The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon




By: Sam Muhho

Cooperation is an essential part of maintaining a healthy and progressive international order that serves the interests of multipolarity and the people as opposed to the powers of the financial elite and imperialism.

Cooperation is needed in a world increasingly affected by the machinations and whims of a ruling elite in the west that thrives on the use of destabilization and power projection to orient the world in their own interests while simultaneously calling for “cooperation”. The Arab Spring has been a means of geopolitical reorientation for the west, the largest since the post-WWII period. Culminating in this destabilization has been the fracturing of Syria and the volatile nation of Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, creating a power vacuum which was deliberately stroked by the west to facilitate in the rise of ISIS. When the dynamic of western involvement in the rise of ISIS is taken into account, the duplicity and illegitimacy of continued western calls for “cooperation” against ISIS is increasingly being seen as farcical and the need for truth even more critical.

ISIS: Imperialism is the Problem, Not Religion

To obfuscate the nature of the ISIS menace, pundits across the west frame the conflict in a particularly religious dimension and in the case of stations like Fox News, we are given the impression that the Arabs and Muslims are simply crazy people who have no regard for human life and are motivated by hate. This ignorant and untrue characterization seeks to pacify the short attention span of the majority of western intellect and keep them from peeling back the reality and understanding the geopolitics of western imperialism across the region and the regime change agenda being played which is responsible. Also missed in the discussion is the fact that ISIS is not simply menacing minorities but even Muslims (including Sunnis) who are just as much among the greatest victims of ISIS and western balkanization in the Middle East as are minority victims like Syrian Christians and the Yazidis.

Sectarian violence incurred by ISIS in both Syria and Iraq is not a fundamentally religious issue. Both Sunnis and Shiites are united against ISIS and extremism. The problem is the hegemonic and imperialist designs of the NATO governments who have on-record worked with Saudi Arabia and Qatar to use Islamic extremists throughout the Middle East as their “Swiss army knife of destabilization” in order to reorient the Middle East per their interests. This comes at the expense of their Iranian, Russian and Chinese competitors. Retired US Army General  and former Supreme Allied Commander-Europe for NATO, Gen. Wesley Clark has spoken out multiple times in both 2007 and in a 2011 “DemocracyNow” interview on how after 9/11, the US was hijacked by a policy coup whose objective was to “destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, and bring it under our control.” Among the nations he cited as listed for destabilization include “Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski has also labeled the region as important geostrategically in his book “The Grand Chessboard” in ensuring America’s global “pre-eminence” and essentially dominance over the world order. To understand what drives western strategists, one must understand the “ Heartland Theory” of geopolitics put forward by Halford John Mackinder in 1904 to the Royal Geographical Society  who stated , “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland [Central Asia]; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island [Eurasia]; who rules the World-Island controls the world”(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 194). US domination over Central Asia is central to its global power projection and the Middle East and Iran, along with Eastern Europe, are the windows into Central Asia. What Bush began under his radical Neo-Con administration, Obama has continued under a different political cover whose nature was clearly seen in examples such as the regime change in Libya against Gaddafi which served as the prequel to the destabilization of Syria.

The Redirection

What is happening now in Syria was predicted by Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article “The Redirection” which documented how the US was working with the Saudis and the Hariri political faction in Lebanon to undermine Syria and Iran. Tony Cartalucci has extensively documented the thesis of that piece in various publications demonstrating its centrality to the geopolitics being played out today. Consider the following points from “The Redirection”:

“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

One the coming reality of persecution to religious minorities, it was noted:

“Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites.”

To dispel critics’ notions that this is passive, uncontrollable, and indirect support, consider also:

“[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

Terrorism is not a “threat” to the West. It is a weapon of the West.

Saudi Arabia is the author of global Islamic radicalism and a close ally of the US, interlocked with the western ruling establishment. The largest US weapons sale in history was to Saudi Arabia in 2011. Saudi Arabia’s connection to terrorism is universally acknowledged in academia because Saudi Arabia funds the “madrassas” that indoctrinated people into fundamentalist thinking and these people are in turn manipulated to serve the geopolitical agenda of the Saudis and Qataris and in turn their western allies. Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci notes in his article, “US-Saudi Funded Terrorists Sowing Chaos in Pakistan” how these militant dupes benefit NATO objectives from Mali to Pakistan in undermining any rival geopolitical competitor like China by offsetting their strategic ambitions. For example, Baluchi terrorists in Pakistan harm China’s investments in a deep-sea port at Gwadar; terrorists in Mali prevent Chinese attempts to make business in-roads into Africa and strengthen Qatari ties. Syria is no different. Destabilizing Syria prevents Chinese and Russian influence in the Middle East and preserves Israeli and American domination in the pivotal region by fracturing the Arabs and keeping a unified resistance from developing.

This is not merely conspiracy theory; veteran journalist Robert Dreyfuss has noted the long history of US and British covert cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic groups against secular nationalist and Arab leftist groups that sought to undermine British and other western interests in the Middle East. Said Ramadan, the Brotherhood’s chief organizer in the 1950s was documented by both Dreyfuss and Wall Street Journal’s Ian Johnson as having ties to western intelligence and being backed by the CIA. The Islamic right wing was an effective proxy against anti-imperialist and nationalist Arab leftism. Wikileaks reports from 2005 also showed that backing of Syrian opposition groups, including the Brotherhood, had begun under Bush.

Nothing has changed today. The US and Britain claim that they backed “moderate rebels” in Syria but this is an obfuscation to hide their support for terrorism. I don’t believe there are any viable and effective moderates among the ranks of the driving forces among Syria’s rebels. A chart by the Economist documenting who’s who among the rebels on the ground notes that most of the fighting factions, with the exception of the Kurdish PYD and alleged exception of the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) under the western-backed umbrella group, the “Supreme Military Council” are Islamist. As will be noted, even the supposedly non-Islamist FSA is stocked with and influenced by Islamists blanketed by the west as “moderates”, the same moderates who supported the influx of foreign jihadis into Syria which led to the creation of ISIS.

The Syrian rebels’ highest-level leader to receive direct support from the US, Free Syrian Army Col. Abdel Jabbour al-Okaidi from the ranks of the “moderates”, has admitted that he has “good relations with ISIS/ISIL” and Jabhat Al-Nusra and denied media “allegations” against them, openly stating his cooperation. He apologizes for and defends both terrorist groups and downplays what he calls “allegations” and “mistakes” committed by both which are in reality grave crimes against the Syrian people. He and his “moderates” have also worked with ISIS to capture the critical “Menagh Airbase” in Aleppo, Syria. One of the radical jihadis of ISIS, Abu Jandal, was even seen in a video next to al-Okaidi praising the men for their “victory”; moments before, the same Abu Jandal was being filmed wielding a sword and hysterically calling for genocide against the Alawites while praising ISIS leader “Al-Baghdadi.” Another key “moderate” leader, Jamal Maarouf of the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), has admitted to the “Independent” that he regularly carries out joint operations with Al Qaeda and has no problem with them. One example of such cooperation between “moderates” and extremists was the attack on the Syrian Christian town of Sadad in November 2013.

As others have pointed out, Reuters has admitted that the “moderate” Free Syrian Army’s (FSA) command is “Islamist dominated.”  The Associated Press says that “Many of the participating groups have strong Islamist agendas, and some have fought in ways that could scare away Western backers.” The Wall Street Journal reports that Brig. Gen. Mithkal Albtaish, an FSA leader, says that the organization is “dominated by Islamist groups that are in close coordination with al Nusra [Syrian Al Qaeda].” Even the pro-establishment think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) , admitted in 2012 that the FSA’s effectiveness depended on Al Qaeda and pro-establishment Neo-Con, Gary Gambill, even wrote an article demonstrating this titled “Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists”, praising the Islamists in helping to undermine Iran geopolitically. Consider the CFR’s Ed Husain’s statement:

“The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”

To drive the point home, even Zbigniew Brzezinski has admitted, “You know, we started helping the rebels, whatever they are, and they’re certainly not fighting for democracy, given their sponsorship, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as far back as early spring of last year, 2012, without saying it publicly.” He throws in the claim that the people who “we want to win” (i.e. the moderates) are the smallest and weakest faction in Syria.  Apparently, this comes after the fact that the west has invested the summation of its resources into “moderates” to topple Assad. Either we have a case of “failed policy” or a successful destabilization campaign, Nicaragua-Contra style, which seems to be the mostly likely explanation given the facts and geopolitical motivations.

The Solution

All these points together are the problem, not religion. What we in the West must do is realize this and stop funding to Syrian rebels which are clearly counterproductive to regional stability and also stop perpetuating constant media spin. Bashar al Assad is not the issue from the geopolitical vantage point and the Syrian Arab Army commands the popular support in Syria, which is a nationalist and patriotic nation, against the Islamist ranks that have been propped up by the regional Arab powers and the West.  Many of the accusations leveled against Assad as a pretext to forego cooperation and force a change on the ground in favor of US interests by means of military intervention have been found to be based on distortions, false allegations, or hearsay, especially the chemical weapons claims.

Before the US comes before the world to call for “cooperation” and “airstrikes”, let them take responsibility for their actions and come clean on the truth from Libya to Syria. Russia, China and the non-aligned countries who are increasingly aware of the duplicity and imperialism of the west should collectively work to get their governments to pressure the west on this point and raise awareness through alternative media, awareness that will shatter the blinds of corporate media spin. Only then will we be able to genuinely guarantee a secure, multi-polar world order driven by unity in truth against the forces of money and power.

Sam Muhho is a student of history at Florida State College at Jacksonville (FSCJ) and is an advocate of anti-imperialism and anti-globalism. He can be reached at

TLB recommends you visit Global Research for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article HERE

“President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action — including suspending deportations for millions — as early as next Friday, a source close to the White House told Fox News.

The president’s plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency. The source said the plan could be announced as early as Nov. 21, though the date might slip a few days pending final White House approval.”   –  Fox News

After watching this brief video, continue reading on below to find out why:

although we’ll see a theatrical stage of division among the false left vs right paradigmnothing will be done because …..


Are we on the threshold of the North American decade, question mark? I threw that away — threw away the question mark — and boldly proclaimed the coming North American decade, says the title now.”   – General David Petraeus

For the last several years, the press on the disastrous North American Union has been off front-page news. Nonetheless, the plans to remove barriers and open up borders keeps chucking along. Those who belief this course is desirable or those who conclude that it is unpreventable because the climate of globalization is overpowering, are subversive collaborators of the NWO or gutless wimps that deserve to be run over by the hordes of barbarians that flood our country.

Jerome R. Corsi writes in the essay, Kerry signals advance of ‘North American Union’ plan, “with the expected ratification by Congress of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, the Obama administration already considers the U.S., Mexico and Canada as part of a “post-NAFTA” world.” What a horrendous admission to make. As stated in the article,

Obama Presses “North American Union” With Mexico, Canada, and this plan for hemispheric integration has a very long record of treason. Some background leading to the current crisis.

“Following the establishment of NAFTA in 1994, under the Clinton administration, President George W. Bush attempted to deepen the U.S.-Canada-Mexico tri-national region with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), but public opposition spearheaded by this publication, The John Birch Society, WorldNetDaily, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and other pro-independence, pro-Constitution groups, forced the Bush administration to shelve the plan — temporarily — and drop the tainted SPP moniker.

At the same time, the Bush administration was pushing the broadening agenda, under the banner of the Free Trade Area of the America’s (FTAA), an endeavor launched during the Clinton administration to expand NAFTA to include all the nations of North and South America. As with the SPP, an awakened electorate put sufficient heat on the U.S. Congress to torpedo the FTAA. The subversive integration/merger plans that The New American had been exposing for years were confirmed in 2011 with the release by WikiLeaks of U.S. State Department cables showing that U.S. officials had been colluding with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts to undermine our constitutional government through various “integration” schemes. (See here and here.)” 
Therefore, it comes as no surprise when General Petraeus announces, “After America Comes North America.” He also boasted about how the three economies have been put “together” over the last 20 years as part of the “implementation” of the North American Free Trade Act. As The New American publication proves, resistance to a NAU is not only justified but also necessary if America is to survive as an independent nation.
Back in 2006, Dr. Corsi refutes NeoCon proponent John Hawkins, who uses Saul D. Alinsky tactics, in Human Events account that NORTH AMERICAN UNION IS NO CONSPIRACY. The point is that the Obama administration is carrying forward the same strategy, ever protected by the lame stream media, to advance the disintegration of American sovereignty.


The video, NORTH AMERICAN UNION FORMING NOW!! THIS IS THE END OF THE U.S.A, provides a vivid analysis just what is at stake. In addition, one example of the methods used by Obama is reveled in the 2012 column, New Obama Executive Order Pushes Us Closer To A North American Union And A One World Economic System.

“Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far plans to integrate the United States, Canada and Mexico have advanced.

Last year, Barack Obama signed an agreement to create a “North American security perimeter” and most Americans never even heard about it because the mainstream news networks almost entirely ignored it.

But this is exactly what the globalists want. They don’t want people to become alarmed by these moves toward North American integration. In fact, a document uncovered by Wikileaks shows that those involved in the effort to integrate North America believe that an “incremental” approach is best. Apparently they believe that small moves toward integration are less likely to alarm the general population.”

Well, the pretence looks to be over. The fear of alarming American nationalists no longer exists. However, the Homeland Security policy to open the southern border is backfiring as seen in the article, Border Patrol Agents Quitting as Obama’s Mass Invasion Mess at The Border Permeates the Rest of the Country.

“And now our Border Patrol agents are saying, screw it, and looking for new careers/jobs as known Mexican gang members are enjoying the Obama/Holder ‘catch and release’ policy.More than one person is concluding the Obama administration is responsible and has intentionally set this massive border mess into motion with his policies on immigration, hoping to force amnesty as his solution to the man-made disaster and humanitarian crisis (which is designed to never allow to go to waste) of his making.” 

Clearly the establishment’s efforts to create a fabricated immigration crisis in order to force a bogus “comprehensive” consolidation in this dreadful North American Union, is at the core of the mass migration. For the bleeding heart do-gooders, the death trains cry out for a more humane mode of transportation to import the Central America into the former Republic of the United States.


One such redemptive fix is to interject a dose of altruism. Replace the clingers on boxcars, reminiscent of Indian Dalit untouchables, with the sleek travel experience of the U.S. and Mexico could be connected by multi-billion-dollar high speed train within FOUR YEARS.

“A multi-billion-dollar high-speed train network linking America with Mexico moved a step closer as officials from both sides of the border thrashed out details.

The proposed 300 mile route would link San Antonio, Texas, to Monterrey, Mexico – slashing the current journey time from five hours by car to under two hours.”

Just look at the advantages of streamlining a direct route from Mexico, that bypasses any border checkpoints and deposits these “PC” undocumented immigrants directly to resettlement facilities. The return trip south can be used to transport Fast and Furious guns, useful in the drug trade, which is central to the economics of laundering monies in the North American Union hierarchy.A decade ago, the article, Do Foreigners Have a Right to Enter the United States?, covered the efforts of Asa Hutchinson, the then Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security.

“Starting this week foreign visitors will be digitally fingerprinted and photographed as part of a nationwide program to check their backgrounds and keep track of when they enter and leave the United States. On the surface this looks like a necessary and desirable procedure. This procedure is the first phase of the Department of Homeland Security’s automated entry-exit system called the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, or US-VISIT.

Guess that tracking system proved too much of a burden for the latest rush to process these “so called” undocumented migrants. Oh yes, let’s correct the terminology; this mass exodus wants to stay permanently in the only country that allows open borders for the premeditated and systemic destruction of their own nation.With the open admission that Former Border Patrol Agents: Illegal Immigration Crisis “Contrived”, does any federal officials listen, much less act to close the border? The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) released a statement:

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor Illegal Alien children at risk for purely political purposes. Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States Government. Anyone that has taken two six to seven year old children to an amusement park can only imagine the problems associated with bringing thousands of unaccompanied children that age up through Mexico and into the United States. I doubt even the Cartels would undertake that chore at any price. No, it has to be heartless corrupt politicians and their minions lusting for more money and power.”

There a few issues more absolute than the words of Ronald Reagan, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” When Congressional Rep. Steve King says that “Ronald Reagan’s signature on the 1986 amnesty act” gave Barack Obama about 15 million additional Hispanic votes in 2012, he is prophesying even a worse future and inevitable prospects under a North American Union.
Reading a headline in the New York Times, Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level, one needs to ponder what it would take for a defensive deployment on the southern border. If General John “Black Jack” Pershing was sent to track down Pancho Villa, what prevents permanent military patrols to simply guard the border? Obviously, there is not any junior grade George S. Patton’s in the army that would have the courage to buck the commander of treason. This border war is the true existential threat that Americans do not have the stomach to fight.

Those who propagate a North American Union are globalists and hate everything that the authentic America stands for. Look in a mirror, that ugly face could be you, if you fall for the propaganda of the NAU.


Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent article here:



Military tensions, cyber espionage accusations, a brewing currency war; with every passing day, the headlines paint a convincing portrait of an emerging cold war between China and the West. But is this surface level reality the whole picture, or is there a deeper level to this conflict? Is China an opponent to the New World Order global governmental system or a witting collaborator with it? Join us in this in-depth edition of The Corbett Report podcast as we explore China’s position in the New World Order.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:


In some areas of the world, purposely cutting off someone’s family line is considered to be one of the most wicked things that you can possibly do.  But that appears to be precisely what the United Nations is doing.  Two UN organizations, the WHO and UNICEF, have just been caught red-handed administering “tetanus vaccines” laced with sterilizing agents to girls and women in Kenya.  And as you will see below, this is not the first time that this has happened.  Apparently there is a well-coordinated international program to use vaccines to secretly sterilize women in poor countries all over the planet.  The United States needs to immediately demand a full investigation of the UN vaccine program, but I wouldn’t count on that ever happening under the Obama administration.

There have always been anecdotal stories of women all over the globe being unable to have children after receiving UN vaccines.  But now we have scientific proof.  Lab tests that were recently conducted found an antigen that causes miscarriages in the vaccines that were being given to girls and women in Kenya.  A story that was posted on Life Site News about this caused shockwaves all over the Internet.  The following is an excerpt from that report…

Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

So exactly what is HCG?

The following is how Natural News described what it does…

HCG is a chemical developed by the World Health Organization for sterilization purposes. When injected into the body of a young woman, it causes a pregnancy to be destroyed by the body’s own antibody response to the HCG, resulting in a spontaneous abortion. Its effectiveness lasts for years, causing abortions in women up to three years after the injections.

This is an absolutely horrifying scandal, but the mainstream media is totally ignoring it.

Perhaps that is because they agree with what the United Nations is trying to do.

And should we actually be surprised at what the UN is doing?  After all, the UN has publicly declared in writing that it intends to reduce population growth in Kenya…

The United Nations and its oftentimes barbaric population-control apparatus are under fire again after releasing a deeply controversial report claiming that the African population of Kenya is too large and growing too quickly. To deal with the supposed “challenge,” as the UN and its “partners” in the national government put it, international bureaucrats are demanding stepped up efforts to brainwash Kenyan women into wanting fewer children. Also on the agenda: more taxpayer-funded “family-planning” and “reproductive-health” schemes to reduce the number of Africans to levels considered “desirable” by the UN.Critics promptly lambasted the plot as undisguised eugenics, with some experts calling it a true example of the “war on women.” Among other concerns, analysts outraged by the report noted that the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the establishment’s fiendish efforts to slash human populations — especially those considered “undesirable” by self-appointed guardians of the gene pool — have a long and sordid history going back decades. Today, the agenda marches on, as illustrated in the latest UN report calling for drastically reduced numbers of Kenyans.

When very evil people tell you that they intend to do something, you should take them very seriously.

And without a doubt, the UN is evil.  To use vaccines to secretly sterilize women against their will is almost too wicked to describe with words.

But the UN will keep doing this until we demand that they stop.  Back in the 1990s, similar sterilization campaigns using tetanus vaccines were being conducted in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines.  The following comes from…

Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there — in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been “contaminated.”

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)

And these are just the incidents that we know about.

I think that it would be safe to say that wherever the UN is vaccinating people for tetanus all over the world there are probably sterilizing agents in those vaccines.

Meanwhile, the UN continues to pour money into other global sterilization methods.

For example, the UN has dedicated massive amounts of resources to supporting the “one-child policy” in China.

And in India, UN money is often used to provide financial incentives to women to volunteer for sterilization.

At this point, approximately 37 percent of all married women in the nation of India have been sterilized.  That is an absolutely astounding number.  In fact, it is so astounding that I could hardly believe it when I first saw it.

But it is actually true.

And these procedures are often not conducted safely.  In fact, one recent mass sterilization campaign resulted in the deaths of ten women…

Ten women have died in India and dozens more are in hospital, many in a critical condition after a state-run mass sterilisation, a local official said Tuesday.

Many of the more than 80 women who underwent sterilisation at the free government-run camp in the central state of Chhattisgarh on Saturday fell ill shortly afterwards, the official told AFP.

Of course the United States is not exactly innocent in all of this.  These UN organizations are absolutely showered with money by the Obama administration, and the U.S. government even has an “Office of Population Affairs” that is used to promote population control all across the planet.

Those involved in these efforts actually believe that they are doing the right thing.  They are convinced that “climate change” is the number one problem that humanity is facing today and that the number one way to fight “climate change” is to reduce the number of people.

So they believe that they are actually “saving the world” by pushing a population control agenda.

Links from article…

Life Site News

that it intends to reduce population growth in Kenya

oftentimes barbaric population-control apparatus

deeply controversial report

approximately 37 percent

in the deaths of ten women

Office of Population Affairs

For much, much more on all of this, please see the following articles…

-“The Population Control Agenda Is Being Relentlessly Pushed In American Public Schools

-“From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

-“Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control

-“Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations

-“Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch

Now that the wicked actions of the UN in Kenya have been exposed, UN officials are going to closely watch how people respond.

If there is little outrage, they will just keep on secretly sterilizing women.

That is why it is absolutely imperative that we scream bloody murder about all of this.  Great evil is being committed right in front of our eyes, and those with courage need to stand up and say that enough is enough.

Read article here:


plague-population-control 1a

By TLB Staff Writer: Christina England

Many questions have been asked about the speed in which Ebola appears to be spreading. What began as a virus originally isolated to the remote parts of West Africa, has suddenly become an epidemic and drastic measures are beginning to be put in place.

So how is it spreading so quickly?

Is it spread by vaccines?

Many believe that the Ebola virus is being spread by the widespread use of of vaccines, in the same way that AIDS was spread many years ago.

We know that AIDS was originally introduced and spread by vaccination, after a recording of a meeting between Professor Maurice Hilleman, the former Chief of the Merck Pharmaceutical Companies Vaccine Division and his colleagues, was leaked onto the Internet.

Thanks to that recording, we can hear for ourselves Hilleman explaining to his colleagues exactly how the AIDS virus was spread. During the meeting he told colleagues:

“Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys, we’re finished and if I can’t do something I’m going to quit, I’m not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said “look, I got a problem and I don’t know what the hell to do.” Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.”

Hilleman also admitted that many of the vaccines given to Americans were known to be contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses.

This being the case it is entirely possible that the similar method could be used to spread Ebola; however, one scientist believes that there is a far more effective way than vaccination to spread the deadly virus and during a speech that he gave to scientists at the Texas Academy of Science he explains how.

Airborne Ebola Preferred Method of Extermination

According to a report published by News Weekly in 2006, Professor Erik Pianka received a standing ovation for a speech that he gave to scientists attending the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science.

During his speech on population control, he told scientists that his preferred method of exterminating over five billion human beings was via airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and kills its victims in days rather than years.

John Ballantyne who reported on the events that took place at the time, wrote:

“Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.

“This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka’s strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind … I grabbed a notepad …” (“Meeting Doctor Doom”, The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006).

Pianka began his speech by condemning anthropocentrism, or the idea that the human race occupies a privileged position in nature. He exclaimed, “We’re no better than bacteria!”

He argued that the sharp increase in the human population since the onset of industrialization was destroying the planet. He warned that Earth would not survive unless its human population was reduced to a tenth of its present number.

He then offered drastic solutions, accompanying his remarks with a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

War and famine were insufficient for solving global overpopulation, he explained. Instead, disease was far more efficient and swift. At this point, Pianka displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls.

AIDS took too long to kill people off, he explained. His preferred method of exterminating over five billion human beings was via airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and kills its victims in days rather than years.”

I am sure you will agree this makes shocking reading, especially as his speech gained a thunderous roar of applause from the audience.

Ballantyne continued:

“I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola. …”

“Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern. …”

A few hours later, the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.”

What Does This Tell Us?

This raises the question as to whether or not it is a coincidence that eight years later, Ebola, a disease that until recently the majority of us had never heard of is suddenly raging through Africa, killing thousands in its wake.

Two days ago the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the following in a situation report:

“A total of 14 098 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) have been reported in six affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Spain and the United States of America) and two previously affected countries (Nigeria and Senegal) up to the end of 9 November. There have been 5160 reported deaths.

There is some evidence that case incidence is no longer increasing nationally in Guinea and Liberia, but steep increases persist in Sierra Leone. A mixed picture emerges at the district level. Transmission is consistently high in Conakry and Macenta in Guinea; Montserrado in Liberia; and in the western and northern areas of Sierra Leone. Declines in incidence continue in Lofa in Liberia; and Kenema and Kailahun in Sierra Leone. Cases and deaths continue to be under -
reported in this outbreak.

In Mali, there have been 4 reported confirmed and probable cases, and 4 deaths. The most recent cases are not related to the first EVD – positive patient in Mali , who died on 24 October.

Interventions to contain the disease in the three most affected countries include isolating and treating patients, identifying their contacts and conducting burials in a safe and dignified manner. In the three most affected countries, 19 of 53 planned Ebola Treatment Centres are now open. A total of 140 trained burial teams are on the ground, and more than 4400 burials have reportedly been conducted in a safe and dignified manner since the outbreak began. Samples from all 53 Ebola-affected districts can be sent to a laboratory within 24 hours by road”.

Whilst the WHO’s report is a little suspect, as their figures include the words ‘probable’ and ‘suspected’, making it difficult to gauge how many actual cases there have been, surely, we must ask ourselves how a disease causing just a few deaths a year has suddenly became rampant, killing thousands of Africans within weeks?

Is Airborne Ebola an Attempt to Cull the People of Africa?

Could airborne Ebola be yet another attempt to reduce the population in the developing world? This would not be the first time that eugenics have been used to ‘cull’ the population in developing countries as we know that there have been several attempts to make women infertile over the years.

In 1995/1996 tetanus vaccines laced with the HCG hormone were given to all females of childbearing age in the Philippines in an attempt to render them infertile.

And this tactic was tried for a second time in Kenya, just weeks ago, during what has been called a mass sterilization campaign.

If these attempts were not bad enough, just days ago it was reported that yet another mass sterilization program went terribly wrong in India, leaving many women injured and dying. According to reports, the program aimed at curbing India’s growing population left nine women dead and twenty fighting for their life.

BBC News stated:

“Villagers say 83 women – all between the ages of 26 and 40 – were operated on in just six hours by one doctor and his assistant.

Reports say the women started complaining of pain and fever, soon after being operated on. A relative described the conditions at the clinic as appalling.

“They just operated on them and left them. It’s a desolate place, there are no facilities there,” DR Shinde told the Associated Press.””

It appears that for many years developing countries have been specifically targeted for mass depopulation programs by our governments. Could the use of airborne Ebola be the next step in their deliberate attempt to play God and decide who should die and who should live?

How far will these people go in their quest to gain ultimate control?


About the author:

Christina England 1Christina was born and educated in London, U.K. In 1978, Christina changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for her work with the elderly in 1980. For the last decade, Christina England has been investigating the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Her articles have had over 500,000 hits and she is now known worldwide for her groundbreaking journalism work.

Christina also has created a world first online resource for parents who have lost their children after vaccine injuries


By TLB Contributor: Dane Wigington

The short 4 minute video below is not new, but is completely relevant and most have likely not seen it. The power structure controlled corporate media machine does exactly what it is told to do, no more and no less.

Those that work in this arena of lies and coverups have long since sold any honor they may once have had. It’s up to all of us to hold them to account. We must make it clear to them that we (the public they claim to serve) are not OK with their false and incomplete reporting on any issues, let alone issues of immense importance that pose a lethal public threat.

Mainstream media has ignored and marginalized the subject of global climate engineering for far too long, there is no excuse for this. At this point, the media’s role in hiding the climate engineering threat should be considered nothing less than criminal.

Though the report in the following link may seem objective to some, is it really? Was there a sincere attempt by NBC to find solid answers? Or did they just make theater out of what should have been a real investigation, only to leave their viewers bewildered at the end of the story? NBC stuck to the officially marginalized “chemtrail” term. They allow one “expert” to say that spraying aluminum and barium would be “benign” in the environment (which is patently false). They claim they will continue with their “investigation” but have they?

We must all work together in order to sound the alarm until we reach critical mass of awareness with the general population. When this goal is reached, there will be a shock-wave around the globe as the public wakes up to the fact that they have all been test subjects in a massive lethal experiment without their knowledge or consent.

TLB recommends you visit GeoEngineering Watch for more pertinent articles, videos and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


Additional videos added by The Liberty Beacon project for your further investigation and education …


(Click on image to enlarge)

Jewish Criminal Protection Bill – STOP IT IN THE SENATE NOW! H.Res.707 protects Jewish Criminals while repealing American’s First Amendment rights!

By TLB Contributor: Nicky Nelson

On July 31, 2014 during Israel’s attack on Gaza (Operation Protective Edge) and at the height of Jewish crimes against humanity and the slaughter of hundreds of innocent children and thousands of Palestinian men and women, the Jewish and Zionist controlled U.S. Representatives were busy making it illegal to report the crimes of these people.

The Bill specifically states it is not acceptable to talk about the Jews when expressing disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere.

Considering all of the wars in the Middle East are caused by Israel, the Jews/AIPAC and Israeli False Flag attacks, including 9/11, if passed, this would make it impossible to report accurately on the illegal wars, war crimes and basically all of the Jew’s nefarious crimes against the world.

Not surprisingly, the ADL has made passing this bill one of their ACTION ITEMS. The ADL was created to protect the Jewish Bankers that took over the United State’s money and banking system in 1913; the same year of the “Federal” Reserve and their criminal collection agency, the IRS. 1913 was a bad year for America, it was literally the year the Jews officially hijacked our country.

“The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.”

Now this information from the ADL surprised me. It shows that people are waking up to the disease of Zionism and the Jewish takeover of our Country/Congress, the Media, Banking, Medical Care and all of the Jewish illegal wars based on lies. There is hope when you look at these numbers and they are running scared as evidenced by this new bill.

“Survey by the Anti-Defamation League of attitudes towards Jews in more than 100 countries around the world, released in May 2014 found that over a quarter of the people surveyed (26 percent), and nearly three quarters of those surveyed in the Middle East (74 percent) hold anti- Semitic views, a stunning indicator of the stubborn resilience of anti- Semitic beliefs, even in countries where few Jews reside;”

Please contact your Senator now and let them know that it is illegal to repeal the 1st Amendment to protect Jewish criminals. And keep speaking truth!

Senators of the 113th Congress

H.Res.707 – Condemning all forms of anti-Semitism and rejecting attempts to justify anti-Jewish hatred or violent attacks as an acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere.113th Congress (2013-2014)

Here are the treasonous traitors that are listed as co-sponsors of this unconstitutional bill”

Rep. Roskam, Peter J. [R-IL-6]* 07/31/2014
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]* 07/31/2014
Rep. Granger, Kay [R-TX-12] 08/01/2014
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] 08/01/2014
Rep. Gallego, Pete P. [D-TX-23] 09/08/2014
Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] 09/08/2014
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-6] 09/08/2014
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2] 09/08/2014
Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-5] 09/08/2014
Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10] 09/08/2014
Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5] 09/08/2014
Rep. Frankel, Lois [D-FL-22] 09/08/2014
Rep. Cardenas, Tony [D-CA-29] 09/08/2014
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6] 09/08/2014
Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] 09/08/2014
Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-41] 09/08/2014
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN-4] 09/08/2014
Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-3] 09/08/2014
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24] 09/08/2014
Rep. Schneider, Bradley S. [D-IL-10] 09/08/2014
Rep. Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1] 09/08/2014
Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2] 09/08/2014
Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12] 09/08/2014
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA-10] 09/08/2014
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-13] 09/08/2014
Rep. Bustos, Cheri [D-IL-17] 09/08/2014
Rep. Tierney, John F. [D-MA-6] 09/08/2014
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-25] 09/08/2014
Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3] 09/08/2014
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2] 09/08/2014
Rep. Gutierrez, Luis V. [D-IL-4] 09/08/2014
Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9] 09/08/2014
Rep. Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1] 09/08/2014
Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14] 09/08/2014
Rep. Green, Gene [D-TX-29] 09/08/2014
Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11] 09/08/2014
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX-7] 09/08/2014
Rep. Levin, Sander M. [D-MI-9] 09/08/2014
Rep. Sinema, Kyrsten [D-AZ-9] 09/08/2014
Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-35] 09/08/2014
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [R-PA-8] 09/08/2014
Rep. Tiberi, Patrick J. [R-OH-12] 09/08/2014
Rep. Brady, Robert A. [D-PA-1] 09/08/2014
Rep. Brown, Corrine [D-FL-5] 09/08/2014
Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-21] 09/08/2014
Rep. Israel, Steve [D-NY-3] 09/08/2014
Rep. Hahn, Janice [D-CA-44] 09/08/2014
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] 09/08/2014
Rep. Esty, Elizabeth H. [D-CT-5] 09/08/2014
Rep. Crowley, Joseph [D-NY-14] 09/08/2014
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9] 09/08/2014
Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-30] 09/08/2014
Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-23] 09/08/2014
Rep. Murphy, Patrick [D-FL-18] 09/08/2014
Rep. Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-13] 09/08/2014
Rep. Beatty, Joyce [D-OH-3] 09/08/2014
Rep. McCarthy, Carolyn [D-NY-4] 09/08/2014
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] 09/08/2014
Rep. Ryan, Tim [D-OH-13] 09/08/2014
Rep. Wolf, Frank R. [R-VA-10] 09/08/2014
Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6] 09/08/2014
Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14] 09/08/2014
Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-6] 09/08/2014
Rep. Barrow, John [D-GA-12] 09/08/2014
Rep. Grayson, Alan [D-FL-9] 09/08/2014
Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11] 09/08/2014
Rep. Kilmer, Derek [D-WA-6] 09/08/2014
Rep. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI-14] 09/08/2014
Rep. Horsford, Steven A. [D-NV-4] 09/08/2014
Rep. Ellison, Keith [D-MN-5] 09/08/2014
Rep. Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-33] 09/08/2014
Rep. Higgins, Brian [D-NY-26] 09/08/2014
Rep. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD-8] 09/08/2014
Rep. Honda, Michael M. [D-CA-17] 09/08/2014
Rep. Griffin, Tim [R-AR-2] 09/08/2014
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27] 09/08/2014
Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-20] 09/08/2014
Rep. Yarmuth, John A. [D-KY-3] 09/08/2014
Rep. Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA-7] 09/08/2014
Rep. Lowenthal, Alan S. [D-CA-47] 09/08/2014
Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2] 09/08/2014
Rep. Lance, Leonard [R-NJ-7] 09/08/2014
Rep. Stivers, Steve [R-OH-15] 09/08/2014
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [D-GA-4] 09/08/2014
Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-51] 09/08/2014
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] 09/08/2014
Rep. Davis, Susan A. [D-CA-53] 09/08/2014
Rep. Schwartz, Allyson Y. [D-PA-13] 09/08/2014
Rep. Schock, Aaron [R-IL-18] 09/08/2014
Rep. Royce, Edward R. [R-CA-39] 09/08/2014
Rep. DeSantis, Ron [R-FL-6] 09/09/2014
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5] 09/09/2014
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4] 09/09/2014
Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-7] 09/09/2014
Rep. Sires, Albio [D-NJ-8] 09/09/2014
Rep. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA-28] 09/09/2014
Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3] 09/09/2014
Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27] 09/09/2014
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ-8] 09/09/2014
Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1] 09/09/2014
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO-5] 09/09/2014
Rep. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV-2] 09/09/2014
Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-17] 09/09/2014
Rep. Runyan, Jon [R-NJ-3] 09/09/2014
Rep. Ribble, Reid J. [R-WI-8] 09/09/2014
Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33] 09/11/2014
Rep. Flores, Bill [R-TX-17] 09/11/2014
Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2] 09/11/2014
Rep. Edwards, Donna F. [D-MD-4] 09/11/2014
Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4] 09/11/2014
Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2] 09/11/2014
Rep. Himes, James A. [D-CT-4] 09/11/2014
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] 09/11/2014
Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P. III [D-MA-4] 09/11/2014
Rep. Delaney, John K. [D-MD-6] 09/11/2014
Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1] 09/11/2014
Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13] 09/11/2014
Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16] 09/11/2014
Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15] 09/11/2014
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] 09/11/2014
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] 09/11/2014
Rep. Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3] 09/15/2014
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL-14] 09/15/2014
Rep. Kind, Ron [D-WI-3] 09/15/2014
Rep. Garcia, Joe [D-FL-26] 09/15/2014
Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9] 09/15/2014
Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16] 09/15/2014
Rep. Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15] 09/15/2014
Rep. Price, David E. [D-NC-4] 09/15/2014
Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5] 09/15/2014
Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2] 09/15/2014
Rep. Rigell, E. Scott [R-VA-2] 09/15/2014
Rep. O’Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16] 09/15/2014
Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20] 09/15/2014
Rep. Kline, John [R-MN-2] 09/15/2014
Rep. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL-8] 09/17/2014
Rep. Heck, Joseph J. [R-NV-3] 09/17/2014
Rep. Garrett, Scott [R-NJ-5] 09/17/2014
Rep. Yoder, Kevin [R-KS-3] 09/18/2014
Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9] 09/18/2014
Rep. Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [D-GA-2] 09/18/2014
Rep. Terry, Lee [R-NE-2] 09/18/2014
Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5] 09/18/2014
Rep. Fudge, Marcia L. [D-OH-11] 09/18/2014
Rep. Clay, Wm. Lacy [D-MO-1] 09/18/2014
Rep. Bachmann, Michele [R-MN-6] 09/18/2014
Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1] 09/18/2014
Rep. Nunnelee, Alan [R-MS-1] 09/18/2014
Rep. Jenkins, Lynn [R-KS-2] 09/18/2014
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN-6] 09/18/2014
Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] 09/18/2014
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK-1] 09/18/2014
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] 09/18/2014
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-7] 09/18/2014
Rep. Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [R-NJ-11] 09/18/2014
Rep. Byrne, Bradley [R-AL-1] 09/18/2014
Rep. Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX-5] 09/18/2014
Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5] 09/18/2014
Rep. Pompeo, Mike [R-KS-4] 09/18/2014
Rep. Bachus, Spencer [R-AL-6] 09/18/2014
Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D-CA-40] 09/18/2014
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3] 09/18/2014
Rep. Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [D-VA-3] 09/18/2014
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8] 09/18/2014
Rep. Clark, Katherine M. [D-MA-5] 09/18/2014
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN-1] 09/18/2014
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] 09/18/2014
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18] 09/18/2014
Rep. Barber, Ron [D-AZ-2] 09/18/2014
Rep. Upton, Fred [R-MI-6] 09/18/2014
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] 09/18/2014
Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8] 09/18/2014


[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Res. 707 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 707

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 18, 2014.
Whereas there is clear evidence of increasing incidents and expressions of anti-
Semitism throughout the world;

Whereas on April 30, 2014, the United States Department of State released the
International Religious Freedom Report for 2013 and noted that,
“Throughout Europe, the historical stain of anti-Semitism continued to
be a fact of life on Internet fora, in soccer stadiums, and through
Nazi-like salutes, leading many individuals who are Jewish to conceal
their religious identity.”;

Whereas anti-Semitic acts committed and recorded in 2014 around the world,
including countries in the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, and North
America, include incidents of murder at Jewish sites, violent attacks
and death threats against Jews, as well as gun violence, arson,
graffiti, anti-Semitic cartoons, and other property desecration at
Jewish cemeteries, places of worship, and communal activity;

Whereas a survey by the Anti-Defamation League of attitudes towards Jews in more than 100 countries around the world, released in May 2014 found that
over a quarter of the people surveyed (26 percent), and nearly three
quarters of those surveyed in the Middle East (74 percent) hold anti-
Semitic views, a stunning indicator of the stubborn resilience of anti-
Semitic beliefs, even in countries where few Jews reside;

Whereas the Anti-Defamation League survey also found that a majority of people
surveyed overall have either not heard of the Holocaust or do not
believe it happened as has been documented by factual accounts and
recorded by history;

Whereas President Barack Obama said in his remarks at the USC Shoah Foundation Dinner on May 7, 2014, “. . . if the memories of the Shoah survivors
teach us anything, it is that silence is evil’s greatest co-conspirator.
And it’s up to us–each of us, every one of us–to forcefully condemn
any denial of the Holocaust. It’s up to us to combat not only anti-
Semitism, but racism and bigotry and intolerance in all their forms,
here and around the world. It’s up to us to speak out against rhetoric
that threatens the existence of a Jewish homeland and to sustain
America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security”;

Whereas in 2004, Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which
established an Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, headed by a
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism;

Whereas the United States Government has consistently supported efforts to
address the rise in anti-Semitism through its bilateral relationships
and through engagement in international organizations such as the United
Nations (UN), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), and the Organization of American States (OAS);

Whereas in recent decades there has been a clear and troubling pattern of
increased violence against Jewish persons and their property,
purportedly in connection with increased opposition to policies enacted
by the Government of Israel;

Whereas during Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge aiming to stem the rocket
fire and terrorist infiltrations by Hamas, Jews and Jewish institutions
and property were attacked in Europe and elsewhere, including attempts
to invade a synagogue in Paris, fire-bombings of synagogues in France
and Germany, assaults on Jewish individuals, and swastikas spray-painted
in a heavily Jewish area of London and also in Rome’s historic Jewish

Whereas anti-Semitic imagery and comparisons of Jews and Israel to Nazis have
been on display at demonstrations against Israel’s actions in Gaza
throughout the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America,

(1) placards comparing Israeli leaders to Nazis, accusing Israel of
carrying out a “Holocaust” against Palestinians, and equating the Jewish
Star of David with the Nazi swastika, and

(2) demonstrations that have included chants of “Death to Jews”,
“Death to Israel”, or expressions of support for suicide terrorism
against Israeli or Jewish civilians;

Whereas the Governments in France, Germany, and Italy, the three countries where
the majority of incidents have occurred, have strongly condemned anti-
Semitism as unacceptable in European society and have all made clear
statements that such attacks on their Jewish communities are
intolerable, and they have matched those words with strong law

Whereas some civil society leaders have set strong examples, including the
condemnation by the Union of Mosques of France, on behalf of their 500
mosques, called the attacks “morally unjust and unacceptable”, and
stated, “nothing can justify any act that could harm our Jewish
compatriots, their institutions or their places of worship”;

Whereas the largest newspaper in circulation in Germany, Bild, featured
statements against anti-Semitism from politicians, business leaders,
civic leaders, media personalities and celebrities with “Never Again
Jew Hatred” on the front page;

Whereas Congress has played an essential role in illustrating and counteracting
the resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) unequivocally condemns all forms of anti-Semitism and rejects
attempts to justify anti-Jewish hatred or violent attacks as an
acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political
events in the Middle East or elsewhere;

(2) decries and condemns the comparison of Israel to Nazis as an
insult to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust and an
affront to those who survived and their children and grandchildren, the
righteous gentiles who saved Jewish lives at peril to their own lives
and to those who bravely fought to defeat the Nazis;

(3) applauds those foreign leaders who have condemned anti-Semitic
acts and calls on those who have yet to take firm action against anti-
Semitism in their countries, to do so;

(4) reaffirms its support for the mandate of the United States
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as part of the broader
policy priority of fostering international religious freedom;

(5) supports expanded Holocaust educational programs that increase
awareness, counter prejudice, and enhance efforts to teach the universal
lessons of the Holocaust; and

(6) urges the Secretary of State to–

(A) maintain combating anti-Semitism as a United States
foreign policy priority;

(B) ensure that the instruments of United States public
diplomacy, including the United States Representative to the
Organization of Islamic Conference, are utilized to effectively
combat anti-Semitism;

(C) ensure high-level United States participation in the
2014 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
high level event marking the 10th anniversary of the 2004 OSCE
Berlin Declaration against anti-Semitism;

(D) urge governments to ensure that adequate laws are in
place to punish anti-Semitic violence against persons and

(E) continue robust United States reporting on anti-Semitism
by the Department of State and the Special Envoy to Combat and
Monitor Anti-Semitism;

(F) provide necessary training and instruction for personnel
posted in United States embassies and missions to analyze and
report on anti-Semitic violence against persons and property as
well as the response of governments to those incidents;

(G) ensure that United States Government efforts to train
law enforcement personnel and prosecutors abroad incorporate
tools to address anti-Semitic violence against persons and
property; and

(H) strongly support the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe’s specialized efforts to monitor and
address anti-Semitism, including through support for its law
enforcement and civil society training programs.

United States or Israel Fist

About the author / Nicky Nelson

NickyAmerican Freedom Fighter, Prepper, Writer, Political/Peace Activist, HAM, Alternative Medicine/Vaccine Safety Researcher. Permission granted to re-publish in part or whole any of Nicky’s articles with proper citation and link back to the original article… “Let it not be said that we did nothing.” – Ron Paul


TLB recommends you read more on this topic at Falastin News

See featured article and read comments here:


Told an audience of Western elites, at a recent conference, that the U.S. will start WW III and the event is inevitable.

By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges

In his strongest speech, ever, directed at the United States, in front of the rest of key members of the Western world, Putin drew a line in the sand with regard to American imperialism.

The following are excerpts of Putin’s speech delivered at the Valdai conference in Sochi, just a few days ago. The speech was directed at Western elites.

“Russia will no longer play games with the United States and engage in back-room negotiations… Russia is prepared for serious agreements, but only if these agreements are conducive to collective security… All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all and the party responsible for the destruction of global collective security is The United States of America…

…The builders of the New World Order have failed by having built a sand castleRussia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified…

…Russia has no intention of building an empire of their own, but will not go fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos…

…Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory)…Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind. Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she has in the past…

…Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war, nor does she fear it…

…Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order, However, Russia will oppose their efforts if they begin  to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain…

…Russia’s will rely not on the elites to set the tone for the future, and these decisions will result from the will of the people…”


Russia Is In War Mode

Russian air incursions are the worst that they have been since the height of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Russian air incursions are at an all-time high

The RAF has intercepted Russian military aircraft as they neared UK airspace for the second time  in the past week. This incident follows Norwegian interception of two Russian bombers last Wednesday.

The Baltic countries are also witnessing a dramatic increase in Russian military violations of NATO air space in which the Russians appear to be testing their ability to penetrate the NATO’s air defenses.

Even the number of times that Japanese fighter jets have been forced to scramble to intercept Russian military aircraft has more than doubled in the last six months, amid  the escalating diplomatic tensions between Japan and Russia.

Russia has even violated American airspace in Alaska with multiple air incursionS designed to test and discover the sophistications of  America’s ability to detect and intercept Russian fighters and nuclear bombers.

russian arctic oil and gas fields

Coupled with the air incursions, Putin has the Russian economy in war mode. He even has the Russian military prepared to militarily seize the “resource rich” Arctic



Maybe we can call a “Mulligan” on his presidency.

Putin has warned that “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” Putin said. “This is a reality, not just words.”

The United States would be wise to prepare in kind. Is anyone else concerned that our first and last line of defense is Barack “let’s play nine” Obama?


Video Highlights of the Valdai Speech

Original Russian Text of the Valdai Speech

Вчера у меня случайно получилось прослушать выступление Путина в прямом эфире и составить собственное представление о том, что, как, зачем и кому сказал наш президент. За это отдельное спасибо радиостанции Вести-ФМ. А посему прочтение всех скоропалительных комментариев ЖЖ-аналитиков, старавшихся быть первыми, независимо от их политической идеологической и даже просто личностной направленности, говорило для меня больше именно об этих писателях, нежели о самом выступлении. Вообще я для себя в очередной раз сделал вывод, хочешь иметь реальное представление о чем-то, обращайся к первоисточникам.

И дело даже не в том, что все оценочные суждения искажают информацию, подают ее в определенном свете или забивают ее саму выводами автора. В таких выступлениях ничуть не менее самого текста важны другие факторы. Место выступления и его аудитория. Широта показа прямого эфира (согласитесь, слушать комментаторов с цитатами совсем не то же самое, что слушать полную прямую речь). Не менее важна эмоциональная подача автором материала и реакция на выступление аудитории слушателей. Все это вместе с текстом позволяет создать в голове первичный образ для самостоятельного восприятия.

Возвращаясь к комментаторам, могу сказать, что был совершенно не удивлен разносторонностью оценок. Это нормально. Реакция врагов, людей равнодушных и друзей всегда отличается. Как отличается и реакция людей мотивированных, действующих по заказу в интересах какого-то из сообществ от людей никак и никем не ангажированных.

Удивило меня совершенно иное. Ни у сторонников президента, ни тем более у его противников и хулителей я не увидел адекватной оценки происходящего. А между тем вчерашняя речь президента существенно по своему значению превосходит его же так называемую Мюнхенскую речь 2007-го года. Именно превосходит. Тогда говорил человек, считающий себя равным среди равных и требовавший такого же отношения со стороны. Вчера говорил

доброжелательный, но усталый от бестолковости учеников преподаватель, обращаясь к студентам, которых окончательно счел безнадежными бездарями. Западные политики приложили за последний год массу усилий, чтобы сделать Путина изгоем мировой политики. Вчера Путин сделал мировых политиков коллективным изгоем. Наверно написанное выглядит слишком громким и безосновательным заявлением. Но тем не менее это именно так.

Современная политика, как внутренняя, так и внешняя зиждется на нескольких постулатах, являющихся неотъемлемой частью тех самых «Правил Игры», которые вошли в название Валдайского форума. Среди этих постулатов важнейшим является тот, который четко разграничивает реальные переговоры, оценки ситуаций, претензии и угрозы, компромиссы и желания от публичной подачи материала для быдла. Грубо говоря, этот постулат можно сформулировать как «Ни слова правды на публику, ей только шоу. Все реальные разговоры только для посвященных». И когда тот же Каддафи публично клял США и Европу и грозился отомстить ей, разгромить и победить, это было шоу. В тот же самый момент за закрытыми дверями он пытался договориться. Потому и проиграл. Проиграл потому, что ни на миг не задумался о возможности прыгнуть за флажки. Постулат политики «Правда для себя, Ложь для избирателей» есть прямое следствие того, что реальная политика на том же Западе или везде, где странами руководят его ставленники, четко отделена от публичных политических шоуменов, исполняющих роли президентов, премьер-министров, глав парламента и так далее.

Что произошло вчера? Вчера Путин во-первых, отринул политесы и дипломатические формулировки. Во-вторых, его обращение было не к политикам или главам государств, оно было к простым людям. Причем, не только в России, но и по всему миру. Точно выбранный момент выступления и формат Валдайского форума с его широким представительством политологов и журналистов из разных стран плюс широкое освещение речи президента в российских СМИ фактически не оставляют мировой политике шансов это выступление замолчать. Исказить попытаются наверняка. Очернить, оболгать, придать иные смыслы, несомненно. А вот замолчать не получится. В течение нескольких суток текст этого выступления если не благодаря СМИ, то вопреки им разойдется по планете и станет доступным миллиардам людей. И чем больше будет шума и клеветы в СМИ, а это неизбежно, тем больший интерес будет вызывать первоисточник.

Путин вчера фактически подвел черту под всей послевоенной историей и мировой политикой. Теперь политика больше не сможет быть уделом элитарных кланов и результатом закулисных переговоров. Теперь это дело прямого открытового и что принципиально правдивого разговора со всем населением планеты.

Я увидел в этом выступлении несколько важнейших  смыслов, обращенных простым людям всего мира.
1.       Россия больше не будет играть в предлагаемые «игры», ведя закулисную торговлю по мелочам. Но она готова к любому серьезному разговору и договору, если они будут способствовать безопасности и будут основаны на справедливости и равному учету всех интересов.
2.       Любые системы мировой безопасности разрушены. Будущее более не гарантировано. И у этого разрушителя есть, как говорится, фамилия, имя и отчество.
3.       Строители Нового Мирового Порядка провалились и построили замок на песке. Строить или нет совместный мировой порядок решать не только России, но без России и за ее счет этот вопрос не решить.
4.       Россия выступает за консервативный подход к внедрению любых изменений в социум и имеющиеся элементы порядка, но и не отказывается от рассмотрения новинок на предмет их осмысленного внедрения.
5.       Россия не собирается ловить рыбу в мутной воде хаоса, не собирается строить новую империю (нам это просто не нужно, нам бы свое освоить), но не собирается и спасать мир за счет себя, как это бывало прежде.
6.         Россия не собирается переформатировать мир под себя, но и не даст переформатировать себя в угоду кому-либо. Мы не собираемся закрываться от мира, но горе тем, кто попробует нас “закрыть”.
7.       Россия не хочет наступления хаоса, не стремится к войне и не собирается ее первой начинать. Тем не менее сегодня Россия рассматривает перспективу глобальной войны почти как неизбежность, к этому готова и продолжает готовиться.  Россия войны не хочет, но не боится.
8.       Россия не собирается занимать активную позицию в противодействии горе – строителям НМП до тех пор, пока это не касается ее жизненных интересов, предпочитая дать им возможность набить столько шишек, сколько выдержит их голова. При насильственном вовлечении России в этот процесс, за счет ущемления ее интересов, мало никому не покажется.
9.       В своей внешней и тем более внутренней политики власть России будет все больше опираться не на элиты и закулисные сделки, а на волю народа.
Если суммировать, то «гейм из овер», «Игра закончена». Настало время взрослых решений. Россия к этому готова, готов ли мир?

About the Author

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular radio talk show, which airs from 9 PM to Midnight (Central). The show can be heard by clicking the following icon in the upper right hand corner of The Common Sense Show.

© 2014. The Common Sense Show. The Logo and Articles are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Dave Hodges. Copyright 2014. Dave Hodges. All Rights Reserved

TLB recommends you visit Dave here:


See featured article and read comments HERE

by Sheep Media · September 2, 2014

This article first published by Global Research in November 2006 is of particular relevance  to an understanding of the ongoing process of destabilization and political fragmentation of Iraq.
“Hegemony is as old as Mankind…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor
The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.
SEE RELATED: ‘Greater Israel’: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

New Middle East Map Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that “[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”1 Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed  indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.

The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon –which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London– have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders,” and that “creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, ‘an awesome revolutionary force’ for (…) creative destruction…”2
Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)
Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as “Russia’s Southern Tier” or the Russian “Near Abroad.”
Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia (“Russia’s Southern Tier”) to be the vulnerable and “soft under-belly” of the Russian Federation.3
It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.

The Map of the “New Middle East”

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”
RELATED: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..” – Gen. Wesley Clark 


The Project for the New Middle East

 The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.
This map of the “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.
The map of the “New Middle East” was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book,Never Quit the Fightwhich was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5
It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.
It has been written that Ralph Peters’ “four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles,” but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?
The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a “humanitarian” and “righteous” arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peter’s:
International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.
Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant “cheated” population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.
Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.
Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6

(emphasis added)

“Necessary Pain”

Besides believing that there is “cultural stagnation” in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are “draconian” in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7
The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a “New Middle East” and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas.
Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.
Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing.  Western-style “Democracy” has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington’s political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere.
Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine.

The Turkish Protest at NATO’s Military College in Rome

Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters’ map of the “New Middle East” has sparked angry reactions in Turkey. According to Turkish press releases on September 15, 2006 the map of the “New Middle East” was displayed in NATO’s Military College in Rome, Italy. It was additionally reported that Turkish officers were immediately outraged by the presentation of a portioned and segmented Turkey.8 The map received some form of approval from the U.S. National War Academy before it was unveiled in front of NATO officers in Rome.
The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.9 Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region, but this seems to be conflicting with Anglo-American actions in the Middle East and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans” and the “New Middle East” Project?

The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the “Eurasian Balkans,” located on its southern tier, are “potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization],” and that, “If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable.”10
It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House’s own admissions; there is a belief that “creative destruction and chaos” in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the “New Middle East,” and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia:
In Europe, the Word “Balkans” conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its “Balkans,” but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogenous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (…) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East.

The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that large oblong (…) they differ from its outer zone in one particularly significant way: they are a power vacuum. Although most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East are also unstable, American power is that region’s [meaning the Middle East’s] ultimate arbiter. The unstable region in the outer zone is thus an area of single power hegemony and is tempered by that hegemony. In contrast, the Eurasian Balkans are truly reminiscent of the older, more familiar Balkans of southeastern Europe: not only are its political entities unstable but they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of whom is determined to oppose the region’s domination by another. It is this familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies the appellation “Eurasian Balkans.”
The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant.Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.
 The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.
Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable.
The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [alternative and official spelling of Kazakhstan] , Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union—as well as Afghanistan.
The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile. 11
(emphasis added)

Redrawing the Middle East

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference.
The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.
Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined  U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.
The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd’s interview with G. Edward Griffin;
We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?
Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country [the United States], than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows [wars] in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. (emphasis added)
The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.
The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.
NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a “civil war” characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.
Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.
About the author: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
1 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Special Briefing on the Travel to the Middle East and Europe of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Press Conference, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2006).
2 Mark LeVine, “The New Creative Destruction,” Asia Times, August 22, 2006.
3 Andrej Kreutz, “The Geopolitics of post-Soviet Russia and the Middle East,” Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) (Washington, D.C.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, January 2002).
4 The Caucasus or Caucasia can be considered as part of the Middle East or as a separate region
5 Ralph Peters, “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look,” Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), June 2006.
7 Crispian Balmer, “French MPs back Armenia genocide bill, Turkey angry, Reuters, October 12, 2006; James McConalogue, “French against Turks: Talking about Armenian Genocide,” The Brussels Journal, October 10, 2006.
8 Suleyman Kurt, “Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts U.S. Apology,” Zaman (Turkey), September 29, 2006.
10 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives (New York City: Basic Books, 1997).
11 Ibid.
Related Global Research articles on the March to War in the Middle East
US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War? 2006-10-24
“Cold War Shivers:” War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia 2006-10-06
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean 2006-10-01
The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks 2006-09-21
The Next Phase of the Middle East War 2006-09-04
Baluchistan and the Coming Iran War 2006-09-01
British Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border 2006-08-30
Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats 2006-08-24
Beating the Drums of War: US Troop Build-up: Army & Marines authorize “Involuntary Conscription” 2006-08-23
Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War? 2006-08-21
Triple Alliance:” The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon 2006-08-06 
The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil 2006-07-26 
Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? 2006-02-22 
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War 2006-02-17 
Nuclear War against Iran 2006-01-03 
Israeli Bombings could lead to Escalation of Middle East War 2006-07-15 
Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression 2005-05-01 
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran 2005-05-01
Source: Global Research


Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:



By: Ulson Gunnar

Russian President Vladimir Putin, before an international audience, exposed an international order capitalizing on the end of the Cold War to reshape the world according to its own interests, sidelining concepts such as basic international relations, international laws, systems of checks and balances, and even the very concept of national sovereignty itself. Amid President Putin’s speech, he would condemn the United States’ support for neo-fascists, terrorists, and its contempt for national sovereignty around the world.

The West’s Rebuttal 

Curious language accompanied the New York Times’ account of the Valdai International Club discussion in the Black Sea coastal region of Sochi, Russia in front of which President Putin spoke. In an article titled, “Putin Accuses U.S. of Backing ‘Neo-Fascists’ and ‘Islamic Radicals’,” the NYT attempts to portray President Putin’s statements about US support for neo-fascists and terrorists as merely baseless accusations.

The NYT claims, “instead of supporting democracy and sovereign states, Mr. Putin said during a three-hour appearance at the conference, the United States supports “dubious” groups ranging from “open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.”” The NYT would also report, ““Why do they support such people,” he asked the annual gathering known as the Valdai Club, which met this year in the southern resort town of Sochi. “They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals, but then burn their fingers and recoil.””

It is difficult to understand why the NYT attempts to portray this statement as particularly controversial, or as a “diatribe,” as the Times puts it, rather than a factual, timely, and necessary observation.

The NYT would also state, “Russia is often accused of provoking the crisis in Ukraine by annexing Crimea, and of prolonging the agony in Syria by helping to crush a popular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s last major Arab ally. Some analysts have suggested that Mr. Putin seeks to restore the lost power and influence of the Soviet Union, or even the Russian Empire, in a bid to prolong his own rule.”

Technically speaking, Russia is regularly accused of all of this, though the NYT fails to fill in for readers how ridiculous each and every one of these accusations are.

To begin with, the Ukrainian crisis began when neo-fascists violently overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in late 2013, early 2014 with the United States’ full backing. The political order that seized power constituted overtly fascist political parties including Svoboda and the “Fatherland Party,” and was openly backed by flagrantly Neo-Nazi armed groups such as Right Sector. It was only then that eastern Ukrainians began to flee into the arms of Russia who in turn oversaw a referendum returning Crimea to Russian sovereignty.

Likewise regarding Syria, there is no question today that the conflict Damascus is fighting is not a “popular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad,” but rather a proxy war being fought against Damascus using sectarian extremists ranging from various Al Qaeda affiliates, to the newly christened “Islamic State,” all of which constitute terrorist fronts and in no way equate to a “popular uprising.”

As far as the NYT’s claims that President Putin seeks to “restore the lost power and influence of the Soviet Union, or even the Russian Empire,” readers may be left confused when considering that the Soviet Union and Russian Empire represent two diametrically opposed political orders, and still, neither aspired toward nor achieved the global hegemony Western military and economic expansion has reached.

The US is its Own Worst Enemy  

President Putin’s comments about the United States using various proxies as “instruments” toward achieving their goals, but with which they”burn their fingers and recoil” in the process could best be exemplified in the US’ arming of Al Qaeda and other militant groups in Afghanistan during the 1980’s. Al Qaeda would go on to become a global scourge the US claims it must now wage an equally global war to extinguish, of course with no apparent success.

Part of the United States’ growing problem upon the global stage, a problem where it is irredeemably losing respect and legitimacy it had once commanded, is its own mass media and its utter failure to hold accountable poor policy driven by corrupt, criminal special interests. Leaving it to Russian President Vladimir Putin to point out the sorry state of American foreign policy grants Russia the respect and legitimacy the US would have otherwise held onto were it capable of putting its own house in order. The inability of America’s media to serve public interests is in itself a symptom of America’s greater malaise.

Of course as with all nations, Russia does what is in Russia’s own best interests. Occasionally, however, these interests converge with public interests and in this case, global interests. The United States’ foreign policy has become a global menace to all, not just a menace to Russia. However, because US foreign policy is a menace to Russia as well, Russia by necessity must protest it at venues like the Valdai International Club.Because of this, President Putin’s words strike with a popular resonance.

From Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Syria, to Ukraine and now ironically back to Iraq again, the United States has left a trail of catastrophe behind all that it has done overseas. Nations so far spared such catastrophe are most likely considering what happens if they’re next. It is not the Kremlin’s ability to sway the minds of the world that has turned the tables on America causing it to slink away into irrelevancy and general disdain, but its own actions it refuses to address or reform.

When America’s Agenda Becomes the “World’s” Agenda…

President Putin would continue with comments stating, “it looks like the so-called ‘winners’ of the Cold War are determined to have it all and reshape the world into a place that could better serve their interests alone.” He would also state, “in a world dominated by one country and a group of its satellites, the process of ‘global decision-making’ often boils down to pushing through their own recipes under the guise of a universal proposal. This group has in fact become so ambitious that its solutions are now passed off as decisions made by the entire global community.”It is difficult to disagree. With the rise of the BRICS highlighting just how “global” America’s “recipes” are not, President Putin’s “diatribe” will soon become painfully obvious facts understood widely around the world and only further hinder the West as it tries to manufacturing legitimacy and authority out of thinner and thinner air. Indeed, as President Putin suggests, there is nothing truly “international” about what is often called “international consensus.” Instead, it is a collection of “satellites” around the United States, and often even states strong-armed into lending their “consensus.” When nations a billion strong refuse to sign onto the US’ agenda, or an entire continent rejects the authority of America’s so-called “international” institutions, can they truly be called “international?”

Such tactics however, resemble those of tyrannies, in fact, the very tyrannies the United States had once been thought of as the champion against. Ironic that it has become what it had once fought, from its inception to the pinnacle of its power, influence and respect. The tides will change when President Putin’s message becomes better understood and the true global consensus develops the power and resources to have its voice heard over the manufactured “consent” the US wields upon the world’s stage. While it is possible that the US might alternatively right itself before this happens, it is unlikely. As the NYT proves, those charged with holding the United States’ special interests accountable have clearly committed themselves to doing precisely the opposite. 

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: