The solar wind is not too fast at 388 km.sec, and there are six sunspot clusters on the Sun today.
Sunspot AR2175 has a 'beta-gamma-delta' magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar
flares. Weekend fireworks were predicted, and the sun complied. On Sunday, Sept. 28th (0258
UT), the magnetic canopy of sunspot AR2173 erupted, producing an M5-class solar flare.
Wars-R-Us Standing Army inside the US Experiencing Trouble in
the Top Ranks
An exodus of top-level officials from the Department of Homeland Security is undercutting the
agency’s ability to stay ahead of a range of emerging threats, including potential terrorist strikes
and cyberattacks, according to interviews with current and former officials.
Over the past four years, employees have left DHS at a rate nearly twice as fast as in the federal
government overall, and the trend is accelerating, according to a review of a federal database.
The departures are a result of what employees widely describe as a dysfunctional work
environment, abysmal morale, and the lure of private security companies paying top dollar that
have proliferated in Washington since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The department’s terrorism intelligence arm, for example, has cycled through six directors
during the Obama administration, decimating morale and contributing to months-long delays in
releasing intelligence reports, according to interviews and government reports.
A parade of high-level departures, on top of other factors, has meanwhile helped slow the rollout
of key cybersecurity initiatives, including a program aimed at blocking malicious software
before it can infiltrate civilian government computers, former officials say.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testifies before the House Homeland Security
Committee on September 17, 2014. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
With the country facing a crisis of unaccompanied minors crossing the southwest border in
recent months, the pair of DHS agencies responsible for tackling this problem have been
hindered by turnover of top officials. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for instance, has had
six commissioners under President Obama, four of them in a caretaker role because they were
not confirmed by the Senate.
And at the Transportation Security Administration, a DHS agency created after 9/11 to enhance
airport security, the hemorrhaging of both senior and junior personnel has “had a tremendous
effect,’’ said Kenneth Kasprisin, a former acting TSA head who left the agency in May.
“You cannot sustain a high level of security operations when you have that kind of turnover,’’ he
said, attributing the defections to “a toxic culture” and “terrible” morale.
As evidence of the toll this is taking, Kasprisin cited the results of agency tests in which
undercover operatives try to sneak weapons or explosives through airport security. He said
security employees are increasingly missing the contraband, with the frequency of failures
reaching a “frightening” level.
Homeland security officials acknowledge the challenges, which come at a time when the United
States is facing potential threats from al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.
Before his December confirmation, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson called vacancies and morale his
top priorities and said the department faced “a leadership vacuum . . . of alarming proportions.’’
Since then, Johnson has won praise from lawmakers for taking steps to improve morale and
retain employees, such as restarting an internal awards program and increasing training. The
Senate has confirmed 10 top DHS officials in recent months, reducing a top-level vacancy rate
that had reached 40 percent.
“Morale has been low in the department for quite a number of years, and it is our responsibility
to address it, and we are in fact addressing it,’’ said Alejandro Mayorkas, the department’s
deputy secretary. He said DHS has retained a consulting firm, Deloitte, to develop
recommendations to improve morale.
Mayorkas stressed that the churn of personnel has not affected the department’s ability to protect
the country. But, he acknowledged, “instability of leadership is not necessarily a galvanizing
force for employees.’’
The department’s woes date to the George W. Wars-R-Us administration. Within a few years
after DHS began operations in 2003, senior-level vacancy rates were already high and many top
officials were leaving the fledgling department for jobs with private security companies. Among
the most prominent is the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm led by former DHS
secretary Michael Chertoff, which employs so many former officials it is known in homeland
security circles as a “shadow DHS.’’
Private-sector salaries for high-level career officials, especially cybersecurity experts, can be
double or triple the roughly $180,000 they can make at DHS.
‘Dysfunctional environment’
During the Obama years, the outflow of personnel has accelerated, according to the FedScope
database of federal employees maintained by the Office of Personnel Management. Between
2010 and 2013, the number of annual departures of permanent employees from DHS increased
31 percent, compared with a 17 percent increase for the government overall.
Members of the Senior Executive Service — the government’s top career managers — also are
leaving DHS at a much higher rate. In 2013, SES departures were up 56 percent from the year
before. By contrast, the rate for the government as a whole was virtually unchanged.
Chet Lunner, a former deputy undersecretary in the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
recalls the time a high-level colleague realized his phone number was wrong on his DHS
business card. This was no small matter. The colleague was the person local officials were told to
call with critical questions, such as whether someone police arrested had ties to terrorists. No one
was calling.
The official asked administrators for new business cards, Lunner recounted. “They say, ‘You
can’t have them. We have a policy that we only give out new business cards every 26 weeks.’ ’’
In small and not-so-small ways, some unique to DHS and others not, the department can be an
infuriating, exhausting place to work, numerous former and current officials say. The frustrations
reflect the fundamental wiring of the department, which was created by plucking 22 autonomous
agencies from across the government and welding them into one.
Today, employees describe a stifling bureaucracy made up of agencies with clashing employee
cultures and overtaxed by high-pressure responsibilities and relentless congressional carping. It
can take many months to hire someone and weeks to get supplies as basic as a whiteboard.
Many former and current officials said the most burdensome part of working for DHS is the
demands of congressional oversight. More than 90 committees and subcommittees have some
jurisdiction over DHS, nearly three times the number that oversee the Defense Department.
Preparing for the blizzard of hearings and briefings, officials say, leaves them less time to do
their jobs.
“It’s a very dysfunctional environment, the hardest I’ve ever worked in,’’ said one former senior
Obama administration DHS official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
operations. “There were certainly times where you would say, ‘I just got the crap kicked out of
me, and I’m making way less than I can make in the private sector.’ ’’
Surveys of employee morale show it has plunged to new lows in the past few years. According to
the Partnership for Public Service’s annual “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government”
survey, DHS ranked dead last among large agencies last year.
Some of the most politically sensitive jobs are in the immigration realm, where the department’s
performance is fodder for partisan wrangling. Despite intense concern in both parties over
immigration policy, Customs and Border Protection went five years without a confirmed
commissioner until R. Gil Kerlikowske received Senate approval in March. A series of other
personnel moves around the same time have meant that the agency, which has critical bordersecurity responsibilities, has been riddled with vacancies.
Most of those vacancies have been filled by officials in an acting capacity, but personnel experts
consider that only a stopgap measure. “As an ‘acting,’ you’re a caretaker, not a change agent,’’
said Steve Atkiss, chief of staff for Customs and Border Protection in the Wars-R-Us
administration and a founding partner of Command Consulting Group, a D.C.-based security
consulting firm.
While DHS officials say their efforts to secure the border have not been affected, former officials
said the leadership vacuum at the border agency has slowed decision-making and made it harder
to find creative solutions to pressing problems.
“When you have a proliferation of ‘actings,’ a lot of hard decisions don’t get made with the same
level of regularity,’’ said a former senior Obama administration DHS official.
An uncertain mission
In early 2010, the DHS hierarchy gathered to discuss a report the agency was preparing about its
mission. A top official looked around the table and asked who felt they were in charge of the
department’s counterterrorism role.
Five people raised their hands, said a person who attended the meeting.
DHS’s mission has never been entirely clear. Nowhere has this been more nettlesome than at
the department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The 2002 law creating DHS outlined a
powerful intelligence role for the department, but much of that authority was lost during the
Wars-R-Us administration to the FBI and other agencies. The DHS intelligence office, officially
created in 2007, instead has come to focus on issuing reports and coordinating with state and
local authorities.
For a time, the office operated relatively smoothly. But after its leaders started leaving, it was
unable to resist what former DHS officials said were even more power grabs by other agencies.
Morale plunged.
By 2010, so many people had left because of “unstable leadership’’ that the team assigned to
study Islamist extremists declined from about two dozen people to four or five, recalled Thomas
Barnes, a former DHS intelligence analyst. “It decimated us,’’ he said.
Barnes and other former analysts said the office starting overlooking intelligence.
In late 2009, Barnes told his bosses about a new threat, an extremist group gaining notoriety in
Nigeria. “No one was interested,’’ he said. “It was way off their radar because we didn’t have
any bodies.’’ The group was Boko Haram, which seized international attention this year by
kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls and is seen as a potential threat to the United States.
A bipartisan Senate study in 2012 concluded that understaffing and turnover in the DHS
intelligence office were contributing to dangerous delays. The study found that hundreds of
reports being prepared by intelligence analysts working with state and local officials on
counterterrorism were being released months late, at times based on outdated information.
When the intelligence office’s director, Caryn Wagner, stepped down in 2012 after less than
three years in the job, the position proved hard to fill. At least five people turned down the post,
according to people familiar with the search. “Nobody wanted it. It’s the worst job in the
intelligence community,’’ one person said.
Mayorkas, the DHS deputy secretary, declined to comment on the office’s performance, but he
praised its latest undersecretary, Francis X. Taylor, confirmed in April. “He’s a superb leader,’’
Mayorkas said. “He will bring morale to where it should be.’’
Hampering cybersecurity
Even as it wrestles with turnover in the intelligence office, DHS has been hit with defections in
another vital area: cybersecurity.
In one nine-month period between June 2011 and March 2012, for example, four senior DHS
cybersecurity officials quit and one retired — all headed to the private sector.
The departures came as the department battled the Pentagon and the National Security Agency
over who should have responsibility for protecting critical private-sector networks and for
responding to industry requests for assistance. DHS was pressing to enshrine its authority in law.
Voter Response by Electing New Leaders
I have seen and met a few new freshman Congressmen. Encouraged? Yes. Comforted? Not
really. Here’s why. I am going to play for you a recent speech this month at the Red State
convention. The speech is from a Congressman named Jim Bridenstine. I will play the main
body of the speech, less the schmoozing and intros. I think you will like it, as I did. Then, I
want to discuss why I am not so comforted by his words.
JIM BRIDENSTINE AUDIO
Now, you might think, this is great. Finally someone has been elected and is telling the truth
about Obama. It is easy to place all the blame on Obama. The alternative media has been
infiltrated too, you know. Pay close attention.
This plan was laid out in the early 1900’s. It was brought to Washington by Soviet spies who
infiltrated the Roosevelt white house. It was largely implemented to the death and mayhem of
millions, the massive and rapid escalation of weaponry so powerful it could kill the world in one
battle.
Each leader was groomed, financed, and then staged against one another like players on a chess
board. No one was allowed to take over the world, not completely. They would always be
stopped just short of that. Defeat them, but then rebuild them our way. Reach the Moon, but do
not colonize it. Destroy Saddam, but do not occupy Bagdad…not yet anyway. Just take down
the guards for now.
One or two leaders came to power who had their own ideas and the backing of the American
people. So, they waited. 4 years, perhaps 8. Perhaps they will have an accident, like a plane
crash or commit suicide. Then, the plan resumes, carefully…step by step. Take over the smaller
banks and extract all the money to one point. Leverage that money to create debt so large that no
planet could ever pay it back. Buy up control of the world’s corporations, which include the
countries who are now all incorporated. Insert loyal corporate leaders into government agencies
and use regulating powers to circumvent Congress and rule the world.
That plan is complete. Congress lost control of the country and is a completely emasculated
game show. Jim Bridenstine is a gamer. He flew military missions for Wars-R-Us. He seized
billions of dollars in hard drugs at sea, facilitating the profits from those drugs to be kept from
drug cartels who won’t support the Administration. Once the border defenses were taken down,
the use of these military seizures was no longer necessary. The drugs could be trucked or flown
directly across the border to millions of addicts in America who feed hundreds of billions of
dollars directly to the Administration.
If Jim knows this, why is he giving speeches like this? Why rally the Red State voters around an
agenda as short sighted as winning the 2014 mid-term elections? Why is Republican control of
the Senate so important? What will change? The horrendous backlog of laws waiting for Senate
action will be addressed? Really? We need new laws? We need new regulations? That’s why
it is important?
No. I knew you saw it too.
So how do you stop the informed American? If we know the plan, do you think we will just
stand by and let you kill liberty everywhere?
Creating a Culture of Denunciation
by Wendy McElroy July 2, 2013
On June 10, the Guardian featured an article entitled “Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the
United Stasi of America” by Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame. At first, I thought it was a
misspelling of States. Daniel Ellsberg says this:
The NSA, FBI, and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over
our own citizens that the Stasi — the secret police in the former “democratic republic” of
East Germany — could scarcely have dreamed of.
Established in 1950, the secret police agency in Communist East Germany (the German
Democratic Republic or GDR) was commonly called the Stasi. The Stasi became known as one
of the most efficient and brutal intelligence-gathering agencies that has ever existed. Its power
lay in surveillance. The Stasi had eyes and ears everywhere, so that people did not speak in the
streets; they whispered in their own homes and were wary of speaking freely to family or friends.
To contradict the state was treason, for which a person could be imprisoned and tortured in order
to produce more names. Sometimes people were executed.
In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and the GDR ended shortly thereafter. Official records that
survived massive shredding operations were then opened to scrutiny. Based on these, it is
estimated that in 1989 the Stasi had approximately 97,000 ordinary employees and 173,000
invisible informers. In his blog post “Living with the Enemy: Informing the Stasi in the GDR,”
historian David Cook explains,
Roughly this translated as a ratio of one agent per 63 of the population.… During the
lifespan of the communist regime in East Germany [1949–1990] it is estimated from
existing archival material that there were up to 500,000 informers active at various times.
Or more starkly one in 30 of the population had worked for the Stasi by the fall of the
GDR.
As the Stasi’s past was laid bare, former East Germans were particularly outraged to discover
that the army of invisible informers often included family, friends, neighbors, and other trusted
associates. Why did people turn their fellows in to the state? Police informers had many motives:
to gain money or a business advantage, to promote ideological purity, to avenge themselves on a
spouse, to resolve a dispute with neighbors, or simply to curry favor with the police. To take full
advantage of these motives, the GDR created what has been called “a culture of denunciation,”
through which a large portion of the populace acted as agents of the state.
Establishing a culture of denunciation
Denunciation is the act of accusing someone of wrongdoing. History proves to us that even the
most trusted friends and family will feed you to the State, if it means they will gain something.
For example, if you denounced a person living in a large house that your wife likes very much,
the State will come and remove those people and allow you to move in without paying a dime. It
works. It always works.
In a political context, it means reporting a person to the state for investigation and possible
punishment. Why do you think whistleblowers are treated as traitors and suddenly commit
suicide, have their new cars mysteriously go full throttle and crash, have heart attacks after
leaving a restaurant, or have simple farm equipment attack and kill them? In the GDR, such
“wrongdoing” ran the gamut from small matters such as making malicious comments to
weightier ones such as plotting to leave. How many times has a person been arrested for child
porn stored on their computer? Really? Who stores porn on their computer? The point is that
nothing was too petty to report, even if it was mere suspicion.
Robert Gellately is an historian who focuses on modern Europe. In his essay, “Denunciations in
Twentieth-Century Germany: Aspects of Self-Policing in the Third Reich and the German
Democratic Republic,” he used the term “culture of denunciation” to explain why the reporting
of supposed wrongdoing became epidemic within the GDR (PDF).
He traced the phenomenon back to the Nazi intelligence-gathering police, the Gestapo. The
Gestapo was an essential part of the dynamic that changed Germany from one of the most
civilized nations in Europe to one of the most brutal. And it did so rapidly, over the course of a
decade.
The Gestapo created a culture of denunciation, which destroyed the goodwill that comes from
people living in peace and privacy together. It replaced goodwill and tolerance with suspicion,
resentment, paranoia, and the breakdown of civil society; Nazi Germany was a psychological
version of Hobbes’s “war of all against all.” Nobody trusted anybody, which was the whole
design in the first place. Because denunciation was thus institutionalized in Germany as a norm,
the Stasi was able to walk directly into the void left by the Gestapo.
How is a culture of denunciation established? The first step is to create an institutional
framework that facilitates it. A special police force must be formed. It does not handle the
traditional police functions of processing crimes against people and property, such as assault or
theft. Its mission is to protect the state against threats, including dissent, and to enforce state laws
that impose social control.
In connection with this, a deluge of laws must regulate the conduct of everyday life, including
the words that may be spoken, so that it is impossible for the average person to walk through a
day without committing an offense. The special police thus can proceed on the assumption that
people are guilty until proven innocent — and they are correct if “guilt” means having broken
such a “law.”
The DHS was formed, funded, and authorized in a matter of weeks. They form an umbrella
organization that answers to no one. Only the president can command them, through the
Secretary that he appoints. The DHS has a standing army of unknown size with a $80 billion
annual budget inside the US that collects information from “lower” law-enforcement and other
state agencies, which function as junior partners; soon to be wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
white house.
This shifts the focus of lower agencies away from protecting people or property and toward
enforcing social control. These special police and their extended forces become embedded in
everyday life. The slogan “See Something, Say Something,” is emblazoned in every airport, bus
station, train station, and even on billboards. Whether it is a policeman randomly stopping
people to demand their papers or a TSA agent processing travelers like cattle, the populace
comes to accept such social control as normal. Anyone who objects is abnormal and raises
suspicion. Often, those who do not immediately comply, or try to cite their constitutional rights
are severely beaten, killed, or arrested for failing to comply with a policeman’s orders.
In addition, hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras are installed and networked to the
DHS. Portable, elevated surveillance towers are parked at malls, sporting events, and other areas
where people might gather. A massive amount of information flows upward to the special
police, which is held by them in secrecy. But the official data is not enough; it does not tell them
what people think or say in their own homes or churches. To uncover this data, the special police
create a denunciatory atmosphere through which ordinary people also become junior partners
who report “wrongdoing” or anything at all suspicious.
Immunity, or some type of reward system, is an essential aspect of the denunciation atmosphere.
It applies to the special police, who operate in secrecy and with legal impunity, wielding almost
arbitrary power without recourse. It also applies to informants who remain anonymous and free
of social consequences. Those who are intimidated by the presence of police are offered means
of reporting that do not require direct interaction, such as tip lines and unsigned messages, or
personal ads run in places like Craigslist or Facebook.
To overcome people’s lingering reluctance to report on friends who might be tortured or killed,
the special police use psychological manipulation. They praise the act of informing as patriotic
duty to society. Any person being betrayed, they demonize as a threat to society. As extra
incentive, laws are passed to make it a crime for anyone to have information without reporting it.
Those who remain unwilling to inform can be threatened — or have their families threatened —
with the prospect of an investigation. Blackmail pales in comparison to legal terrorism.
Defending against false allegations, tax audits, regulatory reporting requirements, and even civil
forfeiture of homes, cars, and cash you might be carrying as “evidence” toward a criminal
activity are widely used throughout America by enforcement agents.
Whether the special police force is called the Gestapo, the Stasi, or Homeland Security, the
playbook is well known and proven to work in all societies.
Gellately’s research into the Gestapo
At the end of World War II, the Gestapo destroyed most of its files, but Gellately was able to
examine those from three districts. He used the files to reconstruct the dynamics of denunciation.
For example, he examined whether informers were more likely to report on Jews.
He wanted to discover whether a strong ethnic bond would preclude denunciating one’s neighbor
in that ethnic community. He compared the rate of denunciation for Jews versus non-Jews, he
examined 226 cases of “radio crime” — that is, the crime of listening to foreign broadcasts. This
crime was commonly committed by average Germans because radio ownership was widespread.
He found no significant difference between the two rates of denunciation. Nor did the rates vary
significantly from district to district even though the areas varied in their social, religious, and
economic makeup. A certain percentage of the populace seemed willing to denounce their
neighbors whatever the circumstances.
Indeed, Gellately found that “some people denounced each other so often that only direct threats
to send both parties to a concentration camp put a stop to it.” All that was needed was an
institutional framework to facilitate the act.
One finding was surprising: the Gestapo did not need to do up-front police work. Of the 226 files
on radio crime, 73% originated from denunciations. During the entire war, only 6 cases in the 3
districts Gellately reviewed originated from the Gestapo. Different “crimes” rendered similar
results. Gellately wrote, “My analysis of 175 case files involving efforts to enforce the social and
sexual isolation of the Jews concluded that 57 percent began with an identifiable denunciation
from the population at large. The Gestapo discovered only one case on its own.” The other most
“productive” sources of information were interrogations and local police forces.
The Gestapo acted more as a clearing-house than an active intelligence-gathering agency. Its
main activity was following up on denunciations.
Gellately considered the motives of those who informed. In this endeavor, he was hindered by
the files’ general absence of notations as to motivation; the Gestapo did not seem to care why
people were betraying others. Nevertheless, he broke the indications of motivation he found into
two categories: affective (from political ideology or duty) and instrumental (for personal gain).
The majority of denunciations sprang from a desire for personal gain.
The effect on the German populace was predictable. Gellately writes,
Germans became conscious of and self-conscious about language. In conversations about the
war, they not only had to guard against incautious remarks as to its cause, course, and likely
outcome; they also had to watch what they said lest it betray that their source of information
might be foreign radio. Again and again in the files denouncers refer to the “way people spoke,”
from which their listeners deduced — often incorrectly — that the speakers must have listened to
forbidden broadcasts.
Conclusion
As part of his reaction to Edward Snowden’s whistle-blowing on the NSA’s collection of data on
American citizens, President Obama has sped up the implementation of the “Insider Threat
Program.” This 2011 program came into existence as a response to another whistle-blower:
Bradley Manning. The program makes it a crime for a government employee or contractor to not
report a suspected whistle-blower. Reporting to the authorities is mandated by law.
The United States government has always solicited anonymous tips in order to ferret out
“wrongdoers”; the IRS is particularly notorious for this practice. But since 9/11, America has
been building a culture of denunciation. This became apparent on December 6, 2010, when DHS
chief Janet Napolitano announced that a video message would be broadcast in Wal-Mart stores.
Napolitano’s “public-service announcement” asked Wal-Mart customers to report suspicious
activity to police or even to store managers, who would presumably pass the information
upward. National security begins at home, she assured her audience.
Daniel Ellsberg’s quip about the “United Stasi of America” should not be dismissed as a clever
turn of phrase. It is in fact an accurate and chilling description of reality.
Appeasement: The Feeding of your friends to the alligator, hoping
he will eat you last.
The Assad regime in Syria brought about Muammar Gaddafi's death by providing France
with the key intelligence which led to the operation that killed him, sources in Libya have
claimed. French spies operating in Sirte, Gaddafi's last refuge, were able to set a trap for the
Libyan dictator after obtaining his satellite telephone number from the Syrian government, they
said.
In what would amount to an extraordinary betrayal of one Middle East strongman by another,
President Bashar al-Assad sold out his fellow tyrant in an act of self-preservation, a former
senior intelligence official in Tripoli told the Daily Telegraph.
With international attention switching from Libya to the mounting horrors in Syria, Mr Assad
offered Paris the telephone number in exchange for an easing of French pressure on Damascus,
according to Rami El Obeidi.
"In exchange for this information, Assad had obtained a promise of a grace period from the
French and less political pressure on the regime – which is what happened," Mr El Obeidi said
While it was not possible independently to verify his allegation, Nicolas Sarkozy, the former
French president, played a leading role in both the Nato mission to bomb Libya and in bringing
international pressure to bear on the Assad regime.
The claims by Mr El Obeidi, the former head of foreign intelligence for the movement that
overthrew Gaddafi, followed comments by Mahmoud Jibril, who served as prime minister in the
transitional government and now leads one of Libya's largest political parties. He confirmed over
the weekend that a foreign "agent" was involved in the operation that killed Gaddafi.
He did not identify his nationality. However the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera quoted
Western diplomats in Tripoli as saying that if a foreign agent was involved "he was almost
certainly French".
The news of the Syria deal could potentially embarrass Nato, which initially claimed that it did
"not target individuals".
According to the alliance's official version, an RAF reconnaissance plane spotted a large convoy
of vehicles trying to flee Sirte on Oct 20th last year, two months after Gaddafi fled Tripoli.
Nato warplanes then bombed the convoy, apparently unaware of who was travelling in it, before
militia fighters later found Gaddafi hiding in a drainpipe. He is believed to have been killed by
his captors en route to the city of Misurata, west of Sirte.
But Mr El Obeidi said that France had essentially masterminded the operation by directing
Libyan militiamen to an amWars-R-Us spot where they could intercept Gaddafi's convoy.
He also suggested that France had little interest in how Gaddafi was treated once captured,
although the fighters were encouraged to try to take him alive.
"French intelligence played a direct tole in the death of Gaddafi, including his killing," Mr El
Obeidi said.
"They gave directions that he was to be apprehended, but they didn't care if he was bloodied or
beaten up as long as he was delivered alive.”
According to Mr El Obeidi, French intelligence began to monitor Gaddafi’s Iridium satellite
telephone and made a vital breakthrough when he rang a senior loyalist, Yusuf Shakir and
Ahmed Jibril, a Palestinian militant leader, in Syria.
As a result, they were able to pinpoint his location and monitor his movements. Although
Turkish and British military intelligence officers – including the SAS – who were in Sirte at the
time were informed of the amWars-R-Us plans in advance they played no role in what was "an
exclusive French operation", Mr El Obeidi said.
At the time of Gaddafi's death, Mr El Obeidi had fallen out of favour with the most powerful
faction in Libya's transitional government because of his links with Gen Abdul Fatah Younes, a
senior rebel commander killed by his own side in July last year.
Even so, he continued in his intelligence role in a semi-official but senior capacity.
Sources quoted by Corriere della Sera said one reason for the French lead in the operation was
that then President Nicolas Sarkozy wanted Gaddafi dead after the Libyan leader openly
threatened to reveal details of the large amounts of money he had donated to Sarkozy for his
2007 election campaign.
"Sarkozy had every reason to want to get rid of the colonel as quickly as possible," Western
diplomats said, according to the newspaper.
A spokesman at the French foreign ministry refused to confirm or deny the claims.
The UN Sellout of Asaad
Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, has accused some UN Security Council members
of supporting "terrorism" in the country. Addressing the UN General Assembly's annual
ministerial meeting, Mr al-Moallem said peace requires Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya and
others to stop arming, financing and supporting the opposition – as well as by Syria.
"This terrorism which is externally supported is accompanied by unprecedented media
provocation based on igniting religious extremism sponsored by well-known states in the region
that facilitate the flow of arms, money and fighters through the borders of some neighbouring
countries," he said.
Mr Al-Moallem called for a political solution and Syrian-led dialogue to agree on a road map to
"a more pluralistic and democratic Syria." He invited the opposition to "work together to stop the
shedding of Syrian blood."
Radwan Ziadeh, co-spokesman for the chief opposition group, the Syrian National Council, said
it was impossible to believe calls for political dialogue were genuine.
"He is calling for dialogue while his air force is attacking civilians in each city," Mr Ziadeh said.
"He is a liar representing the propaganda of the Assad regime," he said.
The spokesman challenged the Syrian foreign minister's claims that jihadists were leading the
fight against the Assad regime.
The Security Council's major powers remain deeply divided over the 18-month Syria conflict.
Russia and China, key backers of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have vetoed three
resolutions by the US, Britain and France who back the opposition and have called for Assad to
be replaced.
Al-Moallem insisted that some countries are interfering in Syrian domestic affairs.
"We heard calls from this podium, and on other platforms, some calls from those who are
ignorant of the facts or maybe ignoring them, or also from those who are shareholders in
exacerbating them, that invites the President of the Syrian Arab Republic to step down," he said.
"This is a blatant interference in the domestic affairs of Syria, and the unity of its people and its
sovereignty."
The Syrian Crown
But is this really the reason the United States is becoming so involved in Syria? It may be a lot
more complicated than is currently known.
First of all, no one has ever conclusively proven that Assad used these weapons. Despite a
United Nation’s report that “concluded” that the Assad regime was responsible for these attacks,
the Obama Administration has never conclusively supported that report. In fact, White House
Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough stated that the only “support” for the assertion that Assad is
responsible comes from the “common-sense test,” which he stated dictates that only the Syrian
government could be responsible for the attack.
With this in mind, it would be very easy for the President to have backed away from any
necessity to remove Assad. Without any proof that Assad was actually responsible for this attack,
he could have easily stated that he had no real justification to take military action; after all, this is
a country which believes in “innocent until proven guilty.” No proof of guilt has been
established.
In addition, the United States does not intervene in every situation like Syria’s. The U.S. did not
intervene in every Middle East civil war, such as in Tunisia. It does not seek the removal of evil
dictators in other countries, such as North Korea. The government does not intervene in every
humanitarian crisis, such as that in South Sudan. Why intervene in this one?
What this shows is that the answer is just not that simple. There must be more to this.
To answer this question, it must first be established that the most cynical approach to an
explanation is probably the most right. While it is sad to admit this, it is a rarity that any high
ranking government official does anything for altruistic means. While thousands of Syrian
civilians being maimed and injured would be a great reason to get involved, it is most likely not
the reason the President is wanting to take action. Atrocities go on every day, all over the world,
and is frequently ignored by the U.S. Government. So the reason lies elsewhere.
If the true agenda is looked for, then there are most likely three primary reasons why President
Obama is pushing for this. The first of this comes back to one of America’s favorite reasons to
be involved in wars – oil. For nearly twenty years, the European Union has been trying to get a
natural gas pipeline run from Afghanistan, that will provide needed natural gas to Europe, while
bypassing Russia and its allies. Such an agreement was made with the Taliban in the late 1990’s
to run such a pipeline through Azerbajain and Georgia, on its way to Turkey. This was
completely approved by the United States government.
In 2000, the U.S. Government sought to change the pathway of the pipeline, making it so that
one would run through Afghanistan, then through Pakistan, and out into the Arabian Sea. This
was a choice made by oil giant Unocal. This was not met with great enthusiasm by the Taliban.
A year later, the United States invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban from power, and
placed Hamid Karzai in power. Interestingly enough, Karzai had a long history of cooperation
with Unocal.
So how does this relate to Syria? If the pipeline is moved through Pakistan and into the Arabian
Sea, this would require ships to pick up the oil, sail around the Arabian Peninsula, up the Red
Sea, through the Suez Canal, and into the Mediterranean Sea, where it would be dispersed
throughout Europe. This would have been a great plan five years ago, but with the increase in
tension throughout Egypt, and with the new Egyptian leaders being more interested in aligning
with Russia, travel through the Suez Canal has become much dicier. This required a new option
to be created.
The Top Reasons the US Wants to Attack Syria and Remove
President Assad
According to a September 13, 2013, agreement that Syrian President Bashar Assad signed, the
Syrian government was to turn over ninety percent of the cache of weapons they possessed by
the deadline. To this point, they had only turned over about four percent.
United Nations representatives attempted to get the Assad government to abide by the
commitment made in the agreement, but had not success. Since then, many of the western
nations and their Arab allies, who wish to see an end to Assad regime, have met to discuss what
the next step should be in forcing Syria’s compliance with the agreement.
Standing in their way is Syria’s most powerful ally – Russia. The Russia government has already
stated that they will not support any UN resolution to bring military action against Syria. Since
Russia is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), they can block
any authorized action from the UN, thus leaving it to the western nations to determine whether
they have the fortitude to take action without UN approval.
This is a war that has been marketed to the world by Obama since early 2011, yet it was not until
last year, when it was revealed that chemical weapons had been used in Syria, that calls were
made to remove Assad from power. At first, then Secretary of State Hilleary Clinton made a few
canned speeches about regime change. The speech had been scripted years before by the WarsR-Us Administration as part of a plan to destroy the governments of 7 Middle Eastern
Coiuntries, including Syria and Iran. The United States had helped Al Qaeda and other
mercenaries with air power, cyber-warfare, and intelligence in Libya and Egypt, but had failed to
do so in Syria, only offering humanitarian aid. The news that chemical weapons had been used in
Syria triggered the speech by the Secretary to punish Assad and his government for use of these
weapons; ultimately, pushing to remove him from power.
But is this really the reason the United States is becoming so involved in Syria? It may be a lot
more complicated than is currently known.
First of all, no one has ever conclusively proven that Assad used these weapons. Despite a
United Nation’s report that “concluded” that the Assad regime was responsible for these attacks,
the Obama Administration has never conclusively supported that report. In fact, White House
Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough stated that the only “support” for the assertion that Assad is
responsible comes from the “common-sense test,” which he stated dictates that only the Syrian
government could be responsible for the attack. Yet, he also stated that there is no “irrefutable,
beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” evidence which Americans could trust as absolute proof of Assad’s
culpability. A cursory analysis of the Assad methodology reveals the greater possibility that Al
Qaeda used Sarin Gas, supplied by the CIA, to kill civilians so the global media could help
market the Wars-R-Us plan to destroy the Syrian government.
With this in mind, it would be very easy for the President to have backed away from any
necessity to remove Assad. With that cursory analysis suddenly and bluntly supported by Putin
that Al Qaeda was actually responsible for this attack, he could have easily stated that he had no
real justification to take military action; after all, this is a country which Obama has stated is
“innocent until proven guilty.” No proof of guilt had been established and thus did not meet the
criteria set forth in the7-Nation invasion plan.
In addition, the United States historically does not intervene in every situation like Syria’s. The
U.S. did not intervene in every Middle East civil war, such as in Tunisia. It does not seek the
removal of evil dictators in other countries, such as North Korea. The government does not
intervene in every humanitarian crisis, such as that in South Sudan. Why intervene in this one?
There must be more to this.
The 7-Nation Invasion Plan has three main motivators:
Oil: For nearly twenty years, the European Union has been trying to get a natural gas pipeline
run from Afghanistan, that will provide needed natural gas to Europe, while bypassing Russia
and its allies. We have already seen the debilitating power Putin has over the EU and the Baltic
States by controlling the gas pipeline. The price for routing a new pipeline through Azerbajain
and Georgia, on its way to Turkey, was steep. This was completely approved, funded, and back
with military firepower by the United States government. One more thing. The Taliban would
be protected and aided to produce, safely transport, and sell Heroin to the world, including the
United States population. Such an agreement was made with the Taliban in the late 1990’s to
run such a pipeline through.
In 2000, the U.S. Government sought to change the pathway of the pipeline, making it so that
one would run through Afghanistan, then through Pakistan, and out into the Arabian Sea. This
was a choice made by oil giant Unocal. This was seen as a breach of contract by the Taliban. A
year later, the United States invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban from power, and placed
Hamid Karzai in power. Interestingly enough, Karzai had a long history of cooperation with
Unocal, and his brother was the leader of the Heroin production in Afghanistan. Of course,
drugs lead to a false sense of invulnerability, so Karzai’s brother was machine gunned to death in
broad daylight. The Heroin is now run by a joint US/Afghani corporation.
So how does this relate to Syria? I am glad you asked. If the pipeline is moved through Pakistan
and into the Arabian Sea, this would require ships to pick up the oil, sail around the Arabian
Peninsula, up the Red Sea, through the Suez Canal, and into the Mediterranean Sea, where it
would be dispersed throughout Europe. This would have been a great plan five years ago, but
with the increase in tension throughout Egypt, and with the new Egyptian leaders being more
interested in aligning with Russia, travel through the Suez Canal has become much dicier. This
required a new option to be created.
The new plan, designed to keep the oil safe from Russian intervention, routed the oil to the
Arabian Sea and by boat to ports in Iraq, where it could then be shipped by pipeline to Turkey.
Only one thing stood in the way of making this plan work with pipelines – Syria. The Wars-R-Us
Plan called for the removal of Assad, a pro-Russian leader, replacing him with a US corporation,
and then to build the pipeline straight from Iraq to Turkey. A simple regime change and all
problems are solved. The Wars-R-Us Plan requires a strong leader to be able to get the
American and European people to stay out of the way. Unfortunately, Obama has zero
credibility after 6 years of great speeches and fascist rule of law. The Wars-R-Us Plan is
faltering, and the credit for this failure to execute goes to alternative media like this radio
program reaching thousands of people each week to reveal what is really going on. An informed
electorate cannot be dominated by fascist propaganda.
Another reason there is such a push for this war is to try to hurt Iran. Iran primarily follows the
Shia form of Islam. This is true of Syria as well. In fact, Syria is modern Assyria and Iran is
modern Persia. They were the crown jewels of world leadership for thousands of years. Because
of their close religious ties to each other, they have both sponsored terrorist groups, such as
Hezbollah and Hamas, as placated fleas barely kept alive with worthless weapons designed only
to force Israel to scratch like an itching dog.
When the IDF fires back at what it has been deceived to think is a rocket launching site, it is
lights camera and action. The propagandists are ready to show how the IDF is attacking
innocent civilians without any reason. It is only because of programs like the one you are
listening to that at least some of the world knows what is really going on.
Most Islamic terrorists comes from groups who are associated with Al-Qaeda or with Shia
groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. A real sense of hopelessness comes over Americans
when Benghazi revealed that it was America that was the real muscle behind assassinating
Gaddafi and moving their armory of missiles, rockets, and grenades – and yes chemicals – to Al
Qaeda to begin the attacks on Syria and Iraq.
Syria and Iran are the final countries in the Wars-R-Us 7-Nation Plan. By removing Assad, Iran
would be hurt, and would become more isolated within the world community. This has been a
goal of every U.S. President since Ronald Reagan. Obama is merely a bungling ego-maniac who
simply cannot stay out of the way.
Lastly, the legacy of this president must also be considered. At the time of the chemical weapons
attack, Obama found himself entangled in a variety of potential scandals, which could have left a
very negative legacy upon his time in office. The list is staggering:





the Internal Revenue Service scandal
the illegal seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Attorney General’s office
the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, the coverup, and the subsequent
firing of hundreds of military officers who wanted to stop the Lybian weapons from
reaching Al Qaeda
the Eric Snowden leaks about the National Security Administration’s record seizures
the GSA misuse of millions of dollars on lavish trips and events, while placing a
blockade on small business access to government buyers. By the way, there has not been
a GSA trade show for three years to protect the global multi-billion dollar corporations
exclusive access to that market
An enlightened America was kept informed by alternative media like the Truth Frequency Radio
Network, and Obama’s maniacal plan to be crowned in his final term in government was
exposed within a five week period of time. This threatened to derail the President and cripple his
ability to rule.
It is likely that the president did what all presidents do; he followed the Wars-R-Us Plan. His
mistake was trying to take credit for “His” military and “His” leadership fundamentally
transforming America and the world.
We, the independent press of the world, stopped him. Even the President’s supporters seemed
skittish to want to involve the US in destroying the government of Syria. There are good people
in US government, but they are not being allowed to participate in government. They can make
speeches and raise money, but the bills they pass languish, and the committee chairs are already
occupied. If is it at all possible, we need to move the old guard of the Wars-R-Us crime
syndicate out of Washington. I say that, because the very process of voting has lost all
credibility. Elections are nothing more than game shows. All the contestants are actors.
The rulers are groomed and financed and placed into office to carry out a specific agenda. The
real power is in the corporate bureaucrat buried deep in the Agencies who manages the plan and
spends all the money taken from your paycheck. These dark designers infiltrated Washington
and manipulated power in 1931 with the Soviet-backed Roosevelt administration. They sent
millions of men on all sides to die in front of guns and under bombers that they financed and
built. They secured all of Eastern Europe by keeping the American generals like Patton fighting
on the fringes.
They were forced to go underground during the Reagan years, because he was unscripted and he
was popular. Although they tried to kill him with a programmed assassin, they did not succeed.
As soon as the Bushes resumed power, the Fascist planners became so powerful that they no
feared no one. They owned the press and almost all the media to distribute it. They owned the
banks. They owned the armies. Only the American public could stop them. That is precisely
why the Armed American has become the prime enemy of the State.
The second reason the US wants to invade Syria is not what the propagandists have been saying
that Assad and his wife take their jobs a little too seriously. They they should not be in power,
not even in Syria. That his harming of his people and his support of terrorism around the world
are good reasons to remove him. They are good reasons, for sure. They are just not the reasons
U.S. leaders want him removed.
You see, Aleppo is one of the crown jewels of the ancient world, Syria's largest, richest and -- for
the past three months -- most dangerous city. The battle that is raging there has reduced entire
neighborhoods to smoking piles of rubble. If you want a glimpse of what this might look like in
America, go visit Detroit. You will be absolutely shocked at what was once one of the world’s
richest cities now looks like.
As many as 30,000 Syrians have been killed. More than two million have been forced out of
their homes. In Aleppo, the military leadership that formed ISIS waited until the local rebels
were nearly wiped out by Assad. They knew the rebels would be starved out, but they also knew
that Assad would be weakened by the hard work and by the work of the global propagandists
telling the world about every broken window. Within a few months of Obama’s second election,
ISIS followed the War-R-Us Plan with a vengeance now with a vocal friend in the white house.
Danesh Desouza produced a film called 2016: Barak Obama’s America. At the conclusion of the
film, he shows a map and animates the formation of borders on that map to form a new Islamic
State. At that time, we had not heard of such a thing in America. We are actually seeing it
unfold before our eyes.
In a dangerous game that has already resulted in more than 50 thousand wounded and more than
8 thousand dead Americans, Mr. Obama and the folks down at Wars-R-Us continue to feed
weapons to one enemy, hoping they will kill other enemies. The US State department has
laundered tens of thousands of rockets, missiles and grenades as well as light arms taken from
the Libyan spoils to the most radical Al Qaeda groups in Syria, which now have blossomed into
ISIS.
The direct aggression against Syria remains, for the United States, the last and only way to test
their unilateral hegemony over the world. For the end of the hegemony means the end of
privileges and interests that Americans have accumulated the past quarter century as a single
power on the world scene, since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Wars-R-Us is trying to make the US act now to destroy the Syrian government and end the
multi-millennial presence the Assyrians have had in world. There are still a few billion Muslims
that will be impossible to subvert if the capital of their fanaticism remains in the hands of Assad.
Accepting a multi-polar world will lead to a revolution in international relations and to a change
in the structure of the United Nations, manipulated all these years by the darkest rooms in
Washington. Make no mistake. The UN will always be headquartered in the US. Every
bathroom, bedroom, and board room within 20 miles of that building is wired for surveillance.
They know everything about every diplomat that has ever walked through those doors.
Third: Although you might think this is a side show, I assure you it is not. The fate of Israel and
the Arab-puppet is at the heart of the aggression against Syria. Indeed, the Wars-R-Us designers
know that the victory of Syria and President Bashar al- Assad will trigger an Arab nationalist
wave hostile to the Zionist movement and the colonial forces in the region. Indeed, the
announcement of a Caliphate is a direct and ancient challenge to the also ancient leadership that
seeks to dominate the world. This axis is now supported by a great power, Russia, long
humiliated by the United States, and is now determined to regain its central position on the
international scene.
An Assad victory, or event the perception of a victory through keeping the US out of their
country, will strengthen Syria and Iran. It will bring all crosshairs to bear on Israel. It is,
moreover, the real purpose of aggression against Syria since March 2011. The successful
resistance of Syria, its president, its people and its army, encourages them not to yield to the
threats of America. The United States and its auxiliaries will be surprised by the response
capacity of the axis that runs from Tehran to Moscow, via Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and
Beijing. The elimination of Israel is essential for the evaporation of the biblical promise of their
immortality.
Statements
Vladimir Putin, Russian president
«Will we be helping Syria? We will, same as we do now. We’re supplying arms and cooperating
on economy. I hope there will be more humanitarian collaboration, including in humanitarian
aid supplies to the people, the civilians who found themselves today in such dire straits. I
discussed the Syrian crisis at the summit with president Obama. However, we failed to agree. We
remained unconvinced by each other. But there is a dialogue, we hear each other and
understand the arguments. I disagree with him, with his arguments, he disagrees with mine, but
we hear each other and try to analyze arguments.»
Bashar al-Assad, President of the Arab Syrian Republic
«Whoever accuses must provide evidence. We challenged the United States and France to
advance a single proof. MM. Obama and Holland were unable, including before their peoples. I
am not saying that the Syrian army has such weapons or not. Suppose that our military wants to
use weapons of mass destruction: is it possible to do it in an area where our troops are deployed
and where soldiers were wounded by these weapons, as noted by UN inspectors who visited them
in the hospital where they were treated? Where is the logic? The Middle East is a powder keg,
and the fire is approaching today. Must not only talk about the Syrian response, but what might
happen after the first strike. Nobody knows what will happen. Everyone will lose control of the
situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a
regional war is there. Anyone who contributes to strengthening terrorist on financial and
military level is the enemy of the Syrian people. Anyone who works against the interests of Syria
and its citizens is an enemy. The French people are not our enemy, but the policy of the state is
hostile to the Syrian people. Insofar as the policy of the French government is hostile to the
Syrian people, the state will be his enemy. This hostility will end when the French government
change its policy. There will be repercussions, negative of course, on the interests of France.»
Hachem Minkara, head of the Islamic Unification Movement
«The attacks in Tripoli is an act that causes the most profound contempt . It is haram. Only those
who despise humanity is capable of such an act. Whoever committed the bombing of Tripoli was
the one who committed the attack in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Sheikh Ahmad al-Gharib
denied in court all his confession during the preliminary interrogation. They were extracted
under pressure. I fought Israel and the Syrian army when it was in Lebanon? Today, I support
the state project in Syria. Do you want to replace this project by al-Nosra Front? Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah carries the torch of resistance in the Arab world against Israel. Nobody can say the
contrary one day.»
Hussein Moussaoui, Hezbollah MP
«The US president is seeking congressional authorization, which means that he is going towards
a war bigger than a punitive strike through a deceiving policy that enables his collaborators to
control Syria and embroil it in the American-Zionist-Takfiri and diabolical triangle. I regret the
financing of the war by certain Gulf countries, and that what remains of the Arab League is
requesting an assault on a constituting member state. I urge the world’s free people to be ready
and prepared to stop the US aggression. The voices of the brave and the wise in the Arab Islamic
world and the international community must rise in order to resist the US and hold it
accountable for its crimes.»
Your Majesties, Mr. Prime Minister, and the people of Belgium, on behalf of the American
people, we are grateful for your friendship. We stand together as inseparable allies. And I thank
you for your wonderful hospitality. I have to admit it is easy to love a country famous for
chocolate and beer. (Laughter, cheers.) (Chuckles.)
Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union, representatives of our NATO alliance,
distinguished guests, we meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States and
for the international order that we have worked for generations to build. Throughout human
history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves, the
proper relationship between the individual and the state, the best means to resolve the inevitable
conflicts between states.
And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle, through war and enlightenment,
repression and revolution, that a particular set of ideals began to emerge, the belief that through
conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose, the belief that power is
derived from the consent of the governed and that laws and institutions should be established to
protect that understanding.
And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them
into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all
men, and women, are created equal.
But those ideals have also been tested, here in Europe and around the world. Those ideals have
often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues
that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and
progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.
Often this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity,
some are inherently superior to others and that individual identity must be defined by us versus
them, or that national greatness must flow not by what people stand for, but what they are
against.
In so many ways, the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of
these two sets of ideas, both within nations and among nations. The advance of industry and
technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully. And even -- even among
the most civilized of societies on the surface, we saw a descent into barbarism.
This morning at Flanders Field, I was reminded of how war between peoples sent a generation to
their deaths in the trenches and gas of the first world war. And just two decades later, extreme
nationalism plunged this continent into war once again, with populations enslaved and great
cities reduced to rubble and tens of millions slaughtered, including those lost in the Holocaust.
It is in response to this tragic history that in the aftermath of World War II, America joined with
Europe to reject the darker forces of the past and build a new architecture of peace. Workers and
engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan. Sentinels stood vigilant in a NATO alliance that would
become the strongest the world has ever known. And across the Atlantic, we embraced a shared
vision of Europe, a vision based on representative democracy, individual rights, and a belief that
nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets, a social safety
net, respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds.
For decades, this vision stood in sharp contrast to life on the other side of an Iron Curtain. For
decades, a contest was waged, and ultimately, that contest was won, not by tanks or missiles, but
because our ideals stirred the hearts of Hungarians, who sparked a revolution, Poles in their
shipyards who stood in solidarity, Czechs who waged a Velvet Revolution without firing a shot,
and East Berliners who marched past the guards and finally tore down that wall.
Today what would have seemed impossible in the trenches of Flanders, the rubble of Berlin, a
dissident’s prison cell -- that reality is taken for granted: a Germany unified, the nations of
Central and Eastern Europe welcomed into the family of democracies. Here in this country, once
the battleground of Europe, we meet in the hub of a union that brings together age-old
adversaries in peace and cooperation. The people of Europe, hundreds of millions of citizens,
east, west, north, south, are more secure and more prosperous because we stood together for the
ideals we shared.
And this story of human progress was by no means limited to Europe. Indeed, the ideals that
came to define our alliance also inspired movements across the globe -- among those very
people, ironically, who had too often been denied their full rights by Western powers. After the
second world war people from Africa to India threw off the yoke of colonialism to secure their
independence. In the United States citizens took Freedom Rides and endured beatings to put an
end to segregation and to secure their civil rights. As the Iron Curtain fell here in Europe, the
iron fist of apartheid was unclenched and Nelson Mandela emerged upright, proud, from prison
to lead a multiracial democracy; Latin American nations rejected dictatorship and built new
democracies; and Asian nations showed that development and democracy could go hand in hand.
The young people in the audience today, young people like Lara (sp), were born in a place and a
time where there is less conflict, more prosperity and more freedom than any time in human
history. But that’s not because man’s darkest impulses have vanished. Even here in Europe
we’ve seen ethnic cleansing in the Balkans that shocked the conscience. The difficulties of
integration and globalization, recently amplified by the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes,
strained the European project and stirred the rise of a politics that too often targets immigrants or
gays or those who seem somehow different.
While technology has opened up vast opportunities for trade and innovation and cultural
understanding, it’s also allowed terrorists to kill on a horrifying scale. Around the world
sectarian warfare and ethnic conflicts continue to claim thousands of lives. And once again, we
are confronted with the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their
way -- that recycled maxim that might somehow makes right.
So I come here today to insist that we must never take for granted the progress that has been won
here in Europe and advanced around the world, because the contest of ideas continues for your
generation.
And that’s what’s at stake in Ukraine today. Russia’s leadership is challenging truths that only a
few weeks ago seemed self-evident, that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be
redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own
decisions about their future.
To be honest, if we define our -- our interests narrowly, if we applied a coldhearted calculus, we
might decide to look the other way. Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine’s. Our
people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea. Our own borders are
not threatened by Russia’s annexation. But that kind of casual indifference would ignore the
lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this continent. It would allow the old way of doing
things to regain a foothold in this young century. And that message would be heard, not just in
Europe, but in Asia and the Americas, in Africa and the Middle East.
And the consequences that would arise from complacency are not abstractions. The impacts that
they have on the lives of real people, men and women just like us, have to enter into our
imaginations.
Just look at the young people of Ukraine, who were determined to take back their future from a
government rotted by corruption; the portraits of the fallen shot by snipers; the visitors who pay
their respects at the Maidan. There was the university student wrapped in the Ukrainian flag
expressing her hope that every country should live by the law; a postgraduate student speaking
for fellow protesters, saying, I want these people who are here to have dignity. Imagine that you
are the young woman who said, there are some things that fear, police sticks and tear gas cannot
destroy.
We’ve never met these people, but we know them. Their voices echo calls for human dignity that
rang out in European streets and squares for generations. Their voices echo those around the
world who at this very moment fight for their dignity. These Ukrainians rejected a government
that was stealing from the people instead of serving them, and are reaching for the same ideals
that allow us to be here today.
None of us can know for certain what the coming days will bring in Ukraine, but I am confident
that eventually those voices, those voices for human dignity and opportunity and individual
rights and rule of law, those voices ultimately will triumph.
I believe that over the long haul as nations that are free, as free people, the future is ours. I
believe this not because I’m naive. And I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or
the size of our economies. I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true. These ideals
are universal.
Yes, we believe in democracy, with elections that are free and fair, and independent judiciaries
and opposition parties, civil society and uncensored information so that individuals can make
their own choices. Yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation and
individual initiative and entrepreneurship and trade and investment that creates a broader
prosperity.
And yes, we believe in human dignity, that every person is created equal -- no matter who you
are or what you look like or who you love or where you come from. That is what we believe.
That’s what makes us strong. And our enduring strength is also reflected in our respect for an
international system that protects the rights of both nations and people -- a United Nations and a
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law and the means to enforce those laws.
But we also know that those rules are not self-executing.
They depend on people and nations of good will continually affirming them.
And that’s why Russia’s violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and
territorial integrity, must be met with condemnation, not because we’re trying to keep Russia
down, but because the principles that have meant so much to Europe and the world must be lifted
up.
Over the last several days, the United States, Europe and our partners around the world have
been united in defense of these ideals and united in support of the Ukrainian people. Together,
we’ve condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and rejected the legitimacy of the Crimean
referendum. Together, we have isolated Russia politically, suspending it from the G-8 nations
and downgrading our bilateral ties. Together, we are imposing costs through sanctions that have
left a mark on Russia and those accountable for its actions.
And if the Russian leadership stays on its current course, together, we will ensure that this
isolation deepens. Sanctions will expand, and the toll on Russia’s economy, as well as its
standing in the world, will only increase.
And meanwhile, the United States and our allies will continue to support the government of
Ukraine as they chart a democratic course. Together, we are going to provide a significant
package of assistance that can help stabilize the Ukrainian economy and meet the basic needs of
the people.
Make no mistake, neither the United States nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine.
We have sent no troops there. What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own
decisions, just like other free people around the world.
Understand as well this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into. After all, unlike the
Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. The United States and NATO
do not seek any conflict with Russia. In fact, for more than 60 years we have come together in
NATO not to claim other lands but to keep nations free.
What we will do always is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty, to defend the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. And in that promise we will never waver.
NATO nations never stand alone.
Today NATO planes patrol the skies over the Baltics, and we’ve reinforced our presence in
Poland, and we’re prepared to do more.
Going forward, every NATO member state must step up and carry its share of the burden by
showing the political will to invest in our collective defense and by developing the capabilities to
serve as a source of international peace and security.
Of course Ukraine is not a member of NATO, in part because of its close and complex history
with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by
military force.
But with time, so long as we remain united, the Russian people will recognize that they cannot
achieve the security, prosperity and the status that they seek through brute force.
And that’s why throughout this crisis we will combine our substantial pressure on Russia with an
open door for diplomacy.
I believe that for both Ukraine and Russia, a stable peace will come through de-escalation, a
direct dialogue between Russia and the government of Ukraine and the international community,
monitors who can ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, a process of
constitutional reform within Ukraine and free and fair elections this spring.
So far, Russia has resisted diplomatic overtures, annexing Crimea and massing large forces along
Ukraine’s border. Russia’s justified these actions as an effort to prevent problems on its own
borders and to protect ethnic Russians inside Ukraine. Of course, there is no evidence, never has
been, of systemic violence against ethnic Russians inside of Ukraine.
Moreover, many countries around the world face similar questions about their borders and ethnic
minorities abroad, about sovereignty and self-determination. These are tensions that have led in
other places to debate and democratic referendums, conflicts and uneasy co- existence. These are
difficult issues and it is precisely because these questions are hard that they must be addressed
through constitutional means and international laws, so that majorities cannot simply suppress
minorities and big countries cannot simply bully the small.
In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent, an
example, they say, of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country, just as they’re doing
now. But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and
killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the
boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with
Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.
Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western
hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate, not just around the
world but in the United States, as well. I participated in that debate, and I opposed our military
intervention there.
But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or
annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war
and left Iraq to its people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own
future.
Of course, neither the United States nor Europe are perfect in adherence to our ideals. Nor do we
claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world.
We are human, after all, and we face difficult decisions about how to exercise our power.
But part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism, just as we welcome the
responsibilities that come with global leadership. We look to the east and the south and see
nations poised to play a growing role on the world stage, and we consider that a good thing. It
reflects the same diversity that makes us stronger as a nation and the forces of integration and
cooperation that Europe has advanced for decades. And in a world of challenges that are
increasingly global, all of us have an interest in nations stepping forward to play their part, to
bear their share of the burden and to uphold international norms.
So our approach stands in stark contrast to the arguments coming out of Russia these days. It is
absurd to suggest, as a steady drumbeat of Russian voices do, that America is somehow
conspiring with fascists inside of Ukraine but failing to respect the Russian people. My
grandfather served in Patton’s Army, just as many of your fathers and grandfathers fought
against fascism. We Americans remember well the unimaginable sacrifices made by the Russian
people in World War II, and we have honored those sacrifices. Since the end of the Cold War,
we have worked with Russia under successive administrations to build ties of culture and
commerce and international community, not as a favor to Russia, but because it was in our
national interests.
And together, we’ve secured nuclear materials from terrorists, we welcomed Russia into the G-8
and the World Trade Organization. From the reduction of nuclear arms to the elimination of
Syria’s chemical weapons, we believe the world has benefited when Russia chooses to cooperate
on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.
So America and the world, and Europe, has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a
weak one. We want the Russian people to live in security, prosperity and dignity like everyone
else, proud of their own history. But that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its
neighbors. Just because Russia has a deep history with Ukraine does not mean it should be able
to dictate Ukraine’s future. No amount of propaganda can make right something that the world
knows is wrong.
You know, in the end, every society must chart its own course. America’s path or Europe’s path
is not the only ways to reach freedom and justice. But on the fundamental principle that is at
stake here, the ability of nations and peoples to make their own choices, there can be no going
back. It’s not America that filled the Maidan with protesters. It was Ukrainians.
No foreign forces compelled the citizens of Tunis and Tripoli to rise up. They did so on their
own. From the Burmese parliamentarian pursuing reform to the young leaders fighting
corruption and intolerance in Africa, we see something irreducible that all of us share as human
being: a truth that will persevere in the face of violence and repression and will ultimately
overcome.
For the young people here today, I know it may seem easy to see these events as removed from
our lives, remote from our daily routines, distant from concerns closer to home. I recognize that
both in the United States and in much of Europe, there’s more than enough to worry about in the
affairs of our own countries.
There will always be voices who say that what happens in the wider world is not our concern nor
our responsibility. But we must never forget that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. Our
democracy, our individual opportunity only exist because those who came before us had the
wisdom and the courage to recognize that ideals will only endure if we see our self-interest in the
success of other peoples and other nations.
Now is not the time for bluster. The situation in Ukraine, like crises in many parts of the world,
does not have easy answers nor a military solution.
But at this moment, we must meet the challenge to our ideals, to our very international order,
with strength and conviction. And it is you, the young people of Europe, young people like Laura
(sp), who will help decide which way the currents of our history will flow.
Do not think for a moment that your own freedom, your own prosperity, that your own moral
imagination is bound by the limits of your community, your ethnicity or even your country.
You’re bigger than that. You can help us to choose a better history. That’s what Europe tells us.
That’s what the American experience is all about.
I say this as the president of a country that looked to Europe for the values that are written into
our founding documents and which spilled blood to ensure that those values could endure on
these shores. I also say this as the son of a Kenyan whose grandfather was a cook for the British,
and as a person who once lived in Indonesia as it emerged from colonialism.
The ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of Boston or Brussels or Jakarta or
Nairobi or Krakow or Kiev.
In the end, the success of our ideals comes down to us, including the example of our own lives,
our own societies. We know that there will always be intolerance, but instead of fearing the
immigrant, we can welcome him. We can insist on policies that benefit the many, not just the
few, that an age of globalization and dizzying change opens the door of opportunity to the
marginalized, and not just a privileged few.
Instead of targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws to protect their
rights. Instead of defining ourselves in opposition to others, we can affirm the aspirations that we
hold in common. That’s what will make America strong. That’s what will make Europe strong.
That’s what makes us who we are.
And just as we meet our responsibilities as individuals, we must be prepared to meet them as
nations because we live in a world in which our ideals are going to be challenged again and again
by forces that would drag us back into conflict or corruption. We can’t count on others to rise to
meet those tests.
The policies of your government, the principles of your European Union will make a critical
difference in whether or not the international order that so many generations before you have
strived to create continues to move forward, or whether it retreats. And that’s the question we all
must answer: What kind of Europe, what kind of America, what kind of world will we leave
behind?
And I believe that if we hold firm to our principles and are willing to back our beliefs with
courage and resolve, then hope will ultimately overcome fear, and freedom will continue to
triumph over tyranny, because that is what forever stirs in the human heart.
Thank you very much. (Applause.
COMMENT 1
"Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of
international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s
neighbors." As a President of the United States, Mr. Obama should refrain from such obvious
untrue statements. No referendum was ever held in Kosovo. I do not question the will of the
Albanian population to break up from Serbia. It was their plan since 1878 or something. So
clearly, if a referendum was ever held, it would probably have confirmed the wish for
independence among the Albanians in Kosovo. But no referendum was ever held. It is a fact.
Where are the independent people of the press to ask Mr. Obama to specify the date of the
referendum and the names of American observers. Furthermore, United Nations did not have any
presence in Kosovo prior to the NATO occupation of the territory, so they physically could not
assist any such referendum. No compliance to the international law and no cooperation with any
neighbors ever took place prior to military occupation and 78 days of terror bombing of mostly
civilian targets. So many propaganda lies in one single statement is really embarrassing. Maybe
Mr. Obama thinks that the American public is so deeply not-interested in this issue and that
basically any false story will pass unnoticed, as long as it is anti-Russian. And maybe he is right
about it. After all, who cares about referendum in Kosovo? But the American public should ask
themselves: If we let our leaders lie about Kosovo, what comes next? Will they start lying about
my money in the bank? That is what they did back in 2008. We should require a minimum of
truth from our politicians. Or otherwise we risk to become victims ourselves.
COMMENT 2
I can't believe that someone as slick as Obama left himself open to the massively obvious irony
of saying "We (in the US) welcome criticism".
Yes, I'm sure that's what the Students for a Democratic Society thought of their painful attempts
to bring real democracy to the US.
And MLK certainly understood until his dying day that America "welcomes criticism".
But wait there's more, as the infomercials say, how about the welcoming of criticism that the US
and Obama recently showed to the "Occupy" movement about the vast inequality of income and
wealth, along with the massive Wall Street 'looting' that they non-violently raised --- and had
their heads hit and beat up and broken up!
Obama was pretty comfortable talking about the word "fascism", and saying that we (the US
confronted it), but Obama was strangely quiet as a mouse, about saying anything about EMPIRE
being the oppressor of people throughout history, and didn't even have the courage to say that
America was founded by breaking away from the British Empire --- but only from Britain.
Me thinks that he knows addressing Empire is too taboo, and too closely related to what he is
hiding. But Putin knows a thing or two about Empire, and knows that he's being hectored and
hemmed in by the first "truly Global Empire"
Water on Earth is OLDER than the sun:
Similarity between oceans and icy comets
increases our chance of finding alien life
Water filling the Earth's oceans is older than the formation of the sun, increasing
the chances of life emerging among the stars, scientists have revealed.
The discovery suggests that water may be a common ingredient in the clouds of
dust and gas from which solar systems are born, and not 'special' to our own.
This has major implications for the likelihood of life being found on exoplanets
orbiting stars beyond the sun, according to researchers.
This image shows water through time in the formation of the solar system, as scientists have
revealed that water filling the Earth's oceans pre-date the formation of the sun
The sun is thought to be 4.5 billion years old, but water on Earth may have
formed before then as tiny crystals of ice floating around deep space.
Professor Tim Harries, from the University of Exeter, said: 'We know that water
is vital for the evolution of life on Earth, but it was possible that the Earth's
water originated in the specific conditions of the early solar system, and that
those circumstances might occur infrequently elsewhere.
More...


India's spacecraft orbits Mars successfully - and it cost less to send it there than
Hollywood spent on making Gravity
Water found on planet 729 TRILLION MILES away: Discovery could pave the way for
finding life on smaller planets
'By identifying the ancient heritage of Earth's water, we can see that the way in
which our solar system was formed will not be unique, and that exoplanets will
form in environments with abundant water.
'It raises the possibility that some exoplanets could house the right conditions,
and water resources, for life to evolve.'
The international team of scientists studied ancient ices preserved in comets and
asteroids since the early days of the solar system.
Using computer simulations, they were able to show that water in the oceans, meteorite samples
and comets bore the chemical fingerprint of formation before the solar system took shape.
Pictured is the Pacific Ocean
WATER FOUND ON PLANET 729 TRILLION MILES AWAY
Water vapour has been detected in the atmosphere of a planet 124 light years or 729 trillion miles - from Earth.
The planet is about the size of the gas giant Neptune, and is the smallest and
coldest outside the solar system known to contain H2O molecules - the building
blocks of life.
Scientists claim the discovery is a leap forward in the study of distant
exoplanets that may in future uncover evidence of alien life.
Researchers used a technique called transmission spectroscopy, which measures
dips in light as the planet passes in front of its host star to identify the signs of
water vapour.
Previously it has only been possible to measure the atmospheric compositions of
larger Jupiter-sized extrasolar planets.
Using computer simulations, they were able to show that water in the oceans,
meteorite samples and comets bore the chemical fingerprint of formation before
the solar system took shape.
The water contained levels of deuterium - a 'heavy' strain of hydrogen with extra
neutrons in its nucleus - that could only be explained by interstellar origins.
It meant that at least some of the water in the solar system and on Earth predated the birth of the sun.
Lead author Ilsedore Cleeves, from the University of Michigen, said: 'The
implication of these findings is that some of the solar system's water must have
been inherited from the sun's birth environment, and thus pre-date the sun itself.
'If our solar system's formation was typical, this implies that water is a common
ingredient during the formation of all planetary systems.
To date, the Kepler satellite has detected nearly 1,000 confirmed extrasolar
planets.
'The widespread availability of water during the planet-formation process puts a
promising outlook on the prevalence of life throughout the galaxy.