Author: Alicia

The danger of thermonuclear war this month, launched by Barack Obama on behalf of the bankrupt British empire, can and must be stopped. And the “good news” is that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has it within her power to bring Obama down immediately — by simply coming out publicly with the full truth about Benghazi. What she knows can bring Obama down instantly, and at this late date, that is the only truly viable option for preventing a thermonuclear war, started by Obama.

The reality of the war danger is increasingly breaking through the fog, as NATO and Russia move through advance preparations and pre-deployments for a possible thermonuclear war. This week the European Leadership Network, a group comprising former European and Russian ministers of defense and foreign affairs, issued a ten-page policy brief, “Preparing for the Worst: Are Russian and NATO Military Exercises Making War in Europe More Likely?” The paper warned, in graphic details, that both NATO and Russia are carrying out war preparations in the form of provocative maneuvers along the fragile borders of Russia. The report grabbed immediate headlines throughout Europe and the United States.

The same day, a group of 36 retired US flag officers, led by Gen. James Cartwright and Gen. Joseph Hoar, issued an endorsement of the P5+1 deal, arguing that it is the best option for avoiding full-scale war in the Middle East.

The US is escalating the confrontation with Russia on a daily basis. On Tuesday, the US Air Force announced the deployment of a dozen A-10 attack aircraft to Europe to “demonstrate US commitment to the security and stability of Europe.” The US is also preparing the deployment of cruise missiles as part of the missile defense systems being installed in Romania and Poland. Canada has announced plans to purchase Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system—to counter possible Russian missile attacks over the Arctic.

Russian President Putin has taken a number of dramatic steps to make clear that Russia has an inviolable second-strike nuclear over-kill capability that will be used. In addition to the warnings this week by Duma Speaker Naryshkin about an imminent US-NATO war provocation against Russia in August, Russia has been conducting long-range forays by strategic bombers and submarines off the coasts of NATO countries—including the United States—to make clear that any initial strike by Obama will mean the annihilation of the human race.

This is deadly serious, and the only viable option is Obama’s removal. Hillary Clinton holds one key to that action. After her shameless capitulation to a murderous Obama, Hillary Clinton has a moral obligation to sink Obama now. All she has to do is present the evidence on Benghazi. Sane elements in the Cabinet and the Pentagon can also force the invoking of the 25th Amendment, to remove Obama from office instantly. The invoking of the 25th Amendment was part of the action that forced Richard Nixon to resign; and Obama is far more dangerous today than Nixon was on the eve of his resignation. What could be more insane than willfully provoking a thermonuclear war of extinction?

What is driving the world to the very brink of thermonuclear war is the utter bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, starting with the City of London and Wall Street. Here again, the solution is readily available: Bankrupt Wall Street and London with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. The present British system is bankrupt, beyond repair. Franklin Roosevelt bankrupted Wall Street with the original Glass-Steagall, and that can be done right now, again.

Wall Street is playing a desperate bluff game with Greece, literally threatening the extermination of the country if the Tsipras government doesn’t capitulate to the latest austerity bailout demands. But this is pure bluff. It is the trans- Atlantic financial system that is bankrupt, not Greece. It’s time to admit that reality and put Wall Street through a long-overdue foreclosure.

There is growing recognition in certain international policy-making circles, of a strategic point long-emphasized by Lyndon LaRouche: That economic crises are the driver for war—including the current trans-Atlantic financial disintegration and the immediate danger of thermonuclear war—and its inverse, that true science-driven global economic development is a stake-in-the-heart to the British Empire. Former DIA head Gen. Michael Flynn, for example, stressed in his Aug. 4 interview with Al Jazeera TV that nuclear-based economic development in areas such as the Middle East is the key to stopping war. “Tactics,” he said, will not do the job.
 
Yesterday, Russian Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin, who is known to be close to President Vladimir Putin, published an article in Rossiiskaya Gazeta headlined “August of Provocations,” in which he warned of the likelihood of deadly provocations against Russia by Obama’s United States in the weeks ahead, and emphasized that what was behind the war drive was the looting of nations in order to prop up a gigantic debt bubble. Naryshkin noted that

 
Lyndon LaRouche emphasized today that the economic and military warfare being carried out by President Obama at the British Empire’s behest, are one and the same thing. “Obama is driving for war. He is doing so on orders from the British Empire. Their policy is drastic population reduction, the greatest genocide imaginable, and that is Obama’s mission.” The British Royal family has also lined up the Pope behind their policy of “greenie” depopulation.
 
LaRouche pointed to the California so-called water crisis as part of the same intentional policy: depriving most of the planet of the technology and resources required to survive. Now we are seeing that spread throughout Central America and the Caribbean, as well. “The genocide is hitting South America,” LaRouche stated, with the intention of reducing the population. “This is bloody, this is nasty.”
 
Returning to Russia, LaRouche stressed that the reason that country is running into trouble with its civilian economy is not because of Obama’s sanctions, but because they have been forced to engage in a massive increase in military expenditures. “Nothing will override the urgency of war” for the Russian government, LaRouche said, and so they are enduring tremendous pressure on their civilian economy.
 
“We are facing an enemy committed to genocide on a mass scale, an enemy whose intention is the savage reduction of the human population,” LaRouche concluded. Our campaign to stop that enemy, including their tool currently in the White House, requires establishing a new form of government in the U.S.—not so much an individual candidate or a President, but rather the institution of the Presidency, returned to its original Constitutional purpose of economic development.
 
And that makes a change of linen at the White House, the first order of business.

There is growing recognition in certain international policy-making circles, of a strategic point long-emphasized by Lyndon LaRouche: That economic crises are the driver for war—including the current trans-Atlantic financial disintegration and the immediate danger of thermonuclear war—and its inverse, that true science-driven global economic development is a stake-in-the-heart to the British Empire. Former DIA head Gen. Michael Flynn, for example, stressed in his Aug. 4 interview with Al Jazeera TV that nuclear-based economic development in areas such as the Middle East is the key to stopping war. “Tactics,” he said, will not do the job.
 
Yesterday, Russian Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin, who is known to be close to President Vladimir Putin, published an article in Rossiiskaya Gazeta headlined “August of Provocations,” in which he warned of the likelihood of deadly provocations against Russia by Obama’s United States in the weeks ahead, and emphasized that what was behind the war drive was the looting of nations in order to prop up a gigantic debt bubble. Naryshkin noted that

 
Lyndon LaRouche emphasized today that the economic and military warfare being carried out by President Obama at the British Empire’s behest, are one and the same thing. “Obama is driving for war. He is doing so on orders from the British Empire. Their policy is drastic population reduction, the greatest genocide imaginable, and that is Obama’s mission.” The British Royal family has also lined up the Pope behind their policy of “greenie” depopulation.
 
LaRouche pointed to the California so-called water crisis as part of the same intentional policy: depriving most of the planet of the technology and resources required to survive. Now we are seeing that spread throughout Central America and the Caribbean, as well. “The genocide is hitting South America,” LaRouche stated, with the intention of reducing the population. “This is bloody, this is nasty.”
 
Returning to Russia, LaRouche stressed that the reason that country is running into trouble with its civilian economy is not because of Obama’s sanctions, but because they have been forced to engage in a massive increase in military expenditures. “Nothing will override the urgency of war” for the Russian government, LaRouche said, and so they are enduring tremendous pressure on their civilian economy.
 
“We are facing an enemy committed to genocide on a mass scale, an enemy whose intention is the savage reduction of the human population,” LaRouche concluded. Our campaign to stop that enemy, including their tool currently in the White House, requires establishing a new form of government in the U.S.—not so much an individual candidate or a President, but rather the institution of the Presidency, returned to its original Constitutional purpose of economic development.
 
And that makes a change of linen at the White House, the first order of business.

Lyndon LaRouche returns to Manhattan! As the epicenter of culture, politics and economics of the nation, LPAC is hosting regular Town Hall events every Saturday in Manhattan featuring a live Q&A session with Mr. LaRouche. 

The Obama Administration has crept another step closer to expanded warfare, using the same method evident a week ago when it announced that it had given the military the authority to attack Syrian government forces if they engage in combat against armed opposition groups trained by the U.S. military. A questionable policy change is hatched in the bowels of the White House and leaked to a reporter via some anonymous official, rather than engaging the U.S. Congress and the American people on war and peace.

This time, the step involves the new legal rationale the Obama White House gives to explain the legal authority it believes it has to support the above policy, announced via unnamed source last week: Article II of the Constitution. “If Syrian government forces attack the Syrian fighters we have trained and equipped while they were engaging ISIL, the President would have the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend those fighters,” the unnamed senior administration official told The Hill. Nor does this just apply to the handful of vetted fighters that the U.S. military has trained; it covers the groups they come from and return to, which haven’t been vetted. In fact, a U.S. official (the same one?), said the U.S.-led coalition already is providing those groups with air support against ISIS even though they do not yet have U.S.-trained rebels embedded with them. A diplomatic official told The Hill that some of the groups may target Assad — which would bring the United States closer to war with the regime.

According to legal experts consulted by The Hill, Obama’s legal rationale is turning Article II on its head. Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former Congressional Research Service researcher, and other legal experts say Article II has been interpreted to allow a President to “repel sudden attack” against U.S. troops, the U.S. mainland, and its interests. Using it to defend Syrian rebels would not fit under that previous interpretation, he said. Stephen Vladeck, law professor at American University, said, “by that logic any person or piece of military equipment used by anyone on a side of a conflict with which we agree, is all of a sudden covered by Article II. And that cannot be right.”

Though not mentioned by The Hill, such an interpretation could have dangerous implications for U.S. policy in Ukraine, where the U.S. has “assets,” not only U.S. troops, but also Ukrainian national guardsmen from such neo-Nazi groups as Right Sector and Azov battalion that they’ve trained, and humvees, radars and other equipment that the United States has supplied to the Kiev regime for war against its own Donbass region.

President Obama’s move to trigger war with Russia and/or China is getting closer, and the way to prevent it is to remove him. He has been making global war “step by step,” a “war by war” escalation since the 2011 turning point of the assassination of Qaddafi and unleashing of terrorist chaos from Libya.

During the weekend the White House escalated its announcement of a week ago, that Obama might order U.S. military forces to attack any force which bothered Syrian rebels who have been trained by the United States. Now it has expanded this to any U.S. military “asset,” anywhere in the world the United States is conducting military training, and that clearly would include Ukraine.

Obama takes each step, each escalation, each new war, without the slightest nod to the Congressional representatives of the American people. And now Congress is in recess for the next month, with the Guns of August threatening.

War is not a certainty, but it cannot be prevented if people deny the possibility of global war simply because they do not want to, or fear, having to do something themselves to stop it. Obama’s intentions are increasingly recognized by people in leading positions around the world. Large numbers should sign the petition being circulated by the Schiller Institute for the past 10 days, which calls for Obama’s removal from office — the one best shot for preventing nuclear war.

It is critical to realize what EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche reiterated Aug. 10 to the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee: With Obama, “We are under the influence of the British Empire’s leading, long-standing intention. That intention is to reduce the human population drastically.” The British royal family and its councils and advisors are prepared even to wipe out the majority of the world’s population, and they have said so. “The thermonuclear war threat is there,” LaRouche said, “because Obama is essentially an agent of that British imperial intention.”

Stopping this threatened global war requires optimism, the kind represented by the future-oriented science and development thrust of the BRICS-allied nations. One of the leading U.S. military opponents of Obama’s war policies — Gen. Michael Flynn, fired by Obama as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2013 for that reason — has now exposed the British-White House-Saudi intention from 2012, to create an “Islamic Caliphate” like ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But in his internationally circulated interview, General Flynn does more — he insists that region-wide economic development centered around nuclear power is the one thing that gives any chance for the return of peace in the Mideast; everything else is “just tactics.”

This aspect of leading U.S. military officers’ opposition to Obama’s wars is a reason for optimism. But the President has to be removed from office, as we removed a President in 1974 to prevent disaster. We have to do it again.

Seventy years ago today, on Aug. 9, three days after the first use of a nuclear weapon over Hiroshima, U.S. President Harry Truman and his British controllers incinerated another 70,000 civilians or so in Nagasaki, for no military purpose, aiming only at showing the world that the U.S. and the British were insane enough to commit genocide as a policy.

Today, survivors of that atrocity, speaking at the official ceremony, with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe present, described the horror of that destruction, and then turned to Abe, demanding that he end his mad push to restore Japan’s militarist past, joining in the U.S. preparations for war against China with the intent to join in such a war of extinction.

The mayor of Nagasaki, like the mayor of Hiroshima three days ago, directly called on Abe to listen to the overwhelming voice of the population against his “collective defense” policy and the dumping of the pacifist constitution.

Then, a survivor of the Nagasaki attack, 86-year-old Sumiteru Taniguchi, described the horrible injuries he had suffered, and then turned to face Abe, who was sitting nearby. “Do not meddle with Japan’s pacifist constitution,” he said, evoking an eruption of loud applause in the audience, according to all the press accounts. BBC wrote: “Mr. Abe looked straight ahead, showing no emotion.” 

Sunday’s New York Post reports that two former investigators for the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and the later 9/11 Commission, will likely testify in Federal Court in New York on the evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia was deeply involved in the 9/11 attacks.  According to Post reporter Paul Sperry, at a recent Federal Court hearing, plaintiffs, representing the 9/11 families and survivors, who are suing the Saudi government, reported that FBI agent Michael Jacobson and Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann were both convinced that they had uncovered evidence of the direct Saudi involvement.  Their investigations centered on two Saudi officials, Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Themairy.  Al-Thumairy was posted to the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, where he represented the Ministry of Religious Affairs, and al-Bayoumi was an employee of Saudi civil aviation authority through the company Dallah Aviation.

For the first time at the July 30 hearing, plaintiff attorneys also revealed that key sections of the 9/11 Commission findings were removed from the final report by “senior staff.” Not only were the 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry blocked from public disclosure.  Now it turns out that key findings were blocked from even being included in the 9/11 Commission final report in the first place.  Philip Zelikow, the staff director, was widely viewed by investigators as a “mole” for the Bush Administration, who reported everything back to Condoleezza Rice and was a major obstacle throughout the Commission investigation.  Jacobson and Lesemann had both been staff members on the Joint Inquiry.

Attorney Sean Carter, representing the 9/11 families, told the Court that the two staff investigators “felt they had documented a direct link between the Saudi government and the Sept. 11 plot, based on the explosive material they had uncovered concerning the activities of Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi.”

The Federal Judge hearing the case now has between 60 and 90 days to rule on a motion by the Saudis to dismiss the case. Another plaintiff attorney, Jerry Goldman, told the Post that he expects a favorable ruling, which would mean the case proceeds to pre-trial discovery.  The Judge “wasn’t buying their spin.  The burden is on the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] to prove we are wrong, and they didn’t do that.”

Salon Magazine Foreign Affairs columnist Patrick L. Smith wrote Saturday that

 But Smith must know that the latter alternative is merely wishful thinking; there can be no rerun of the Cold War, and to imagine one is to overlook the reasons behind London’s orders to Obama to move into imminent war with Russia.  Short of Moscow’s surrender, which will not happen, or Obama’s removal, the latter will order a thermonuclear launch, probably before Lyndon LaRouche’s 93rd birthday on September 8.

In his August 8 article, Smith equates the current days with the “phony war” from September 1939, when Britain and France declared war on Germany, until May, 1940, when Germany invaded the Low Countries.  Not because there is anything “phony” about this present war,—quite the contrary.  But because, like that earlier period, it is a merely apparent calm, which is ticking down before the fore-ordained outbreak of total war, which today means thermonuclear war.

In an earlier article, Smith had noted that U.S.-Russian relations have plummeted since April.

Secretary Kerry went to Sochi in May for meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and a long meeting with President Putin, but Washington (i.e., Obama) has furiously pumped up tensions with Russia ever since.  The same Obama praised Putin for his cooperation in reaching the Iran agreement when he announced it on July 14, but only two weeks and two days later, the U.S. Treasury added 26 more Russian individuals and companies to its sanctions list.  Pentagon and State have increased their “effort to encourage the Poroshenko government to resolve its crisis with rebellious citizens in the east of Ukraine on the battlefield.”

The mention of Ashton Carter should remind us that Obama is using a changeover to new people, to push through his annihilation war.  Carter is a new Secretary of Defense, and General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is transitioning out to be replaced on October 1.

The countdown is on.  The only thing which has any degree of certainty of turning it off, is to remove Obama from the Presidency.

As Lyndon LaRouche discussed with a Manhattan meeting yesterday, Section Four of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was passed in 1967 to involuntarily remove any President who is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office” for psychological or other reasons.  It must now be used to remove Obama.

It is a common misconception that the use of Section Four must be initiated by the Vice President, but this is not the case.  Rather, it only requires that the Vice President join in with a majority of “the principal officers of the executive departments” in concluding that the President is unfit.  Joe Biden will not be the problem, Lyndon LaRouche said today.  He will be faced with the choice of joining in, or committing suicide, since he will be among the first to be killed in the coming thermonuclear war.

Telémaco Talavera, the official spokesman for the Nicaragua Grand Inter-Oceanic Canal, yesterday praised the opening of the New Suez Canal in Egypt as “a great achievement, not only for Egypt but in fact for the world… as the Nicaraguan Canal will also be.” In an exclusive telephone interview with Executive Intelligence Review, Talavera added that the opening of the New Suez Canal “comes at a good time; many people didn’t think it would be possible to achieve what was done with the Suez Canal in such a short period of time, just as today there are people who don’t believe in the Nicaraguan Canal, or don’t want it to become a reality.“

Talavera noted that Nicaragua’s Vice President was present at the Suez Canal ceremonies in Egypt on Aug. 6, and that “the Egyptian President [al-sisi] said, not only in a private meeting, not only at the inauguration of the canal, that he also celebrated Nicaragua’s initiative and drive, and he offered all his help for the construction of the Nicaraguan Canal as well.”

Talavera added: “We all know that the world’s population has grown greatly and that it keeps growing. Exports and imports of products and goods are also growing, and so does the need to shorten distances, to reduce financial costs, to reduce environmental costs… We are prepared to make that dream, that necessity a reality.“ He concluded: “We celebrate this great triumph, not only for Egypt but for the world, as we also celebrate the expansion of the Panama Canal and what will be an extraordinary project for the world, the Nicaraguan Canal, which is underway.”

EIR published an extensive exclusive interview with Talavera in its Jan. 9, 2015 issue, along with a review of the scope and significance of the Nicaragua Grand Inter-Oceanic Canal as part of the “Maritime Silk Road” and the “Coming Revolution in Global Cargo.”

Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), made an unprecedented, blunt accusation that the rise of the Islamic State (IS) was the result of a “willful decision,” — not an intelligence failure — by the Obama Administration.

Speaking to Mehdi Hasan, the host of Al Jazeera’s “Head to Head,” Flynn not only said that he read the 2012 DIA report that warned the Obama administration about the rise of the “Islamic State,” and the creation of a “caliphate” by Syria-based Islamists and Al Qaeda, but also went further than any other recently retired military official has up till now.

Flynn directly accused the Obama administration of making a “willful decision” to back the jihadis, when questioned by Hasan:

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Later in the interview, Hasan brought up arms flows to the rebels.

Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?

Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job … but that … my job was to … was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be.

The Flynn interview was published on Levantreport.com, along with analysis that recounts how the State Department spokesperson, Maria Harf, and various news commentators, such as the Daily Beast, belittled the DIA analysis and presented the report as insignificant.  Flynn refutes that view completely, and he stressed that the DIA report was not only on-target, but that the Obama administration didn’t “listen” to the DIA’s analysts.