More Rhetoric

RUSSIAN ANALYST CALLS FOR NUCLEAR ATTACK ON YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

"The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States"

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | MARCH 31, 2015

Russian geopolitical analyst Konstantin Sivkov has called for Moscow to launch a nuclear attack on Yellowstone National Park and the San Andreas fault line, noting that the devastating consequences would ‘disappear’ the United States as a country.

Sivkov made the comments in a piece for Russian trade newspaper VPK News, which were translated by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Arguing that NATO aggression against Russia required the “complete destruction of the enemy,” Sivkov went on to depict a chilling scenario.

“Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. There are signs of growing activity there. Therefore it suffices to push the relatively small, for example the impact of the munition megaton class to initiate an eruption. The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States – a country just disappears,” he said.

A Yellowstone supervolcano eruption would kill millions of people in the initial blast and bury much of the United States in volcanic ash. According to some experts, it could cause the end of the world. The last time a supervolcano exploded in Siberia, 85 per cent of all land species and 95 per cent of all ocean dwellers were completely wiped out.

In 2013 it was revealed that the magma below Yellowstone was two and a half times larger than previously thought, giving the park’s supervolcano the potential to cause an eruption 2,000 times more powerful than Mount St. Helens. Some experts say the caldera is overdue to erupt.

Sivkov also said that while Russia’s geography protected it from the threat posed by tsunamis, one could be triggered in the United States with an attack on the San Andreas fault.

“Another vulnerable area of the United States from the geophysical point of view, is the San Andreas fault – 1300 kilometers between the Pacific and North American plates … a detonation of a nuclear weapon there can trigger catastrophic events like a coast-scale tsunami which can completely destroy the infrastructure of the United States,” he wrote.

Sections of the San Andreas fault are overdue for major earthquake activity. “Researchers found that three sections of the San Andreas Fault system in Northern California — Hayward, Rodgers Creek and Green Valley — are either near or past their average recurrence interval and have accumulated sufficient strain to trigger earthquakes of magnitude 6.8 or greater,” reports CBS News.

Fearing that the United States plans to “destroy Russia,” Sivkov says that Moscow is in a much worse position than it was 50 years ago because it has far fewer allies and cannot compete against the military might of NATO and its allies.

While it would be unthinkable for anyone inside the Kremlin to take Sivkov’s comments seriously, his rhetoric illustrates how fraught tensions are between Moscow and Washington.

Last month, General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander in Europe,warned that the threat of a conflict with Russia, “represents an existential threat to our whole being”.

This will be such a shame!

5 REASONS MONSANTO WILL CONTINUE LOSING MONEY IN 2015

2015 may be the tipping point

by ANTHONY GUCCIARDI | INFOWARS.COM | MARCH 30, 2015

The biotech giant known as Monsanto is facing major financial downturn amid the backlash from consumers over their concerning GMO creations and the international rejection of various GMO exports following the confirmation of crop contamination across the United States.

Going further into 2015, it’s clear that this GMO behemoth has many more obstacles to face that will most likely lead to a continued loss. Here are the top 5 reasons Monsanto will continue to lose money (and at the very least, reputation) in 2015 and beyond.

1. 96% Want Their GMOs Labeled

Not 30%. Not 75%. Not even 85%. A powerful 96 plus percent of individuals within the United States are in serious favor of labeling Monsanto’s GMOs. And despite Monsanto’s millions defeating many labeling campaigns within various states like California, public resistance is catching up.

In the past, the company has used a number of pro-GMO agencies to band together in forming campaigns aimed at stopping GMO labeling altogether. Oftentimes, these groups use fabrications regarding the increased cost of groceries and even fake quotes from the FDA in order to push their agenda.

But despite the millions, the propaganda messages are no longer working.

2. Fast Food Is Failing

Monsanto and the GMO industry at large absolutely love the fast food industry. They are what I call the ‘soul mates of the disease industry’. Specifically, you have to remember that the fast food industry absolutely thrives on the cheapest, lowest quality ingredients. A market where there is no room for health, environmental concerns, or even morality.

The result: Monsanto’s GMOs are absolutely coveted in order to help produce the mass array of ultra low quality fast food ‘meals’ that, for the last few decades, have made up a major part of the American diet. Yes, it’s depressing.

But now, with McDonald’s continuing to lose money month after month, and the growth of competitors to fast food titans that are choosing to use local and even organic ingredients, the end of the fast food leaders is quickly coming. McDonald’s has even announced on record that they will not be switching to the new GMO potato, and claims have been made that their new chicken purchasing will be from farms that do not abuse antibiotics.

Is it a farce on behalf of McDonald’s and other fast food chains? It’s certainly a PR and marketing move to entice health-conscious and informed customers to consider coming back. And the end result will, ultimately, not benefit Monsanto as the company is forced to move away from many GMO-containing products.

3. The Spread of Information

Perhaps the most important, nothing will stop the continued spread of Monsanto-related information throughout social media, websites like Natural Society, forums, blogs, and even the mainstream media. The most important intellectual tool in the fight to reclaim the food supply, the spread of information ultimately leads to the other 4 key factors in Monsanto’s financial decline.

It was back in 2011 that myself and Natural Society declared Monsanto to be the Worst Company of 2011. A campaign that, backed with an international news press release, ended up on major websites like Reuters, Yahoo News, Market Watch, Bloomberg, and many others.

What was even more empowering, however, were the 225,000 plus Facebook shares that came with an accompanying article on a major victory against Monsanto in Hungary. That’s the spread of information.

4. GMO Labeling

Undoubtedly, GMO labeling initiatives will continue to pop up around the United States, and with more support than ever. The result, I believe, will be a very serious victory in the realm of GMO labeling that ultimately spells the beginning of the end for Monsanto’s GMO peddling.

With the over 96% support for GMO labeling in the polls that we talked about, there is no question that we will be seeing a lot more labeling in 2015. And, since Monsanto knows GMO labeling will impact their business (to such a degree that over 90% of Monsanto shareholders actually oppose labeling), we will see a decline in the company’s stock.

5. International Agencies Declare Monsanto’s Products as Poison

We have the support on the GMO labeling front, and the public backing on social media. We even have the countless scientists, researchers, doctors, and other experts who are on the forefront of taking on Monsanto. But, until recently, we did not have the World Health Organization.

This is one of the most exciting new developments for me. The World Health Organization recently released a report labeling Monsanto’s top selling herbicide Roundup as a ‘probably carcinogen’ — meaning that it can give you cancer. Now remember, this is the herbicide that goes hand in hand with GMO crops.

And millions of Americans even individuals from other nations are spraying this stuff on their lawns, their home gardens, and even indoors. That is extremely concerning.

With the new announcement from the W.H.O. on Roundup, we can expect to see other large international bodies come out and show support with similar findings. After all, the research is already out there on Roundup (and the chemical known as glyphosate which is the bedrock of the formulation).

Going forward in 2015, it’s always possible that Monsanto will pull strings within the US government thanks to some of its many current and previous employees that currently hold high level positions within several branches of government, major corporations, law foundations, The Supreme Court, and even the FDA.

That said, it is clear to me that Monsanto’s continued decline is in full swing. And, as a result, we are going to see these 5 factors show themselves more so than ever in the past several decades.

Everyone is guilty!

POLICE TO MANDATE ‘HANDS UP’ POLICY DURING ROAD STOPS

Everyone to be assumed a criminal until proven otherwise

by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS.COM| MARCH 27, 2015

Police in Kansas are set to implement a bonkers policy of mandating that all drivers stopped for whatever reason will be expected to put their hands up in the air when approached by an officer.

“We all want to go home to our families, and this makes it safer for us to approach vehicles to gain that compliance. It gives us a chance to survive these encounters.” a police spokesman told reporters with KSNT News.

“As we all know, we’ve lost three officers in less than 2 years and as a result of that we’ve had to take a hard look at the way we’re conducting business, particularly as it relates to car stops.” said Officer Matt McClimans.

“It doesn’t matter what the infraction is, it doesn’t matter if it’s a soccer mom, it’s just gaining that hand compliance.” McClimans added, also noting “We have to treat every encounter as if it’s dangerous.”

Residents have responded to the plans with anger, with some noting that it is offensive to be treated as a criminal without any probable cause.

“To put my hands up, I mean, I just can’t see how people are not offended by that,” said one man.

“I think that is too aggressive, and unnecessary, and I don’t agree with it,” said another resident.

“Make us feel safe, not automatically make us feel like criminals.” another woman pleaded.

Locals were never asked their opinion on the policy proposal by law enforcement or local authorities, and some are worried that the new policy will lead to more violent escalations involving police.

“Police and community interactions are tough enough as it is and the more demands, the tougher it’s going to be, and the more problems you’re going to have,” one local told reporters.

“Every day somebody’s getting shot by a police officer, and it’s like ‘oh my goodness, will I be next?’, or will I be okay?” said the resident.

Police have not stated what will happen to those who do not or cannot comply with the hands up policy.

Critics have also suggested that the policy is a stealthy way of ensuring that residents are no longer able to film police encounters with cell phones.

Joel Skousen's Historical Deceptions: Operation Keelhaul

OPERATION KEELHAUL The prime source for this US-led travesty is Julius Epstein’s Operation Keelhaul The Story of Forced Repatriation (Devin-Adair, 1973). Julius Epstein was one of the prime researchers for the belated Congressional investigation of the State Department’s cover-up of Russian involvement in the Katyn Forest murders. While searching through military archives during his investigation, he discovered evidence of a top secret program of forced repatriation, called Operation Keelhaul, which is still classified to this day. Obviously the US has some very dirty secrets they still want hidden.
Although the US signed international agreements opposing forced repatriation, and verbally assured they world they would never countenance such actions, they inserted fine print in these documents excepting from the ban all those who originated from nations given over to the Soviets at the close of WWII. While claiming to “make the world safe for Democracy,” Roosevelt and his cronies condemned millions to slave labor camps. The Allies even kept secret from the world the fact that Stalin was holding over 5,000 Allied soldiers as hostages in order to make sure that the West complied with his demands for repatriation. US and British troops had to beat, drug, and drive at gunpoint these millions of liberty loving people back to Russia. Even after doing so, Stalin never did return American and British prisoners. They died in the Soviet Gulags. The US still refuses to open the archives about their fate.
Even refugees that had fled from WWI and who had already been integrated into Western society were driven back into Stalin’s work camps. Thousands of Eastern Germans had fled the advancing Russian armies in order to find a haven in the West. Most were driven back to slavery. Almost a million anti-Communist Russian soldiers under Russian General Vlasov had defected to the Germans in hopes of freeing Russia from Stalin’s grasp. They had never become Nazis, but had agreed to fight on the German side solely for purposes of achieving Russian liberty. At the war’s end, they pushed West desperately trying to seek asylum, or to at least the designation of prisoners of war, so they could be protected under the Geneva Convention. US military leaders expressly guaranteed that Gen. Vlasov’s men would never be turned back over to the Soviets. But under General Eisenhower, in consultation with the State Department, the US went back on their word of honor. Headquarters refused to designate them POWs or give them asylum, and eventually turned them over to the Russians. All their military leaders were shot or hanged. The rest went to Soviet labor camps. Some committed suicide before falling into Russian hands, knowing of their fate.
This entire operation was filled with horror stories. Let there be no ambivalence in our conclusions. US and British leaders were guilty of war crimes. Allied soldiers shot innocent men trying to escape as they were being forcibly repatriated. Soldiers used clubs to beat hundreds of men senseless, then dragged them onto trucks and ships. When deportees would disable a Russian ship, Americans would come aboard, subdue the resisters and make the repairs. Americans and British leaders have on their heads the blood of hundreds who committed suicide rather than being sent back, as well as of all those who eventually died in Stalin’s work camps. These were criminal acts and American soldiers and officers should have refused to follow orders. Only a handful did and they were treated with severe threats and/or punishments. A few American servicemen allowed prisoners to escape, having pity on them. But, by in large, American and British servicemen were no more moral or courageous in standing up against evil military orders than their German counterparts.
The Allies used grand deceptions and lies to trick victims into submitting to forced repatriation. Here is one egregious example from Epstein’s book.
“General Shkuro and his Ukranian Cossack troops had long been known to be anti-Bolsheviks. Gen Shkuro, himself, had emigrated after World War I and had never been a Soviet citizen. He felt he was safe from repatriation. The Cossacks had fought for Germany and surrendered to British troops. They demanded political asylum for which they easily qualified. The British confiscated all their Western currency and held them in detention. They were told on May 28 that all officers and enlisted men were to attend a conference with higher British authorities, and would be transported by truck. This seemed implausible. Why transport everyone in trucks when the British could come to them? When the Cossacks started to feel nervous about the destination, an English Lieutenant said, ‘I assure you on my word of honor as a British officer that you are just going to a conference.’ Another British officer gave the same assurance. The convoy was guarded, which did nothing to alleviate the Cossack’s anxiety. A few jumped from the trucks and escaped into the forest. They were the smart ones. Those that trusted the British ended up at a prisoner of war camp in Spittal, Austria (in the Russian sector of control). A British officer then informed them that, ‘in accordance with an agreement concluded between the military authorities of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, all officers will be put at the disposal of Soviet military authorities.’ A Cossack General asked the officer when the agreement was signed. He replied, ‘On May 23 of this year (1945).’” According to Epstein, one Cossack officer remarked, “The NKVD or the Gestapo would have slain us with truncheons, the British did it with their word of honor.” There were multiple suicides that night in the camp, and all of the others had to be subdued by clubs and rifle butts as none would leave the camp voluntarily.
The US and Britain represented the highest images of liberty and freedom for the rest of the world laboring under Nazi or Communist domination. To have betrayed these 6 million persons (quite another holocaust) certainly caused many behind the iron curtain to vow never to trust the West again. Indeed, the Communists used this very argument with those who had been forcibly repatriated. To those who had been released after years of camp labor, a commissar said, “Whether they were Vlasov men or prisoners of war who did not want to return to the motherland does not matter now. All their sins have been forgiven. But the English and American bayonets, truncheons, machine guns and tanks used against them will never be forgotten. No Russian will ever forget Lienz, Dachau, Plattling, Toronto and other places of extradition, including New York, And they must never be forgotten. It is a lesson all Russians must learn well. For it show that you cannot trust the capitalist states in the future.” The West had provided the Communists with the best argument for deterring future defections from the Soviet state.

Evil vs. Evil

IN YEMEN, IT’S THE BAD GUYS VS. THE BAD GUYS

Saudi Arabia and Egypt stand poised to conduct a massive ground invasion of Yemen

by MICHAEL SNYDER | ECONOMIC COLLAPSE | MARCH 27, 2015

Saudi Arabia and Egypt stand poised to conduct a massive ground invasion of Yemen, and the western media will be full of tales about how “Operation Decisive Storm” is liberating that country from the evil Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

And without a doubt, the Houthis are bad guys and so are their Iranian benefactors.  But don’t be fooled into thinking that the war in Yemen is a battle of good vs. evil.

The truth is that the conflict in Yemen is actually a proxy war between two sets of bad guys that both ultimately plan for Islam to take over the entire planet.

On one side, the Iranians are very honest about the fact that they view us as an enemy, and they plan to impose their version of radical Shia Islam worldwide as soon as they can.

On the other side, the Saudis pretend to be our friends, but they don’t hide the fact that they believe that their version of Sunni Islam will eventually rule the world.  And their version of Sunni Islam includes constant beheadings, the destruction of all churches and the death penalty for anyone caught smuggling a Bible into Saudi territory.  At the end of the day, there is very little difference between the Saudis and ISIS.  In fact, ISIS gets a lot of funding from Saudi sources, and there is more support for ISIS on Twitter from Saudi Arabia than from anywhere else.  Saudi Arabia is a horribly repressive regime where women are treated like dirt, where the secret police conduct a never ending reign of terror and where even a minor deviation from sharia law can mean the loss of a limb.  But because our politicians and the mainstream media constantly tell us that they are “our friends”, we cheer them on.

It is being reported that the Saudis have mobilized 150,000 troops for a ground invasion of Yemen, and Egypt says that it is ready to contribute a very large force as well.  The Saudis simply were not going to just sit back and watch as pro-Iranian forces took total control of their neighbor.  The following is how the Telegraph recently described what the Iranians have been up to in Yemen for the past several years…

For the past four years the Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been smuggling weapons to the Houthis, as well as providing expert military training, with the result that the Shia Houthi militia finally succeeded in seizing control of the capital Sana’a last year, forcing the Western-backed president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, to seek refuge in Aden.

Last week it was claimed that Tehran was increasing its support for the Houthis with the delivery of a 185 ton shipment of weapons and other military equipment.

This is how Iran likes to fight wars.  They like to fund and arm proxy organizations that will do their fighting for them.  That way they don’t have to get their hands messy or risk direct retaliation.  Hezbollah is a prime example of this.

And the Iranians were winning in Yemen.  In fact, they were on the verge of complete and total victory.

So the Saudis felt forced to step in.  The Saudis don’t like to fight their own wars either, but in this instance they felt there was no other choice.

But let there be no misunderstanding.  This is not a conflict between Saudi Arabia and some rebel group in Yemen.  This is part of an ongoing war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and at this point relations between the two nations are at an all-time low…

“The Saudis were caught off guard by how quick and aggressive the Houthi offensive was and felt they needed a sharp and immediate response,” geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia group, told Business Insider over email. “They didn’t want Iran to think they needed Egypt or anyone else to come rescue the Kingdom. This is the worst tension we’ve seen between Iran and Saudi Arabia, period.”

And of course Yemen is far from the only front in this war.

For instance, Saudi-backed fighters “are poised for a massive battle” with Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters on the Syria-Lebanon border…

Islamist forces armed and aided by Saudi Arabia are poised for a massive battle in the coming days targeting the Syrian regime and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah organization, according to Egyptian security officials speaking to WND.

The officials said the Saudis have directed the Islamist forces, including the Al Nusra Front, to lead an imminent counterinsurgency focusing on the Syria-Lebanon border, with particular emphasis on the Qalamoun region.

Qalamoun is a strategic site that serves as a supply line to Damascus from Lebanon. Control of the area would give the rebels a base of operations to target Damascus.

In the western media, this ongoing conflict is being characterized as a conflict between “good” Saudi Arabia and “evil” Iran.

But should we really be cheering on Saudi Arabia?

As I mentioned above, more funding for ISIS comes out of Saudi Arabia than anywhere else.

And ISIS also gets more support on social networks such as Twitter from Saudi Arabia than anywhere else…

Part of ISIS’s success is its adoption of social media as a way to spread the group’s messages and find new members. A study by The Independent analyzed the origin of posts supporting ISIS on Twitter, and found that Saudi Arabia provides by far the most.

If you believe that ISIS is wrong for beheading people, you should keep in mind that there is a beheading in Saudi Arabia every four days.

The truth is that ISIS is simply just copying what the Saudis have been doing for centuries.

And for writing what I just did, I could be sentenced to 1,000 lashes if I was living in Saudi Arabia.  In fact, that is exactly what happened to one Saudi blogger.  Another Saudi man was recently sentenced to death for renouncing Islam.

The Saudis don’t believe that it will happen tomorrow, but they are fully convinced that their version of Islam will eventually dominate every inch of our planet.

Are you ready to live like the Saudis do?  In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive, religious police can drag you away at any time for any reason, and the penalty for smuggling a Bible is death.

If you are tempted to think that the Saudis do not plan to impose their rules on the rest of the world, you should consider what the top religious leader in the entire country recently had to say.  Earlier this month, he declared that every single church on the entire Arabian Peninsula (not just Saudi Arabia) must be destroyed…

Saudi Arabia’s top Muslim cleric called on Tuesday for the destruction of all churches in the Arabian Peninsula after legislators in the Gulf state of Kuwait moved to pass laws banning the construction of religious sites associated with Christianity.

Speaking to a delegation in Kuwait, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, who serves as the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, said the destruction of churches was absolutely necessary and is required by Islamic law, Arabic media reported.

These are the “good guys”?

The truth is that the Saudis are not our friends.  They like our money and they like our military might, and we make a convenient ally for them right now.

But what the Saudis stand for is the antithesis of everything that the United States is supposed to stand for.  It is a brutally oppressive regime that is promoting tyranny all over the planet.  Barack Obama may be comfortable with such “friends”, but the American people should not be.

This would be better then a wet dream

HOUSE BILL SEEKS TO ABOLISH PATRIOT ACT

Would block NSA snooping, protect whistleblowers

by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS.COM| MARCH 26, 2015

Legislation introduced into the House of Representatives Tuesday is designed to abolish the draconian PATRIOT Act and restore protections under the Constitution that have been violated, according to its authors.

The bill, dubbed The Surveillance State Repeal Act, H.R. 1466 [PDF], would also prohibit US spooks from plating backdoors into technology, as well as provide extended protections for whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden.

“The Patriot Act contains many provisions that violate the Fourth Amendment and have led to a dramatic expansion of our domestic surveillance state,” said Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY), who co-authored the legislation with Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI).

“Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize. It is long past time to repeal the Patriot Act and reassert the constitutional rights of all Americans.” Massie noted.

In addition to repealing the PATRIOT ACT, passed three days after the 9/11 attacks, the legislation would also abolish the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which the NSA has largely used to claim it’s mass spying program is legal.

H.R. 1466 states that any future snooping involving American citizens would be subject to strict oversight and require warrants in all cases, as well as probable cause.

“The warrantless collection of millions of personal communications from innocent Americans is a direct violation of our constitutional right to privacy,” said Congressman Pocan.

“Revelations about the NSA’s programs reveal the extraordinary extent to which the program has invaded Americans’ privacy. I reject the notion that we must sacrifice liberty for security- we can live in a secure nation which also upholds a strong commitment to civil liberties.” Pocan added.

The legislation would also prohibit the government from forcing tech companies to install backdoors in their products to enable NSA surveillance. Law enforcement lobbying groups have been pushing for this for sometime, while security experts and those within the tech sector say it would be disastrous.

The new legislation would also provide for an independent controller to receive complaints from whistleblowers, and to protect them by reporting any valid information to Congress on their behalf.

Unfortunately, the bill stands very little chance of passing, given that so many bought and paid for representatives in Congress largely support the unconstitutional PATRIOT act and do not wish to rock the surveillance state boat.

All those who support freedom from government snooping should be encouraged to express their support for this legislation. Representatives can be identified and contacted here.

Everybody likes War!

GLOBALIST WARS KILLED OVER 2 MILLION PEOPLE IN LAST DECADE

Propaganda has hidden toll from the American people

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM |MARCH 26, 2015

U.S. wars initiated at the behest of a global financial elite killed more than 2,000,000 people, according to a report published by Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the “War on Terror” summarizes:
The investigation produced results seriously at odds with what the government and its corporate media have reported.

This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.

The average American, the report notes, is a victim of a massive propaganda campaign designed to propagate lies about these undeclared an illegal wars.

“A poll carried out by the Associated Press (AP) two years ago found that, on average, US citizens believe that only 9,900 Iraqis were killed during the occupation,” the reports reads.

Physicians for Social Responsibility places the blame for this on the corporate media. The NGO, however, does not indicate why the government and the establishment media deliberately downplay the death and destruction inflicted by the Bush and Obama administrations, although they say the current “state of affairs could be very different if the public were made aware that the actual number is likely to be more than a hundred times higher” than the numbers reported by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox, et al.

“The report is sure to fuel outrage over one of the most controversial wars in US history, one in which ‘the original pretexts for going to war quickly turned out to be spurious, and from then on only the ‘liberation of the country from a violent dictatorship’ and the “democratization” and “stabilization” of Iraq remained as justification for the war and occupation,’” reports Sputnik, a news agency owned by the Russian government.

It may fuel outrage in Europe and Russia, where the media covers studies indicting the U.S. government and its foreign policy, but is unlikely to do likewise in the United States.

Growing Support in U.S. For Unlimited War

In February the Pew Research Center reported growing support for the ISIS war. “The public has grown more supportive of the U.S. fight against ISIS, as about twice as many approve (63%) as disapprove (30%) of the military campaign against the Islamic militant group in Iraq and Syria. Last October, 57% approved and 33% disapproved,” Pew reported.

Earlier this month a Quinnipiac poll showed American voters strongly in support of sending ground troops to battle ISIS by more than a 2-to-1 margin.

In February a proposed a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force was left deliberately undefined “because we believe it’s important that there aren’t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander in chief,” White House spokesmanJosh Earnest said.

Critics interpret this to mean the executive branch of the government wants to expand the reach of the imperial presidency and allow it to wage war against ill-defined enemies anywhere in the world.

Additionally, the administration believes the deliberately ambiguous AUMF will bring lawmakers together in a bipartisan coalition calling for a war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq without restraint, including the use of ground troops.

Just another War in the Middle East...No Big Deal

SAUDI ARABIA, WITH US SUPPORT, INVADES YEMEN

The US has killed perhaps more than 2 million people in the last decade of its wars on the Middle East

by WASHINGTON'S BLOG | ROBERT BARSOCCHINI | MARCH 26, 2015

As a study released today shows the US has killed perhaps more than 2 million people in the last decade of its wars on the Middle East, the US is now supporting a Saudi invasion of Yemen.

Telesur:

The government of Saudi Arabia began a military operation in Yemen against the Shiite Houthi rebels, early Thursday local time. Some reports say the operation could involve 150,000 troops and 100 fighter jets.

According to Reuters news agency, the United States coordinated with the Saudi government ahead of the attacks.

In a statement released late Wednesday, the White House confirmed it will provide logistical and intelligence support for the operation.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most repressive states, and has a deal with Pakistan for delivery of nuclear weapons at its request (see BBC’s “Saudi Nuclear Weapons on Order from Pakistan”).

In 2010, Obama secured a 60 billion dollar arms sale to the Saudi dictatorship, then a 640 million dollar sale of banned  (as reported by Foreign Policy mag) cluster bombs.

In the 1980s, the US supported an invasion by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq of Iran.  The US provided Hussein with advanced weaponry, chemical weapons, and plans for building chemical weapons facilities.  The attack killed some 1,000,0000 Iranians.

Israel, the top recipient of US funding and backing, is a rogue nuclear state that continually invades its neighbors, killing tens of thousands, and continues to illegally occupy and colonize Palestine and Syria.  Israel now openly rejects the legally required and near-uniformly internationally supported two state solution (for Israel to return to its 1967 borders).

Yet a country that does not carry out invasions and does not have nuclear weapons, has “democratic institutions” (as do the US and China), and in fact is the most inspected country in the world (whereas Israel does not permit even US inspections), Iran, is under US siege (sanction).

As the US now teams up with an ultra-repressive member of its global network for another illegal war, we are again to believe that it is all for freedom, democracy, human rights, and other such babble, when this network, of course, is simply a menace.

Let's Play with Fire

US HOUSE VOTES 348-48 TO ARM UKRAINE, RUSSIA WARNS LETHAL AID WILL “EXPLODE THE WHOLE SITUATION”

The House of Representatives passed a resolution urging Obama to send lethal aid to Ukraine

by ZERO HEDGE | MARCH 25, 2015

Yesterday, in a vote that largely slid under the radar, the House of Representatives passed a resolution urging Obama to send lethal aid to Ukraine, providing offensive, not just “defensive” weapons to the Ukraine army – the same insolvent, hyperinflating Ukraine which, with a Caa3/CC credit rating, last week started preparations to issue sovereign debt with a US guarantee, in essence making it a part of the United States (something the US previously did as a favor to Egypt before the Muslim Brotherhood puppet regime was swept from power by the local army).

The resolution passed with broad bipartisan support by a count of 348 to 48.

According to DW,  the measure urges Obama to provide Ukraine with “lethal defensive weapon systems” that would better enable Ukraine to defend its territory from “the unprovoked and continuing aggression of the Russian Federation.”

“Policy like this should not be partisan,” said House Democrat Eliot Engel, the lead sponsor of the resolution. “That is why we are rising today as Democrats and Republicans, really as Americans, to say enough is enough in Ukraine.”

Engel, a New York Democrat, has decided that he knows better than Europe what is the best option for Ukraine’s people – a Europe, and especially Germany, which has repeatedly said it rejects a push to give western arms to the Ukraine army, and warned that Russia under President Vladimir Putin has become “a clear threat to half century of American commitment to an investment in a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. A Europe where borders are not changed by force.”

This war has left thousands of dead, tens of thousands wounded, a million displaced, and has begun to threaten the post-Cold War stability of Europe,” Engel said.

Odd, perhaps the US state department should have thought of that in a little over a year ago when Victoria Nuland was plotting how to most effectively put her puppet government in charge of Kiev and how to overthrow the lawfully elected president in a US-sponsored coup.

Then again, one glance at the Rep. Engel’s career donors provides some explanation for his tenacity to start another armed conflict and to escalate what he himself defines as a cold war into a warm one.

So what will Obama do? As a reminder, the president has been far more eager to sit this one out, and giving Europe the upper hand when it comes to the decision if and when to escalate the proxy civil war in Ukraine.  To be sure, the vote puts even more pressure on the Obama administration, which has repeatedly said it was considering providing lethal aid to Ukraine; it just never dared to actually pull the trigger. Several months ago, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said we would “absolutely consider” providing lethal aid, sentiments that were echoed by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who said that he was also “inclined” in that direction.

Obama’s options may be even more limited after NATO’s top military commander General Philip Breedlove said Sunday that the West should “consider all our tools” to assist Ukraine, including sending defensive weapons to areas held by pro-Russian rebels.

For now the president is delaying because according to the State Department, the White House is waiting to see whether the second Minsk ceasefire will hold before deciding whether to deliver lethal assistance.

Ironically, the biggest stumbling block ahead of an outright overture to World War III, may be Hillary Clinton herself. The former SecState, currently embroiled in an e-mail communication scandal, was recently revealed to have been a recipient of some very generous foreign donations into the Clinton foundation: donations where Ukraine was at the very top!

Considering last week’s news of a just as dangerous cold war being waged between Obama’s right hand (wo)man, Valerie Jarrett, and the Clintons, it is perhaps just as likely that Obama, whose foreign policy team is absolutely abysmal and whose offshore “achievements” can best be described as a disaster, is not eager to get involved in Ukraine not so much to avert the cold war with Russia to turn hot, but to make Hillary’s life difficult as she launches her challenge to Obama’s favorite populist Elizabeth Warren.

Then again, when it comes to calling the foreign shots, the US president is merely a figurehead, and the real decision-maker has always been the US military-industrial complex. So while Obama may stall sending weapons, he will ultimately get a tap on the shoulder from the gentle folks shown on the table below, who will soon demand something in exchange for their millions in lobby funding.

The prepackaged spin is already ready: “sending weapons to the Kiev government would not mean involvement in a new war for America”, claimed the abovementioned Eliot Engel who sponsored the document. “The people of Ukraine are not looking for American troops,” Engel said. “They are just looking for the weapons.”

Beautiful. And if weapons the Ukraine wants, the US MIC will be delighted to provide them.

So the only question is how Russia will responds to this escalation: according to RT, “Washington’s decision to supply Ukraine with ammunition and weapons would “explode the whole situation” in eastern Ukraine and Russia would be forced to respond “appropriately,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said at the end of February.

“It would be a major blow to the Minsk agreements and would explode the whole situation,” TASS quoted Ryabkov as saying.

In other words, bullish for stocks – just think of the central-bank monetary paradrops that World War III would unleash.

Rand vs. Hillary

RAND PAUL: ‘I’M THE ONLY REPUBLICAN THAT BEATS HILLARY CLINTON’

Kentucky Senator rounds on Hillary's hypocrisy

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | MARCH 24, 2015

Senator Rand Paul reacted to Ted Cruz’s announcement that he would run for president by declaring that he is the only Republican candidate that could beat Hillary Clinton in a potential 2016 run off.

“My polling – the polling that’s out there so far – nobody is doing better against Hillary Clinton than myself because we’re already picking up three to five per cent or more of the independent vote above what the others are picking up,” Paul told Fox News, adding, “Right now, I’m the only one that beats Hillary Clinton in certain purple states, I’m the only one that also scores above all the other Republicans in whether or not I could beat her.”

A Real Clear Politics average of polls shows Paul scoring highest out of all the Republican candidates against Hillary Clinton in a head to head match up.

A CNN/ORC poll also shows that Paul would be the Republicans’ best hope of defeating Clinton, with 43% saying they would back him compared to 40 per cent for Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, and 41% for Mike Huckabee.

Paul pushed the point, asserting that Republican candidates had to “aggressively go after the Clintons” and expose Hillary’s hypocrisy on women’s rights.

“I think we need to go after their corruption. I think we need to call her out for not being a consistent defender of women’s rights when she’s willing to take money from a country that actually would imprison a victim of rape,” said the Senator.

Paul responded to a Real Clear Politics poll showing him in 5th place amongst the Republican candidates by citing a different poll which had him tied with Walker and Bush in the top tier.

The Kentucky Senator suggested that he would be much more successful than Cruz in a national election because of his wider appeal to independents and his outreach attempts to bring new people into the Republican Party.

“It isn’t just about rousing the base, it’s about exciting the base by being for the principles of liberty, but it’s then taking those principles of liberty, not diluting them, and taking them to new people and bringing them into the party – that’s the way you win general elections,” said Paul.

The Kentucky Senator is widely expected to announce his run for president on April 7.