The New York Times shamelessly gave cover to President Barack Obama’s latest Big Lie, claiming that the San Bernardino terrorist attack was not a replay of the Paris armed, blind terror attack of Nov. 13.  The Times devoted the lead front-page story in Saturday’s edition to a fractured fairy tale account of the San Bernardino terrorist couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, by focusing on Farook’s childhood friend, now a key government witness, Enrique Marquez.

The Times went to great length to portray Marquez and Farook as losers who engaged in wild fantasies and drunken bar tales about terrorist plots.  The Times‘ profile of Marquez quoted him talking about sleeper cells all over the United States, but dismissed the claims as bar talk which no one took seriously.  Marquez has admitted to Federal authorities that he purchased two rifles for Farook, which were both used in the San Bernardino attacks, and he claims that he and Farook were planning a terrorist attack in 2012, but backed out after the FBI busted a local group of Arabs in a sting around a similar terror plot.

The Times interviewed patrons at a local bar where Marquez worked and socialized, all intended to bury the actual leads on terrorist ties by portraying Marquez and Farook as “average Joes” who gave no actual clues about their activities or plans. The Times failed to note that the Sept. 11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, cultivated similar profiles in the months leading up to the attacks.

In discussion with colleagues on Saturday, Lyndon LaRouche blasted the New York Times for engaging in a flagrant fraud, clearly demanded by the Obama White House. Federal government sources have confirmed that Obama immediately ordered the FBI to downplay the San Bernardino incident, by denying it was linked in any way to the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, or that Farook and Malik had any ties to ISIS or any other foreign terrorist networks. This, despite the fact that Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia to arrange the marriage to Malik long after he had been radicalized and more than a year after he purchased the two rifles.

LaRouche noted that Obama still conducts his Tuesday kill sessions, and has already targeted New York Times reporters, including James Risen, who reported on whistleblowers inside the U.S. intelligence community.  “Obama is a killer and the people at the New York Times are clearly terrified of Obama and are now acting under Obama threats and orders.”

LaRouche emphasized that the character of the Paris attacks and the San Bernardino attacks was the same.  In both instances, there were blind terror targets, heavy weapons and plans for a mass kill/suicide mission.  The Times story failed to remind readers that Farook and Malik had assembled 20 pipe bombs and had thousands of rounds of ammunition.  They carefully destroyed electronic evidence that might lead to accomplices before launching the attack.  Malik had attended a notorious Saudi Wahhabi run madrassa in Pakistan, and had been inculcated with that neo-Salafist ideology over a long period of time.

The New York Times, which three years ago had exposed Obama’s kill lists and Tuesday sessions, has been turned into a dishrag out of fear of Obama retribution.

The Dec. 11 New York Times‘ blatant denial, for Obama, of the Paris-San Bernardino-ISIS connection, was contradicted by a Los Angeles Times article on the same day, which accessed FBI and other government sources below Obama.

Several Federal investigators who remained anonymous told the LA Times that the still-expanding investigation into the San Bernardino terrorist mass murder attack is moving toward finding outside coordination or possibly control of the husband-and-wife terrorists. The article gives the context of the terrorist attack at Fort Hood in 2009, and the aborted attack on a Texas cartoonists’ meeting this year; in both cases the “homegrown” terrorists were given direct orders to carry out the killings, by Al-Qaeda’s Al-Awlaki and ISIS’ Muhammad Miski respectively.

FBI Director James Comey testified that the San Bernardino killers were radicalized separately — in Saudi Arabia and in California — long before they met each other, and that both of them pledged allegiance to ISIS on the day of the murders, but “‘Somebody had to put these two people together,’ said one FBI source. ‘It’s a big world for them to just find each other.'”

The LA Times continues, “‘At the least they were inspired to do this,’ said one federal law enforcement official. ‘At the worst, they were not only told to do something, but got help. We’re working toward the worst.‘ Said another, ‘This could end up either way. But,’ the source added, ‘it’s likely we’ll find some other hands involved, some way.'” [emphasis added]

The paper’s sources also indicated the investigation is likely to be a long one, and could take “weeks or months” to establish the operation. It remains to be seen whether it will be allowed by the White House to continue on the necessary scale, or blocked by more pre-emptive, false statements from Obama that “the homeland” is safe from ISIS’ reach.

In Saudi Arabia, according to the Tribune Newspapers, the monarchy has forbidden all media from interviewing relatives or acquaintances of Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist wife. 

Obama “gets far more energized about slashing energy use than about Islamist terrorism,” write Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek in their report on the Paris “greenhouse gas” agreement for which Obama and British crown agent Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber are claiming triumphal credit.

Driessen and Bezdek show that if the Paris agreement were actually carried out, the releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would have to be reduced by 80% from 1990 levels to 2050, “which means the world would have to eliminate 96% of the greenhouse gases that all humanity would likely release [at the] world population levels, economic growth and living standards predicted for 2050.” The elimination of such huge proportions of economic activity and high-flux energy production, would mean the elimination of billions of people, dying early and needlessly from disease, malnutrition, lack of water, lack of heat, and other burdens.

“There is a strong positive relationship between GDP and carbon-based energy consumption,” they write. “Slashing fossil energy use that far, would thus require decimating economic growth, job creation and preservation, and average per-person incomes. In fact, average world per capita GDP would plummet from a projected $30,600 in 2050 to a miserable $1,200 per year. Average per capita GDP in 2050 would be less than what Americans had in 1830!…  That would be catastrophic for jobs, health and welfare in developed countries — and lethal to millions in poor nations, who would be denied the blessings of electricity and fossil fuels for decades to come.”

COP21 mastermind Schellnhuber, who has stated his belief that 1 billion people is the Earth’s maximum “carrying capacity,” stated after the agreement: “To stabilize our climate, CO2 emissions have to peak well before 2030, and should be eliminated as soon as possible after 2050.” This is absurd, since CO2 emissions are already falling globally, according to a scientific report presented in Paris during the conference and published in Nature Climate Science. This is largely due to economic decline, concentrated in the Trilateral economies, and resulting drops in consumption of fossil fuels.

To get the agreement, Obama, the European Union countries, and the Vatican had to bribe developing countries with a $100 billion fund to sign, and substitute “agreement” for “treaty” — i.e., the countries’ pledges to reduce greenhouse gases are voluntary, and so are the money pledges. The U.S. Congress is not likely to allow any U.S. funds for this purpose.

So the genocidal intention of the British royal planners of COP21 may be aborted — but in the United States, Obama will accelerate his drive to enforce this Paris agreement by executive orders. He will impose great further ruin on the U.S. industrial economy, unless he is removed from office now.

That the was the forecast of former Reagan Administration budget official David Stockman, referring to the Federal Reserve’s apparent intention to raise interest rates — for the first time in 10 years — in the teeth of an accelerating junk-debt and commodity price collapse.

Junk debt (junk bonds and leveraged loans) in the U.S. economy, as a reminder, totals at least $2 trillion in “assets” mainly held by banks, although many mutual, pension, and hedge funds are also involved. The junk-debt market decline has become very sharp in December, with interest rates on middling (CCC-rated) junk bonds hitting 17.25% Dec. 10 and shooting upwards. This debt is essentially impossible to refinance. In recent weeks the ratings agencies and banks have charted a “spike” in defaults and bankruptcies of junk debtors — concentrated in oil and gas exploration and related services — and warned the “spike” will become a “wave” in January-February.

Now, two junk creditors have gone under. Two debt-invested funds have liquidated in the past few days. The first was actually a mutual fund: the $1.8 billion, “well-respected” Third Avenue Capital on Dec. 10. Its founder Martin Whitman is designated a “legendary vulture investor.” Just as that was being explained away (“it was investing in unrated debt”), the second went under on Dec. 11. It was Stone Lion Capital, a $2 billion hedge fund which was one of those investing in Puerto Rico distressed debt.

Some see a “Bear Stearns moment” — i.e., the bankruptcy of the two CLO-invested hedge funds in June 2007, which exposed the “non-containment” of the mortgage securities/derivatives meltdown. Vulture investor Carl Icahn gave a “keg of dynamite” interview on CNBC, saying “I believe the meltdown in High Yield is just beginning.”

The Wall Street Journal wrote Dec. 11, “The move is also a sign of how much the market for [all —ed.] corporate debt is deteriorating. “‘Investors have been dazzled that yields on bonds have climbed so high, even while default rates remained low,’ said … a longtime junk-bond analyst. ‘Currently, though, the ability to sell a large position is especially poor. When that tension gets especially high, you can see something snap.'”

The century-old British colonial looter Anglo American, which was making “energy-junk” loans on a large scale, is suddenly at the brink of junk itself, with Moody’s downgrading it Saturday to one step above junk for all its divisions and placing a negative advisory on all of them. Credit default spreads on both Anglo American and Glencore rate them at more than a 50% chance of default, requiring $1,000 cash up front to insure $10,000 of their debt.