Category Archives: Tyranny

U.S. Renews Calls For Attack On Syria Air Force, U.K. Calls For Safe Zones, Military Action

 

syria safe zone

As tension between the West and Russia over the Syrian crisis heats up yet again, a combination effort on the part of elements within the United States and the UK are pushing for direct military confrontation with the Syrian military as well as the Russians. Indeed, after a period of time suggesting a major improvement on the ground, it appears that there is now the possibility of renewed vigor on the part of the imperialist Western powers in their goal to destroy Syria, even at the cost of igniting World War 3.

After having violated international law and Syria’s national sovereignty by not only funding and supporting proxy soldiers for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad but also by deploying aircraft and troops in the country despite not being invited in by the legitimate government, the U.S. is now warning Russia and Syria against targeting terrorists and Western proxy fighters within Syria’s own territory.

The new U.S. Commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria stated on August 22 that he will “defend” the Special Operations Forces aggressively deployed by the United States to Northern Syria if Syrian warplanes or Syrian artillery again strike areas where U.S. troops are located.

During an interview with CNN, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend stated from his headquarters in Baghdad that “We’ve informed the Russians where we’re at … (they) tell us they’ve informed the Syrians, and I’d just say that we will defend ourselves if we feel threatened.”

The hypocrisy and deception of the United States government on this issue has now reached a staggering level. An accurate translation of what Townsend is saying is that “We have funded proxy terrorists to destroy the Syrian government. Those terrorists started losing so we deployed troops to support them and forge new brigades of terrorism with Kurds. Despite the fact that we deployed these troops against international law, violated Syria’s national sovereignty, as well as the wishes of the majority of the world, we will play the victim if those troops are injured during the course of Syria’s battle with the terrorists we support. We will then attack Syrian planes as a response to attacking terrorists whom our soldiers are assisting in attacking the Syrian government.” In other words, the U.S. position is that “We will attack you whenever we want, however we want, and everyone and everything else in the world be damned. And if you dare respond, we will play the victim, drum up sympathy and good ol’ fashioned ‘Murican patriotism back home so that we can launch a full-scale war upon your country.”

Essentially, Syria is being threatened with full-scale war if it defends itself and a death of a thousand cuts if it does not. This is an epic level of hypocrisy even for the U.S. government but the most surprising element is that it can be carried out so openly. Perhaps Western audiences are now so utterly befuddled as to foreign policy that such overt acts of deception and aggression simply go unnoticed.

Enter the British. Never known to take a backseat in hypocrisy, thirty Labour MPs are now calling for a “safe zone” in Syria, an obvious and admitted act of war that would initiate the creation of Libya 2.0. The pro-war camp is fully playing up the “spirit of Jo Cox,” the celebrated humanitarian bomber and warmonger who was murdered earlier this year. The campaign to create “safe zones” and “buffer zones” in Syria is being promoted not only by the war hawks in parliament but also by “friends” of Cox and the UK military establishment.

“In life, Jo argued with such passion and eloquence that the UK armed forces could play a role in protecting civilians in Syria by enforcing a ‘no bomb’ zone,” said John Woodstock, friend of Cox. “This is a time for Britain to show the courage and resolve which Jo herself exemplified by taking bolder action to end the horrific bloodshed.”

Translation: a warmongering MP was murdered so let’s pretend to honor her by ensuring that the people she wanted to murder while she was still alive are murdered now that she is dead.

This may be poor logic and poor presentation but, unfortunately, this type of propaganda is effective in the modern-day UK.

The former Shadow Minister, Pat McFadden chimed in as well. “The British contribution to attacking Isis strongholds – in which our pilots do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties – is an important part of the effort to free the people of Syria from the brutality of what they have been enduring. The whole approach to Syria has been marked by a reluctance to intervene but telling ourselves that because we didn’t break it we didn’t buy it is of little comfort to the innocent victims of the war.”

Translation: We have been bombing intermittently for some time and that is good but we should just go all in, to hell with civilian casualties and to hell with international law. In fact, to hell with our own population who will pay the price in blood and sacrifice as well as lower living standards back home.

The UK military voice is chiming in as well. As Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said:

There is a military solution here and now is the time to be bold. We aren’t talking about boots on the ground, the very least we can do is place no bomb zones around hospitals. As the Russian government have strenuously denied that they target hospitals there should, in theory, be little danger of the nightmare scenario of a British or US jet shooting down a Russian one.

I have suggested creating a Safe Zone for civilians to go to in North West Syria and protect it otherwise they will remain and die in Aleppo or leave and turn right to Raqqa, where we could see them turn to Isil. The very least we can do is place no bomb zones around hospitals.

Translation: We have to destroy the Syrian government. I think we can do this without starting thermonuclear World War 3 but it’s just a chance we will have to take. Let’s create a “safe zone” that is, in effect, a refuge for terrorists and an excuse to bomb the Syrian Air Force out of existence. We can use hospitals and civilians as excuses. And if that nuclear world war happens, we will know we made the wrong decision.

According to the Telegraph, sources close to Hillary Clinton have stated that Killary is planning on a “safe zone” approach upon her coronation, er, election.

The idea of establishing a “safe zone” in Syria is, of course, not a new concept. In July, 2015, the agreement being discussed would have effectively created a “buffer zone” that would have spanned from the Turkish border line into Syria. It would have extended from Azaz in the East to Jarablus in the West and as far south as al-Bab. The width of the zone would have been about 68 miles and would have extended around 40 miles deep into Syria, right on the doorstep of Aleppo.

The zone would have much smaller than that which Turkey and the United States have been calling for in the years prior and wouldn’t have necessarily stretched the length of the Turkey-Syria border. But it is a start.

True to form, the US and Turkey attempted to obfuscate the fact that their agreement was the creation of a no-fly zone by renaming it an “ISIL-free zone.” This is the same tactic used when the term “no-fly zone” and “buffer zone” began to draw too much ire from observers only a year ago. Then, the term became “safe zone.”

Semantics have served NATO and the United States well over the years. After all, a simple name change of terrorist organizations has made the Anglo-American powers able to produce “moderate rebels” and the most frightening terrorist organization the world has ever seen while using the same group of terrorists.

The description of the “ISIL-free zone” of 2015 was that it would be a distinguished area in which the Turkish and U.S. military would engage in aggressive operations against ISIS. It was floated that this area would have also functioned as a place where civilians displaced by the Syrian crisis may run to for safe haven and where “moderate rebel” forces can maintain a higher presence free from the battles with ISIS.

“Once the area is cleared, the plan is to give control to as-yet-unidentified moderate Syrian rebel groups. The United States and Turkey have differing interpretations as to which groups can be defined as ‘moderate,’” the Washington Post reported.

The reality, however, is that the “ISIL-free zone” would have been nothing more than a Forward Operating Base deeper into Syrian territory, working under the direct protection of the U.S. military and Turkish air force. That is exactly what the British and the U.S. are arguing for today.

Going further back, public discussion of the implementation of a “buffer zone” began as far back as 2012 when the Brookings Institution, in their memo “Assessing Options For Regime Change” stated:

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The Brookings Institution went further, however, describing a possible scenario that mirrors the one currently unfolding in Syria where Turkey, in coordination with Israel, could help overthrow Assad by establishing a “multi-front war” on Syria’s borders. Brookings writes:

In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.

Of course, the establishment of a “No-Fly Zone” is tantamount to a declaration of war. Such has even been admitted by top U.S. generals when explaining exactly what a No Fly Zone would entail. As General Carter Ham stated,

We should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.

General Philip Breedlove also echoed this description when he said,

I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is . . . it’s basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability

Regardless of the fact that the Anglo-American empire may very well be risking a direct military confrontation with another nuclear power, the NATO forces are intent on moving forward in their attempt to destroy Syria and its government. The major victories by the Syrian military that have taken place in recent weeks as well as the inability of the West’s terrorists to roll back SAA gains have obviously convinced NATO that more drastic measures are needed and that proxies are simply not enough to defeat a committed military supported by its people.

For a national oligarchy intent on “warning” other countries against defending themselves, we encourage the United States establishment to begin paying attention to warning signs themselves.

By Brandon Turbeville

 

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

 

U.S. Renews Calls For Attack On Syria Air Force, U.K. Calls For Safe Zones, Military Action.

America’s Biggest Ally Now Has Special “Thought Police” Unit to Track Down Online Trolls

thought-policeThought police now patrol social media platforms and online forums to quash putatively ‘abusive’ vitriol with the help of feckless civilians urged to end freedom of speech under the guise of rooting out hate.

Expected to run for two years at a cost of $2.2 million (£1.7 million) — of which the Home Office will contribute $581,000 (£450,000) — the London Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC) believes severely curtailing free speech is necessary due to “the increasing role that online hate played in targeting individuals and communities.”

Online abusers, the Mayor’s Office said, operate behind a “veil of anonymity,” making conventional policing of hate difficult due to lack of skills and equipment — so authorities have allotted the budget for the creation of a police-civilian alliance to report spewers of venom to police.

“By establishing this unit,” explained a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police cited by the Business Standard of the Online Hate Crime Hub, “we are sending a strong message to those who use online forums to spread hate that their actions will not be tolerated. The Metropolitan Police Service continues to have a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of hate crime.

“The Met encourages all victims of hate crime to report any incident to police and will make every effort to hold offenders to account and bring them to justice.”

To be perfectly clear, what authorities consider a worthy of reporting in this instance amounts to little more the vitriolic rhetoric — “criminal and non-criminal incidents”  — a term so nebulous and subjective in nature, this extirpation project represents both a dangerous precedent and the slipperiest of slopes.

Critics, justifiably alarmed at the prospect of thought police, have posited the program will not only nullify the free speech bastion the Internet represents, but could lead to arrests for online jokes or offensive posts — or worse.

“There’s a risk of online vigilantism, where people who are offended by the least thing will have a licence to report it to police,” cautioned Andrew Allison of the libertarian group, Freedom Association, the Daily Mail reported.

If this recalls for you George Orwell’s government-loyal child Spies from the dystopian portent 1984, you wouldn’t be far from the truth.

In fact, in one example cited by the Daily Mail, a mother of two found herself the subject of a police inquiry after writing on friend’s Facebook post that she wanted to throw an egg at David Cameron. Yes, seriously.

Desiring to toss an egg at a politician hardly seems relevant to fighting actual crimes of harm — but as an illustration of the potential for offhand comments of no malintent to be perceived as criminal in nature, it handily does the job. And the non-threat of an egg isn’t the only absurd example.

A relative posted a photo to Facebook of three Siddiqui family members clad in camouflage during a paintballing expedition with the obviously jocular caption, “ISIS training day” — but the family promptly received a visit from police officers.

“Police are becoming moral arbiters rather than dealing with real issues that threaten our security,” asserted Frank Furedi, University of Kent professor emeritus of sociology.

For Americans unnerved by the U.S.’ continued toying with legislation and court rulings designed to quell the fundamental right to free speech, the U.K. presents a case study in how quickly ‘political correctness’ can run amok.

Last year, laws aimed at combating ‘malicious communication’ received a frightening update: Online trolls can now be jailed for up to two years.

But trolls were already landing behind bars in record numbers. According to a report from the Telegraph, 694 people went to jail for online trolling in 2014 — the rough equivalent of two each day — and, worse, 70 juveniles were among the astonishing 1,501 people prosecuted under the law prior to both its update and the new thought police program.

Whatever auspicious intent might underlie the creation of this civilian-police allied unit is utterly lost to its potential to damn innocent people — guilty of nothing more than offending the thin-skinned among us — to possible jail time.

“We want more police on the street,” said Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, “not thought police.”

Online bullying is an increasingly serious problem but police should not be proactively seeking cases like these and turning themselves into chatroom moderators.

With such measures, even if well-intentioned, there is a very real danger of undermining our very precious freedom of speech.

A glaring omission of the Online Hate Crime Hub’s statement of (purported) purpose is the lack of any tolerance education program for the perpetually offended — the creation of which could foundationally fight the hate speech the Hub claims to desire obliterating.

“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights,” said English comedian, actor, writer, and activist, Stephen Fry, in 2005. “It’s actually nothing more … than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”

As per government usual, the rush to apply superficial bandages to the ‘problem’ of online hate speech provides the vehicle for far worse governmental intrusion into our private lives later on.

Literally policing speech is the kissing cousin of policing thought — when it seems the whole world just needs a lesson in the age-old adage … you might know … something about sticks and stones?

By Claire Bernish

 

America’s Biggest Ally Now Has Special “Thought Police” Unit to Track Down Online Trolls.

Humanity’s victory strategy: ‘Offense’ of solutions for unprecedented brighter future + ‘Defense’ to reveal .01% psychopaths’ illegal Wars of Aggression, looting, lying

I’ve argued that Bernie-supporters, Greens and Libertarians will remain as doormats to the Left and Right arms of the one US dictatorial rogue state until they defend victimized Americans, all humanity, and themselves by stating the Emperor’s New Clothes obvious:

.01% Republican and Democratic “leaderships” are psychopathic criminals engaged in OBVIOUS crimes centered in lie-started illegal Wars of Aggressionlooting by the trillions (including Dept. of “Defense”), and constant lying. Importantly, this includes election fraud by both parties and criminally-complicity corporate media that will never ever ever ever allow 3rd party power until those .01%ers are arrested and removed from power.

In addition, I recommend those “never Hillary” (including for a rogue State Department and looting Clinton Foundation) and “never Trump” should cooperate to state the important election facts:

I am among hundreds in alternative media, academia, and various professions able to easily explain, document, and prove that Rep and Dem “leaderships” are dictatorial rogue state criminals. In this rogue state, the US does not have:

    • president

 

  • chosen by election
  • after independent debates.

What the US has is:

  • rogue state dictator
  • chosen by election fraud
  • after bullshit propaganda.

Until this breakthrough occurs, 3rd parties (and humanity) are powerless to oppose criminally-complicit corporate media, election fraud, and assassinations (such as Martin King) if they ever challenge the Left and Right arms of the one rogue US political body.

Simple strategy: have strong offense and defense

Because Republicans and Democrats are Left and Right arms of one rogue state political body, humanity and 3rd parties need to both strong policy proposals (offense), along with clear points defending against Left and Right rogue state crimes.

The strongest defense is to explain, document, and prove criminal policies centered in war, money and lying.

Americans for Hillary or Trump are voting with relative ignorance to continue these policies, with 95%+ who would never agree if honestly briefed on the facts. Once informed, unless one wishes to bond with such evil and bullshit (an academic term), one cannot vote for it. If one wishes to stand as an American under our ideals and Constitution, one must demand arrests for ongoing horrific crimes that annually kill in the millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.

The categories of crime include:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
  2. Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
  3. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).
  4. Destruction of nearly all rights lawfully guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights within the US Constitution, and in Orwellian inversion of limited government.

The strongest offense is up to you, with Greens and Libertarians stating platforms, author diogenes stating ten excellent planks, and my pointing to solutions worth literally ~$1,000,000 per US household, world peace, and factual communication.

The brighter future ready right now:

With more data and an 81-minute radio interview here, these are the game-changing highlights as briefly as I can comprehensively communicate:

The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Fed Chair Janet Yellen publicly acknowledges monetary reform as described below, but continues a history of criminal fraud in her lawful fiduciary responsibility to truthfully provide what you’re about to read. The data below include evidence of a .01% oligarchy criminally looting tens of trillions of our dollars.

Monetary reform is the creation of debt-free money by government for the direct payment of public goods and services. Creating money as a positive number is an obvious move from our existing Robber Baron-era system of only creating debt owed to privately-owned banks (a negative number) as what we use for money. Our Orwellian “non-monetary supply” of adding negative numbers forever causes today’s tragic-comic increasing and unpayable total debt. You learned these mechanics of positive and negative numbers in middle school, and already have the education and life experience to conclude with Emperor’s New Clothes absolute certainty that accelerating total debt is the opposite of having money. As a National Board Certified and Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teacher, I affirm this is also exactly what is taught to all economics students.

The public benefits of reversing this creature of Robber Barons are game-changing and near-instant. We the People must demand these, as .01% oligarchs have no safe way to do so without admission of literal criminal fraud by claiming that debt is its opposite of money.

The top 3 game-changing benefits of monetary reform:

  1. We pay the national debt in proportion to removing private banks’ ability to create what we use for money as debt in order to prevent inflation. We retire national debt forever.
  2. We fully fund infrastructure that returns more economic output than investment cost for triple upgrades: the best infrastructure we can imagine, up to full-employment, and lower overall costs.
  3. We stop the ongoing Robber Barons who McKinsey’s Chief Economist documents having ~$30 TRILLION in tax havens, and the Fed finding the US top seven banks creating shell companies to hide $10 trillion. This amount is about 30 times needed to end all global poverty, which has killed more people since 1995 than all wars and violence in all human history.

Public banking creates at-cost and in-house credit to pay for public goods and services without the expense and for-profit interest of selling debt-securities. North Dakota has a public bank for at-cost credit that results in it being the only state with annual increasing surpluses rather than deficits.

Top 3 game-changing benefits of public banking:

  1. a state-owned bank could abundantly fund all state programs and eliminate all taxes with just a 5% mortgage and credit card.
  2. a state-owned bank could create in-house and at-cost credit to fund infrastructure. This cuts nominal costs in half because, as you know, selling debt securities typically doubles the cost. For example, where I live we’re still dismantling the old Bay Bridge in NoCal from the upgrade that cost $6 billion, but the debt-service costs will add another $6 billion when it’s all paid.
  3. CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) stash “rainy day” funds no longer required with a credit line from a public bank. In addition, the so-called “retirement funds” currently deliver net returns of just a few percent on good years, and negative returns on bad years (herehere). California’s ~14,000 various government entities’ CAFRs have a sampled-data total estimate of $8 trillion in surplus taxpayer assets ($650,000 non-disclosed assets per household, among California’s ~12.5 million households).

$1,000,000 of benefits per US household:

  • California’s CAFR data of ~$650,000 of assets per household is evidence of huge cash assets of similar magnitude in every state.
  • Paying the US national debt of ~$18 trillion saves ~$180,000 per household.
  • Ending state taxes in California to pay a budget of ~$170 billion saves each household ~$15,000, with similar savings in every state.
  • ~$30,000 per household savings annually: the American public would no longer pay over $400 billion every year for national debt interest payments (because almost 30% of the debt is intra-governmental transfers, this is a savings of ~$300 billion/year). If lending is run at a non-profit rate or at nominal interest returned to the American public (for infrastructure, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) rather than profiting the banks, the savings to the US public is conservatively $2 trillion (1). If the US Federal government increased the money supply by 3% a year to keep up with population increase and economic growth, we could spend an additional $500 billion yearly into public programs, or refund it as a public dividend (2). This savings would allow us to simplify or eliminate the income tax (3). The estimated savings of eliminating the income tax with all its complexity, loopholes, and evasion is $250 billion/year (4). The total benefits for monetary reform are conservatively over three trillion dollars every year to the American public. Three trillion is $3,000,000,000,000. This saves the ~100 million US households an average of $30,000 every year. Another way to calculate the savings is to figure those amounts per $50,000 annual household income (for example, if your household earns $100,000/year, you save ~$60,000 every year with these reforms). This savings represents a 60% raise for every US household’s income.
  • Related, if the ~$30 trillion hidden in tax havens by the .01% have $10-$15 trillion from Americans, and we count the Federal Reserve report that the US top seven banks have over $10 trillion stored, then the average US household could clawback ~$200,000 to ~$250,000.

Famous Americans already on record for these reforms:

Please understand that I represent likely hundreds of thousands of professionals making factual claims with objective evidence anyone with a high school-level of education can verify.

Wait, what? We’re being looted how much???

To also show the offense potential, let’s take a few moments to document where we are with being looted by the trillions, and what this means to the average US family.

Department of Defense looting:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General issued an audit report in August 2016 stating that DoD claims to have “lost” $6.5 trillion in year-end accounting, with $2.8 trillion “missing” in the last fiscal quarter alone. This is euphemistically termed “unaccounted,” and literally means that DoD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went.

Of course, this never happens with lawful accounting because records always show where the money goes. This would be like your bank agreeing they received a large deposit from you, agreeing the money was gone, and not refunding your account while claiming no further information of this “unaccountable,” “lost,” and “missing” money. The most common historical explanation of governments “losing” money is, of course, embezzlement to enrich an oligarchy.

$6.5 trillion equals:

  • ~$65,000 per US household.
  • Embezzling a billion dollars from a US military project 6,500 times.
  • Embezzling a billion dollars every day for 18 years.

An Inspector General is supposed to be head of an independent and non-partisan auditing organization to discover and investigate waste, embezzlement, and fraud. They are supposed to act as “watchdogs” to ensure government agencies are transparent and lawful, with power to subpoena and take testimonies under oath.

You may recall that DoD’s claims of trillions of our tax dollars somehow going missing isn’t new, and reported as $2.3 trillion by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on September 10, 2001 as “a matter of life and death” the day before a claimed airplane bulls-eyed into the Pentagon’s accounting department, killing the very accountants tasked to find the “missing” money. I have more on this topic with videos here.

A few more data points of more trillions of our dollars looted from us by oligarchs:

How much has been looted by oligarchs? McKinsey’s Chief Economist documents having ~$30 TRILLION in tax havens, and the Fed finding the US top seven banks creating shell companies to hide $10 trillion. This amount is about 30 times needed to end all global poverty, which has killed more people since 1995 than all wars and violence in all human history.

Emperor’s New Clothes status and challenge

From the introduction to a paper I wrote for the Claremont Colleges’ 2015 conference, Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization:

The Emperor’s New Clothes is the story of current wars and central “monetary” policy: “official” stories easily and completely refuted by anyone caring to look at the facts. All three are tragic-comedies because even children see the truth with just a few moments of attention.

Addressing three topics for one academic paper may seem ambitious, and that said, here’s what I see:

  1. War law is crystal-clear in letter and intent, yet continuously violated in Wars of Aggression by former imperial nations with impunity.
  2. These powers create what we use for money as debt, with mathematic consequences like adding negative numbers forever: aggregate debt becomes tragic-comic. “Debt” is called its opposite, “money,” with impunity.
  3. These deceptions and failure to address obvious solutions are only possible from public discovery through continuous propaganda from “officials” and corporate media.

Historic oligarchies usually control government (to dictate policy; often war to steal valuable resources), what is used for money (to enrich themselves and pay minions), and media (to control spin to shape public opinion). Therefore, connecting all three elements in our world of the present, that are again obvious and immediate when pointed-out, will contribute to our awakening and realization of obvious solutions.

Our analogy of The Emperor’s New Clothes has government officials, messengers (corporate media), and many in the public claim that political leadership is “covered” by the noblest of appearances, and those who fail to perceive this are either “unfit for his position” or “hopelessly stupid.” The game-changing central fact, of course, is that the emperor is naked and not even close to wearing clothes.

These naked facts are easily explained, objectively observed, and proved for anyone caring to look. Indeed, a child points it all out with easy confidence, irrefutable accuracy, and proves the “official story” has zero credibility for any objective observer.

In the story, upon public initial conversations of the facts, the emperor continues the pretense, along with “officials.” However, the illusion is shattered within moments as the “whole town” began speaking about what was clear for everyone upon minimal attention.

If we had to document the facts that refute the official story, we would probably define a few key terms:

  • clothes: material for the human body to be worn for adornment and coverage.
  • wear: in context of clothing, to have clothes intentionally placed on one’s body. This is opposed to having clothes in one’s closet or dresser not on one’s body.

With just a little work, we refute the “official story,” and use the facts to make ridiculous any argument in support of this official story.

And importantly, if we did have to document our evidence even though clear to a child’s examination within moments, it would take some time to write and read, just as our arguments will take with current unlawful wars, bankster looting, and corporate media lying to “cover” these obvious crimes.

And this said, if it were true that wars, bank looting, and corporate media lying are just as easy to prove as in the Emperor’s New Clothes, wouldn’t you want to invest the time to clearly see for yourself, and wouldn’t you want such destructive farce seen for what it is by the wider community?

When does Emperor’s New Clothes victory come???

Nobody knows.

As guests on this planet and not management, we can only control and voice what we can. In our perilous state, we certainly can voice the facts as clearly as we can, and as the boy in the story point-out naked empire with irrefutable clarity.

Perhaps Martin King can be of service speaking with you for two minutes:

If we can engage in the facts, we win.

Consider this: MIT’s Simon Johnson (and former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund) describes our big banks being led by gambling oligarchs who have captured government as in “banana republics” (his words). He concludes fraud is the heart of Wall Street. His immediate best-selling book, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street takeover and the next financial meltdown, was discussed with President Johnson’s Press Secretary and journalist with over 30 Emmy Awards, Bill Moyers, to explain the US banking system, loss of trillions of American taxpayer dollars to oligarchs’ manipulation as a matter of definitive fact, the looting of America being protected by partners with political muscle, and all rational consideration of the facts proving massive financial crimes:

SIMON JOHNSON: The American democracy was not given to us on a platter. It is not ours for all time, irrespective of our efforts. Either people organize and they find political leadership to take this on, or we are going to be in big trouble, okay?… That’s absolutely the heart of the problem. I would also say and tell you, and emphasize, these people will not come out and debate with us. The heads of these companies or their representatives, they will not come out. They’re afraid. They don’t have the substance. They don’t have the arguments. We have the evidence. They have the lobbyists. And that’s all they have.

BILL MOYERS: They’ve got the power, the muscle, the money.

SIMON JOHNSON: They have money.

BILL MOYERS: You just have the arguments. You just have the facts. On your side.

SIMON JOHNSON: Absolutely. That’s exactly what it comes down to.

Are arrests of obvious “leaders” for obvious crimes a leverage point?

I say this is perhaps our strongest leverage point: public demand for arrests BECAUSE the gap between the law and the crimes is so large. As with our story, once the public reaches a critical mass point, nobody will defend the .01% criminals. President Kennedy framed our situation perfectly:

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~ President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

Ordinary Americans, US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, seem to face an endgame choice:

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

Perhaps the easiest area for arrests is for lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression, because the wars are in Orwellian opposite of what two US treaties require: no armed attack ever unless under attack by another nation’s government.

Importantly, corporate media “leadership” is just as guilty, as their “covering” this crime is an essential element to fool We the People, and lie our military to death and injury from unlawfully attacking and invading other nations (literally the crime of treason to levy war on our own military).

Colleagues and I with peer-reviewed papers for professionals and academics are unaware of any challenge to our claims that US wars are not close to lawful. That is, we have never encountered anyone or read anything anywhere with an argument like, “War law states (a, b, c), so the US wars are legal because (d, e, f).” If you have such examples, I’d love to see them.

Let’s consider an analogy that is fitting, and would be obvious:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama drive a military tank together as their “job.” However, these facts are the problems:

  1. They drive it on the wrong side of public freeways.
  2. Obama drives the tank intentionally over cars, Cheney mans the cannon to blast targets of choice, and W. Bush is on the turret firing a machine gun.
  3. This has been happening since 2002 with millions killed, tens of millions harmed, and with trillions of dollars in damage (ok, that’s the real war’s cost and not possible with one tank, but work with me on this analogy).

Their “official reasons” why this is legal:

  1. In emergencies, sometimes drivers have to violate the law.
  2. Mrs. Cheney, based on our best intelligence, is pregnant and about to deliver.
  3. The three people in the tank make a carpool, and are given additional driving privileges.
  4. The tank has white decals stating it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.
  5. Cheney’s shelling of a wedding is “pretty well confirmed” as an intelligent choice to take out several terrorist families in one strike, and “well worth the cost.”

Of course, anyone caring to refute these “official reasons” in writing would compose an essay similar to the one you’re reading to refute all claims with sufficient documentation that their actions are not even close to lawful, with all “reasons” known to be lies as they are told. The short version:

  1. Bush, Cheney, and Obama create an illegal emergency, and are not responding to one.
  2. Mrs. Cheney is 74 years old, with no evidence of pregnancy, and with near-certain biological impossibility to be pregnant. The three men never drive to Ms. Cheney, with an ongoing claim of “pregnancy” since 2002.
  3. A tank is not allowed on a freeway, driving on the wrong side of the freeway is illegal, and that three people make a carpool is not relevant.
  4. White decals would not apply to a tank, and this point is not relevant to the crime of mass-murder and injuries, with trillions in damages.
  5. All three men commit mass-murder in Orwellian contradiction to law, with their “reasons” all known lies and ridiculous attempts to deflect from OBVIOUS murder.

The tragic-comedy of our analogy is that this death toll would be stupidly bad to endure, but the damages from lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression are exponentially worse.

3rd parties want help? Contact me

If 3rd party candidates are willing to tell the Emperor’s New Clothes obvious truths as professionally documented in this essay, I’m willing to help: Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

**

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

 

Humanity’s victory strategy: ‘Offense’ of solutions for unprecedented brighter future + ‘Defense’ to reveal .01% psychopaths’ illegal Wars of Aggression, looting, lying.

War law: Crystal-clear to see in letter and intent, the easiest way for YOU to help end dictatorial US rogue state empire by demanding arrests for OBVIOUS lie-started Wars of Aggression. Your choice is YES or NO for war, not Trump or Clinton for only war

War law: Crystal-clear to see in letter and intent, the easiest way for YOU to help end dictatorial US rogue state empire by demanding arrests for OBVIOUS lie-started Wars of Aggression. Your choice is YES or NO for war, not Trump or Clinton for only war

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~ President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  ~ 1st Amendment to the US Constitution

Perhaps the widest gap between what is lawful and what our .01% oligarchs do is in the ongoing armed attacks on other nations. This is also perhaps the most important policy measured by human lives, resources, and money.

Because war law is so easy to understand in crystal-clear letter and intent, supported by two treaties that the US Constitution requires as our  “supreme law,” and US military are required by Oath and training to refuse unlawful orders (with officers required to arrest those who issue them), perhaps also this is a leverage point for everyday people to:

  1. Accurately and confidently know the law.
  2. Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful.
  3. Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state.

War law is just as easy to understand as “stop sign law” when driving, and far easier than most sports laws, such as when a football punt is or is not legal, or baseball’s “infield fly” rule. Because everyday people care enough to know traffic law and sports rules, the idea of knowing war law can be accomplished by refreshing what you’ve already learned by reading this article (and confirming its accuracy as needed).

Let’s look.

As you know from education and your real-world life, laws are simply rules.

A well-designed rule helps produce a desired result, such as traffic law to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, and baseball rules to create a fair and fun cooperative competition/game. For examples, in the US we all drive on the right side of the road, and in baseball the team batting gets three outs before the other team has their chance at bat.

Law is meant to be crystal-clear so that all participants can best accomplish an agreed-upon result. A law that is unclear or unhelpful for the result/game must be redesigned or removed, while clear and helpful laws are appreciated and enforced (law enforcement and umpires in our two examples). Our examples in driving and baseball are indeed clear rules that everyone knows and plays by. Important to our application for war law, if a baseball team pretended they could have four outs, this deception would be recognized and immediately stopped by the involved community’s strong understanding of the law (including the fans who would strongly voice this obvious violation).

War law, as we’re about to document and prove, is clear and helpful for the outcome of denying military armed attack as a foreign policy. This is an outcome 95%+ of humanity agree is desirable, especially after all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.

Conversely, war-mongers for empire will do their best to be silent about war law, lie that it’s so unclear that any dictatorial claim of “self-defense” is valid, and take every evasive maneuver imaginable for the public (especially military and law enforcement) to never understand war law and/or never recognize how US wars are Orwellian unlawful.

To give you the punch line now for clarity of what war law states, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:

Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definitionno party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

That’s the letter of the law. The intent is soooo strongly worded in both relevant treaties, as you’ll see, and is simply to end the scourge of wars chosen by governments as foreign policy (in historical context of empires looting the world for resources: natural and human).

Our condition today is of OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression (and started with lies known to false as they were told), as the facts to follow clearly demonstrate for anyone caring to look and apply basic high school-level of education already learned.

Importantly, Left and Right “leaders” and corporate media, including Clinton and Trump, will never ever ever ever ever remind us that war is illegal, with current wars in Orwellian opposition. 

The appropriate “vote” of We the People for this presidential election is “No” for more illegal war, and “Yes” to stop the wars and arrest those who orchestrated them. Without public demand, these illegal wars will only continue.

The following is from my paper for the 2015 Claremont Colleges’ conference, Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization reframed for our three specific points in this essay.

1. Accurately and confidently know the law

Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothes fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”

Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:

  1. Ignore war law.
  2. Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
  3. “Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.

Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.

Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.

Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:

  • Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
  • United Nations Charter.

Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).

Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and never violate it.

This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.

Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:

The legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:

ARTICLE I

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

So, in the most clear framing of a rule as possible, the first two parts of the treaty state “never war” and “always peace” to resolve conflicts.

Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:

It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”

Article 2:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 33:

  1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or IraqSyriaUkraine, Iran [hereherehere], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.

The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definitionno party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA). The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan  and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.

This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BSEmperor’s New Clothes claims of self-defense.

Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has started 201 foreign armed attacks since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the most threatening nation to world peace. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis, and continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression.

The most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.

The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.

This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.

Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),
  2. Treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful: I wrote in 2010:

“All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.

“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”

The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime. Ironically, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.

Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.

The US Army’s official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (details here).

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”

Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies. Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering liar:

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”

Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term.

Note: other sections of that paper may be useful that just as clearly demonstrate Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, criminally complicit corporate media to “cover” these crimes, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, and the fundamental fraud of creating what is used for money as debt.

2. Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful

Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them.

This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda.

Let’s consider an analogy that is fitting, and would be obvious:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama drive a military tank together as their “job.” However, these facts are the problems:

  1. They drive it on the wrong side of public freeways.
  2. Obama drives the tank intentionally over cars, Cheney mans the cannon to blast targets of choice, and W. Bush is on the turret firing a machine gun.
  3. This has been happening since 2002 with millions killed, tens of millions harmed, and with trillions of dollars in damage (ok, that’s the real war’s cost and not possible with one tank, but work with me on this analogy).

Their “official reasons” why this is legal:

  1. In emergencies, sometimes drivers have to violate the law.
  2. Mrs. Cheney, based on our best intelligence, is pregnant and about to deliver.
  3. The three people in the tank make a carpool, and are given additional driving privileges.
  4. The tank has white decals stating it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.
  5. Cheney’s shelling of a wedding is “pretty well confirmed” as an intelligent choice to take out several terrorist families in one strike, and “well worth the cost.”

Of course, anyone caring to refute these “official reasons” in writing would compose an essay similar to the one you’re reading to refute all claims with sufficient documentation that their actions are not even close to lawful, with all “reasons” known to be lies as they are told. The short version:

  1. Bush, Cheney, and Obama create an illegal emergency, and are not responding to one.
  2. Mrs. Cheney is 74 years old, with no evidence of pregnancy, and with near-certain biological impossibility to be pregnant.
  3. A tank is not allowed on a freeway, driving on the wrong side of the freeway is illegal, and that three people make a carpool is not relevant.
  4. White decals would not apply to a tank, and this point is not relevant to the crime of mass-murder and injuries, with trillions in damages.
  5. All three men commit mass-murder in Orwellian contradiction to law, with their “reasons” all known lies and ridiculous attempts to deflect from OBVIOUS murder.

The tragic-comedy of our analogy is that the damages from lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression are exponentially worse. The actual categories of crime include:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
  2. Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
  3. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: 

“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”  – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.

These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present:

“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8

Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the Emperor’s New Clothes truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression.

3. Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state

In conclusion, this essay has reminded you of what you already know: laws are meant to be simple and helpful, what you’ve suspected about the wars is demonstrated as true with a few clear facts, and that your voice is essential if we are to maintain our republic from devolving into dictatorship (literally being dictated/told what the rules are rather than knowing them ourselves).

To remind you of other history that demonstrates this has been an ongoing problem of what is most accurately described as a rogue state: a “top ten” list of state crimes supporting today’s arrests in a constitutional republic:

  1. Introduction to define ‘rogue state’ as perfect match with US illegal Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity, dictatorial government
  2. The US violated ~600 treaties with Native Americans to steal Native American land. A treaty is signed by a US President, approved by 2/3 vote of the US Senate, and under Article VI of the US Constitution becomes US “supreme Law.” These ongoing “in your face” violations of “supreme Law” became the precedent to typical hypocritical and unlawful US policies of the present.
  3. US President Polk lied to Congress (with their approval) to initiate War of Aggression on Mexico. The result was the US illegally stealing 40% of Mexico in 1848. Congress opposed Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of Congress that the Adams-Onís Treaty placed the so-called “border dispute” 400 miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as outside any US claim.
  4. The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country in 1898.
  5. The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War to impose colonialism on the Philippines, and install US-friendly dictators in Cuba. US military slaughtered resisters, calling them yesterday’s version of “terrorists.”
  6. The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US, and imprisoned the 3rd party presidential candidate for challenging “official reasons” for war.
  7. The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator.  When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within many of our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?
  8. The Vietnam War followed US permission to cancel the election to unify the country. The US stopped democracy to keep a friendly government, and perhaps to have ongoing live weapons testing and development. War escalated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident,  deliberate provocation to manipulate a false-flag event for “defensive” war.
  9. Perhaps most disturbing is the King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King (and here). Corporate media, including our text publishers, omit this history. The King family’s conclusion is that Martin was assassinated to prevent his “Occupy DC” plan beginning for the summer of 1968 to end his version of today’s wars.
  10. We now know from Congressional reports that all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false as they were told.
  11. The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.

If We the People don’t speak, we will have more of the same.

And if We the People speak as simply and confidently to stop a tank driving on the wrong side of the freeway or a baseball team trying to get four outs instead of three, we’ll win this contest with ease.

Victory for a future brighter than we can imagine can and will happen in an Emperor’s New Clothes moment when We the People apply basic education to what matters most.

To help make this clear, more war is planned and propagandized if you do not speak:

Two minutes of retired General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO:

Video evidence of psychopathic lying to incite war-murders of Iranians:





A Call for Truth & Reconciliation, and minions of evil to reclaim their hearts and humanity

For those involved in support of US government-sponsored disinformation and massive crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of the 99%’s dollars, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to work for in creating your/our future.

National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals.

Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes.

Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path?

Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From Dickens’ 1843 text:

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”

4-minute video of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred:

Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future.

Both Darth Vader (see video) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video):

But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know.

For years, I have recommended Truth and Reconciliation to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%.

“Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.”  – J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008.

Minions to the evil .01%: does this 1-minute video artistically represent your memories, too?

Will you continue to defend your loveless and psychopathic “masters,” or reclaim your hearts and humanity for the Everyday People these .01% annually kill in the millions, harm in the billions, and loot by the trillions of dollars? Playing For Change’s artistic 3-minutes:

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

 

War law: Crystal-clear to see in letter and intent, the easiest way for YOU to help end dictatorial US rogue state empire by demanding arrests for OBVIOUS lie-started Wars of Aggression. Your choice is YES or NO for war, not Trump or Clinton for only war.

The List Of Establishment Republicans That Say They Are Voting For Hillary Clinton Is Staggering

 

Who would have ever believed that so many big names in the Republican Party would publicly pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?

All throughout the primaries and the caucuses, the Republican establishment expressed tremendous disdain for Donald Trump, but they were unable to derail his march to the nomination.  Now that we have reached the general election, some of the biggest names in the GOP are actually taking the unprecedented step of crossing over to the other side and are publicly announcing their support for Hillary Clinton.  This shows that many of these individuals were only “Republicans in name only” to begin with, and it also demonstrates the lengths that the elite are willing to go to in order to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.

One of the latest big Republican names to publicly support Hillary Clinton is Sally Bradshaw.  CNN is describing her as “Jeb Bush’s top adviser”, and she has gone so far as to completely remove herself from the Republican Party because of Donald Trump…

Jeb Bush’s top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, has left the Republican Party to become an independent, and says if the presidential race in Florida is close, she’ll vote for Hillary Clinton.

Bradshaw, who’s been close to the former Florida governor for decades and was senior adviser to his 2016 campaign, officially switched her registration to unaffiliated. She told CNN’s Jamie Gangel in an email interview that the GOP is “at a crossroads and have nominated a total narcissist — a misogynist — a bigot.”

“This is a time when country has to take priority over political parties. Donald Trump cannot be elected president,” Bradshaw said.

Bradshaw has been working for the Bushes ever since the 1988 presidential campaign, and she never would have made such a bold move without the approval of the Bushes.

Needless to say, the Bushes absolutely hate Trump, and they have a vested interest in seeing him lose the election.  There are some that believe that Jeb Bush is already lining up for another run in 2020, and Donald Trump has to lose in order for that to be possible.

In addition to Sally Bradshaw, another prominent friend of the Bush family has also recently announced that he is going to be voting for Hillary Clinton.  Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was at the center of the storm during the financial crisis of 2008, and not too long ago he announced his intentions in the Washington Post

When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump,” Paulson wrote in The Washington Post last week. “I will not cast a write-in vote. I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I’m not alone.”

Does Henry Paulson actually believe that Hillary Clinton can “bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world”?

I find that difficult to believe.

But apparently he intends to try to persuade as many of his fellow Republicans as possible to vote for Hillary Clinton, and a whole bunch of other establishment Republicans have already lined up behind her.

These are just some of the big Republican names that the Washington Post says have already committed to voting for Hillary Clinton…

Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state and adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush

Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and adviser to three previous GOP presidents

Alan Steinberg, regional EPA administrator

Kori Schake, National Security Council and State Department aide

Doug Elmets, former Reagan spokesman

Jim Cicconi, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush aide

Charles Fried, former U.S. solicitor general under Reagan

Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, former Reagan State Department aide and adviser to the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney

Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and adviser to GOP presidential candidates

Peter Mansoor, retired Army colonel and former aide to David Petraeus

Larry Pressler, former three-term Republican senator from South Dakota

Arne Carlson, a former two-term Republican governor of Minnesota

Robert Smith, former judge on New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals

Mark Salter, former top adviser to John McCain

Mike Treiser, former Mitt Romney aide

Ben Howe, editor at RedState.com

As I have said all along, the establishment will do whatever it has to do to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.

If that means voting for Hillary Clinton and encouraging others to do the same, that is precisely what they are going to do.

And if more insidious means are necessary, the establishment definitely has plenty of tricks up their sleeves.  Politics in America is a very, very dirty game, and if you have ever been deep inside a national campaign you know exactly what I am talking about.

At this point, even Donald Trump is raising concerns about the integrity of the upcoming election.  On Monday, he told a rally in Ohio that he is “afraid the election is going to be rigged”

Donald Trump said he’s afraid the general election in November will be rigged, but didn’t elaborate on the comment at a rally in Ohio Monday afternoon.

I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” the Republican nominee for president said, in remarks that did not mention the controversy generated by his comments about the parents of a slain U.S. soldier.

In my opinion, Donald Trump has legitimate reasons to be concerned.  We have already seen the elite spend millions upon millions of dollars to try to defeat him, and virtually all of the big money on Wall Street is lining up behind his opponent.  Many patriotic, conservative and faith-oriented Americans are really hoping that Trump can win and move this nation in a positive direction, but the truth is that he is facing overwhelming odds.

Ultimately, it is probably not going to matter too much who wins this election, because America is on the verge of a time of chaos unlike anything we have ever seen before.  No matter who the next president is, we are going to see civil unrest, rising crime, political scandals, governmental shaking, major economic and financial problems, and geopolitical events will continue to spiral out of control.

And the establishment is going to do everything it possibly can to make sure that the next president is not Donald Trump.  If you go to just about any major news website on the Internet these days, there will be a negative story about Donald Trump featured very prominently, and it is usually accompanied by some sort of positive story about Hillary Clinton.

In the end, one of the biggest stories that will come out of the 2016 election will be the fact that the American people got to see how far the elite are willing to go to keep someone that is not “in the club” from becoming president.

The establishment absolutely loathes Trump, and they are willing to move heaven and earth to try to stop him.

Hold on tight, because the next three months are going to be very, very interesting.

 

The List Of Establishment Republicans That Say They Are Voting For Hillary Clinton Is Staggering

« Older Entries Recent Entries »