It remains to be seen how President Obama can survive such a powerful drive to remove him from office, with so many prominent figures in his own party, and even his own Vice President, clearly calling for…

Whoa, wait a second, what the…

Gosh, I’m sorry folks, I made a really silly mistake here.  I forgot to set the date parameters in my Google search.  This is all stuff the Democrats said a few years ago about Bush, not Obama.  They were talking about operations in Iraq, and the looming possibility of action against Iran.  The only person mentioned above who actually has been treating Obama the same as Bush is Dennis Kucinich.  The “recently elected senator” who firmly informed the Boston Globe that unilateral Presidential military action in the absence of an imminent threat is un-Constitutional was Barack Obama himself.

On behalf of the Democrat Party, I’d like to ask you to forget you read this article, along with everything any Democrat ever said about congressional war-making powers prior to 2009.  Thanks for your cooperation!

Wohoooo. A psychopathic Zionist next-in-line…

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 1, 2011

US Special Forces have reportedly landed in Libya to train anti-Gaddafi rebels as a western-backed coup d’état in the oil-rich nation nears, with British and French “defense advisors” also arriving to set up training bases in the rebel-controlled eastern region of the country.

According to a report in the Pakistan Observer, hundreds of special forces personnel from the US, Britain and France arrived on February 23 and 24 in “American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.”

The article states that the report was confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region, who said that “The three Western states have landed their special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres,” in a bid to bolster rebel forces resisting Gaddafi’s militia in the surrounding region.

“The Western forces are reportedly preparing to set-up training bases for local militias set-up by the rebel forces for an effective control of the oil-rich region and counter any push by pro-Qaddafi forces from Tripoli,” states the report.

In addition, efforts to “neutralize” the Libyan Air Force are underway in a bid to stymie Gaddafi’s ability to rule from Tripoli if he manages to remain in power.

The US Navy has also confirmed that the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, which had previously been on pirate-hunting duty off the coast of Somalia, is now steaming towards Libya as tensions rise.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly admitted for the first time yesterday that the United States was preparing to back anti-government rebels, despite Hafiz Ghoga, the spokesman for the newly formed National Libyan Council in the rebel controlled eastern city of Benghazi, warning that any “foreign intervention” would not be welcome.

“The rest of Libya will be liberated by the people … and Gaddafi’s security forces will be eliminated by the people of Libya,” Ghoga said during a news conference.

Meanwhile, ex-European representative for the Carlyle Group and former British Prime Minister John Major has become the latest to add his voice to the growing chorus of those calling for military intervention to oust Gaddafi.

Major backed, “Other Western leaders who are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people,” reports the Telegraph.

Current British Prime Minister David Cameron has also been busy setting the stage for a western-backed coup d’état, calling for a no fly zone to be erected over the country.

“If Col Gaddafi uses military force against his own people, the world cannot stand by. That is why we should be looking at a no-fly zone,” Cameron said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov blasted the idea of a no fly zone as “superfluous,” instead signaling support for UN-backed sanctions.

On Friday, 40 influential neo-conservatives signed a letter to Barack Obama urging the President to “immediately” prepare military action to overthrow Gaddafi.

Any regime change achieved with the assistance of western nations will provide deeper access to a country that holds the largest amount of oil reserves in Africa and the tenth largest in the world, with a reserve to production ratio of around 66 years.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

The Arab world is consumed in social unrest, massive uprising, protests and political deadlock.

The Lebanese conflict threatens civil war convenient for the US-Israel hawks desperate to invade.

America sends a giant aircraft carrier off the coast of Lebanon strategically placed to strike Syria and Iran.

Egypt has shut down the internet and SMS communication as well as the stock exchange after a brutal freefall.

Russia has threatened to deploy its nukes as a response to NATO’s megalomaniac arrogance.

Georgia’s Mikhail Saakashvili has lauded the Moscow bombings as “payback” for 2008 Georgia-Russia War.

Japanese, US forces hold war games in Japan simulating missile attacks, full-scale invasion [supposedly by China].

Food Speculation: ‘People Die from Hunger While Banks Make a Killing on Food’.

The world is out of control and political leaders have become possessed maniacs with the majority of them just desperate to press that “red button” to liberate themselves from their psychosis. All the while the population is split between equally psychotic maniacs preaching the return of Jesus Christ from the sky [conveniently accompanied by 12,000 angels to protect him] or some other fairy tale Apocalypse, while there are those who are passively consumed with consumption and sinful pleasures last seen from the times of Soddom and Gomorra. The remaining minority passionately fighting for Paradise remain nothing more than a cold drop of water on a semi-molten volcanic rock.

It is self-evident that sooner or later all these developments will lead to World War III given that even the most genuine of solutions is rejected with faecal resistance. All it takes is a bit too much here and a bit too much there and oops that’s it you have SHTF…

10 Days to World War III

DAY 1: The Hariri Tribunal declares Hezbollah linked individuals responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah goes rogue, takes over the capital of Lebanon. Semi-civil war breaks out. The US and Israel go in for the kill with a five-day bombing raid using bombs packed with over 1,000,000 tonnes of explosives.

DAY 2: Palestinians overthrow their leaders both in the West Bank and Gaza inspired by their Muslim brothers across the Arab world. Hundreds of thousands march towards Israeli settlements with knives, forks, shovels, sticks and stones. A bloody massacre ensues. Their Muslim brothers explode in rage and all over the Arab world both young and old head for the “promised land”; sticks and stones in hand.

DAY 3: The African continent struggling to cope with hunger and poverty comes to the realization that it is now or never. They either take back their land and chase out the colonial powers, influences and mindsets or they will forever remain prisoners of their past. An uprising never before seen in the history of mankind takes over the African continent. Bloodshed doesn’t begin to define the events.

DAY 4: European mummy-boys and daddy’s girls all shit their pants as they wake up to world events. Fear, chaos, violence and complete hysteria breaks out and wannabe-Che-Guevara’s sprout up to lead the anarchy like youth. In desperation the political leadership and financial elite of Europe’s biggest countries decide to clampdown with brutal military force imposed under martial law.

DAY 5: North Korea unleashes 1,000,000 soldiers onto the South while Seoul reacts with strategic missiles pulverizing Pyongyang and all surrounding military and civil installations. Dozens of other global “hotspots” such as the Korean Peninsula explode in military conflict.

DAY 6: China begins to feel the heat, deciding to clamp down on regional conflicts sending Taiwan and Japan into the Abyss with 3-days of 24-hour bombing raids and a military deployment of 300,000 troops into North Korea as backup for Kim-Il-Jong’s regime.

DAY 7: As the Middle East is gripped by near total chaos with savage clashes between Muslims, Christians and Jews, the US decides to deploy nuclear bombers to Iran with the intention of crippling what it defines as the root of its problems against its previous dominance and control in the Middle East.

DAY 8: As the first few strategic nukes detonate on Iranian soil, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gives green light for the first ten intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads and biological “bonuses” to head for US soil.

DAY 9: Ten US cities evaporate in nuclear Apocalypse pushing the remaining 272,000,000 Americans towards psychotic rage. Every single US citizen finds someone or something else to point the finger at. Political leaders across the “Land of the Free” seize the opportunity to declare independence bringing the North American continent to full blown civil-war.

DAY 10: US President Barack Obama decides to respond with triple nuclear force wiping Moscow and St. Petersburg off the Russian map. The Americans shut down the internet and the Zionist controlled elite orders its global media empire to stop reporting on world events. China, Russia and the US mull over their next move. As the clock strikes midnight, the globe is engulfed in what will forever be the moment that the world nations declared World War III.