Author: Alicia

The United States government’s responsibilities for defense and for building new economic infrastructure are equally explicitly stated in the Constitution. The American people formed a government to “provide for the common defense”; also to “promote the general welfare” and “to establish post offices and post roads”; and the first Congress in 1789 affirmed the responsibility for ports, by the Lighthouse Act.

Yet the Federal government is planning to fund production of a single class of Navy ships and a single new fighter-bomber fleet with $400 billion — or more — over the next decade, as much as it is currently investing in building, operating and repairing all forms of economic infrastructure.

These are the Ford class aircraft carrier — the first, $13 billion ship, out of 12 planned, having been commissioned by President Donald Trump July 22 — and the F-35 aircraft. Russia’s and China’s navies each operate one aircraft carrier.

Both systems are intended to replace older ones — Nimitz class carriers and F16 fighter-bombers — which are considered to be ending their planned lifetimes; 50 years in the case of the Nimitz carriers, for example. Most of the most important American transportation, navigation, water and water management, power, and even space exploration infrastructure is from 40 years to a century or more old, some of it crumbling and failing disastrously, with no action taken to replace it with new infrastructure platforms and modern technology.

Both new military systems employ not only very large funding, but also largely untested new technologies; neither the Ford class carrier nor the F-35 are as proven in operation as are magnetic levitation rail lines. Public funding equal to the funding for these two systems could build a 25,000 mile new high-speed rail network including maglev routes.

There is no public concern, and rightly so, about this public debt “destroying the credit of the United States” (nor about the two nuclear reactors which power the USS Gerald R. Ford). But in fact, the crumbling of the Wall Street-dominated U.S. economy and its infrastructure is making it take longer and longer, and more and more funds, to build such ships and planes. The looming second disastrous financial crash in a decade, if it isn’t stopped by anti-Wall Street policies, will cripple such production entirely.

The United States is as far behind in its economic infrastructure, as it is seeking to get ahead militarily. With Wall Street running U.S. economic policy, this can’t work. 

Most members of Congress have again bought the British intelligence and media “talking point,” rejected by the American people, that Russia is a major adversary planning harm to the United States. House and Senate leaders have reportedly agreed on a new version of the anti-Iran/Russia sanctions bill, adding to it new financial sanctions on North Korea which previously passed the House as a separate bill. The House is to vote July 25, the Senate sometime this week.

President Trump and, publicly, Secretary of State Tillerson have opposed these war-sanctions aimed squarely against the progress for peace being made by cooperation between Trump and Russian President Putin. The New York Times gloated Sunday, “Now, Mr. Trump could soon face a decision he hoped to avoid: veto the bill — a move that would fuel accusations that he is doing the bidding of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — or sign legislation imposing sanctions his administration has opposed.” Democratic McCarthyite Sen. Ben Cardin lied, “A nearly united Congress is poised to send President Putin a clear message on behalf of the American people and our allies.”

Both the American people and our non-British European allies oppose the sanctions. The European Commission immediately issued a statement reflecting German opposition in particular. “We are concerned the measures discussed in the U.S. Congress could have unintended consequences, not only when it comes to Transatlantic/G7 unity, but also on EU economic and energy security interests,” it said. “This impact could be potentially wide and indiscriminate, including when it comes to energy sources diversification efforts,” the statement goes on, “It argues that sanctions are most effective when they’re coordinated but that unilateral measures undermine that effectiveness.”

Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Sanders indicated Sunday that the President would likely sign the bill, though that is to be seen. The newly negotiated bill originates in the House, lets Congress block any lifting of sanctions within 30 days — though providing that the Senate must be first to do so — but removes the prohibition of oil companies’ deals with Russia, and delays some of the sanctions. 

The American people are bombarded with claims that every recent year is apparently the “hottest year on record” (implying that human CO2 emissions must be the cause for this “unprecedented” climate change). However, a new study further demonstrates what EIR presented in the 2015 report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science”—the historical records of global temperatures over the past 100 years have been adjusted to make the past appear cooler, and the present appear warmer (making what are actually natural variations look more extreme).

On June 27, three researchers — Dr. Craig D. Idso (founder and current chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo (meteorolgist, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel) and Dr. James P. Wallace III (statistician) — released a report demonstrating that the adjustments made to the historical records in the Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) dataset make it an unreliable representation of historical reality.

“It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history… The conclusive findings of this research are that [GAST data is] not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments… are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever despite current claims of record setting warming.”

What is the significance of this GAST database? The GAST historical data provides 90% to 95% of the data going into the historical temperature records produced by NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the UK’s Climate Research Unit “HADLEY” Center — probably the three most cited historical temperature records over this period (the past 100 years). When people claim that NASA, NOAA, and HADLEY data all independently show record temperatures, that is a lie—it all comes from one database, a database now shown to be “not a valid representation of reality.”

The authors intend to send their findings to the Trump EPA, which is currently reviewing whether to repeal the 2009 Obama-era “Endangerment Finding” — the Obama EPA ruling which asserted that human CO2 emissions are a pollutant, providing the cover for the EPA to take direct actions against the coal industry, power plants, and other emitters of the plant food known as CO2.

Many leading opponents of the climate-change scare view the “Endangerment Finding” as a key item to be reversed. 

For further background on the climate-gate lies, see Benjamin Deniston’s February 8, 2017 presentation, “Climategate II.”

The conspiracy against President Trump features proven, reliable, legal assassins who historically have been tapped to do the dirty work for the Anglo-American elites, and this new LaRouche PAC video series will provide you everything the mainstream media is hoping you’d had forgotten about them. Our very first Creep of the Week is Special Counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller