22. november 2015 – Den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad gav et langt interview til Hong Kongs Phoenix Tv – et af flere i denne uge, inkl. til det italienske netværk RAI UNO, samt en fransk publikation. Den syriske regerings nyhedsagentur SANA udsendte det fulde udskrift i dag.

»Det er nu næsten fem år siden, terrorismen angreb Syrien, og, på grund af regionale og internationale staters støtte, har terroristerne selvfølgelig kunnet indtage mange områder i Syrien«, tilføjede han. Han understregede, at der slet ikke er nogen »borgerkrig«, men snarere en »krig« mod Syrien med fremmede lande, der stod bag terrorister i Syrien, som forsøger at vælte regeringen.

»Men på det seneste, efter at det russiske luftvåben er gået ind i kampen mod terrorisme, er situationen forbedret på en meget god måde, og nu kan jeg sige, at hæren gør fremskridt på næsten alle fronter … «

Han angreb Obamas falske krig imod ISIS og insisterede, at terrorisme ikke kan bekæmpes udelukkende ved hjælp af luftangreb, selv om russerne har været effektive; de arbejder sammen med de syriske bevæbnede styrker, som vinder territorier tilbage fra jihadisterne.

Under Obamas »kampagne« var resultatet, at terrorister vandt mere og mere grund og »flere rekrutter fra hele verden«, sagde al-Assad. Men, siden »den russiske deltagelse, har de samme terroristgrupper været på tilbagetog og er flygtet fra Syrien i tusindtal … «

22. november 2015 – Den britiske premierminister David Cameron forbereder sig på at gå tilbage til Underhuset for at få en ja-stemme til britisk bombning af Syrien, som han nu tilsyneladende mener, han kan få. Iflg. The Telegraph vil Cameron fremlægge sin »omfattende strategi« for at nedkæmpe ISIS inden for få dage, med en optrappet indsats for at vinde tværpolitisk støtte til britiske luftangreb i Syrien. Cameron er i Paris i morgen til drøftelser med den franske præsident François Hollande, før denne flyver til Washington for at mødes med præsident Obama.

Samtidig lover finansminister George Osborne, at Storbritannien vil drage afsted beredt til krig ved at bekoste købet af 138 F-35 kampfly til 12 mia. pund. Denne handel vil tredoble den ildkraft, som de to nye hangarskibe, der aktuelt er under bygning til Royal Navy, vil få, og, sagde Osborne, sætte landet i »fuld krigsrustning« i Mellemøsten i en generation. Det kan selvfølgelig vare så længe, før de to hangarskibe og deres flåde af F-35’ere er kampklare, når man tager de udviklingsmæssige problemer og budgetoverskridelser, som har plaget programmet, i betragtning.

Foto: HMS Queen Elizabeth, verdens hidtil største krigsskib, søsættes for første gang i juli, 2014.

23. november 2015 – Præsident Obamas nazistiske viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender, Victoria Nuland, sluttede sig til NATO’s vicegeneralsekretær Alexander Vershbow den 17. nov., hvor hun holdt en ekstremt fjendtlig, antirussisk tale ved Behörden Spiegel Sikkerhedskonference i Berlin. Nuland, der er berygtet for at installere Arsenij »Jats« Jatsenjuk som premierminister i Ukraine, krævede der, at sanktionerne mod Rusland opretholdes, indtil Minskaftalens våbenhvile er fuldt ud implementeret, og Krim er kommet tilbage til Ukraine!

Tre dage senere sprængte fascistiske sabotører to højspændingsledninger, der ledte elektricitet til Krim fra Ukraine, i luften. Det var en fredag aften, den 20. november; søndag morgen, den 22. nov., sprængte de yderligere to i luften uden, at den ukrainske regering greb ind. Med »demonstranter«, der forhindrede reparationer, er Krim og dets 2 mio. mennesker nu blevet efterladt uden strøm, med undtagelse af den strøm, der leveres af lokale generatorer, omkring 30 % af totalen, iflg. russiske myndigheder. Det nazistiske Sektor Højre, med tilslutning fra tatarer »i eksil«, er begyndt at blokere lastbiler med varer ind til Krim og forsøger således at afskære mad og vand.

Regeringen responderede ved den ukrainske præsident Poroshenko, der sammenkaldte et regeringsmøde denne mandag, som sluttede med gennemtvingelsen af en »midlertidig suspension af alle vareudvekslinger mellem Ukraine og Krim. Nulands »Jats« krævede, at regeringen »omgående oprettede en arbejdsgruppe« for at standse »levering af varer og al handel« med Krim.

Disse forholdsregler er morderiske i betragtning af, at Krim indtil videre stadig er beroende af Ukraine for sit vand og sin strøm. Rusland er i gang med at bygge en undervands-strømforbindelse til Krim, som forventes at komme i drift ved årets slutning.

23. november 2015 – USA’s tidligere forsvarsminister – indtil Obama sparkede ham ud – Chuck Hagel kom igen offentligt ud med sin modstand mod Obamas (og Londons) ’Assad-skal-væk’-strategi for Syrien. Det var netop over dette spørgsmål, at Obama, for næsten nøjagtig et år siden, fyrede Hagel, efter et memo, som Hagel havde skrevet til nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Susan Rice, kom for dagens lys. Iflg. rapporter fremlagde to-siders dokumentet Hagels bekymringer for, at USA kunne »sakke bagud« i sin krig imod ISIS, hvis det ikke ændrede sin strategi over for den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad.

Som gæst på CNN’s søndagsprogram »State of the Union« sagde Hagel til værten Jake Tapper, at »ISIS repræsenterer den virkelige trussel mod vort land – [og] verden … Der er ingen militærløsning på dette. Vi er oppe imod en ideologi, vi er oppe imod en realitet, en række dynamikker, som vi aldrig før har set – en sofistikeret korrumpering af samfundets medier, den militære frygtløshed, den taktiske, strategiske dygtighed, som ISIS er i besiddelse af, finansieringen«, sagde Hagel. »Så vi bør definere klarere, hvad er vore politiske strategier? Hvad er vore prioriteter? Er Assad fjenden, eller er ISIS fjenden?«

Men reference til memoet fra 2014 sagde Hagel: »Det, der sker her, er fuldstændigt ude af kontrol, og der er ingen udsigt til at bringe nogen form for stabilitet, tror jeg, med den kurs, vi følger nu, og det var, hvad jeg talte om i memoet.« Hagel sagde, at USA må udskifte sin fremgangsmåde over for ISIS og fokusere på at bygge stærkere alliancer med andre lande, der ønsker at eliminere ISIS, inklusive Rusland. »Hvad er den fælles trussel mod alle disse lande?«, spurgte han. »Jeg tror ikke, man vil kunne finde en løsning på Assad, før man finder ud af, hvordan man skal nedkæmpe ISIS«, insisterede Hagel.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/chuck-hagel-syria-isis-assad/

Hvor den russiske præsident Putin lancerede en flanke, der kunne føre til den totale ødelæggelse af ISIS og al-Qaeda-terroristers base i Syrien og Irak, så har briterne nu aggressivt interveneret imod denne flanke, som hele planeten så desperat har brug for.

Den britiske premierminister Camerons aktuelle, hektiske deployering har til formål at forstærke den krigspolitik, der nu er modstand imod – Tony Blairs, George W. Bush’ og Barack Obamas katastrofale politik – britiske agenter og marionetter. Cameron insisterer: Nej, ødelæg ikke baserne for de terrorister, der nu myrder løs i Mellemøsten og Europa. Assad må først væltes som Syriens præsident.

Og marionetten Obama har i hele den forgangne uge gentaget: Intet samarbejde imod ISIS; forudsætningen er, at Rusland må gå med til, at Assad først må smides ud.

Det britiske monarki og finansielle imperium insisterer: Gå ikke efter ISIS’ finansierer og våbenleverandører i Saudi Arabien; gå ikke efter dets hjælper i den tyrkiske regering. Og frem for alt, gå ikke imod den britisk-saudiske politik for regimeskift-krige, der føres af Bush og Obama, og som bevidst har skabt og udbredt ISIS og drevet hundrede tusinder af desperate flygtninge ind i Europa.

Til Frankrig og andre nationer lyder ordren: Gå ikke i partnerskab med Rusland eller opfordr USA til at gå med Rusland for at knuse ISIS; men kræv, at Assad først må gå af. Grib ikke den chance, som tilbydes gennem Putins nylige, åbenlyst globale rolle, bakket op af Kinas tilbud om at forlænge udviklingen med den Nye Silkevej ind i Mellemøsten.

Samtidig forbereder de britiske kongelige sig på at åbne COP21-klimakonferencen om »global opvarmning« i Paris og styre den i henhold til deres besættelse – at reducere den menneskelige befolkning. Prins Charles, der er udvalgt til at holde åbningstalen til konferencen, påstod i et interview den 21. nov., at klimaforandring var årsagen til de folkemorderiske krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika – ikke Tony Blair, ikke George W. Bush og Barack Obama, men klimaforandringen forårsagede disse krige.

Og den britiske marionet Obama gentog i en tale den 21. nov., at »klimaforandring er USA’s sikkerhedstrussel nummer ét«.

Er han sindssyg? Nej, han er en marionet for det britiske monarki og det britiske finansimperium, og af Wall Street.

Lyndon LaRouche har insisteret på dette. Obama er en britisk marionet og en præsident for evindelige krige og dronedrab. Han må fjernes fra embedet. For dernæst at skabe en økonomisk genrejsning, »må alt, hvad vi gør i USA, følge de principper, som præsident Franklin Roosevelt stod for, imod Wall Street«.

»Der kan ikke blive nogen fred, før det britiske monarki er fjernet«, sagde LaRouche den 22. nov. Vær opmærksom på LaRouches insisteren på dette; det betyder menneskehedens fremtid.

Vi skal stoppe dem, og det betyder, at borgerne må vedtage en politik, hvor de siger ”Vi stopper dem!” Det er muligt. Så vi har set, hvordan folk bliver myrdet i denne hændelse, men hvorfor bliver de myrdet? Fordi ingen var opmærksomme på, at de var mordere. Det er problemet.

Og derfor betaler Frankrig f.eks. en høj pris, fordi Frankrigs regering ikke var opmærksom på den åbenlyse trussel mod Frankrig. Og nu skammer den franske regering sig, og det er godt for dem. For nu har de en regulær grund til at sikre, at de ikke længere tolererer det, de tolererede alt for længe. Og det samme er tilfældet i andre dele af Europa. Og der er forskellige slags institutioner i forskellige dele af Europa, der har samme problem.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

20. november 2015 – Fire veteraner fra det amerikanske luftvåben med sammenlagt mere end 20 års erfaring med drone-operationer, tre af dem som ’sensor-operatører’ og den fjerde som kommunikations-tekniker, har skrevet til præsident Obama og opfordret ham til at genoverveje politikken med målrettede drone-drab, fordi, som de siger, det er en drivkraft bag ISIS og andre jihadistiske grupper. I et passioneret brev stilet til Obama, forsvarsminister Ash Carter og CIA direktør John Brennan skriver de, at taktikken har ”leveret brændstof til de hadefulde følelser, der har opildnet terrorismen og grupper som ISIS og samtidig tjent som et grundlæggende rekrutterings-værktøj i lighed med Guantánamo Bay”.

Den ældste af de fire, Brandon Bryant, der gjorde tjeneste i drone-eskadroner fra 2005 til 2011, fortalte til Guardian, at han var en del af det hold, der opsporede Anwar al-Awlaki med droner gennem 10 måneder kort tid før han blev dræbt. Bryant sagde, at iflg. hans mening er han blevet tvunget til at bryde sin militære ed ved at blive tildelt en mission, der dræbte en amerikansk landsmand. ”Vi fik at vide, at al-Awlaki fortjente at dø, at han fortjente at blive dræbt som en forræder, men artikel 3 af sektion 2 i den amerikanske forfatning siger, at selv en forræder har fortjent en retfærdig retssag foran en jury af ligemænd.”

De betegnede drone-strategien som selvødelæggende, fordi de civile tab skaber had rettet mod USA. ”Lige nu ser det ud til at være politisk hensigtsmæssigt,” sagde Cian Westmoreland, kommunikations-teknikeren. ”Men i det lange løb vil det kun være den negative side af Hellfire-missilerne og de brummende drone-overflyvninger, som mange af disse mennesker kender til USA og Storbritannien.

Her følger ordlyden af deres brev:

”Vi er forhenværende militærfolk i luftvåbnet. Vi gik ind i luftvåbnet for at beskytte amerikanske liv og vores forfatning. Vi kom til erkendelse af, at de uskyldige civile, vi dræbte, kun leverede brændstof til de følelser af had, der antændte terrorismen og grupper som ISIS, og som samtidig tjente som et grundlæggende rekrutterings-værktøj i lighed med Guantánamo Bay.” Denne regering og dens forgængere har opbygget et drone-program, der er en af de mest ødelæggende drivkræfter bag terrorisme og destabilisering i hele verden.

“Da skyldfølelsen over vores rolle i at fremme dette systematiske tab af uskyldige liv blev for meget, bukkede vi alle under for PTSD (post-traumatisk stress-syndrom). Vi blev afskrevet af den selvsamme regering, som vi havde givet så meget, og sendt ud i verden uden tilstrækkelig lægebehandling, hjælp fra det offentlige sundhedssystem eller nødvendig understøttelse. Nogle af os er nu hjemløse. Andre af os kan kun lige klare dagen og vejen.”

”Vi var vidner til groft spild, inkompetent ledelse, magtmisbrug samt, at vort lands ledere løj i fuld offentlighed om effektiviteten af drone-programmet. Vi kan ikke se tavst til og være vidner til tragedier som angrebene i Paris, vel vidende om drone-programmets ødelæggende effekt i udlandet og hjemme. En sådan tavshed ville krænke selve den ed, vi aflagde, om at støtte og forsvare forfatningen.”

”Vi anmoder Dem om at tage vores perspektiv i betragtning, selv om, i betragtning af den uhørte forfølgelse af sandhedsvidner, der kom før os, såsom Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange og Edward Snowden, denne opfordring muligvis er forgæves. For dette lands skyld håber vi dog, at det forholder sig anderledes.”

Brevet er undertegnet af Brandon Bryant, sensor-operatør; Cian Westmoreland, RF transmissions-systemtekniker; Stephen Lewis, sensor-operatør; og Michael Haas, sensor-operatør.

I dag, den 22. november 2015 er årsdagen for mordet på John F. Kennedy for 52 år siden, og denne dag bør være en klar påmindelse til os om, hvorfor Obama skal fjernes fra embedet. Kennedy blev myrdet af de selv samme britiske royale kredse, der i dag ejer præsident Obama, og som dengang opererede via Canada, gennem franske og spanske mordere og medskyldige amerikanske agenter. Alt imens Kennedy arbejdede sammen med Krustjov for at undgå et atomkrigs-holocaust under den cubanske missilkrise og havde påbegyndt USA’s tilbagetrækning fra Indokina på det tidspunkt, hvor han blev myrdet, så har Obama ikke bevirket andet end forarmelse af flertallet af amerikanere, kaos i mange dele af verden og fremstød for en strategisk konfrontation med både Moskva og Beijing. Kunne der være en bedre måde at højtideligholde JFK’s liv på, end ved at fjerne Obama fra embedet?

22. november 2015 – Robert Farley, en seniorlektor ved Patterson School for Diplomati og International Handel ved Kentucky Universitet, advarer om, at der er fem mulige måder, hvorpå Tredje Verdenskrig (eller efter hans mening snarere Femte Verdenskrig, idet han tæller Syvårskrigen og Napoleonskrigene med som verdenskrige) kunne begynde.

Brændpunkterne omfatter de følgende:

* Syrien – Enten kunne en konfrontation mellem amerikanske og russiske fly i luften over Syrien eskalere ud af kontrol, eller også bliver ISIS besejret, men USA, Frankrig og Rusland bliver rivaler over, hvordan Syrien efter ISIS skal se ud.

* Indien og Pakistan – Indien og Pakistan kunne komme i krig igen af flere grunde. USA har generelt været tæt på Pakistan, men har været i færd med at dyrke tættere relationer med Indien. Kina har længe miltært været tæt på Pakistan. Farley nævner ikke Rusland, der rent historisk har haft tætte relationer til Indien, inklusive militært.

* Det Østkinesiske Hav – Kina og Japan er modstandere mht. Senkaku/Daioyu-øerne. USA er traktatmæssigt forpligtet til at forsvare Japan, hvilket gør det næsten sikkert, at, skulle der udbryde kampe, ville USA gå ind på Japans side.

* Det Sydkinesiske Hav – En krig mellem USA og Kina kunne trække Japan og Indien med og kunne resultere i en udveksling af atomvåben.

* Ukraine – En konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland kunne forårsage, at Rusland tyer til taktiske atomvåben, hvis det mener, det ikke kan overleve.

Farley konkluderer, at vi mangler den Kolde Krigs »rædselsvækkende« klarhed. »Der kunne udbryde krig flere steder, som kunne trække krigsførende parter med ind på uforudsigelige måder«, skriver han. »Krigsførende parter begynder meget sjældent en krig med overlæg; lederne af verdens mest magtfulde nationer må være på vagt over for truslen om en optrapning af kriser.«

Foto: Russiske jets under en “aerobatic” flyveopvisning i Rusland. Kunne en konfrontation mellem amerikanske og russiske fly over Syrien komme ud af kontrol og eskalere?

Med Bruxelles i højeste alarmberedskab på anden dag i forventning om endnu et større terrorangreb fra Islamisk Stat på samme skala som massakren i Paris den 13. november, er der stigende opmærksomhed omkring den kendsgerning, at omdrejningspunktet for jihadistisk terrorisme i realiteten findes i hjertet af Europa. Bruxelles, hovedstad for både NATO og Den europæiske Union, har nu fået kaldenavnet Brusselstan, ligesom London længe er blevet refereret til som Londonistan på grund af den kendsgerning, at bogstavelig talt enhver jihadistisk, narko- og separatistterrororganisation har fået husly, beskyttelse og finansiering af det britiske monarki. For nylig frafaldt den britiske regering alle anklager imod en angiveligt jihadistisk våbensmugler, fordi hans forsvarsadvokat påpegede, at de samme grupper, som han stod anklaget for at bevæbne, blev åbenlyst støttet af det britiske efterretningsvæsens MI6.

Dette er en gammel historie. London har været centrum for global terrorisme i årtier. Executive Intelligence Review var ophavsmand til et dossier, som blev overgivet USA’s Udenrigsministerium i 2000, og som krævede, at Storbritannien blev sat på listen over stater, der sponsorerede terrorisme. Dossieret byggede udelukkende på bevismateriale, der var fremkommet gennem regeringer i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, Egypten, Indien, Pakistan, Colombia og Peru, og som på afgørende vis viste, at den britiske krone husede verdens værste terrorister, som en del af imperiesystemet. De største britiske banker, med HSBC (tidligere HonKong og Shanghai Bankselskab, berygtet for opiumskrigene) i spidsen, er verdens mest berygtede hvidvaskningsinstitutioner for narkopenge, som det for nylig er blevet dokumenteret af USA’s Senat.

Det er ligeledes det britiske kongehus, der har udsendt Ridderkommandør John Schnellnhuber til at kapre Paven og Vatikanet for ideen om en radikal befolkningsreduktion, baseret på den videnskabelige svindel med menneskeskabt, global opvarmning.

Alle de grusomheder, som præsident Obama har begået – fra hans massedronedrab i Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia, til hans voldelige afsættelse og koldblodige mord på Gaddafi i Libyen, der skabte en zone af kaos, terror og utilstrækkelige stater i store dele af Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, og til decimeringen af livsvilkårene for det store flertal af amerikanere – kan anbringes på det britiske kongehus’ dørtærskel. Obama er intet andet end en britisk agent, der blev udvalgt af briterne til at blive installeret som præsident for USA, på vegne af Kronen og City of London.

Efter grusomhederne i Paris er det i stigende grad ved at blive åbenlyst gennemskueligt for et voksende antal tænkende mennesker, at Islamisk Stat er en skabelse af Obama og briterne. Al-Qaeda blev skabt og næret af briterne, USA og Saudi Arabien i 1980’erne, som kollektivt samlede et slæng af terrorister fra fængsler i hele den arabiske og islamiske verden, for at drive sovjetrusserne ud af Afghanistan. I 1985 sluttede Prins Bandar bin Sultan, bogstavelig talt et medlem af Bush-familien, sig til den britiske premierminister Margaret Thatcher for at lancere Al-Yamamah-byttehandelen (våben for olie), under hvilken en 100 milliarder dollar stor, hemmelig fond blev etableret for i hemmelighed at bevæbne al-Qaeda og andre terrororganisationer. I 2001 deployerede Bandar nogle af disse Al Yamamah-midler til at finansiere 11. september-flykaprernes angreb på World Trade Tårnene og angribe Pentagon.

Hvis man vil forstå, hvorfor den britiske agent Barack Obama har nægtet at ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af de 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, må man begynde fra toppen, med denne redegørelse for, hvordan briterne og Obama skabte al-Qaeda og, senere, Islamisk Stat. Tidligere chef for USA’s Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, general Michael Flynn, har åbenlyst rapporteret om, at præsident Obama bevæbnede de syriske oprørere fra Benghazi og fortsatte med at gøre det, fordi det var regeringens politik. DIA-dokumenter fra sommeren og efteråret 2012 forklarer i detaljer de fælles britisk-amerikanske operationer fra Benghazi til smuglerhavne i de områder i Syrien, der kontrolleredes af oprørerne.

Lyndon LaRouche sagde ligefremt til medarbejdere søndag den 22. november, at man må udrydde det britiske monarki, eller også vil der ikke være nogen løsning på krigen i Syrien eller andre globale brændpunkter. Med mindre Det britiske Imperium fjernes, står vi over for en global krig imod Rusland og Kina, der vil føre til udslettelsen af store dele af menneskeheden. Barack Obama er en britisk agent, der blev selekteret til at blive USA’s præsident af briterne. Vi må sænke Det britiske Imperium og alt, hvad det repræsenterer, eller også vil vi stå over for en optrapning af rædselsforestillinger over hele planeten.

21. november 2015 – NATO er som alliance, på trods af al sin hændervriden om den trussel, der stråler ud fra dens sydlige flanke, ikke direkte involveret i nogen aktion imod ISIS. En fordømmelse af denne kendsgerning kom fra en uventet kant i går: Alexei Pushkov, chefen for den russiske Dumas komite for internationale relationer. »Spørgsmålet er, om NATO i virkeligheden er en organisation, der er i stand til at sikre passende sikkerhed og beskyttelse til sine medlemsstater. At dømme ud fra det nylige terrorangreb i Paris, så kan det ikke, og ikke kun, fordi det mislykkedes dem at forhindre disse angreb i at ske. Faktum er, at NATO simpelt hen ikke er optaget af sådanne ting som at bekæmpe trusler om terror«, sagde han i går fra Dumaens talerstol.

Pushkov sagde, at det var på høje tid, at NATO-landene påberåbte artikel 5 i Washington-traktaten, der binder dets medlemmer sammen og forpligter dem til at beskytte hinanden og anslår en ånd af solidaritet med alliancen. »Det kollektive forsvarsprincip, der er fremlagt i artikel 5, betyder, at et angreb på en allieret anses at være et angreb på alle de allierede. Men se, hvordan NATO åbenlyst afholder sig fra sin forpligtelse til kollektivt at bekæmpe terrortruslen«, understregede Pushkov. Så alt imens Frankrig påberåbte den relevante artikel i EU-charteret, »så holder NATO sig fejt uden for alt dette.«

Pushkovs erklæring minder i forbløffende grad en artikel, som den tidl. NATO-øverstbefalende admiral James Stavridis skrev for Foreign Policy umiddelbart i kølvandet på angrebene i Paris den 13. november. Stavridis krævede, at NATO skulle mobilisere imod ISIS under artikel 5 og gøre det med Rusland som partner.

Foto: Alexei Pushkov.    

21. november 2015 – (Nouvelle Solidarité) – En fransk og mellemøstlig kilde, der har gode forbindelser, sagde i dag til EIR’s kontor i Paris, at han er bange for, at tingene kunne, og også vil, blive værre i Europa pga. karakteren af terrorist-monstret, der er blevet skabt. Med andre ord, så vil der komme flere angreb.

Han sagde, at Hollandes beslutning om at arbejde med Rusland er det bedste initiativ, han kunne have taget. »Forandring« er ved at finde sted i fransk udenrigspolitik, og en del af de mere positive effekter efter angrebene er de mere og mere vedvarende rygter om, at den franske udenrigsminister Fabius er på vej ud af Quai d’Orsay. Han kunne blive erstattet af Elisabeth Guigou, en tidligere Mitterandist, der på det seneste har gennemgået en interessant udvikling, hvor hun har nærmet sig tidl. premierminister Raffarin og er venligtsindet over for Kina og Rusland.

Desuden er Guigou forbundet med interesser med handelsforbindelser og økonomiske forbindelser til Marokko og Middelhavsområdet gennem Institut Prospective Economique Monde Mediterranée, som hendes ægtemand Jean-Louis, et medlem af tidl. premierminister Michel Rocards regering, er chef for.

For at fuldstændiggøre det aktuelle billede af den igangværende »forandring«, der diskuteredes med denne kilde, har en delegation af højtplacerede Houthis-personer fra Yemen været i Paris nu, og den blev for allerførste gang modtaget af Udenrigsministeriet. »Forandring« pga. denne regering i Paris’ hidtidige totale alliance med Saudi Arabien.

Med hensyn til de eventuelle fremtidige angreb bør man bemærke, at muligheden for et kemisk angreb seriøst er blevet nævnt af premierministeren. Nogle mennesker har anklaget ham for at føre skræmmekampagne af politiske grunde. Men i dag rapporterer Le Parisien, at »Daesh [ISIS] ved, hvordan man fremstiller sennepsgas«. Informationen, som premierministeren kom med, kommer fra franske efterretningskilder. ISIL’s anvendelse af sennepsgas har været bekræftet siden sidste sommer. Den blev brugt den 21. august i kamp mod »oprørsgrupper«, der var fjendtlige over for regimet og Daesh. Kurderne har også fordømt ISIL’s anvendelse af denne gas.

Det er øjensynligt nu bekræftet, at de kan fremstille det, og at de fremstiller det i Mosul-området. Og minsandten, om ikke 10 NBC-dragter (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) og 30 par specialstøvler, handsker og anti-bakteriemasker »forsvandt« i sidste uge fra Necker Hospitalet (i Paris).

Det bør også bemærkes mht. »forandringen« i Hollandes politik over for Syrien og Bashar al-Assad i kølvandet på angrebene, at Hollandes og Fabius’ »hverken/eller«-politik (hverken Assad eller ISIL) er blevet voldsomt angrebet fra stort set alle partierne. Blandt disse det tidligere UMP, der nu hedder Les Républicains, hvor mange af toplederne: Sarkozy, François Fillon, Thierry Mariani, Jacques Myard, blandt andre, står Moskva nær og har bedt Hollande om at droppe denne politik. For ikke at nævne Marine Le Pen. På det yderste venstre er Mélenchon fra Venstrepartiet også på denne linje. Alle disse strømninger siger nu højlydt, hvad vi har fordømt i årevis.

Hollande balancerer på en line i sit forsøg på at gennemføre et politisk skift uden at skabe alt for mange fjender i USA og Storbritannien, samt deres allierede i Frankrig.

21. november 2015 – FN’s Sikkerhedsråd vedtog enstemmigt en resolution i går, der opfordrer »alle lande, der kan, til at bringe krigen mod terrorisme til det af Islamisk Stat kontrollerede territorium i Syrien og Irak og knuse dens sikre opholdssteder, med en advarsel om, at gruppen har til hensigt at udføre yderligere terrorangreb som dem, der hærgede i Paris og Beirut i sidste uge«, iflg. FN’s pressemeddelelse. Den advarede om, at Islamisk Stat i Irak og Levanten (ISIL), eller Da’esh, som den også kaldes, »har evnen til og hensigten om at gennemføre« yderligere angreb og opfordrede »medlemslande, der har evnen til det, til at tage alle nødvendige forholdsregler, under overholdelse af international lov, og, i særdeleshed, internationale menneskerettigheder og lov om flygtninge og humanitære love.

Ifølge Wall Street Journal blev den russiske resolution, der blev fremstillet (i FN) den 18. nov., og som var en omskrivning af en resolution, som Rusland oprindeligt indgav sidste september, ikke engang diskuteret. Unavngivne vestlige diplomater klagede over, at den var »for bred« i sin definition af terrorister, og selvfølgelig, at den ville »tillade« Bashar al-Assads regering at forblive ved magten. Som svar herpå lovede Ruslands ambassadør til FN Vitaly Churkin, at Rusland ville fortsætte sin indsats for at forelægge Rådet sin resolution og anklagede, at forsøget fra »visse medlemmer af Rådets side« på at blokere den er »politisk kortsynet«.

»Det er umuligt at bekæmpe terrorister med en hånd og i realiteten spille sammen med dem med den anden hånd, idet ens handlinger styres af opportunistiske motiver. Det er vores plan at fortsætte med aktivt at arbejde for at koordinere vores udkast til resolutionen med det formål, at den snarest muligt kan blive vedtaget«, sagde Churkin.

19. november 2015 – Ifølge opinionsundersøgelser er det fremmedfjendske parti, Alternativ for Tyskland, AfD, allerede blevet det tredjestørste parti i Tyskland. Støtte til AfD er hastigt steget i de seneste måneder og uger, først som en reaktion på flygtningekrisen, og nu efter terrorangrebene i Paris og den politiske debat, der er domineret af panik.

Krisen og den politiske debat »er som et program, der er skræddersyet til at fremme AfD«, sagde prof. Jürgen Falter, der har hjemme i Mainz, på tysk Tv i dag. AfD »nærmer sig tocifrede tal nationalt – i de østlige stater nåede de derop for længe siden. Med andre ord, så har vi her en politisk magt, der er ved at komme ind i delstatsparlamenterne og sluttelig i det nationale parlament (Forbundsdagen), og som vil styre det politiske spil i en totalt anden retning. Denne magt vil af de andre parter blive anset som værende uegnet til at indgå koalition med.«

20. november 2015 – Hvis klimaforandrings-alarmisterne ønsker at diskutere den virkelige klimakrise i horisonten ved den forestående FN-COP21 Paris klimaforandrings-extravaganza, bør de formulere en plan til at forhindre, at ti tusinder af flygtninge fryser ihjel i Europa. Dette er temaet i en ny erklæring, »Terrorisme og Flygtningekrise i en Kold Vinter«, der blev udlagt den 19. november af videnskabsfolkene Paul Dreissen og Joe D’Aleo, med Allan MacRae og Madhav Khandekar, på icecap.us og nu også på mange andre websider.

Som de forklarer, så er ti tusinder af europæiske borgere frosset ihjel i vintre med ekstremt koldt vejr, hvilket er, hvad Europa har oplevet i en stor del af det forgangne årti. Disse dramatiske udsving i temperaturen er i realiteten fremkaldt, ikke af menneskelig aktivitet, men af Solen og andre relaterede kræfter. Men det er de handlinger, som de politiske beslutningstagere skrider til, der vil udgøre forskellen mellem liv og død.

Forfatterne påpeger, at, i ekstremt kolde år kan USA opleve omkring 100.000 ekstraordinære dødsfald. De rapporterer, at der generelt forekommer mere end 20 gange så mange dødsfald som følge af ekstrem kulde end ekstrem varme. For flygtningene, der lever i »ekstrem fattigdom, med dårlig ernæring, utilstrækkelig beklædning og tæpper, og som i forvejen er syge og har improviseret husly«, kunne tallet for ekstraordinære vinterdødsfald blive svimlende; endda højere end de ekstraordinære vinterdødsfald på 50.000 mennesker i Storbritannien.

»Når en million flygtninge fryser under forringede omgivelser med utilstrækkeligt husly, mad, varme, beklædning og lægehjælp, og når 1,3 milliard mennesker stadig ikke har elektricitet – hvorfor i alverden skulle verden så indgå et forpligtende engagement om at bruge milliarder på angivelige, fremtidige katastrofer som følge af global opvarmning?«, spørger de. »Vi må anerkende, at rædselsfulde scenarier, fremkommet i computermodeller, ikke er en refleksion af virkeligheden på planeten … «

»Det ville være en samvittighedsløs forbrydelse imod menneskeheden, hvis de nationer, der mødes i Paris, gennemtvinger politiske tiltag for at beskytte vores planets energi-berøvede masser fra hypotetiske, menneskeskabte klimakatastrofer, der skulle optræde årtier frem i tiden, ved at forevige fattigdom og sygdom, der dræber millioner af flere mennesker i morgen. Dette er de virkelige grunde til, at klimaforandring er et afgørende, moralsk spørgsmål, understreger de. »Dette er, hvad vi må erkende, og holde op med at lege med menneskers liv.«

Paul Dreissen er analytiker for Komiteen for et Kontruktivt I morgen (CFACT). Jason Ross fra LPAC’s Videnskabsteam interviewede for nylig Paul Dreissen, forfatter af ’Miljø-imperialisme: Grøn magt, Sort død’, til EIR’s seneste Specialrapport, »Skræmmekampagne mod Global Opvarmning er Befolkningsreduktion – ikke Videnskab« (Se interviewet på dansk). Joe D’Aleo, akademisk seniorstabsmedlem ved American Meteorological Society, er medstifter af The Weather Channel.

20. november 2015 – Den kinesiske Folkets Befrielseshærs flådechef Wu Shengli sagde, ved et møde onsdag i Shanghai med admiral Scott Swift, chef for USA’s Stillehavsflåde, direkte til denne, at USA må stoppe med sine provokationer i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Den kinesiske flåde, sagde han, »havde, med fokus på det større billede for bilaterale bånd« udøvet »maksimal tilbageholdenhed« konfronteret med USA’s provokationer, rapporterer Xinhua i dag. Admiral Wu opfordrede USA til at værne om den »gode udvikling« af båndene mellem landene og »kontrollere« sine maritime militæroperationer. Han roste admiral Swifts velkomstbesøg til Kina som et tegn på, at begge sider tillægger udviklingen og bevarelsen af den nye form for relationer mellem store lande og de militære relationer mellem de to sider stor betydning, sagde Xinhua.

Men, tilføjede han, »USA’s opførsel bidrager ikke i mindste måde til fred og stabilitet i det Sydkinesiske Hav. USA kan ikke påtvinge sine egne krav på andre nationer. Det kan ikke sabotere andre nationers suverænitet og sikkerhed.« Han kaldte Kinas ø-byggeri for »fornuftigt, rimeligt og legitimt« og tilføjede, at de kinesiske og amerikanske flåder burde anskue deres uoverensstemmelser rationelt, og undgå »overdrevne situationer«.

Iflg. Xinhua sagde admiral Swift, at USA’s flåde ikke ønsker, at det Sydkinesiske Hav skal blive et spørgsmål, der bryder båndene mellem de to parter, og han udtrykte håb om, at de to flåder kunne bevare udvekslinger på højt niveau og afholde flere fælles øvelser.

Foto: Kinas flådechef Wu Shengli

20. november 2015 – Kongresmedlemmerne Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hi.) og Austin Scott (R-Ga.) fremstillede i går et lovforslag, H.R. 4108, »For at forbyde brugen af midler til at yde assistance til syriske oppositionsgrupper og individer«, hvilket, med Gabbards ord, vil sige at »bringe til omgående ophør den ulovlige, kontraproduktive krig for at vælte Assads syriske regering«. Gabbard er en veteran, der to gange har været udsendt til at kæmpe i Irak.

»Krigen med det formål at vælte Assad er kontraproduktiv, fordi den i realiteten hjælper ISIS og andre islamiske ekstremister med at opnå deres mål med at vælte Assads syriske regering og tage kontrol over hele Syrien, som simpelt hen vil øge de menneskelige lidelser i regionen, forværre flygtningekrisen og udgøre en større trussel mod verden«, sagde hun. »Desuden er krigen for at vælte Assad ulovlig, fordi Kongressen aldrig har givet bemyndigelse til den.« Scott tilføjede, at »vores primære mission bør være krigen imod ISIS, al-Qaeda og radikale islamiske ekstremister, der har operationer både i og uden for Syrien og Irak«.

Betydningen af lovforslaget blev forstærket af Gabbard i et interview med CNN i dag – som hun gav fra Paris, hvortil hun rejste for at lægge blomster fra sin hjemstat ved en mindehøjtidelighed for ofrene for terrorangrebene den 13. nov. Hun siger, at USA gentager »de samme fejltagelser som i fortiden«, selv, når eksperter siger, at Assad er en brutal diktator, der dræber sin egen befolkning.

»Folk sagde præcis det samme om Saddam (Hussein), det samme om (Moammar) Gaddafi; resultaterne af disse to, fejlslagne indsatser for regimeskift og den efterfølgende nationale opbygning har ikke alene været totalt fejlslagne, men har i realiteten virket som en forstærkning af vores fjende«, sagde Gabbard.

Ni af de ti punkter i Gabbards erklæring om denne lov handler om konsekvenserne om at allierede sig med ISIS og al-Qaeda imod Assad, alt imens det tiende punkt refererer direkte til faren for en mere udbredt krig. »Vores krig for at vælte Assad-regeringen sætter os i direkte konflikt med Rusland og øger sandsynligheden for krig mellem USA og Rusland og muligheden for endnu en verdenskrig«, sagde hun. I stedet må USA alliere sig med ethvert land, der er villig til at knuse ISIS, inklusive Rusland.

Foto: Kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard, ved en tidligere optræden i Huset i nov. 2015.           

20. november 2015 – Internetvært Alex Jones fra »Infowars« (http://www.infowars.com/) interviewede i dag den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (1969-1981) i 40 minutter. Det syndikerede show udsendes på mere end 160 radiostationer i USA.

Alex Jones introducerede sen. Gravel som en person, der altid have afsløret den korrupte forbindelse mellem Saudi Arabien og USA: »Saudierne styrede flykaprerne, og vores regering gjorde ingenting … Hvad med de 28 sider?«

»Det er latterligt, at de blev hemmeligstemplet«, svarede sen. Gravel: »Kongressen er ligeværdig med den udøvende gren (præsidenten, -red.), og den udøvende gren kan ikke hemmeligstemple det, der øver indflydelse på Forfatningens ’tale- eller debatklausul’ … «, hvilket er, hvad der giver Kongressen mulighed for at informere borgerne om, hvad regeringen foretager sig, for »hvis man som borger ikke ved, hvad regeringen foretager sig, hvordan skal man så kunne handle på det?« Saudierne har i tre til fem årtier finansieret udbredelsen af Wahhabi-doktrinen. Vi gør et stort nummer ud af, hvad ISIS gør (halshugning, stening etc.), men saudierne gør disse ting som noget ganske normalt. ISIS er et produkt af Wahhabi-tankegangen og er blevet betalt for det af Saudi Arabien i generationer. Om Syrien sagde sen. Gravel: »Hvem tror vi, vi er, at vi kan diktere, at Assad skal væk? Mellemøsten er noget rod. Vi invaderede Libyen, et fremgangsrigt land, hvor borgerne blev uddannet«, inkl. kvinder. »Victoria Nuland (USA’s viceudenrigsminister for Eurasien, -red.) brugte milliarder af dollar til at anstifte det ukrainske rod. Vores udenrigspolitik er ’Apokalypsens Fire Ryttere’ – krig, hungersnød, pest og død – gennem erobringskrige, som vi ikke har råd til.«

Sen. Gravel påpegede USA’s politik over for Kina som et eksempel på Thukydides-fælden[1], hvor en fremvoksende magt er i færd med at fortrænge en eksisterende supermagt. »Der kunne ske en ulykke, som startede en atomkrig … Lyt engang til de republikanske kandidater; Kongressen er lige så skyldig som den udøvende gren … Vi skal være amerikanske borgere, men vi skal også være verdensborgere. USA er et imperium i forfald, som ikke vil indrømme det.«

Alex Jones roste larouchepac.com webside, og sen. Gravel roste Executive Intelligence Reviews webside (http://www.larouchepub.com/), som han kaldte »fantastisk«. Han sagde, at han var »henrykt over at være associeret med LaRouche-bevægelsen« og henviste til LaRouches rolle i SDI (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ)[2] og EIR’s historiske analyser, der »går lige til sagen«.

Sen. Gravel sagde, at han støttede den kinesiske udviklingsplan, »Ét bælte, én vej«[3], der ville forene verden rent økonomisk på en måde, hvor alle nyder frugterne af modernitet«, versus USA’s fremstød for »en militarisering af planeten … Kina er i færd med at erobre verden gennem økonomiske midler. Det kunne USA have gjort«, sagde sen. Gravel.

[1] Gr. Historiker, 460-305 f.Kr.; beskrev, hvordan republikken Athen degenererede til et imperium og destruerede sig selv gennem erobringskrige.

[2] Se: LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, en amerikansk-sovjetisk aftale for fred og udvikling, tema-artikel, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6976

[3] Se: Schiller Institut-seminar i København den 27. april 2015: Kinas politik for “Et Bælte, En Vej”, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6387

Som hr. LaRouche eftertrykkeligt erklærede under vores diskussion med ham, så er den amerikanske præsident Obamas politik den førende årsag til det kaos, som verden nu befinder sig i, og har ikke alene bevirket skabelsen af en frugtbar yngleplads for vækst og deployering af terrororganisationer som ISIS i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, men har også bragt os helt ud på randen af krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som ville blive en verdenskrig med anvendelse af atomvåben, som ville betyde udslettelsen af det store flertal af denne planets befolkning. Med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.

Engelsk udskrift.

International LaRouche PAC Webcast for Friday November 20 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 20, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast
here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by
both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and
Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we have
a very timely and important presentation prepared for you
tonight, which was informed by a meeting that the three of us had
earlier today with both Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who joined us via video-call from Europe.
Obviously we’re meeting here tonight exactly one week
following the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. As
Helga LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with her earlier,
the sheer horror of these attacks, striking as they did at the
heart of one of the leading cities of Europe, claiming the lives
of 130 innocent people, who were slaughtered in cold blood as
they went around their usual business on a Friday night — this
has absolutely changed everything, and has served to force people
across Europe, and in the United States, to recognize that a
sudden and dramatic change in policy must be adopted, or else the
entirety of Western Civilization is on the verge of descending
into a total hell on earth, from which it would be virtually
impossible to return.
As Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated in our discussion with
him, the policies of US President Barack Obama are the leading
cause of the chaos which the world now finds itself in, and have
served not only to create a fertile breeding ground for the
growth and deployment of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the
Middle East and North Africa, but have brought us right to the
edge of a war with Russia, and with China — a war that would be
world war, which would involve the use of thermonuclear weapons,
which would mean the extermination of a vast majority of the
population on this planet.
Now in a very significant development, which I know Jeff
will go a little bit more into, and will elaborate on in his
remarks, this fact has been explicitly stated by a Congresswoman,
whom we’ve spoken about previously on these broadcasts, Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, in a press release which
she issued earlier today, announcing the filing of a bill in the
House of Representatives that, in her words, would bring an
immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad, Barack Obama’s war. Congresswoman
Gabbard explains:
“The war to overthrow Assad is illegal and
counterproductive, because it actually helps ISIS and other
Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian
government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria.” Then she
lists 10 reasons, which include the fact that if we are to
succeed in overthrowing Assad, as Barack Obama wishes, it would
open the door for ISIS to take over all of Syria, including
Damascus, in which case, she says, “there will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.”
She also states that the overthrowing of the government of
Assad is the goal of ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups,
and “we should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic
extremists by helping them achieve their goal, because it is
against the security interests of the United States and all of
civilization.” And she also says that we should learn from the
past mistakes in both the regime changes in Iraq and in Libya,
which is saying something from a combat veteran, Congresswoman
Gabbard, who was herself deployed in the war in Iraq.
Now, she also makes the point that Obama’s war has been the
direct exacerbation of the chaos and the carnage in Syria
inflicted by ISIS on the innocent people of that country, which
has caused the number of refugees being forced to flee Syria and
elsewhere, to continue to increase at a rapid rate. And later in
the broadcast that is something that I know Ben Deniston will
also be addressing.
But most significantly, she lists as reason number 10:
“Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia, and increases the likelihood of war
between the United States and Russia, and the possibility of
another world war.” So, as far as I know, that makes Tulsi
Gabbard the only sitting member of Congress to have had the guts
to state that fact as explicitly and clearly.
I just want to read one more short excerpt from her press
release before introducing our institutional question for this
evening. Congresswoman Gabbard concludes her press release by
stating: “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If
we are serious about defeating ISIS, and solving the refugee
problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, with France, and
anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated
Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. The problem is because
the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad,
and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is
impossible for us to have an effective cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on
overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy
ISIS. We must immediately end the illegal, counterproductive war
to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, and ally ourselves
with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic
extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization.”
So this brings us directly to our institutional question for
this evening, to which I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr.
LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said
that the best way to combat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS, is for Russia to unite with the West in a
grand alliance to defeat this common threat of terrorism. In this
regard, Russia is already coordinating airstrikes against ISIS
with France. How do you envision a closer collaboration between
the United States and Russia in this fight to defeat ISIS, and
all of its affiliated terrorist organizations?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche was very
blunt, as you’ll hear in a just a moment, and in fact, he took
the question one step beyond the otherwise very important and
admirable comments made by Congresswoman Gabbard today. And by
the way, that press release was announcing the introduction of a
bill into the U.S. House of Representatives that would formally
ban the Obama administration from any further actions to
overthrow the Assad government.
Now, during our discussion with Mr. LaRouche, I took rather
detailed notes so what I’m about to read to you are not verbatim
transcripts of what Mr. LaRouche had to say, but they will give
you a very clear flavor, and represent I think a pretty accurate
accounting from Mr. LaRouche’s comments. And the very first thing
that he said is, to defeat ISIS in partnership with the Russians,
you have to get rid of Obama. Putin surprised everyone with his
military move into Syria in September; and it was the only way to
do it. Obama is sunk in, and there is no alternative until he is
removed; and this cannot be postponed. We’re running out of time,
and we are on the verge of the total collapse of the US system;
he must be thrown out immediately. And LaRouche went on to add,
we must totally dump Wall Street and adopt the approach of FDR at
the start of his New Deal. Roosevelt solved the problem within
weeks of taking office, by changing the entire direction of the
nation after the disaster of President Herbert Hoover. Everything
changed within a few years. The idea of totally shutting down
Wall Street is not difficult for intelligent people to
understand; nothing else works. Congress is pussyfooting around.
Wall Street must be shut, and a new Federal operation must be
launched to rebuild the nation. Do not try to salvage any part of
the old system. The problem is that most people in Congress are
idiots; and the President of the United States is a criminal.
When you have a criminal leading idiots, you have a system that
will not work. So, Obama must be thrown out, and there is no
alternative to that. All of the evidence is there. Shut down Wall
Street! It’s not needed.
Furthermore, Obama has committed so many crimes in fact,
that he can be removed from office at any moment. Start with his
Tuesday kill sessions; these are crimes that not only demand his
removal from office, but should land him in prison for mass
murder. Obama has presided over the destruction of the US
economy, to the point that a majority of our citizens are facing
the disaster of impoverishment. He has followed the George
Bush/Dick Cheney cover-up of 9/11; this is typical for Obama, who
is nothing but a British agent protecting the brutish.
And so, the problem is not with the evidence; the problem is
that most members of Congress lack guts. The Tuesday kill
meetings tell it all. The vast majority of people killed on
Obama’s personal orders, were innocent bystanders; not even the
so-called “legitimate targets”. And Obama personally signed off
on every one of those killings.
Now, I want you to take a look at one of the documents that
was released as part of the “Drone Papers”. We’ve talked about
this repeatedly for the last four or five weeks. The “Drone
Papers” that were published by {The Intercept}, a web-based news
organization founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, are
hundreds of pages of documents from the Pentagon and from the
House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now the specific document
that you’re looking at, is a flowchart that goes through
step-by-step the procedures that are used to establish who will
be killed. This is the process that ultimately leads up to those
Tuesday kill meetings, where President Obama personally presides.
If you follow the chain of command — and this is dealing with
two specific operations within the overall drone kill program —
one operation in Somalia called Operation Jupiter Garrett; and
another operation in Yemen called Copper Dune. In every instance,
the process for deciding on the kill order goes up from the local
military intelligence units on the ground, up through the
military command all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
up to the Secretary of Defense, and up to the Principals
Committee and the Deputy Principals Committee; these are the
Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet officials of the government. But
ultimately, everything leads back to the President of the United
States. And it’s only with President Obama’s personal signature
that the kill orders go out; the clock starts, and there is a
60-day deadline to track down and kill the designated target.
Now, even by the criteria that are contained in this
document, we know from the House Intelligence review and from
other exposés that none of the guidelines have been followed; and
that all of procedures that were supposedly built in to make sure
that innocent civilian casualties were avoided, that there was
direct confirmation of the whereabouts of the target — none of
those things were adhered to. At the very bottom, it says that
“At every level, the targetting window suitability is determined
by rules of engagement.” The rules of engagement are that there
must be low collateral damage estimates; meaning “collateral
damage” is a polite word for innocent civilians being killed in
the course of the attacks. There must be “near certainty” of the
high-value individual’s presence, based on two forms of
intelligence and no contradictory intelligence; and then, all the
way up the chain of command — including the host government —
must all concur, or otherwise no strike is allowed to take place.
Now, I can tell you that having reviewed the totality of the
“Drone Papers”, that these procedures — as minimal and as
limited as they are — were never adhered to. None of these
conditions were met in the overwhelming majority of these kill
incidents. And to give you an idea of the callousness of this
structure under President Obama, the formal name given to the
summary documents; the photographs and documentary evidence that
was used to determine whether or not the President will sign off
on a kill order, is referred to in these meetings as the
“baseball card”. So, in other words, the lack of any sense of
what this program is all about, is absolutely stunning.
Now, let me just add that, earlier today, President Obama,
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Director John Brennan
received a letter that was written by four former US Air Force
Drone Team members. They are: Brandon Bryant, Sion Westmoreland,
Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas; all four of them operated for
years as members of the drone crew. And they wrote this letter,
urging the President to end the program right now; and I want to
read you what they had to say, because I think it’s one of the
most powerful testaments to the murderous criminality of our
President. And it should make very clear that anything short of
immediate removal from office, by impeachment, or invoking of the
25th Amendment, or forcing his immediate resignation is
unacceptable and doesn’t rise to the magnitude of the crisis that
we’re in, or the crimes that he’s committed. Here’s the letter:
“We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air
Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution.
We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were
killing, only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited
terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a
fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This
administration and its predecessors have built a drone program
that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism
and destabilization around the world. When the guilt of our roles
in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too
much, all of us succumbed to PTSD — post-traumatic stress
disorder. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so
much to, sent out in the world without adequate medical care,
reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of
us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it. We witnessed
gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of power, and our country’s
leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone
program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the
attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone
program has, overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the
very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution. We
request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that
request is in vain, given the unprecedented prosecutions of
truth-tellers who came before us, like Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we
hope it is otherwise.”
Now, again, Mr. LaRouche has put the right punctuation mark
on the situation, and has made clear that nothing can be
accomplished, nothing can be effectively achieved in partnership
with the Russians, unless Obama is removed. I want to continue
briefly reading the remainder of Mr. LaRouche’s comments to us
this afternoon, and then we’ll move on. ` He said, the
gutlessness of the Congress really started in the current context
with the attacks of 9/11, with Cheney and company. He said, I
still have vivid recollection of the planes crashing into the
twin towers. This is a Manhattan issue. It goes to the heart of
the Bush family, and the heart of the Obama legacy. Obama’s
personality was shaped by his step-father, who was a cold
murderer. Obama has blood on his hands; he’s too dangerous for
mankind. Since the Russians launched their Syria operations in
September, and especially since the Paris attacks of one week
ago, there is an implicit taming of Obama, but he is still too
dangerous to be allowed to remain in office. Imagine where we
would be today without Putin’s actions and the actions of China.
The Victory Day parade in Beijing attended by Xi Jinping and
Putin established the Asian factor as a supreme factor in world
affairs. Compare that to the mess we see in France, the mess we
see in Germany, and elsewhere. So you must remove Obama from
office, or we can’t make it.
Now, he then returned to the question of Wall Street, which
Obama’s Presidency has protected up and down the line. Wall
Street is about to implode, and we must shut it down now. Treat
Wall Street as something that no longer exists. Use FDR’s methods
with even more emphasis. Write off all of Wall Street’s assets
out of existence, and develop a program, an FDR program, to
change the direction of the economy. Create a credit system, and
make it known that nothing will be paid on the useless assets of
Wall Street. And Mr. LaRouche ended by simply noting, Clinton was
blackmailed into going along with the end of Glass-Steagall, and
Hillary was unfortunately used as a tool in that process.
So, again, there is no question that a coordinated alliance
between the United States and Russia to defeat ISIS, using the
same approach that was used to defeat Hitler in World War II, is
feasible. Some leading retired American military officials have
openly called for a formal military alliance between the United
States and Russia. Let Russia, which has been formally invited
into Syria, handle the assault on the ISIS forces from the Syrian
side, and let the United States, which has been invited-in by the
Iraqi government, handle the assault against the Islamic State
from the Iraqi side. Run that as a pincer operation. Hit them
from both flanks, and crush them under the weight of the
capability that could be brought to bear by the United States and
Russia in combination. But again, while that is absolutely
feasible, there is no reason to assume that the British will let
that happen, so long as Obama remains in office. And therefore,
it is essential, if we are going to have this alliance, if we are
going to avoid many more Paris-es — perhaps the next one on the
streets of New York City, or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Los
Angeles — then Obama must be removed now, and Congress
collectively must find the guts to take the necessary action.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as we mentioned last week on
our broadcast here, which we recorded just hours after the
initial attacks occurred in Paris, before there was last Friday’s
attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people, there were also the
fore-going attacks in January of this year, against the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine {Charlie Hebdo}.
As a matter of very eerie coincidence, just hours after
those attacks occurred, on January 7th of this year, several
members of Congress, including Walter Jones, and Stephen Lynch,
as well as former Senator Bob Graham, of the State of Florida,
and additionally, family members of the victims of 9/11, convened
a press conference on Capitol Hill, on the morning of January
7th, which had been previously scheduled, on the subject of a
bill to release the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint
Inquiry Report into the attacks on 9/11, an inquiry of which
former Senator Bob Graham had been co-chair at the time. We are
going to replay a very short excerpt of Senator Graham’s remarks
at that press conference then, January 7th of this year, but
while we play this for you, I want you to reflect on how even
more relevant and urgent his statements are, now, in the wake, in
the aftermath of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, not to mention
the attacks in Beirut, the attacks in Mali earlier today, and
elsewhere, and the fact that the failure to release these pages
{then}, on January 7th, or January 8th, in the immediate wake of
that press conference, the failure to release the 28 pages
{then}, puts the blood of the innocent victims of these
subsequent attacks on the hands of those who insist on
perpetuating this cover-up to this day. So watch this brief
excerpt from the press conference on January 7th.

[RECORDING] CONG. WALTER JONES: I introduce the esteemed
Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. Thank you.

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Walter, thank you very much. And I, too,
want to thank Walter and Steve — Congressmen Jones and Lynch —
for their leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress. I want to thank the family members, who have been
without question the most influential force in all of the changes
that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and will be the most
significant force in terms of convincing the President that it is
time to give the American people the truth. Needless to say, my
remarks that I will espouse this morning, are considerably
different than they would have been, but for events in Paris this
morning, which in my judgment, bring this matter into its proper
focus.
What have been the consequences of this refusal to release
the pages? The consequences, in my judgment are three:
One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is,
did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of
support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very
complex plot? No one who has looked closely at the facts,
including the individuals that I just named, has come to a
conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19
people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the
United States government has been that they did act alone, and
that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question
of whether there was a support network.
The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000
members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying
for years to get justice through our system for the losses that
they have suffered. The position of the United States government
has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the
judicial process. When the United States government was called
upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the
interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and
protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most
responsible for that network of support.
The third consequence is the issue of national security, and
frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this
cannot be made available to the American people, because it would
be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and
sources of information, or other information that is
inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen
have just said, they both read the reportnot 12 years ago, when I
participated in writing the reportbut they have read it recently,
and have both come to the same conclusion that we did a dozen
years ago: that there is no threat to national security in
disclosure.
I’m going to make the case today, that there is a threat to
national security by non-disclosure, and we saw another chapter
of that today in Paris.
Here are some facts:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are
unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions.
Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in
the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the
Federal government has read all the other documents that have
been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they
knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew
what they had done, and they also observed that the United States
had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to
letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do
in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been,
for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their
support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism,
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And
second, they have supported the religious fervor, with financial
and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going
to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions
have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a
creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab
have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the
latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush
ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are
being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a causeit is a
consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia,
and if it is crushed, there will be another institution
established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have
been that we have tolerated this succession of
institutionsviolent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of
the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this
morning in Paris.
So I conclude by saying, this is a very important issue. It
may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the headlines
that we will read today. It is an issue that goes to the core of
the United States’ contract with its people, that the people
would give the government the credibility and support to govern;
the government would give the people the information upon which
they can make good judgments, as to the appropriateness of
governmental action. It’s as fundamental as justice to our
people, who have suffered so, by this evil union of extremism and
a very powerful nation-state. And it is the security of the
people of the United States of America.
So, I again thank the Congressmen for their leadership. I
hope that they will soon be joined by a rising tide of other
members of Congress who recognize the importance of this issue.
And then, finally, that the President of the United States will
declare that he is going to adopt the Lincolnesque standard of
full disclosure, and rely on the intelligence and judgment and
patriotism of the American people to decide what the appropriate
course of action should be.
Thank you.

OGDEN: Now both Jeff Steinberg and myself had the
opportunity to be in that room on that day, January 7, present at
that press conference, and I know Senator Graham’s presentation
sent chills through the audience, especially because it came in
such proximity to these terrible attacks on that day, on the
headquarters of {Charlie Hebdo}; but especially when he said —
and I think this stood out for you, probably, when you were just
listening to this again — when he said, this is a very important
issue. It may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the
headlines we will read today.
And tragically, that applies just as much this week, in the
aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris of last Friday, as it
did then, in the aftermath of the attacks at {Charlie Hebdo}. And
as long as this cover-up continues, innocent people continue to
die. Paris, Beirut, Mali, the Russian airliner — what’s next?
What must be done to ensure there {is} no next time?
So I know that Jeff has been deeply involved in this issue
for several years, over a decade, and I’d like him to come to the
podium to briefly comment on the significance of what you just
heard Senator Bob Graham say.

STEINBERG: The statement I read a few moments ago from the
four former drone pilots reminded me that among the documents
that were released in 2010 by WikiLeaks, which of course began
the process of revealing some of the murderous behavior of the
Obama administration, included a document which was a cable from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Richard Holbrooke, who
was the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was
preparing to make a visit to Saudi Arabia soon after that memo
was written, towards the end of 2009. And what that memo said was
well, we’re in possession of massive evidence that the number one
source of financing for all of the various Sunni jihadist terror
groups is Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got to begin to develop a
policy for putting some kind of pressure on Saudi Arabia so
they’ll cut it out.
So, in other words, there was full knowledge in 2009 at the
very beginning of the Obama administration throughout the
administration that Saudi Arabia was still continuing to be a
major source of support for the al-Qaeda networks that carried
out the 9/11 atrocities. Remember also that General Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was
unceremoniously fired last year by President Obama for daring to
continue to supply intelligence on the fact that Obama’s own
policies were fueling the growth of al-Qaeda and eventually
fueling the growth of the Islamic State — ISIS. So, this should
be a further reminder of the points that were made by Senator
Graham and the others that this administration, from day one, has
been fully on notice about the continuing role of Saudi Arabia as
the principal source of financing and logistical support for the
activities of these hideous jihadist terrorists.
Now just in the past week, really in the past several weeks,
we can account for hundreds of people who’ve been killed by the
very apparatus that this President has refused to take any action
against. You had the bombing of the Metro Jet airliner — 224
people killed when the plane blew up by a terrorist bomb over the
Sinai Desert. Secondly, you had two suicide bombings in the
southern portions of Beirut, targetting a largely Shi’ite
neighborhood. We don’t have the precise number of people killed,
but it was a large number of people killed and wounded. And of
course, we now have a death toll of 130 in Paris. And even
earlier today, you had a jihadist assault on the Radisson Blue
Hotel in Mali, where again we’re still awaiting the body count;
but 180 or so people were taken hostage by a group of armed
gunmen, and ultimately Malian, French and American commandoes
raided the hotel. And again, we witnessed a significant fire
fight; people were killed — innocent civilians arbitrarily
targetted simply because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Now, let’s face the reality. If those 28 pages had been
published back in 2002, and had revealed the indications of the
role of the Saudi monarchy and Saudi intelligence and Saudi
defense industrial company in providing the key support for the
9/11 hijackers, there would have been a public outcry. There
would have been a serious investigation into Saudi Arabia. There
would have been a fundamental change in the US relationship to
Saudi Arabia. And by the way, the investigation into the specific
funds provided by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to
the Saudi intelligence agents who were managing and supporting
two of the hijackers in San Diego, would have directly led to the
doorsteps of the British; because some of the money that went
from Bandar’s personal account into the hands of those
terrorists, came from the al Yamamah agreement — the
British/Saudi barter agreement, which {EIR} documented created an
offshore slush fund of tens of billions of dollars, perhaps
hundreds of billions of dollars over the scope and sweep of that
agreement — that was used to finance terrorism. Prince Bandar
openly boasted that funds from the al Yamamah project went to
financing what were then called the Afghan mujahideen; the
so-called freedom fighters who soon were known as al-Qaeda and
Taliban.
So, the track record is enormous; it’s unambiguous. There
has been a top-down Presidential cover-up of the Saudis and
British and their role in this terrorism under the Bush/Cheney
administration, and continuing under Obama. And in spite of all
of that evidence, the Obama administration continued to smuggle
weapons out of Benghazi into the hands of Syrian rebels;
including those who became part of ISIS and the Nusra Front. And
that’s not idle speculation; that’s from documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency that were presented to the President
by no later than the Fall of 2012. One of those documents
specifically said, why are we still smuggling weapons into the
Syrian rebels out of Benghazi, when those networks just
assassinated a US ambassador and three other American officials?
So again, let’s go back to the original comments in response
to tonight’s institutional question by Mr. LaRouche. Obama’s got
to be removed from office because he’s got blood on his hands.
And the United States will never ever be able to actually
re-establish its role as a leading force for good in the world,
so long as we tolerate a President in office who’s got that much
blood on his hands and continues to carry forward the same
policies despite all of the evidence and all of the warnings.

OGDEN: Now, a direct correlative of this entire situation in
Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere is the unprecedented refugee
crisis now being experienced by the people of this region; who
are flooding across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And I know
this is one of the items that was directly cited by Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard in her list of ten reasons why the illegal war
against Bashar al-Assad must be ended. And it’s impossible to
underestimate the urgency and the significance of the currently
ongoing refugee crisis. This is a massive displacement of human
beings on the scale of millions, flooding into Europe from the
Middle East and North Africa; fleeing from the carnage and the
chaos which have taken over that region, which is a direct result
of the regime-change wars of first the George W Bush
administration, and now the Barack Obama administration. Again,
the culpability lies on the doorstep of Obama. And in Europe,
even before the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, we saw a
frightening rise of a right-wing, proto-fascist, xenophobic
backlash within the European population against these refugees;
driven by the effects of the policies of such persons as Schäuble
and his so-called “Black Zero” policy. And the danger is that
this could drastically worsen and spin out of control as the
economic breakdown in the trans-Atlantic region continually gets
worse; and it will get worse rapidly, as long as the necessary
policies of a top-down complete bankruptcy re-organization of
this Wall Street system are not taken, which must begin with
Glass-Steagall, and the correlated policies that Franklin
Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his New Deal.
Now this is the real civilizational crisis, threatening
Europe, the United States and the entire world, and {not}, as
Obama and his fellow travelers in the British Royal Family would
have you believe, the so-called crisis of anthropogenic global
warming. This is the real crisis: this refugee crisis, the crisis
of the destabilization of the entire region of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the threat of a total blow-out of the
trans-Atlantic bankrupt financial system. This is the real
crisis, which responsible leaders of the world’s leading powers
should be discussing as they gather in Paris next week for the
so-called COP21 Summit in Paris.
So before I say more about that, I would like to ask Ben
Deniston to come to the podium to make some very relevant
comments in that regard.
BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. From our discussion with
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, we were discussing
a certain article that had just been released in the last couple
days, and Helga and all of us thought it would be an important
thing to highlight, given the relevance of this article to what
Matt just referenced. You should have graphic on your screen,
just a screen-shot of one publication, one blog, which is hosting
this article. The title is, as you can read, “Terrorism and a
Cold Winter Refugee Crisis,” with a subline reading “A Brutal
Cold Spell Could Kill Refugees.” Paris COP21 delegates need to
discuss this climate issue.
Now this article was authored by two leading so-called
climate skeptics, two individuals who have been out front
fighting against this fraudulent claim of a man-made climate
change crisis. One individual, just to give you a sense of who
they are, Joseph D’Aleo, is a certified consulting meteorologist;
he’s a fellow of the American Meteorology Society; and he’s one
of the original co-founders of the Weather Channel. So, he’s
somebody familiar with climate and weather. The other author is
Paul Driessen, who is a self-proclaimed former environmentalist,
until the environmentalist movement went against human beings,
and he decided it wasn’t a good thing to stick with. But he’s the
author of such books as the 2003 book “Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power, Black Death.” And he’s also done a number of interviews
with {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine, one of which is
part of the 2015 report put out by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, which, if you don’t have a copy of, we encourage you to
get a copy of immediately. Our recent report “Global Warming
Scare is Population Reduction, not Science”
So, they came out with a rather interesting piece which we
want to just put on the table and then comment upon. But just to
quote the beginning of their article. They open by saying “Even
after these latest Paris massacres, and previous radical Islamist
atrocities in the USA, in France, in Britain, in Canada, in
Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere, politicians
still absurdly say that hypothetical man-made global warming is
the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel
contributions to the climate change pose few dangers to people or
planet, and winters actually kill 20 times more people than hot
weather.”
So after that lunge, they go on to highlight some very
relevant facts. They go into focus on the millions of refugees
that Matthew just referenced, who are desperately now trying to
escape the horrors of what frankly Obama has unleashed with the
Islamic State. As we discussed, many of them fleeing into Europe.
Well, the authors of this article make the relevant point that
these people are coming from a climate that is on average
generally 20 to 30 degrees warmer in the winter time than their
current destinations they’re heading into in Eastern and Northern
Europe. That this people who are fleeing desperately to get out
with their lives intact, are simply not prepared to just plunge
into this much colder climate of Europe, and especially if
they’re just simply left to try and survive in makeshift shelters
or tents, we could be seeing the beginnings of a very horrific
mass death scene, as these people suffer the horrors of a cold
European winter.
And these authors give a warning, that this could actually
be worse, this particular winter, if we see the return of some of
these periodic blasts or movements of frigid, extremely cold
Siberian air transfer over Europe, which is a not-uncommon
phenomenon, and could give rise to, again, a very cold, deadly
cold in this case, winter over Europe.
Now, they make the point: this prospect of a potentially
harsh cold is obviously in stark contrast to just the insane
propaganda lies about global warming, including, for example — a
couple of their highlights are rather useful, if anything, for
comic relief. But they cite a headline article from the German
publication {Der Spiegel} from 15 years [ago], from the year
2000. And the title of this article was: ” Goodbye, Winter. In
Germany cold winters are now a thing of the past.” This was
declared in 2000 to be the reality. Or a scientist with a British
Climate research unit, who was quoted saying, again about 15
years ago, around the year 2000: “Children are not going to know
what snow is.”
So, despite these crazy lies that have been spouted for
decades, and are being spouted again now, they make the relevant
point that for five years, between 2008 and 2013, you had a whole
series of extremely cold winters throughout Europe, in some cases
setting many records. England, for example, having one of the
coldest winters they had in centuries. Mind you, 8 to 12 years
after it was proclaimed that children in England would no longer
know what snow is, they had the coldest winter they’ve had since
sometime in the 1600s, in the Little Ice Age.
So anyway, they go on to point out that with most recent
scientific knowledge, these particular climate conditions, these
blasts, this movement of very frigid, cold air from the Siberian
region into Europe, tends to be associated with certain
fluctuation in the Atlantic ocean, certain multi-decadal cycles
in the Atlantic, in correspondence with certain changes in solar
activity. There’s a very close correlation and indications
between these solar phenomena and this particular process leading
to extremely cold winters in Europe. And they — obviously none
of this having anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
But Driessen and D’Aleo do make the point that the fact of
the matter is that the current phase of what the ocean is doing
in the Atlantic, the current phase of solar activity, generally
points to the possibility that we could be seeing another very
harsh, very cold winter in Europe. Now, it’s not to say for
certain that’s going to happen, but that is the type of reality,
the type of threat to these people, that we should be thinking of
— that the people in Paris should actually be addressing.
So, with literally millions of lives on the line, we thought
today in our discussion that these authors’ call could not be
more correct, could not be more relevant: their call on the
delegates to this upcoming UN conference on climate change —
which, as Matt said, is going to start in just a little over a
week and run for two weeks in December — that at this event,
this is the climate issue that should be being discussed. And
they present this refugee crisis against evidence for a broader
reality, that quite frankly — and as has been shown even in more
detail on some recent studies — cold weather generally kills
something on the order of 20 times more people than hot weather.
Periods of extreme cold, winter is on average, averaged over many
locations, far more deadly than warming. And on top of that, this
entire Green energy program makes it even worse; it’s making it
more expensive if not impossible for many people — especially in
cold regions — to be able to afford basic heating for their home
to keep themselves alive during the winters.
So with this framework, this particular article concludes
rather sharply that it would be an “unconscionable crime against
humanity if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to
protect our planet’s energy-depraved masses from hypothetical
manmade climate change occurring decades from now by perpetuating
poverty and disease that will kill millions of people tomorrow.
These are the reasons that climate change is a critical, moral
issue. We need to recognize that and stop playing games with
people’s lives.”
So again, in the discussion earlier today, we thought that
this recent article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in particular that
this should serve as a real challenge to people. This should be a
challenge to many of the so-called “climate skeptics” out there;
it should be a challenge to really all individuals who, for one
reason or another might be claiming they’re opposing this
upcoming UN climate conference. And it should really be a
challenge obviously, to anybody participating directly in this
process. This is not an academic debate; this is not a debate
about one scientific theory against another in academia. This is
a life or death issue for millions upon millions of people. This
has real world consequences; it has had them, it’s having them
now, it’s going to have them in the future. If this type of thing
is going to go through, you’re literally condemning millions of
people — potentially billions — to unnecessary poverty, to
suffering, and to early death. Those are the facts of the matter.
So the question on the table right now is, will you let this
happen? Will you go down in history as having let this happen?
And as we’ve documented, especially in this report and in other
locations, we know what this is all about. This is intentional;
this is the 21st Century version of Thomas Malthus’ policy. This
is the modern Zeus policy.
Who did we just hear is going to be one of the leading
prominent speakers at this Paris COP 21 conference? Prince
Charles, the British Empire; the next in the series of
degenerations of the British Royal Family, following Prince
Phillip and Queen Elizabeth. And it’s no secret these people are
promoting a policy of outright genocide; they’re advocating and
promoting a policy saying the world can only support 1-2 billion
people. And we need to push to reduce the world’s population to a
few billion people. So if you let this type of program to go
through, this will go down in history as the greatest mass
killing on record; save perhaps Obama’s thermonuclear war if we
let him launch that. But if that’s not launched by Obama, this
would go down in history as the greatest mass death; and you will
be the people who let that happen.
So the crisis conditions facing these refugees are a leading
expression of this more general threat. And this is occurring at
the same time as we’re seeing this gathering for this fake global
warming scare conference in Paris, which is just about to occur.
If you reflect on this process, it really almost sounds like
you’re describing the opening scenario of a rather famous short
story by Edgar Allan Poe; it’s almost reminiscent of something
like {The Mask of the Red Death}. We have some major gathering of
representatives of upper class layers of society, gathering in
some isolated, climate-controlled conference halls — very
comfortable; hoping they can celebrate their own delusional
picture of the world. Hoping they can celebrate their
determination of the fate of the masses of people, under the
fantasy that they themselves are going to free from the effects
of their actions. Well at the same time that this absurd scene is
going on, you have millions of desperate people gathering around
them throughout Europe; fleeing into Europe. Running from the
policies which most of the people at this conference refuse to
address; Obama’s policies. Masses of people suffering from the
reality that those people at this conference refuse to accept;
which is the fact that global warming is nothing but a Malthusian
hoax. So, it’s got an eerie similarity to some stories of the
past, but unlike Poe’s dramatic account, what we have now is that
you still have the time to act.

OGDEN: Thank you very much Ben. And let me just say in
conclusion, there is a petition which is circulating; it was
authored by the Schiller Institute, and it is now posted on the
LaRouche PAC website titled, “A Resolution To Defend Billions of
Lives; We Say ‘No’ to Paris COP 21”. So, we invite you to sign
that and to circulate that as widely as you can in the coming
days. Also, as Ben mentioned, that {EIR} Special Report is
available from {Executive Intelligence Review}. So, that’s
available for you to obtain as well. So, I’m going to bring a
conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank very
much both Ben and Jeff for joining me here; I want to thank you
for tuning in, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

19. november 2015 – I en tale til en forsamling af Frankrigs borgmestre den 18. nov. sagde præsident François Hollande, at begivenhederne i Saint-Denis bekræftede, at Frankrig var »i krig … det, som er disse terroristers mål, er det, som Frankrig repræsenterer. Det var det, der blev angrebet den 13. nov. Disse barbarers mål var at ramme Frankrig i sin forskelligartethed. Det er Frankrigs ungdom, der var målet, simpelt hen fordi den repræsenterer livet.«

Premierminister Manuel Valls har bekræftet, at Abdelhamid Abaaoud, den angivelige planlægger bag angrebene den 13. nov., blev dræbt under en politirazzia i Saint-Denis. Indenrigsministeriet sagde, at politiet havde ransaget yderligere 118 adresser i hele landet natten mellem den 17. og 18. november og havde foretaget 25 arrestationer og beslaglagt 34 våben. Der er foretaget razzia mod flere end 400 huse, og 60 mennesker er blevet tilbageholdt, siden Frankrig erklærede undtagelsestilstand fredag, den 13. nov.

Efter planen skal Hollande besøge den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama for at vise den bydende nødvendighed af kampen mod Islamisk Stat, når de mødes i Washington i næste uge. Den britiske avis Guardian citerede en unavngiven diplomatisk kilde, der beskrev, hvad det er, Hollande vil klargøre for Obama.

»Det budskab, vi ønsker at sende USA, er simplet hen, at krisen er i færd med at destabilisere Europa. Problemet er, at angrebene i Paris og flygtningekrisen viser, at vi ikke har tid. Der er en nødsituation«, sagde kilden til Guardian. Han tilføjede: »Det er de udenlandske krigere, men det er også migranterne, der splitter europæerne og destabiliserer kontinentet, så vi må handle hurtigt og fortælle USA’s regering, at kerneinteresser for europæerne, jeres bedste allierede, står på spil.« Pointen er, at Obama efter Frankrigs mening nægter at handle hurtigt nok. »Det er grunden til, at den franske præsident vil være i Washington på tirsdag, før han flyver videre til Moskva for at mødes med præsident Putin.«

I sin tale til Nationalforsamlingen for at forlænge undtagelsestilstanden advarede den franske premierminister Manuel Valls om, at terrorister i fremtiden kunne benytte kemiske og biologiske våben.

Ansøgninger til den franske hær er steget voldsomt, fra 135 om dagen til 500 om dagen, siden regeringen meddelte, at den vil rekruttere yderligere 15.000 personel i år og yderligere 16.000 i 2016. Den franske hær består i øjeblikket af 115.000 mænd og kvinder.

Foto: Soldater på Champs Elysées, Paris, med Triumfbuen i baggrunden. Undtagelsestilstanden er efter premierminister Manuel Valls begæring til Nationalforsamlingen blevet forlænget med 3 måneder.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

17. november, 2015 – I et interview i ’Vesti.doc’ Tv-programmet på Rossiya-1 sagde den russiske udenrigsminister Sergey Lavrov ifølge en rapport i TASS i dag: ”Problemet med den af USA ledede koalition er, at, til trods for, at de har erklæret, at deres mål udelukkende er at bekæmpe Islamisk Stat og andre terrorister og har lovet ikke at foretage sig noget imod den syriske hær (det virkelige liv har vist, at de aldrig går tilbage på deres ord), fører analyser af angreb mod terroristpositioner, som USA og dets koalition har udført igennem det seneste år, os til den konklusion, at disse var selektive, nærmest forskånende angreb, vil jeg sige, og i de fleste tilfælde skånede de grupper inden for Islamisk Stat, der er i stand til at presse den syriske hær.” Med henvisning til den amerikansk ledede koalitions ”selektive luftangreb” i Syrien forklarede Lavrov: ”Det ser ud som en kat, der gerne vil spise en fisk, men som ikke ønsker at få våde poter. De ønsker, at Islamisk Stat skal svække Assad så hurtigt som muligt for at tvinge ham til at træde tilbage på den ene eller anden måde, men de ønsker ikke at se Islamisk Stat stærk nok til at overtage magten.”

Lavrov påpegede, at Rusland derimod fører en konsekvent og resolut kamp: ”Vi gør dette konsekvent, og vi opdeler ikke terrorister i dem, der kan hjælpe med at løse nogle taktiske opgaver i håbet om at gøre op med dem senere, men vi angriber derimod alle, der på den ene eller anden måde praktiserer og prædiker en terrorisme-ideologi.” Han sagde også, at han ikke ser konkrete resultater af den amerikansk-ledede koalitions luftangreb, ud over en ”fortsat ekspansion af Islamisk Stat i denne periode”. Lavrov understregede: ”Vi bemærkede taktiske succeser, da et par byer blev tilbageerobret i Irak.”

Lavrov kom også med en bemærkning om den amerikansk-ledede koalitions ”beklagelser” over, at Rusland angiveligt angriber de forkerte mål og forårsager skade på den syriske regerings moderate opposition, og han sagde, at sådanne beklagelser udspringer af den ”tvetydighed, der ligger til grund for den amerikansk ledede koalition: Der er et ønske om ikke at lade terroristerne gå ukontrolleret omkring, men også om ikke at forhindre dette i de tilfælde, hvor de kan svække regimet.”

Foto: Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov. 

19. november 2015 – Rusland har genoplivet et udkast til en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som det tidligere havde foreslået, men som ikke blev taget i betragtning, fordi det opfordrede alle andre nationer til at koordinere med de regeringer, hvor de opererede, og som selvfølgelig inkluderede Syrien, et koncept, som især USA og Storbritannien afviste.

Ruslands ambassadør til FN, Vitaly Churkin, sagde til TASS, at resolutionen er revideret i overensstemmelse med erklæringen om terrorisme fra G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet. Churkin sagde, at det reviderede dokument fokuserer på »behovet for at forene indsatsen« i kampen mod Islamisk Stat. Det tager også den franske indsats i betragtning. »Vi har forsøgt at revidere vores udkast således, at vore franske samarbejdspartneres følelser ville blive taget i betragtning, men vi mente, det var urimeligt at vente på et nyt udkast. Så meget desto mere, fordi vores udkast var ’på bordet’«, sagde den russiske udsending.

Det »nye udkast« var en henvisning til det faktum, at Frankrig er i færd med at udarbejde sit eget udkast til en resolution til Sikkerhedsrådet, der ville bemyndige militæraktion imod ISIS. Den franske FN-ambassadør François Delattre beskrev det som »kort, stærkt og fokuseret på kampen mod vores fælles fjende«.

Delattre sagde, at det russiske forslag »er et bidrag, som vi omhyggeligt vil studere«, hvilket iflg. Reuters indikerer, at Frankrig ikke er parat til at gå i partnerskab med Rusland om et fælles forslag.

I Europa, i Mellemøsten og i Asien kan sandheden om Obamas morderiske planer og politik ikke længere skjules. I Wien flaksede Obama rundt, mens han kogte indvendig over, at det tydeligvis var Putin, der styrede processen. Han fortsatte til Manila til APEC-mødet, måske i tillid til, at hans indsats for at genoprette Filippinernes neo-kolonialistiske status og besætte nationen endnu engang med amerikanske militærstyrker som forberedelse til en krig mod Kina, ville genoprette hans narcissistiske grandiositet. I stedet blev han mødt af en opstand fra filippinske patrioter med Senatet, der afviste hans militære besættelsesplaner, mens APEC afviste overhovedet at behandle hans obskøne anklager om kinesisk aggression ved at opbygge nogle øer under deres kontrol.

Måske forestiller Obama sig, at han vil fare bedre i Malaysia i denne weekend ved ASEAN-topmødet og det øst-asiatiske topmøde. Men forsvarsministrene fra ASEAN afviste allerede tidligere på måneden hans forsøg på at kalde Kina en aggressor – faktisk erklærede transportministrene fra ASEAN deres entusiastiske engagement for samarbejde med Kina om de Nye Silkevejsprogrammer, Kinas »Ét bælte, én vej«.

Både franske og italienske medier havde interviews med Syriens præsident Assad i denne uge – en »lige op i ansigtet«-konfrontation af Obamas holden fast ved sin imperiale ret til at fjerne et selvstændigt statsoverhoved. Assad nævnte USA, Tyrkiet, Saudi Arabien og Qatar som ophavsmændene til ISIS og dennes økonomiske støtte og bemærkede, at den russiske intervention har vendt tidevandet imod barbarerne. Europæiske og amerikanske militære og politiske ledere vender sig i stigende grad imod Obamas regimeskift-vanvid og kræver en fælles indsats med Rusland imod ISIS.

I USA har den demokratiske præsidentkandidat Bernie Sanders, for at forklare, hvad han mener med at beskrive sig selv som en demokratisk socialist, påkaldt Franklin Roosevelts politik, FDR, der gjorde noget ved sin tids ødelæggelse af befolkningen ved at skabe sociale programmer, der havde til formål at give dem deres økonomiske rettigheder – til beskæftigelse, sundhedsydelser, uddannelse – samtidig med, at han bekæmpede Wall Streets magt igennem Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven og andre restriktioner af bankernes magt over økonomien, og over regeringen. Dernæst beskrev Sanders ødelæggelsen af levestandarden i USA i dag, den uhyrlige narkoepidemi og sammenbruddet af husstandsindkomsterne og beskæftigelsen, og han fordømte de seneste regeringers politik for »regimeskift«, der skaber kaos og terrorisme i sit kølvand.

I USA’s Kongres cirkulerer EIR nu til alle kongresmedlemmer et juridisk dokument, der demonstrerer, at den Højesteretsdom, der dømte til fordel for daværende senator Mike Gravels indlæsning af Pentagon-papirerne i Kongressens Journal i 1971, ligeledes er gældende for i dag, for ethvert kongresmedlem, der har mod til at oplæse de 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, der således optages i den officielle journal og afslører den saudiske finansiering af 11. september-terroristerne, der angreb USA. I realiteten kan Kongressen, under Højesteretsdommen i tilfældet Gravel, uden rådslagning med Det Hvide Hus, ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af hele det 28 sider lange kapitel – sammen med alle de andre 11. september-undersøgelsesdokumenter, der har været holdt skjult i de seneste 13 år.

Obamas åbne alliance med terrorister og disses sponsorer i Riyadh, med det formål at opnå sit kriminelle regimeskift, kan og må afsløres og må føre til, at han fjernes fra embedet, nu.

Dette er en tid med revolutionære forandringer. Der er ikke plads til pragmatisme eller halve tiltag, når man konfronteres med atomkrig og økonomisk kollaps. Løsningen er klar – med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, tilslutning til Kinas og BRIKS-nationernes globale udviklingsprogrammer, genetablering af ægte videnskab som centrum for politikken, og med genoplivelse af klassisk musik og kunst. Tiden er nu. Genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, der vil udslette Wall Street totalt, må ledsages af den form for programmer gennem statskreditter, som kan skabe millioner af produktive jobs og påbegynde processen med at genoplive en reel, produktiv økonomi.