Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Category: 911 Cover-up

We should recall James Madison’s warning that ‘No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.’”

By Gene Healy
This article appeared in The Federalist
on October 10, 2014.

untitled

In May 2013, some 11 years into the War on Terror, President Obama took a break from reviewing target sets and kill lists to deliver a much-anticipated “drone speech” at the National Defense University in Washington DC. “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us,” Obama admonished; “we have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that ‘No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.’”

It was a disorienting performance: at times, Obama seemed to be speaking not as the president, but as his own loyal opposition—a thoughtful critic who might conduct himself differently if installed as head of Dronefleet Command. “Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions,” Obama intoned, “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers.” He welcomed this debate… with himself.

With Tomahawks raining down on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, it would be nice to have Congress debate the president’s newly declared war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime soon.

Still, it’s not too early to take stock of the Obama legacy on constitutional war powers. He’ll go down in history as a “transformational” president, having completed America’s transformation into a country where “continual warfare” is the post-constitutional norm.

War: The New Normal

Obama’s hardly the first president to wage war without congressional authorization. Although the Constitution invests Congress alone “with the power of changing our condition from peace to war,” every post-World War II president has found some excuse for striking out on his own. Many of these engagements were of the “frolic and detour” variety: rescue missions,retaliatory fly-bys against rogue regimes, short incursions to depose a dictator or reverse a coup. Longer commitments—like the peacekeeping deployments to Lebanon and Somalia, Bill Clinton’s 78-day air war in Yugoslavia, even the decade-plus of no-fly-zone enforcement in Iraq following the Gulf War—were nonetheless territorially confined.

Read more

By Eric Margolis

October 18, 2014

Back in the 1990’s, journalists used to joke, “Of course we know Iraq has chemical weapons. We have the delivery receipts to prove it!”

The joke turned out to be the exact truth.

While covering Iraq in 1990 – just before the first massive US bombing campaign – I discovered the US and Britain had secretly built a germ weapons arsenal for Iraq to use against Iran in the eight year-Iran-Iraq War.

This while both the US and Britain were fulminating with breathtaking hypocrisy against the alleged dangers of Iraq’s supposed WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction) that never existed. Some years later, the two leading apostles of attacking Iraq, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, delivered Philippics against Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs while never mentioning that high level of western support for Iraq’s late leader.

Last week the widely read “New York Times” ran a multi-page exposé entitled “Abandoned Chemical Weapons and Secret Casualties in Iraq.”

The NY Times played a key role in driving the US into two wars against Iraq. America’s leading newspaper is finally facing part of the ugly truth over Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the pretext used by the US to bomb, then invade Iraq. Perhaps it’s trying to atone, or clear its besmirched name.

Iraq had no nuclear weapons, as the US falsely claimed. But it did have an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons – delivered by the western powers. All were battlefield arms, not strategic, weapons. None could be delivered more than 100 kms.

According to the “New York Times,” after the second war against Iraq in 2003, 17 US servicemen and seven Iraqis were injured by mustard and nerve gas after they dug up buried caches of Iraq’s 1980’s chemical weapons. Shamefully, their plight was kept secret by the Pentagon; the soldiers were refused adequate medical care in order to cover up this sordid story.

But what I uncovered in Baghdad was far worse.

I found two British scientists who had been employed at Iraq’s top secret Salman Pak chemical and biowarfare laboratory near Baghdad. The Brits confided to me they were part of a large technical team secretly organized and “seconded” to Iraq in the mid-1980’s by the British government and the MI6 Secret Intelligence Service. Their goal was to develop and “weaponize” anthrax, plague, botulism and other pathogens for use as tactical germ weapons.

Read more

Dr. Jim Willie joined Live Free or Die and I for an exclusive interview, in which Dr. Willie warns us of a planned launch of a ‘new dollar’ that will be ‘blood red’, the extreme wreckage of our current financial system brought on by the ‘satanic’ banking cabal, the chaos coming to America in 3 separate areas and much more.

The West, meaning London, NY and western Europe will lose control and we are going to see the dollar rise, rise more…. then “die suddenly.” Dr. Willie also talks about the collapse of financial instruments, how the west is lowering the price of oil to “damage Russia,” how the Ukraine war comes into play, and how ultimately China will double gold prices and triple silver prices.

At approximately the 21 minute mark, Dr. Willie addresses what all this will mean to the average American, describing how pensions will be affected, those living off of any welfare program will see their benefits cut in half, food and gas shortages, lack of cash at ATMs, as well as how police across America have been militarized in preparation for the fallout because “they know the chaos is coming.”

He explains how the gradual growing global rejection of the USDollar for trade will alter the banking systems, force the Fed into a huge volume increase in their bond purchase program to cover what foreign nations discard and diversify from USTreasurys. The end result will be refusal by foreign suppliers to accept over-valued USDollars in exchange for both finished goods and raw materials, even crude oil. The US import supply chain is soon to be threatened. Thus the motive and pressure will be fierce to create a new domestic dollar, the birth of the New Scheiss Dollar, which will suffer a series of devaluations.

September 8, 2014
by Dalia Mae

You know – Bones – the American television crime series? It is a pity they didn’t do an episode where Dr. “Bones” Brennan investigates Cold Case – Deutsche Bank 9-11. Anyway it would be too easily solved. Because the abundance of bone fragments from the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers on 9/11 is another smoking gun – another bullet that blasts holes right through the official story.

location-2
LOCATION: Deutsche Bank Roof top location 2

You see, just like the impossibility of Building 7 being brought down by fires — a fire has never caused the total destruction of a steel skyscraper (as discussed on ae911truth.org) — so is it equally impossible that fires and collapsing buildings have ever pulverized people like those who were killed in the Twin Towers. EVER. Those who try to confuse the 9/11 Truth Movement with bunkum about structural abnormalities, no planes, whistle-blowers on meds, or who twist words and theories to suit the official theory – go ahead. It doesn’t count here. Supported by evidence of Nano-thermite and molten metal, people were turned to dust – pieces 1/16-inch small, thousands of pieces – including firefighters (most likely inside stairwells). The forensic logic of the “9/11 bone fragments” is the DNA bullet in the official story, making a mockery of NIST’s document. These bone fragments from the firefighters burn any official theory to ash – and make the entire concealment of all the other evidence a fraud.

Read more

Today James talks to Lars Schall of LarsSchall.com and Dr. Paul Zarembka at SUNY Buffalo about Jim Rickards’ recent “revelations” regarding the 9/11 insider trading. We discuss the evidence that Rickards (who supports the official 9/11 narrative) leaves out of his analysis and where the economic analysis of 9/11 insider trading stands today.

Source and show notes

by Ivan Eland
October 14, 2014
Antiwar.com

President Barack Obama’s claim that he doesn’t need congressional authorization for his current war in Iraq and Syria is troubling. The country’s founders would pass out upon hearing his claim that the post-9/11 congressional approval of force in 2001 against the perpetrators of those attacks and their abettors and the congressional resolution approving George W. Bush’s invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003 give him the current authority for a very different war against very different people. However, Obama is not the first president to believe that he has the rather imperial authority for war by executive fiat.

Up until 1950, for major conflicts, presidents followed the nation’s founders’ intent in the U.S. Constitution to obtain a declaration of war from Congress. For the Korean War, however, Harry Truman, really the first imperial president, decided that this vital constitutional requirement was optional. Unfortunately, as I note in my new book – Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty – once a bad precedent is set, meaning that the chief executive gets away with an unconstitutional act, future presidents will cite it in carrying out their own questionable actions.

Read more

Derivative and gold expert Rob Kirby says the U.S. looks a lot like the run up to the fall of Rome more than 1,500 years ago. Kirby explains, “The parallels with what we are experiencing today are so clear and so much like what was happening in Rome as Rome was falling. Diversions were the way of the day, anything to divert people’s attention from the undermining of the empire. It was largely a financial debasement. Rome fell when they debased the currency. That’s the major factor behind the fall of the Roman Empire. It was the debasement of the currency, and we are seeing the same thing today. What’s at the heart of all these issues? What’s at the heart of all the trouble in the world right now? The world’s reserve currency has been debased to the point that it is going to go supernova. This is the whole illusion behind the strength of the dollar. The dollar isn’t getting stronger, just like stars aren’t going to have longevity when they go supernova. They get brighter and you might think the star is getting more viable when, in reality, the notion of it getting really bright before it goes supernova is exactly the opposite of the illusion of it getting brighter. It’s what happens just before it goes black and dies.”

Read more

October 11, 2014
Paul Craig Roberts

I have come to the conclusion that the West is a vast lie machine for the secret agendas of vested interests. Consider, for example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Transpacific Trade and Investment Partnership.

These so-called “partnerships” are in fact vehicles by which US corporations make themselves immune to the sovereign laws of foreign countries in which they do business. A sovereign country that attempts to enforce its laws against an American corporation can be sued by the corporation for “restraint of trade.” For example, if Monsanto wants to sell GMO seeds in France or US corporations wish to sell genetically-modified foods in France, and France enforces its laws against GMOs, the Transatlantic Trade Partnership allows France to be sued in jurisdictions outside the courts of France for “restraint of trade.” In other words, preventing the entry into France of a prohibited product constitutes restraint of trade.

This is the reason that the US has insisted that the Transatlantic and Transpacific Partnerships be totally secretive and negotiated outside the democratic process. Not even the US Congress has been permitted knowledge of the negotiations.

Read more

No one should mistake that all of this is by mistake.

By William D. Hartung
October 6, 2014
CNN

Editor’s note: William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. The views expressed are his own.

(CNN) — It’s no secret that the Obama administration has been routinely using the war budget as a safety valve to pay for equipment and operations that have nothing to do with fighting wars.

But as the President continues to expand U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria, it is important that this practice of using war funding to pay for unrelated items be brought to an end. The alternative — allowing the Pentagon to use budgetary sleight of hand to evade the spending caps contained in current law — is simply unacceptable.

The levels of overfunding of the war budget — known in Pentagon-ese as the Overseas Contingency Operations account — have been astonishing. Independent analyses by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the Project on Government Oversight suggest that there may be $20 to $30 billion in non-war-related expenditures in the $80 billion-plus OCO account in the 2014 budget alone.

Two recent examples underscore how much excess funding has been sloshing around in the war budget. For a start, there is the fact that there is apparently enough money in the OCO account to pay for short-to-medium term expenses of the Obama administration’s new war in Iraq and Syria. Yet every dollar in that account should have been justified based on the war in Afghanistan. This raises the question of what this money would have been spent on had the U.S. not become involved in countering ISIS. Second, there is talk of using the fund to buy eight additional F-35 fighter planes that won’t even be ready for combat for a year or two.

The next big budget battle will come with the Obama administration’s proposal for Pentagon spending for FY 2016, which will be submitted to Congress next year. Independent experts have reportedly suggested that the Obama administration may ask for $15 to $20 billion in OCO spending for Iraq and Syria alone, plus whatever they assert is necessary to continue transitioning the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from direct combat against the Taliban to continued training of Afghan security forces.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud