Monday June 23, 2014:Joseph Farah

ISIS: The Best Terrorists U.S. Money Can Buy

ISIS battle for Iraq air base as US advisers arrive

Extremist Islamist militants surround Camp Anaconda air base, under US occupation, and have been striking it with mortars.


BAGHDAD - Militants attacked one of Iraq's largest air bases and seized control of several small oilfields on Wednesday as US military experts arrived to set up an operations center to help Iraqi security forces counter a mounting Sunni insurgency.

Militants including Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and allied Sunni tribes battled Iraqi forces in the town of Yathrib, 90 km north of Baghdad, into the early hours of Wednesday, witnesses and the deputy head of the municipality said. Four militants were killed, they said.

Insurgents have surrounded a massive air base nearby, which was known as "Camp Anaconda" under US occupation, and struck it with mortars. Eyewitnesses said the air base had been surrounded on three sides.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is fighting for his job and is under international pressure to create a more inclusive government, said he supported starting the process of forming a new government within a week.

In northern Iraq the Sunni militants extended a two-week advance that has been led by ISIS but also includes an amalgam of other Sunni groups angered by Maliki's rule.
They blame him for marginalizing their sect during eight years in power. The fighting threatens to rupture the country two and a half years after the end of US occupation.

US Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Iraqi officials to form an "inclusive" government during a visit this week and urged leaders of the autonomous Kurdish region to stand with Baghdad against the onslaught.

A parliament session is planned within a week that will start the process of forming a new government based on the results of elections held in April.

"We will attend the first session of parliament," Maliki said on state television, adding the commitment stemmed from "loyalty to our people" and respect for a call by Iraq's foremost Shi'ite clergy.


On Friday, Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most respected cleric among Iraq's Shi'ite majority, called for the government formation process to begin.

The United Nations says more than 1,000 people, mainly civilians, have been killed during the Sunni insurgents' advance in Iraq, spearheaded by al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS.

The figure includes unarmed government troops machine gunned in mass graves by insurgents, as well as several reported incidents of prisoners killed in their cells by retreating government forces.

US President Barack Obama has offered up to 300 American advisers to Iraq, about 130 of whom have now been deployed.

Insurgents seize oilfields

Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said late on Tuesday an initial group sent to establish an operations center included intelligence analysts, logistics experts and special operations forces.

Another 50 US military personnel working in the region are expected to arrive within the next few days to create four additional assessment teams, he said. US military personnel are also flying regular manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Iraq.

Iraqi state television reported that newly-arrived Pentagon advisers met with Baghdad's operations commander and agreed to set up a joint operation command.

Baghdad is racing against time as the insurgents consolidate their grip on Sunni provinces.
On Wednesday, militants overran the Ajeel oil site, 30 km (19 miles) east of Tikrit, which contains at least three small oilfields that produce 28,000 barrels per day, an engineer working at the field said.

The engineer said local tribes had taken responsibility for protecting the fields after police withdrew but that they also left after the nearby town of al-Alam was seized by militants.

Ajeel is connected to two pipelines, one running to Turkey's Ceyhan port and the other to the Baiji oil refinery, which remained a frontline early on Wednesday.

State TV showed troop reinforcements flying into the compound by helicopter to fend off the assault on Baiji, a strategic industrial complex 200 km north of Baghdad.

Local tribal leaders said they were negotiating with both the Shi'ite-led government and Sunni fighters to allow the tribes to run the plant if Iraqi forces withdraw. One government official said Baghdad wanted the tribes to break with ISIS and other Sunni armed factions, and help defend the compound.

The plant has been fought over since last Wednesday, with sudden reversals for both sides and no clear winner so far.

Border crossings fall

In recent days, Baghdad's grip on the Western frontier with Syria and Jordan has also been challenged.

One post on the Syrian border has fallen to Sunni militants and another has been taken over by the Kurds. A third crossing with Syria and the only crossing with Jordan are contested, with anti-government fighters and Baghdad both claiming control.

For ISIS, capturing the frontier is a step towards the goal of erasing the modern border altogether and building a caliphate across swathes of Iraq and Syria.

An Iraqi military spokesman said on Tuesday the government had carried out air strikes on a militant gathering in the town of al-Qaim near the Syrian border, which is under the control of the coalition of Sunni armed groups, including ISIS.

Washington has placed its hopes in forming a new, more inclusive government in Baghdad that would undermine the insurgency. Kerry aims to convince Kurdish leaders to join it.

In Baghdad on Monday Kerry said Maliki assured him the new parliament, elected two months ago, would sit by a July 1 deadline to start forming a new government.
Credit to Ynet

Putin Scores Another Historic Victory: Austria Signs South Stream Pipeline Deal In Defiance Of Europe

As the war of words between Europe and Russia has escalated, one of the outcomes that has emerged is that just like in false flag war over Syria, the Ukraine war was about the simplest possible thing, and yet so very complicate: a gas pipeline. Of course, it was never a secret that the prize in controlling Ukraine was possession of the vast pipeline infrastructure that left Russia and entered Europe, but since it was all Gazprom's gas in the first place, it didn't really matter if Kiev had possession of the gas as it transits to Europe, or if, as the case is now, Ukraine is merely a transit hub with all Russian gas delivered to European countries and none of it staying in the civil war torn country. After all as of this moment Ukraine can't afford any Russian gas, and if it siphons off any of the product destined for Germany and beyond it would simply antagonize its new NATO best friends, who also happen to be Gazprom clients.

No, the pipeline that has emerged with a starring role in the Ukraine conflict has nothing to do with Ukraine, but is a pipeline that crosses several hundred kilometers south of Ukraine - the South Stream project, which leaves the Russian black sea coast south of Crimea, crosses the black sea, and traverses Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and ends up in the gas hub in Baumgarten, Austria from where it proceeds to all points in central Europe, mostly Germany.

The project, which was conceived in 2007, was meant explicitly to bypass Ukraine, and to be an alternative to the now mothballed Nabucco gas pipeline which, with the backing of the US and Europe, would have taken Caspian gas (mainly Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan) and traverse Turkey before emerging in Bulgaria, and then followed the European path of the South Stream into the Austrian hub and beyond.

Not surprisingly, it was the key transit hub of the South Stream, Bulgaria, that started making problems for Putin even as he succeeded in trumping Nabucco (when in June 2013 the CEO of Austrian energy giant OMV, Gerhard Roiss, announced the project as "over" after the Turkish Shah Deniz consortium chose the Trans-Adriatic Pipielineover Nabucco as a gas export route which would supply Italy instead of Austria).

Recall that it was in January, two months before the Ukraine government was overthrown that the prime minister of Bulgaria - a country that has a very distinguished love/hate relationship with Russia (a relationship which the US would love to make more "hate") - Plamen Oresharski, surprisingly ordered a halt to work on the South Stream, on the recommendation of the EU.The decision was announced after his talks with US senators.

"At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."

At the time McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.

"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for cheap energy resources - clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT.

It was also in January when EU authorities ordered Bulgaria to suspend construction on its link of the pipeline, which is planned to transport Russian natural gas through the Black Sea to Bulgaria and onward to western Europe.Brussels wants the project frozen, pending a decision on whether it violates the EU competition regulations on a single energy market. It believes South Stream does not comply with the rules prohibiting energy producers from also controlling pipeline access.

Therein, of course, lies the rub, because as Europe has learned the hard way so many times, its overrliance on Russia for both the production and the transit of gas means that it has absolutely no leverage over the Kremlin - something recent events in Ukraine have only confirmed.

Putin, earlier today, merely cemented the reality that it is not so much about who controls the energy transit pipelines, but whose influence controls Europe: America's or Russia's. "The US opposes the Russian South Stream gas pipeline project because it wants to supply gas to Europe itself, President Putin said on Tuesday. He called the situation an "ordinary competitive struggle."

“They do everything to disrupt this contract. There is nothing unusual here. This is an ordinary competitive struggle. In the course of this competition, political tools are also being used,” the Russian president said after holding talks with his Austrian counterpart, President Heinz Fischer, in Vienna.

"We are in talks with our contract partners, not with third parties. That our US friends are unhappy about South Stream, well, they were unhappy in 1962 too, when the gas-for-pipes project with Germany was beginning. Now they are unhappy too, nothing has changed, except the fact that they want to supply to the European market themselves," Putin stated.

Should this happen, American gas “will not be cheaper than Russian gas – pipe gas is always cheaper than liquefied gas,” Putin stressed.

* * *

Which in turn brings us to the culmination of the political struggle over the South Stream, when earlier today, in yet another coup for the Kremlin, one of the most stable and respected European countries, AAA-rated Austria gave its final approval to the "controversial" Russian gas pipeline project early Tuesday, defying EU officials and welcoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to the neutral country that has been a long-standing energy customer for Moscow.

As Reuters reports, "the chief executives of Russia's Gazprom and Austria's OMV sealed the deal to build a branch of the South Stream gas pipeline to Austria, a staunch defender of the project in the face of opposition from the European Commission."

In other words, one short month after Putin concluded the Holy Grail deal with Beijing, he not only managed to formalize his conquest of Europe's energy needs with yet another pipeline, one which completely bypasses Ukraine (for numerous reasons but mostly one: call it a Plan B), but scored a massive political victory by creating a fissure in the heart of the Eurozone, after Austria openly defied its European peers and sided with Putin.

Needless to say, the European Commission is furious, and is digging in its heels saying South Stream does not comply with EU competition law because it offers no access to third parties. South Stream also, as noted above, counters the EU's policy of diversifying supply sources to reduce dependence on Russia.

But OMV CEO Gerhard Roiss, in a stunning moment of realpolitik clarity and admission that when it comes to the energy future of Europe, Putin is more important than Mario Draghi, told a news conference after the signing: "Europe needs Russian gas. Europe will need more Russian gas in future because European gas production is falling ... I think the European Union understands this, too."

Of course, they do. The only issue is they don't want to admit it because doing so seals Europea's fate as a vassal energy state of Russia. As for Europe's pipedream, pardon the pun, alternative of receiving LNG from the US, it was none other than Cnehiere CEO Charif Souki who said in April, when asked if Cheniere’s terminal could rescue eastern European countries from their dependence on Russia, that "It’s flattering to be talked about like this, but it’s all nonsense. It’s so much nonsense that I can’t believe anybody really believes it.”

They don't, but it's all politics. And in politics it is all about wielding power, or submitting to it. Austria did the latter today, and by defecting on its European peers, it may have started a process that leads to the splintering of the Eurozone itself, with none other than Vladimir Putin once again pulling the strings.

The project has pitted European industry against politicians in Brussels, and divided South Stream supporters - which stretch from Germany through the heavily Russia-dependent central and southeastern Europe - from other EU member states.

On a one-day working visit to Vienna that drew some criticism in the EU, Putin spoke of close business ties to Austria, the first western European country to sign, in 1968, long-term gas supply deals with Moscow.

He called Austria an "important and reliable" partner for Russia, which is Austria's third-biggest non-EU trading partner after the United States and Switzerland.

Austrian President Heinz Fischer also defended the South Stream project, saying: "No one can explain to me - and I can't explain to the Austrian people - why a pipeline that crosses EU and NATO countries can't go 50 km into Austria."

Oh and for the record, the Austrian president said "He said he opposed sanctions against Moscow"... just in case the next time Europe dares to pass off any Russian sanctions over Ukraine decision as unanimous.

And speaking of Ukraine, things got downright bizarre in Vienna when the head of Austria's chamber of commerce reminded Putin that part of Ukraine had belonged to Austria in 1914.  "What is that supposed to mean? What are you proposing?" Putin quipped, eliciting laughter from the business elite. Next thing you know Putin will be joking about annexing Hungary...

And there you have it, just in case it was still unclear: what is happening in Ukraine is all a big joke to the power brokers in Europe, the "business elite" - the decision has long since been made that Putin will see no objection by said elite to whatever his intentions with regard to the irrelevant and civil war-torn country are. Aside, of course, from the token CIA and US theater fit simply for lower common denominator consumption.

The joint South Stream Austria project will be 50 percent owned by Gazprom – Russia's largest gas producer – and 50 percent owned by Austria’s OMV Group, the country’s largest oil and gas company.

Austria's president Fischer stated that if anyone criticizes Austria, they should also criticize other member countries and their companies.

“I suppose that there will be no such moment when such a country as Austria will not be holding talks with a partner, which has intense relations with us, and will not be ready to negotiate with it,” the Austrian leader said.

“We know such a dialogue does not contradict any EU decision,” he added. What he meant is that nobody in Europe can tell Putin what to do.

Credit to Zero Hedge

UN Publicly Prepares For Gun Confiscation In US

The Number One Reason Why We Cannot Defeat the New World Order

Thanks to modern-day researchers, we know about the rash of dead bankers. Thanks to Steve Quayle, and others, we know about the all the dead scientists and the dire implications with regard to chemical/biological attack. However, hardly anyone is talking about the all the dead leaders. The phenomenon of dead leaders underscores the reason that the people on this planet will never be free from the murderous banksters that run the planet.

The Crisis of Global Leadership

Whether one lives in a republic, a democracy or a totalitarian form of government, the majority of the people naively believe that their government officials will truly protect them from the evil that is so pervasive on the planet. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Your leaders, elected or self-appointed, cannot protect their people anymore than they can protect themselves

After feeling the intoxication of power, some leaders actually begin to drink their own Kool-Aid and believe that they can be independent of the global forces that permitted their rise to power. When a national leader, on the planet Earth, begins to believe they are truly independent, bad things begin to happen. Planes blow up or the leaders come down with cancer. And when the transgressions of a leader becomes severe enough, they end up with a bullet in the brain.

Because this is an article and not a voluminous novel, only a small cross-section of the demise of independent leaders can be shown. However, the examples are so horrifying and commonplace, it will destroy the myth that we only need to find the right leaders who will then deliver us from evil.

How To Murder An Entire Government

The late Polish President, Lech Kaczynski, and nearly the entire Polish governmental leadership was killed in a 2010 plane crash. Laczynskil’s twin brother believed that the government was murdered and called for  the European Union to investigate. He was not alone in his belief.

Poland’s Rzeczpospolita newspaper boldly proclaimed that the prosecutors and explosive experts and investigators, who examined the plane at the Russian crash site, found clear and irrefutable signs of TNT and nitroglycerin on the wings and in the cabin, including traces found on 30 passenger seats. Subsequently, an on scene flight engineer investigator,  Remigiusz  Muś, was set to deliver critical testimony, about the presence of explosive residue, but was subsequently found hanged in his house in Warsaw before the testimony could be delivered. In January 2012, a Polish prosecutor, Mikolaj Przybyl, involved in the investigation shot himself for no apparent reason after excusing himself from a media briefing.

The Polish leadership, like so many leaders in the past, decided to find their backbone and subsequently Poland uniformly declined to be a victim of the bankster loan sharking operations. In a very humorous twist of fate,  Poland’s central bank actually had the intestinal fortitude to offer the IMF a loan to “help other countries overcome the effects of the global crisis” (AFP, March 29, 2010. Out of all the 27 nation European Union, Poland was the only nation to experience economic growth in 2009. Poland’s Zloty grew by 1.7% in 2009, a remarkable feat given that European Union countries contracted by an average of 4.1% and no other EU economy grew at all. Poland balked at participating in the global “bail outs” that the rest of world’s nations were participating in, including the United States. “Poland avoided eastern Europe’s worst lending binges. Kaczynski frustrated some of his opponents by being in no rush to head towards the “Euro party,” reported the Daily Telegraph.

Bloomberg also reported that Kaczynski resisted adopting the Euro. As this article unfolds, this refusal of the soon-to-be dead leaders to capitulate to on the regionalization of currencies, to the detriment of an economically solvent nation, will become a persistent theme.

In a case of JFK’s “back and to the left” in frame 224 of the Zapruder video, the evidence, below, speaks to the practice of eliminating enemies of the bankster empire with extreme prejudice.

The translated English transcript of the audio in the video and its approximate timing of each signficant sound or spoken word:

0:13 Calm down!
0:18 Look him in the eyes.
0:22 Calm down!
0:29 Oh my God!
0:30 All of them!
0:31 Kill them!
0:38 (Airport siren sounds)
0:45 Surround him! Go around! He’s running away!
0:47 Give me a gun.
0:49 Come here, bastard!
0:50 Kill him!
0:51 Do not kill us.
0:51 Do not kill us.
0:55 My God, my God, what is that?
0:55 Shoot.
0:56 (Gun reloading noise)
0:57 (Shot #1)
1:01 You’ll never get away with it!
1:07 (Shot #2)
1:09 (Laughter)
1:13 Change of plans – come back!
1:14 Everyone come back – faster!
1:14 (Shot #3)

1:17 (Shot #4)
1:20 Let’s get out of here.

Case in point of how to murder an entire government who opposes the central banking cartel.

The Genocide of South American Leaders Who Oppose the Bankster Protection Rackets

Southern Venezuela sits on one of the largest undeveloped gold deposits in the world. Under their former leader, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuela government was the 13th largest holder of gold in the world. They have 154 tons of this precious metal in their Central Bank in Venezuela. Any movement of this gold would have critically impacted the global markets worldwide. This could not be permitted.

Eventually, Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, succumbed to respiratory complications after a severe bout with pelvic cancer. Then acting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro suggested that Chavez was murdered by “dark forces that wanted him out of the way”. A CNN storyreported that “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wondered Wednesday if the United States could be infecting the region’s leaders with the illness … Chavez prefaced his remarks at a military event in Caracas by saying, ‘I don’t want to make any reckless accusations,’ but the Venezuelan president said he was concerned by something he finds ‘very, very, very strange.’ ‘Would it be strange if (the United States) had developed a technology to induce cancer, and for no one to know it?”

Like so many elected presidents, who annoy Big Oil, which is controlled by Big Banking, have ended up in exile, or worse yet, in coffins. The cases in point are Mossadegh of Iran after he nationalized BP’s fields (1953), Elchibey, President of Azerbaijan, after he refused demands of BP for his Caspian fields (1993), President Alfredo Palacio of Ecuador after he terminated Occidental’s drilling concession (2005).

South American leaders, in general, who said no to the takeover of their oil, water and currencies ended up contracting or dying from cancer.

Former Argentine President, Nestor Kirchner, died from colon cancer.

Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff contracted lymphoma cancer)

Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, contracted throat cancer.

Former Cuban president Fidel Castro, who is hanging on by a thread contracted stomach cancer.

Bolivian President, Evo Morales was stricken with nasal cancer.  

Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo caught a bad case of lymphoma cancer.  

This is what Chavez was alluding to. The correlation between contracting quick acting cancer and ruling south of the Equator defies all odds. Of course, it is all just one big coincidence and the overwhelming odds be damned.

Gadaffi Over Obama

Question, when does our dictator become more of a dictator than their dictator?  Answer, when our dictator is in his last term and has nothing to lose.

Libya, under Gaddafi, was Africa’s most prosperous democracy. Their government was much more responsive to the people than the United States. In fact, Libya has the United States beat on the on the issue of democracy prior to the assassination of Gaddafi. That does not seem possible but the fundamental difference between the United States democratic systems and Libya’s Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya, citizens were given the chance to contribute directly to the political decision-making process. Do your national leaders show the remotest desire to improve your fate?

The government of Gaddafi brought the Libyan government from poverty and debt, to prosperity and debt-free status in 41 years. Under the Gaddafi, Libya healthcare was free and Libyan pharmacies and hospitals were actually comparable to high-grade European medical facilities. This is in contrast with America, where our death by doctor fatalities reached 225,000 before his Gaddafi’s death. If this does not infuriate you, then you surely must be asleep!

Under Gadaffi, Libya gave free land and seeds to anyone who wants to farm that land. In America, we “swat team” raw dairy farmers, organic food producers and the Amish. Meanwhile, farmers are increasingly being forced to use unlabeled, cancer-causing, GMO seeds. Forty loaves of bread cost just $0.15 at the time of Libya’s revolution. The prices for our food staples have more than doubled over the past two years.

At the time of Gaddafi’s assassination, the price of gas was around $0.14 per gallon. Meanwhile, American gas prices are again approaching four and five dollars for a gallon of gas. The major reason gas prices are exploding is because our dollar is losing value. The world is running from the dollar. The stock market is greatly escalating beyond all reason. If you know your 1929 history, you know what lies next.

Libyan working mothers enjoyed a range of benefits including cash bonuses for children, free day care, free health care centers, and retirement at 55. In America, our medical industrial establishment makes it as difficult as possible to raise a child. American retirement age will soon go to 70 and Obama has designs on stealing our pensions, IRA’s and 401K’s.

Unlike America, where we horde our wealth to the tune of $128 trillion of underground resources (e.g. oil, natural gas, etc.), Gaddafi’s oil-revenue-sharing program helped bring a good measure of prosperity to each Libyan as they receive $500 (Dollars) deposited into his or her bank account each month. Did you know that if the first bail out to Wall Street had been applied to America’s home mortgages, all Americans would now own their homes free and clear? However, our American central bankers over at the Federal Reserve are obsessed with destroying the middle class, not enhancing the economic plight of the people. Speaking of homes, when Libyans marry, each couple is gifted $60,000 to do with as they please. In America, we double tax our couples under the so-called marriage penalty tax.

Unlike America, where college tuition costs rose at a rate eight times faster than the cost of living, Education from grade school through to college is free in Libya and the Libyan government paid for college students to study specialty subjects overseas.

So why is Gadaffi dead? He refused to capitulate and give Basel what they wanted, a Libyan central bank that would enslave the nation with debt in the same manner as all the other 56 central banks which have enslaved their respective national governments. And when leaders say “enough”, they die.

Warning: The following video has strong printed language in the final minute.

So why is Gadaffi dead? He refused to capitulate and give Basel what they wanted, a Libyan central bank that would enslave the nation with debt in the same manner as all the other 56 central banks which have enslaved their respective national governments. And when leaders say “enough”, they die.

Conclusion

Attorney Ellen Brown argues, in the Asia Times, that Libya, like Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks. The banksters once announced the plan to take out seven countries who are coincidentally outside of central banking influence: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. On the periphery of this enemies list is also Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Isn’t that interesting that the Axis of Evil nations, as we call them, have one thing in common. In the context of banking, one fact that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bankers bank located in Switzerland. To some degree, the avoidance of being a debt slave to the central banksters is not permitted and such violators risk having the full force of the US military and NATO being brought down upon them to enforce the “right” for the central bankers to impose involuntary servitude in deference to their holy order.

Lincoln attempted to use Greenbacks as currency and was shot in the head.

JFK printed “C-notes” which would have eventually debased the Federal Reserve Dollar and he was also shot in the head.

Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was selling oil for Euro’s not the Petrodollar and now he’s dead.

Gaddafi was talking about a gold Dinar and not using the Petrodollar and now he’s dead.

Soon, Assad of Syria will be dead for the same reasons.

Iranian leadership has a short life-expectancy because they are selling oil for gold to Russia, China and India.

As the Obama administration indiscriminately kills thousands of people in places such as Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan with drone strikes, we now know that they are preparing to do the same to American citizens. Our “Fast and Furious” Czar, Attorney General, Eric Holder, recently announced that Obama can do the same to Americans.

Meanwhile, at the time of Gaddafi’s death, the United Nations designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development. I never thought I would write the words in which I marveled at how Libyans were treated better by Gaddafi than Americans are by Obama. Make no mistake about it, Gaddafi was a thug, but a thug who provided more for his people on a comparative per capita basis than Obama does for the American people.

What does it say that a known terrorist is more compassionate towards his people that Obama? And what has become of Libya since Gaddafi’s death? They are headed back to the Dark Ages courtesy of the central banker sponsored Al-Qaeda who now runs the country. Have you noticed that anything these central bankers touch turns to pure manure? If our country ever gets disassembled in the same manner, Libya provides a good barometer of what lies ahead for most Americans. Most importantly, the aforementioned leaders who attempted to stand up for the welfare of their people against the banksters, are all dead. What did Jesus know when he chased the money changers from the Temple?

The sooner that you understand that the banksters want you in debt servitude, the sooner everything else will make sense.

Credit to Common Sense

Royal Navy frigate intercepts Russian vessel in the Baltic Nato-protected waters

A Royal Navy warship intercepted a Russian military vessel that strayed close to Nato-protected waters in the Baltics in an echo of the Cold War.

HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate, was taking part in a multinational exercise off the Danish coast when she was dispatched to investigate an unidentified surface ship picked up on radar.

Despite choppy seas and 30 knot winds, the crew identified the unknown ship as the 104-metre-long Steregushchiy-class frigate RFS Soobrazitelny skirting Danish waters as it sailed west in the Baltic Sea.




Dispatched: HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate, was taking part in a multinational exercise off the Danish coast when she was sent to investigate an unidentified surface ship picked up on radar






Identified: The 104metre-long Steregushchiy-class frigate RFS Soobrazitelny, a Russian warship, appeared to be carrying out routine manoeuvres in international waters

As HMS Montrose closed with the Russian vessel, a Russian Ilyushin IL-20 ‘Coot’ maritime patrol aircraft was detected and appeared overhead, circling the two ships.

It was one of the Royal Navy’s most significant encounters with Russian warships in the region since the Ukraine crisis began.

Navy chiefs said the show of strength demonstrated Nato’s resolve to protect its 28 members against any threat from the Kremlin.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2668139/Royal-Navy-frigate-intercepts-Russian-vessel-Baltic-warship-strays-close-Nato-protected-waters.html#ixzz35ey1B1VF

Big Bang controversy grows: Study claims universe would have collapsed 'a second after it formed'

Maybe they will find the answers if they read genesis....Again stubbornness!!!

They can not prove anything and continue to assert that it is valid.....

Earlier this year, a groundbreaking experiment claimed to have detected what happened in the first billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

Astronomers using the Bicep2 telescope said they found evidence for the faint microwave glow left over from the event that signalled the start of the universe.

But since then the research has come under increasing scrutiny - and now scientists claim that if the results were true, the universe as we know it would not exist at all.





New research from King's College London suggests that, if the Bicep2 results announced in March are correct, then the universe should have collapsed less than a second after the Big Bang (illustration shown), unless there is an unexplained realm of particle physics at work holding the cosmos together

According to astronomers from King's College London (KCL), the universe should have existed for no more than a second before collapsing.

The research is the result of combining the latest observations of the sky, with the recent discovery of the Higgs boson.

After the universe began in the Big Bang, it is thought to have gone through a short period of rapid expansion known as 'cosmic inflation'.

Although the details of this process are not yet fully understood, cosmologists have been able to make predictions of how this would affect the universe we see today.

In March 2014, researchers from the Bicep2 collaboration claimed to have detected one of these predicted effects.

If true, their results are a major advance in our understanding of cosmology and a confirmation of the inflation theory, but they have proven controversial and are not yet fully accepted by cosmologists.

But in the new research, scientists from KCL investigated what the Bicep2 observations would mean for the stability of the universe - with surprising results.

To do this, they combined the results with recent advances in particle physics.





In this image showcasing results from the Bicep2 experiment, which have been called into question, gravitational waves from inflation generate a faint but distinctive twisting pattern in the polarisation of the 'cosmic microwave background', known as a 'curl' or B-mode pattern



The Bicep2 telescope in Antarctica is seen here at twilight. The telescope has led to significant new results on the early universe, although its recent results have been called into question. The Keck Array telescope and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station can be seen in the background

The detection of the Higgs boson by the Large Hadron Collider was announced in July 2012; since then, much has been learned about its properties.

However, there is a different valley which is much deeper, but our universe is prevented from falling into it by a large energy barrier.Measurements of the Higgs boson have allowed particle physicists to show that the universe sits in a valley of the 'Higgs field', which describes the way that other particles have mass.

The problem is that the Bicep2 results predict the universe would have received large 'kicks' during the cosmic inflation phase, pushing it into the other valley of the Higgs field within a fraction of a second.

If that had happened, the universe would have quickly collapsed in a 'Big Crunch'.

'This is an unacceptable prediction of the theory because if this had happened we wouldn't be around to discuss it,' said Hogan, who is a PhD student at KCL and led the study.

The scientists claim the Bicep2 results may contain an error; if not, there must be some other, as yet unknown, process which prevented the universe from collapsing.

IT's called GOD

Credit to Mail Online
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2666906/Big-Bang-controversy-grows-Universe-collapsed-second-formed-Bicep2-results-true.html#ixzz35bDnsZ00

16 Ways the Supreme Court Built the Police State and Destroyed Your Rights

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security. In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”—they are not accountable for their actions—in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them.

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. InFlorida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. InMaryland v. King (2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious offenses.” While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. The Supreme Court declared in Arizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals—citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling and destroying the Fourth Amendment.

Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington(2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Immunity protections for Secret Service agents trump the free speech rights of Americans.The court issued a unanimous decision in Reichle v. Howards (2012), siding with two Secret Service agents who arrested a Colorado man simply for daring to voice critical remarks to Vice President Cheney. However, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC(2010) with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling inKentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can interrogate minors without their parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families—the Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases, turned away in recent years alone, have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police. Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas(2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

Students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school. The Court refused to hear Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools (2013), a case involving students at a Missouri public school who were subjected to random lockdowns, mass searches and drug-sniffing dogs by police. In so doing, the Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the searches and lockdowns were reasonable in order to maintain the safety and security of students at the school.

Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle(2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution. The Ninth Circuit actually rationalized its ruling by claiming that the officers couldn’t have known beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions—tasering a pregnant woman who was not a threat in any way until she was unconscious—violated the Fourth Amendment.

When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses—that is, you and me.

Keep in mind that in former regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the complicity of the courts was the final piece to fall into place before the totalitarian beast stepped out of the shadows and into the light. If history is a guide, then the future that awaits us is truly frightening.

Time, as they say, grows short.