About

We are all Suspicious0bservers.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

The Forgotten Libyan Lessons and the Syrian War

By Robert Parry. Originally published at Parry’s Consortium News (republished with permission).
Most intelligent Americans – Republicans as well as Democrats – now accept that they were duped into the Iraq War with disastrous consequences, but there is more uncertainty about the war on Libya in 2011 as well as the ongoing proxy war on Syria and the New Cold War showdown with Russia over Ukraine.
Today, many Democrats don’t want to admit that they have been manipulated into supporting new imperial adventures against Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Russia by the Obama administration as it pulls some of the same propaganda strings that George W. Bush’s administration did in 2002-2003.
Yet, as happened with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, we have seen a similar hysteria about the evil doings of the newly demonized foreign leaders with the predictable Hitler allusions and vague explanations about how some terrible misdeeds halfway around the world threaten U.S. interests.
Though people mostly remember the false WMD claims about Iraq, much of the case for the invasion was based on protecting “human rights,” spreading “democracy,” and eliminating a supporter of Palestinians who were violently resisting Israeli rule.
The justification for aggression against Iraq was not only to save Americans from the supposed risk of Iraq somehow unleashing poison gas on U.S. cities but to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, the argument which explained why Bush’s neocon advisers predicted that Iraqis would shower American troops with rose petals and candies.

Those same “humanitarian” arguments were out in force to justify the U.S.-European “regime change” in Libya eight years later. As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted – even this year – Muammar Gaddafi was a “genocidal” dictator bent on slaughtering the people of eastern Libya (though Gaddafi insisted that he was only interested in killing the “terrorists”).
After a frenzied media reaction to Gaddafi’s supposedly genocidal plans, Western nations argued that the world had a “responsibility to protect” Libyan civilians, a concept known as “R2P.” In haste, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution to protect civilians by imposing a “no-fly zone” over eastern Libya.
But the subsequent invasion involved U.S.-coordinated air strikes on Gaddafi’s forces and European Special Forces on the ground working with anti-Gaddafi rebels. Before long, the “no-fly zone” had expanded into a full-scale “regime change” operation, ending in the slaughter of many young Libyan soldiers and the sodomy-with-a-knife-then-murder of Gaddafi.
As Western leaders celebrated — Secretary Clinton exulted  “We came, we saw, he died” — Libyans began the hard work of trying to restructure their political system amid roaming bands of heavily armed jihadist rebels. Soon, it became clear that restoring order would not be easy and that Gaddafi was right about the presence of terrorists in Benghazi (when some overran the U.S. consulate killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.)
Libya, which once had an envious standard of living based on its oil riches, slid into the status of failed state, now with three governments competing for control and with jihadist militias, including some associated with the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, disrupting the nation. The result has been a far worse humanitarian crisis than existed before the West invaded.
Lessons from Libya
So, there should be lessons learned from Libya, just as there should have been lessons learned from Iraq. But the U.S. political/media establishment has refused to perform a serious autopsy of these monumental failures (U.S. inquiries only looked narrowly at the WMD falsehoods about Iraq and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi for Libya). So, it has fallen to the British to take a broader view.
The British inquiries have had their own limitations, but the Chilcot report on Iraq catalogued many of the flawed decisions that led Prime Minister Tony Blair to sign up for President George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” — and a recent parliamentary report revealed how Prime Minister David Cameron fell into a similar pattern regarding Libya and President Obama.
Of course, it’s always easier to detect the manipulations and deceptions in hindsight. In real time, the career pressures on politicians, bureaucrats and journalists can overwhelm any normal sense of skepticism. As the propaganda and disinformation swirl around them, all the “smart” people agree that “something must be done” and that usually means bombing someone.
We are seeing the same pattern play out today with the “group think” in support of a major U.S. military intervention in Syria (supposedly to impose the sweet-sounding goal of a “no-fly zone,” the same rhetorical gateway used to start the “regime change” wars in Iraq and Libya).
We are experiencing the same demonization of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin that we witnessed before those other two wars on Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Every possible allegation is made against them, often based on dubious and deceitful “evidence,” but it goes unchallenged because to question the propaganda opens a person to charges of being an “apologist” or a “stooge.”
Past Is Prologue
But looking back on how the disasters in Iraq and Libya unfolded is not just about the past; it’s about the present and future.
In that sense, the findings by the U.K. parliament’s foreign affairs committee regarding Libya deserved more attention than they received because they demonstrated that the Iraq case was not a one-off anomaly but rather part of a new way to rationalize imperial wars.
And the findings showed that these tactics are bipartisan, used by all four major parties in the U.S. and U.K.: Bush was a Republican; Blair was Labour; Obama a Democrat; and Cameron a Conservative. Though the nuances may differ slightly, the outcomes have been the same.
The U.K. report also stripped away many of the humanitarian arguments used to sell the Libyan war and revealed the crass self-interest beneath. For instance, the French, who helped spearhead the Libyan conflict, publicly lamented the suffering of civilians but privately were eager to grab a bigger oil stake in Libya and to block Gaddafi’s plans to supplant the French currency in ex-French colonies of Africa.
The report cited an April 2, 2011 email to Secretary of State Clinton from her unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal explaining what French intelligence officers were saying privately about French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s real motives for pushing for the military intervention in Libya:
“a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production, b. Increase French influence in North Africa, c. Improve his internal political situation in France, d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”
Regarding France’s “humanitarian” public rationale, the U.K. report quoted then-French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé as warning the U.N. about the imminence of Gaddafi engaging in a mass slaughter of civilians: “We have very little time left — perhaps only a matter of hours.”
But the report added, “Subsequent analysis suggested that the immediate threat to civilians was being publicly overstated and that [Gaddafi’s] reconquest of cities had not resulted in mass civilian casualties.”
The report also found that “Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate,” including the participation of Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of Al Qaeda’s affiliate, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. A senior defense official said the jihadist danger was played down during the conflict but “with the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best.”
The report stated: “The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight. Libyan connections with transnational militant extremist groups were known before 2011, because many Libyans had participated in the Iraq insurgency and in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda.”
(This year, Belhadj and his jihadist militia were enlisted by U.S. officials to protect the U.S.-U.N.-backed “Government of National Accord,” which has failed to win over the support of rival factions, in part, because more secular Libyan leaders distrust Belhadj and resent outsiders deciding who should run Libya.)
Hyperbolic Claims
The U.K. committee criticized the West’s hyperbolic claims about Gaddafi’s intent to slaughter civilians in eastern Libya when his actions were making clear that wasn’t happening.
The report said:  “Muammar Gaddafi’s actions in February and March 2011 demonstrated an appreciation of the delicate tribal and regional nature of Libya that was absent in UK policymaking. In particular, his forces did not take violent retribution against civilians in towns and cities on the road to Benghazi. [North Africa analyst] Alison Pargeter told us that any such reprisals would have ‘alienated a lot of the tribes in the east of Libya’ on which the Gaddafi regime relied. …
“Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011. …
“During fighting in Misrata, the hospital recorded 257 people killed and 949 people wounded in February and March 2011. Those casualties included 22 women and eight children. Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that Tripoli’s morgues contained more than 200 corpses following fighting in late February 2011, of whom two were female. The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians.”
The report added: “On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, ‘Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.’ Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.”
In another reprise from the Iraq War run-up, the U.K. inquiry determined that Libyan exiles played key roles in exaggerating the dangers from Gaddafi, much like the Iraqi National Congress did in fabricating supposed “evidence” of Saddam Hussein’s WMD. The report said:
“We were told that émigrés opposed to Muammar Gaddafi exploited unrest in Libya by overstating the threat to civilians and encouraging Western powers to intervene. In the course of his 40-year dictatorship Muammar Gaddafi had acquired many enemies in the Middle East and North Africa, who were similarly prepared to exaggerate the threat to civilians.”
Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel, which currently is hyping horror stories in Syria, was doing the same in Libya, the U.K. committee learned.
“Alison Pargeter told us that the issue of mercenaries was amplified [with her saying]: ‘I also think the Arab media played a very important role here. Al-Jazeera in particular, but also al-Arabiya, were reporting that Gaddafi was using air strikes against people in Benghazi and, I think, were really hamming everything up, and it turned out not to be true.’”
Allegations Debunked
The report continued: “An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence.
“The investigation concluded that much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge. …
“In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as ‘an intelligence-light decision’. We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. …
“It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”
If any of this sounds familiar – echoing the pre-coup reporting from Ukraine in 2013-2014 or the current coverage in Syria – it should. In all those cases, Western diplomats and journalists put white hats on one side and black hats on the other, presenting a simplistic, imbalanced account of the complicated religious, ethnic and political aspects of these crises.
The U.K. report also exposed how the original goal of protecting civilians merged seamlessly into a “regime change” war. The report said:
“The combination of coalition airpower with the supply of arms, intelligence and personnel to the rebels guaranteed the military defeat of the Gaddafi regime. On 20 March 2011, for example, Muammar Gaddafi’s forces retreated some 40 miles from Benghazi following attacks by French aircraft. If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in less than 24 hours.
“The basis for intervention: did it change? We questioned why NATO conducted air operations across Libya between April and October 2011 when it had secured the protection of civilians in Benghazi in March 2011. … We asked [former chief of defense staff] Lord Richards whether the object of British policy in Libya was civilian protection or regime change. He told us that ‘one thing morphed almost ineluctably into the other’ as the campaign developed its own momentum. … The UK’s intervention in Libya was reactive and did not comprise action in pursuit of a strategic objective. This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into a policy of regime change by military means.”
Less destructive options were also ignored, the report found: “Saif Gaddafi is the second son of Muammar Gaddafi. He was a member of his father’s inner circle and exercised influence in Libya. … Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who knew the Gaddafi regime better than most Western politicians, confirmed that Saif Gaddafi was ‘the best, if not the only prospect’ of effecting political change in Libya.” But that opportunity was rebuffed as was the possibility of arranging Gaddafi’s surrender of power and exile, the report said, adding:
“It was therefore important to keep the lines of communication open. However, we saw no evidence that the then Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to exploit Mr Blair’s contacts. Mr Blair explained that both Mr Cameron and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were aware that he was communicating with Muammar Gaddafi. We asked Mr Blair to describe Mr Cameron’s reaction to his conversations with Muammar Gaddafi. He told us that Mr Cameron ‘was merely listening’.
“Political options were available if the UK Government had adhered to the spirit of [U.N.] Resolution 1973, implemented its original campaign plan [to protect civilians] and influenced its coalition allies to pause military action when Benghazi was secured in March 2011. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya.”
Spreading Disorder
There was also the consequence of the Libyan conflict, spreading disorder around the region because Libyan military stockpiles were plundered. The report said: “Libya purchased some £30 billion [or about $38 billion] of weapons and ammunition between 1969 and 2010. Many of those munitions were not issued to the Libyan Army and were instead stored in warehouses. After the collapse of the Gaddafi regime, some weapons and ammunition remained in Libya, where they fell into the hands of the militias. Other Libyan weapons and ammunition were trafficked across North and West Africa and the Middle East.
“The United Nations Panel of Experts appointed to examine the impact of Resolution 1973 identified the presence of ex-Libyan weapons in Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Gaza, Mali, Niger, Tunisia and Syria. The panel concluded that ‘arms originating from Libya have significantly reinforced the military capacity of terrorist groups operating in Algeria, Egypt, Mali and Tunisia.’ …
“The international community’s inability to secure weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime fuelled instability in Libya and enabled and increased terrorism across North and West Africa and the Middle East. The UK Government correctly identified the need to secure weapons immediately after the 2011 Libyan civil war, but it and its international partners took insufficient action to achieve that objective. However, it is probable that none of the states that intervened in Libya would have been prepared to commit the necessary military and political resources to secure stocks of weapons and ammunition. That consideration should have informed their calculation to intervene.”
Despite these findings, the Obama administration and its allies are considering an escalation of their military intervention in Syria, which already has involved arming and training jihadists who include Al Qaeda militants as well as supposedly “moderate” fighters, who have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda and handed over sophisticated American weaponry.
The U.S. military has spearheaded a bombing campaign against Al Qaeda’s spinoff, the Islamic State, inside Syria. But the Obama administration sometimes has put its desire to oust Assad ahead of its supposed priority of fighting the Islamic State, such as when U.S. air power pulled back from bombing Islamic State militants in 2015 as they were overrunning Syrian army positions at the historic city of Palmyra.
Now, with Syria and its Russian ally resorting to intense bombing to root Al Qaeda and its allies, including some of those U.S.-armed “moderates,” from their strongholds in eastern Aleppo, there is a full-throated demand from the West, including virtually all major media outlets, to impose a “no-fly zone,” like the one that preceded the “regime change” in Libya.
While such interventions may “feel good” – and perhaps there’s a hunger to see Assad murdered like Gaddafi – there is little or no careful analysis about what is likely to follow.
The most likely outcome from a Syrian “regime change” is a victory by Al Qaeda and/or its erstwhile friends in the Islamic State. How that would make the lives of Syrians better is hard to fathom. More likely, the victorious jihadists would inflict a mass bloodletting on Christians, Alawites, Shiites, secular Sunnis and other “heretics,” with millions more fleeing as refugees.
Among the Western elites – in politics and media – no lessons apparently have been learned from the disaster in Iraq, nor from the new British report on the Libyan fiasco.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Syria – Is The U.S. Preparing A “False Flag” Bombing?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/syria-u-s-preparing-false-flag-bombing.html#more-61662

By Moon of Alabama. Originally posted at Moon of Alabama under Syria – Is The U.S. Preparing A “False Flag” Bombing?.
There is a curious coincidence of a remark Secretary of State Kerry made to Syrian opposition activists and a new paint scheme applied to some U.S. military jets.
October 1 2016: Kerry in leaked audio: ‘I lost the argument’ for use of force in Syria

Washington (CNN) Secretary of State John Kerry’s frustration with the failure of American diplomacy was on display as he defended US efforts to help end the five-year civil war in Syria during a meeting last week with a group of Syrian civilians, according to an audio recording obtained by CNN.

Kerry’s comments came at a meeting that took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on the sidelines the UN General Assembly, where Kerry was going from session to session in a frenzied effort to resuscitate a ceasefire that seemed poised to collapse.
A complete audio recording of the meeting between Kerry, some of his staff, and some Syrians is available on youtube.
Of interest is a short segment about alleged Russian bombing beginning at 11:18. The female Arab-English interpreter translates remarks by a Syrian, believed to be the Syrian front-man of the White Helmets scam Raed Saleh, about the difficulties of supervising ceasefires.

Interpreter (translating from a male Arabic speaker): We don’t believe that Russia can be the guarantor of the actions of the regime. We see Russia is a partner of the regime in bombing Syrians, Syrian civilians, market places, even our own team, the Syrian Civil Defense team. We documented since the start of the Russian intervention in Syria from day one until February of this year more than 17 of our Syrian Civil Defense personal have been killed by Russian airstrikes.
Kerry: Do you have any videos of the airplanes of these strikes?
(crosstalk interpreter and male Arab voice)
Kerry: Can we get that (unintelligible) videos the agents have been asking for?
(crosstalk interpreter and male Arab voice)
Kerry staff member: So can I just say – we get a lot of videos of the victims of these attacks, they are terrible, but they don’t help us. We need videos of the actual aircrafts and ammunition. And there is a lot of them on the internet but we don’t know whether they are real or not. Verified videos of the actual aircraft is the most useful thing. …
These men can be helped, though someone in the U.S. military – or not.
A Canadian journalist based in Eastern/Central Europe, Christian Borys tweeted yesterday:
Christian Borys @ItsBorysThe U.S is painting their F/A-18’s to match the paint schemes of Russian jets in #Syria. Standard training, but interesting nonetheless. pic.twitter.com/FVN6tMj2Ji
1:45 PM – 6 Oct 2016
This is the attached pic:
The first three pics are of an U.S. F/A-18 fighter and attack aircraft in Russian coloring. (The wingtips are raised for storage as this is a carrier enabled plane. The windows of the raised cockpit hood are covered with white sun protection sheets.) On the bottom right is a picture of a Russia SU-34 in the usual Russian color scheme as it is also used by the Russian contingent in Syria.
It would be extremely difficult to distinguish these like-colored planes from each other in a shaky fly-by and “bombing” video.
The U.S. regularly uses planes in “enemy” color schemes as “aggressor force” during training and maneuvers. It helps U.S. pilots to get used to “enemy” targets during air-to-air combat training. So this can all be, like Christian Borys assumes, “standard training”.
But there is also Kerry’s talk with the Syrian opposition and his explicit request for videos of “Russian” jets bombing in Syria.
This may be an innocent coincidence: Secretary Kerry is asking the scam artists of the White Helmets for video of Russian jets “bombing civilians” in Syria and, just by chance, the U.S. military is painting one of its jets to look like a “Russian” Su-34 strike fighter like those deployed in Syria.
But many incidents in Syria, the Ghouta gas attack, the recent aid convoy attack, get attributed to Russia or the Syrian government without any proof (or even despite contrary evidence). The media always eat these falsehoods up based simply on some official’s say-so, some unverified pictures or video and without asking any further questions. A “Russian attack” on some large civilian target like a refugee camp, documented on video!, would be a very easy sell. The propagandized “uproar” over such an attack could be easily used to launch a wider war. The attack on the Gleiwitz Radio tower, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and “Saddam’s WMDs” come to mind. Kerry is not shy of such lying. Today he invented a new hospital attack, said it was a war crime and that Russia and Syria should be investigated. No such attack happened.
The Russian parliament ratified an agreement with Syria about the indefinite stationing of Russian forces in Syria. Yesterday the Russian Ministry of Defense warned that Russian soldiers are embedded with Syrian units on the ground and that they would be defended against any attempt of air attacks by the Russian air-defense in Syria. U.S. media called such matter of course statement bellicose talk.
There is plenty of lose talk in U.S. media about attacking Syrian and Russian forces in Syria. The U.S. recently bombed a Syrian unit in a well known position it had held for many month. 82 Syrian soldier died and many more were wounded. The strike furthered the advance of ISIS on the besieged Deir Ezzor. That was no ‘mistake’ as the U.S. claimed.
Russia will defend its forces in Syria and it will defend Syria’s sovereignty. It is not alone. A Chinese navy frigate just arrived in the Syrian port Tartus. Should that trip-wire get touched 1.3 billion Chinese would join the Russians, Iranians and Syrians in waging war against the U.S. “regime change” attempt in Syria. Washington is warned. No cheap paint scheme trickery will be accepted as reason to hold back. Russia WILL hit back should the need arise.
Any attack on Russian or Syrian forces would be illegal. Kerry himself, in the above linked talk, says that the U.S. has absolutely no legal grounds for any such attack. It would be illegitimate and a crime. But the U.S. is not known for staying strictly within the framework of international law. Russia is well advised to warn of the eventual consequences of any breach. There is nothing “bellicose” about that.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

ALERT: CDC Proposes Rule to Apprehend and Detain anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any duration, without Due Process or right of Appeal – and administer forced vaccines

http://www.healthnutnews.com/cdc-proposes-rule-to-apprehend-and-detain-anyone/
This news should be on the front page of EVERY paper in the U.S. and the top news story on every news channel because if the CDC gets their way- you can kiss your right to Due Process GOODBYE. This is no joke.
The Centers for Disease Control (hereafter referred to as the CDC) has proposed a rule- and given the public until 10/14/16 to comment- giving them the power to apprehend and detain ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME, without Due Process or any right of appeal:
  • to hold them (or entire groups/cities) in quarantine for as long as they want
  • and forcibly vaccinate them if needed.
You may not refuse them and you may not leave. Make no mistake, this is tyranny.
From the article:
 “INDIVIDUALS WHO VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OR THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL ORDER FOR QUARANTINE, ISOLATION, OR CONDITIONAL RELEASE (EVEN IF NO AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE GOVERNMENT), HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES”
The CDC has currently listed the communicable disease they are trying to protect the public from as:
Measles Pertussis
Tuberculosis Rubella.
Rabies Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers.
Meningococcal disease Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronovirus (MERS).
Varicella

However, do not think for a MOMENT that it is beyond them to suddenly view, and sneak in, any other disease they have a vaccination for- onto this list. To read their entire proposal, and EVERY American should, click here. It is imperative that we understand that the CDC is giving itself the power to forcibly apprehend healthy people- en masse- and detain them indefinitely with no process of appeal.
“When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer.”  

Our friends at RedFlag News have outlined the CDC’s three stage process for us:

  1. You or your city/group are declared “precommunicable” 
  2. You are apprehended and detained
  3. You are ordered to isolation, quarantine, or given a conditional release
Stage 1:
CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent”,
The CDC doesn’t need to have medical proof that you or your city is “precommunicable”. Rather, all that is required is for someone to say you or your city has had an opportunity for exposure- meaning you could be perfectly healthy. Again, you will have ZERO due process to prove otherwise. You are completely at their will.
Stage 2:
As if Stage 1 wasn’t terrifying, Stage 2 is where stuff can get really dark for us as the CDC has unlimited and unchecked authority. They’ve explained how they generally expect things to work but they have also clearly stated their decision making is open-ended. You have no say.
In fact, to understand how the CDC’s concept of unlimited city-wide Apprehension and Detention would play out, watch the CDC’s 2011 propaganda movie- Contagion (click here for the CDC’s press release about the film).
Stage 3:
From the article:
“IF an order of isolation, quarantine, or conditional release is issued, the CDC gives those so ordered one chance in the first 72 hours to ask CDC to change their minds, after which unlimited detention is again on the table.”
Remember, you can ask, but they don’t have to answer you, let you go, and are not required to have any further discussions on the matter. Period. That’s what unlimited power looks like. All in the name of public health. Or perhaps in the name of money for Big Pharma. Because it is looking more and more like this is what they are ultimately after.
From RedFlag News:
“CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.
It is reasonable to even expect the CDC may soon create their own armed police force to carry these actions out. It can’t be far off.
Please make sure to let the CDC know how you feel about this tyranny by visiting this site. They have unfortunately proven NOT TO BE TRUSTWORTHY and we must fight against any possibility of the state forcibly quarantining or vaccinating us.
Please, spread the word. This info is all public record and comes from government and CDC websites with links included. Use your voice while you still have the right.
Source: RedFlag News and FederalRegister.gov

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Growing and Harvesting Sorghum: Raising Cane and Gettin' Juiced - Part 1

8/30/2016 2:19:00 PM
Sorghum seed head and juice
Sorghum is one of the topics we cover when we speak at the MOTHER EARTH NEWS FAIR.  We also did a "juicing" demonstration.
We are a small farm and we stick mainly with the traditional crops that have always been grown here in the mountains (Western North Carolina). Although, we try to find more economical ways of growing, processing and/or marketing those crops — which tends to be non-traditional ways.
I'm a genealogy nut, so I love to find out what my ancestors were growing and how. I want to connect land and family. I found an 1880 Agricultural Census with my great great grandfather listed. In that time Molasses, Maple Syrup, hops, wine, cheese and milk were a few listed. I was so excited! If they could produce those then we could surely do it now!

Is it Cane or Sorghum?

We tried the sorghum cane because we knew our land did well with corn and since they require much of the same nutrients we went with this. We needed another “sweet” option here on the farm too. We’ve always called it "cane." Sorghum is known by many names: sweet sorghum, sorghum cane and all are correct.
Sorghum is actually a type of grass, not unlike corn. Sorghum actually looks like a small variety of corn when growing. There are larger varieties of cane but, most of those are grown in South America and other hotter climates. This sugar cane doesn't produce as dark a syrup as does Sorghum cane.

Getting Started: Where to Find Sorghum Seed

We've been growing cane now for over 5 years. So, for us, we save seed each year. We chose Rox Orange which is a versatile cane. When getting started I recommend buying seed from a reputable dealer. There are many dealers out there and many choices when deciding which seed to buy. A company we have used is Sustainable Seed Company.
If you are looking for untreated seed make sure that is listed because too often you'll receive seed that has been treated. When you buy "organic" this will be untreated seed. As I said earlier, there are many varieties of sorghum. There are many purposes for sorghum. You can use the sorghum for juice, making molasses, using seed heads for making gluten-free flour, seed heads for animal/bird feed, and the bagasse (scraps from juicing) for livestock feed.

When to Plant

We usually plant our seed when we plant our corn. We are in Zone 7 and usually don't have a hard frost after May 10th. When the ground becomes warm, at least 60 degrees, we start planting our seed. We don't use a seed sower, we just sow by hand. The seeds are very small so the seeds are sowed thickly.
If you have a corn planter, there are attachments that would accommodate this size seed. The concerns for this crop is too much rainfall that can loosen the ground and/or wind that can cause "lodging". Falling over of the crops. It is very hard to "weed" this crop since it is planted so densely. Make sure weeds are removed from between the rows.
Growing Sorghum

When and How to Harvest Sorghum

Days to maturity varies between varieties. At least 80 days for silage. Left to mature longer makes the juice sweeter. We like to start cutting cane by the 2nd week in September and you want to cut it before the first hard frost in your area. You simply cut the stalks as close to the ground as possible and gather. I use my Daddy's old tobacco knife to cut cane.
Harvesting sorghum
There is the argument as to strip the leaves first or not. Some will strip the leaves and top the seed heads and leave a few days before gathering. There is some research that says this will increase sugar content and yields while other research says it makes no difference in the outcome. So, we do not strip the leaves and seed heads first.
You want to be ready to process all the cane you gather in the same day. The stalks lose moisture/juice from evaporation after cutting. We only process a limited amount at a time.
Hand harvesting
Photo of Alan "hand" harvesting.
Ready for processing
Now, with the first cutting ready and the seed heads bundled, it's time for processing. You can follow Part 2 (stay tuned) to see our take on "Gettin' Juiced!"
Susan Tipton-Fox continues the farming and preserving practices that had been passed down to her by her family. She presents on-farm workshops in Yancey County, North Carolina, and growing her on-farm agritourism by promoting "workshop stays" on the farm (extending the farm experience). Find Susan on Facebook, and read all of her MOTHER EARTH NEWS posts here.

Why Is The DHS Preparing To Take Control Of The US Election?

What do you do when you're the dictatorial leader of an oppressive government regime looking to maintain power while simultaneously preserving the facade of free and open elections?  Well, if you're the Obama administration then you look for avenues to nationalize state-run election infrastructure.
But you can't just seize control of infrastructure that has been successfully run at the state level for a couple hundred years...that kind of stuff only happens in Venezuela and we're better than that.  No, you need a catalyst for this kind of blatant power grab.  "Coincidentally", a catalyst just like the FBI's warning a couple of days ago about "foreign hackers [read Putin] penetrating state election systems."  Then, once you've defined the super villain, all you need is a couple of political cronies to go on a fear mongering tour to whip the electorate into a frenzy.  And wouldn't you know it...Harry Reid recently did just that by sending a letter to the FBI voicing his "concerns" that the "Russian government" may be looking to tamper with the upcoming presidential election.  Per the New York Times, Harry Reid's letter to the FBI included the following:
"I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results."
The combination of all these things might be just enough to scare the American electorate into forfeiting another chunk of their individual sovereignty to the elite political class in Washington DC while plunging us one step closer to the inevitable end game of "fundamentally transforming" our constitutional democracy into a police state.
Per the Washington Examiner, this sort of scenario is precisely what Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, discussed at an event hosted by The Christian Science Monitor earlier this month.
"We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid."

"There's a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure."

"There's no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process."
Jeh Johnson's comments related to election infrastructure can be viewed below.  His full comments can be viewed here.

As an added little benefit, seizing control of state election infrastructure makes it so much easier to move toward the ultimate end game of standardized federal voting laws.  Fighting intense legal battles in multiple states on voter ID laws and the rights of convicted felons to vote is just too tedious and the costs of expensive lawyers keeps adding up for Soros (see "Soros Emerges As Mastermind Behind Plan To "Enlarge Electorate By At Least 10 Million Voters").
So how is "critical infrastructure" defined and exactly how is it managed?  Well the Department of Homeland Security has a whole website dedicated to that topic.
The nation's critical infrastructure provides the essential services that underpin American society and serve as the backbone of our nation's economy, security, and health. We know it as the power we use in our homes, the water we drink, the transportation that moves us, the stores we shop in, and the communication systems we rely on to stay in touch with friends and family.

Overall, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors that compose the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof. The National Protection and Programs Directorate's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) leads the coordinated national effort to manage risks to the nation's critical infrastructure and enhance the security and resilience of America's physical and cyber infrastructure. Read more about how IP leads this national effort.
And why shouldn't we trust political appointees to run federal elections?  They've proven themselves time and again to be impartial, disinterested parties, right?  Well there is that one time when the IRS targeted Tea Party groups but that was just one time.  We're sure that would never happen again...

Friday, August 19, 2016

Shocking Government Report Finds $6.5 Trillion In Taxpayer Funds "Unaccounted For"

Last week, we first touched on a topic which, in any non-banana republic, would be a far greater scandal than what Ryan Lochte may or may not have been doing in a Rio bathroom: namely, government corruption, falsification and potential fraud and embezzlement, which has resulted in the Pentagon being unable to account for up to $8.5 trillion in taxpayer funding.
Today, Reuters follows up on this disturbing issue, and reveals that the Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced. The Defense Department’s Inspector General, in a June report, said the Army made $2.8 trillion in wrongful adjustments to accounting entries in one quarter alone in 2015, and $6.5 trillion for the year. Yet the Army lacked receipts and invoices to support those numbers or simply made them up.
As a result, the Army’s financial statements for 2015 were “materially misstated,” the report concluded. The “forced” adjustments rendered the statements useless because “DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.”
For those wondering, this is what $1 trillion in $100 bills looks like.
Now multiply by 6.
This is not the first time the DoD has fudged its books: disclosure of the Army’s manipulation of numbers is the latest example of the severe accounting problems plaguing the Defense Department for decades. The report affirms a 2013 Reuters series revealing how the Defense Department falsified accounting on a large scale as it scrambled to close its books. As a result, there has been no way to know how the Defense Department – far and away the biggest chunk of Congress’ annual budget – spends the public’s money.... The Army lost or didn’t keep required data, and much of the data it had was inaccurate, the IG said.
In other words, it is effectively impossible to account how the US government has spent trillions in taxpayer funds over the years. It also means that since the money can not be accounted for, a substantial part of it may have been embezzled.
“Where is the money going? Nobody knows,” said Franklin Spinney, a retired military analyst for the Pentagon and critic of Defense Department planning, cited by Reuters.
The significance of the accounting problem goes beyond mere concern for balancing books, Spinney said. Both presidential candidates have called for increasing defense spending amid current global tension; the only issue is that more spending may not be necessary - all that is needed is less government corruption and theft.
An accurate accounting could reveal deeper problems in how the Defense Department spends its money. Its 2016 budget is $573 billion, more than half of the annual budget appropriated by Congress. The Army account’s errors will likely carry consequences for the entire Defense Department. Congress set a September 30, 2017 deadline for the department to be prepared to undergo an audit.
What's worse is that the "fudging" of the numbers is well known to everyone in the government apparatus. For years, the Inspector General – the Defense Department’s official auditor – has inserted a disclaimer on all military annual reports. The accounting is so unreliable that “the basic financial statements may have undetected misstatements that are both material and pervasive.
Not surprisingly, trying to figure out where the adjustments are has proven to be impossible.
Jack Armstrong, a former Defense Inspector General official in charge of auditing the Army General Fund, said the same type of unjustified changes to Army financial statements already were being made when he retired in 2010.

The Army issues two types of reports – a budget report and a financial one. The budget one was completed first. Armstrong said he believes fudged numbers were inserted into the financial report to make the numbers match.

“They don’t know what the heck the balances should be,” Armstrong said.
Meanwhile, for government employees, such as those at the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS), which handles a wide range of Defense Department accounting services, the whole issue is one big joke, and they refer to preparation of the Army’s year-end statements as “the grand plug,” Armstrong said. “Plug”, of course, being another name for made-up numbers.
Finally, how on earth can one possibly "not account" for trillions? As Reuters adds, at first glance adjustments totaling trillions may seem impossible. The amounts dwarf the Defense Department’s entire budget. However, when making changes to one account also require making changes to multiple levels of sub-accounts. That creates a domino effect where falsifications kept falling down the line. In many instances this daisy-chain was repeated multiple times for the same accounting item.
The IG report also blamed DFAS, saying it too made unjustified changes to numbers. For example, two DFAS computer systems showed different values of supplies for missiles and ammunition, the report noted – but rather than solving the disparity, DFAS personnel inserted a false “correction” to make the numbers match.

DFAS also could not make accurate year-end Army financial statements because more than 16,000 financial data files had vanished from its computer system. Faulty computer programming and employees’ inability to detect the flaw were at fault, the IG said.
DFAS is studying the report “and has no comment at this time,” a spokesman said. We doubt anyone else will inquire into where potentially trillions in taxpayer funds have disappeared to; meanwhile the two presidential candidates battle it out on the topic of tax rates when the real problem facing America is not how much money it draws in - after all the Fed can and will simply monetize the deficit - but how it spends it. Sadly, we may never know.

Federal Judge Protects Hillary From Sworn Email Server Deposition, Rules For Written Q&A Instead

As of today, Hillary Clinton hasn't given a press conference in 258 days, something even the deeply pro-Clinton Washington Post finds troubling. And while Hillary may have spoken to the FBI in an unsworn testimony, there is no transcript of it, and only the FBI's own subjective notes serve as proof it ever happened. Which is why on July 8, conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch, the source of so much headache for the Democratic presidential nominee, had requested permission to depose Hillary in sworn testimony, and in public, as relates to the use of her private email server.
That however, will not happen as U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected the request to force Hillary Clinton to submit to a sworn deposition, ruling instead that she must respond in writing to questions about the issue:
The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.
Sullivan said Judicial Watch had not demonstrated that an in-person deposition of Clinton was necessary to attempt to clarify whether the former secretary of state set up the system in order to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.
Judicial Watch’s argument that a deposition is preferable in this case because of the ability to ask follow-up questions is not persuasive. Given the extensive public record related to the clintonemail.com system, a record which Judicial Watch has acknowledged, Judicial Watch will be able to anticipate many follow-up questions. For those follow-up questions that Judicial Watch is unable to anticipate, it can move this Court for permission to serve additional interrogatories.
Furthermore, to spend Hillary the indignity of appearing in public and answering questions in real-time - instead giving her a 30 day window in which to answer the questions - the judge decided to goalseek his conclusion, saying it appeared Judicial Watch "likely has a very limited number of questions for Secretary Clinton," making it more plausible that the issue could be resolved in writing, thus justifying his decision to give Hillary a way out
It was unclear how the judge had any idea about the scope ot content of Judicial Watch's questions.
Finally, Sullivan noted that under legal precedents applicable to current and former Cabinet officials, the court should only require Clinton to appear at a deposition if "exceptional circumstances" justified such an approach.
As Politico adds, the ruling makes it far less likely that Clinton will face the potentially politically damaging step of having to leave the presidential campaign trail in the coming months to testify under oath about her controversial email set-up. However, it is still possible one of several other judges considering similar cases could issue such an order.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding Judge Sullivan’s decision granting Judicial Watch permission to submit interrogatories to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to depose the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel:
“We are pleased that this federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to provide written answers under oath to some key questions about her email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “We will move quickly to get these answers. The decision is a reminder that Hillary Clinton is not above the law.”
Alas, we have to disagree with Fitton's conclusion.