Author: Alicia

On Saturday, December 12, the Bay Area LaRouche PAC conference, “End Obama’s Threat of Nuclear War — Establish the New Paradigm,” proved a riveting four-hour session of deliberative discussion of mankind’s common aims and urgent tasks. Presentations by Lyndon LaRouche, former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, Erik Wilson of My Job Depends On Ag, and Ben Deniston provoked an activating discussion of what the U.S. must do.

American statesman Lyndon LaRouche opened the meeting with a Q & A Dialogue with the audience, which included 40 people in Alameda, California, another 25-30 attending satellite meetings in Los Angeles and Seattle, and a live audience on YouTube.

The Bay area audience was delighted at the opportunity to speak directly with LaRouche. LaRouche focused the Q & A on the urgent necessity of uniting sane Democrats and Republicans right now to immediately remove Obama, in their respective activities to grow the two major political parties, by bringing the Obama administration to an immediate end.

U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (1969-1981) presented his current mission of breaking Obama’s foreign policy, such as Obama’s attempt to militarily re-occupy the Philippines in order to prepare for war with China, in a repeat of the Thucydides trap.

Senator Gravel also inspired the audience by insisting to a somewhat demoralized member of the audience that all citizens have power, which led to another audience member pointing out that one of the sponsors of House Res. 198 to impeach Obama, was Congressman Tom McClintock of California, whom the questioner had been working over for years, prompting the whole audience to understand Senator Gravel’s point.

Erik Wilson, one of the co-founders of the Face Book group, My Job Depends On Ag, gave a beautiful explanation of “Why farm a Desert?”, which is the title of a two-part article he wrote for the group. Going after those who claim that the Central Valley is a desert, Wilson made the point that the Valley, 300 miles long and 60 miles wide, not only has the best growing soil in the world, but the dry, low humidity climate there is the perfect growing condition for the 400 different crops produced. A paradigm for problem-solving, if, as Wilson said, Americans again think like President John Kennedy about how to build the future.

Ben Deniston concluded the meeting with LaRouche’s challenge to citizens today: Defining what it means to be human and enhancing that quality by driving scientific discovery as a galactic species, on the water problem today.

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.

Outspoken former head of U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, was a featured speaker at an RT international conference Thursday in Moscow, stressing the need for cooperation between the United States, Russia, and others, to defeat the Islamic State.

The conference celebrated the 10th anniversary of RT’s founding as Russia’s international news broadcaster, over which time it has built a 700-million-person audience for its English, Spanish, and Arabic broadcasts, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted in his message of congratulations to the conference.

Gen. Flynn’s participation in the conference itself sent the message that serious institutional people in the United States and Russia are intent on establishing as their common cause, the defeat of an international terrorist apparatus which, according to Gen. Flynn’s estimates, likely counts in its Syrian and Iraqi ranks some 30,000-plus foreign fighters from 80 different countries.

Interviewed by RT on the sidelines of the conference, Flynn said that “I’m standing in a forum with Russian TV, frankly, to step up to the world to say, ‘Hey, look, we have to do more as an international community'” to defeat this enemy, “and we have to have a sense of urgency.” He called for the Russians and the Americans to figure out how to align their strategies, and indicated some of his own thinking on what that entails.

The Islamic State has gone beyond being a regional threat; it is a global threat, as the world has seen in Paris and in San Bernandino, California, Flynn emphasized.  And there have been direct threats inside of Russia as well.

“I do think little things like sharing intelligence, working together, getting each other inside of our operation centers to begin to understand where are the military objectives,— but we also have to have a different set of strategic objectives that actually become mutually supporting,” Flynn said.

Other international participants in the conference, whose presentations have not yet been archived, included former Czech Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Cyril Svoboda; and “German statesman and ex-VP of the OSCE Willy Wimmer.”

The ongoing COP21 Paris Summit reflects a complete misunderstanding of the role of the human species on this planet. Fools at COP21 will panic as they come up with carbon footprint-counting measures somehow imagining that in doing so they will save the planet from mankind. Others have a more sinister view, such as members of the British royal family who have taken on a prominent role at the event and have made their views public in the past. They likely do view such people as fools: they know that many of the measures urged relate directly not so much to stopping climate change, but to a crushing of the economic development of mankind, especially in populous parts of the world which have many millions to lift out of dire poverty. These individuals prey on the stupidity of people, who have been made to believe that mankind and the planet are bound for catastrophe unless we essentially cease the course of human progress. The truth is the complete opposite: that the only catastrophe for man and the planet will result from a failure to continue what is, in fact, natural: the progress and intensification of man’s economic activity.

Read the full blog post here.

Corrupt popular opinion and media insist that Obama’s removal is impossible.  Indeed, they go so far as to try to insist that it isn’t even being discussed.  But thanks first of all, and most of all to the key catalytic role of Lyndon LaRouche’s “Manhattan Project,”— neither assertion is true.  In fact, there is active discussion of the need for Obama’s removal at the highest levels of government.  No more lying: it can be done, it must be done, and we must see to it that it is done, and done quickly.

Sometimes an action which appears ostensibly local to a single place, like the “Manhattan Project,” has universal effect: think of Brunelleschi’s cupola in Florence, for example.

Part of what these corrupt media and popular opinion are hiding from you, is that there is now an active bill before Congress, which lists eleven offenses which would trigger impeachment proceedings against any President who committed any of them.  The most prominent of these offenses are precisely the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which Lyndon LaRouche has indicted Barack Obama in his weekly dialogues with the Manhattan Project.

Congressman Ted Yoho (R-Fla) introduced “H. Res 198” on April 13 of this year.  It is short and sweet.  After a few “whereases,” its operative section simply says the following:

“The House of Representatives declares the following Presidential actions shall constitute impeachable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ within the meaning of Article II, section 4, which will cause the House to vote an article or articles of impeachment to send to the Senate for trial—

“(1) initiating war without express congressional authorization;

“(2) killing American citizens in the United States or abroad who are not then engaged in active hostilities against the United States without due process (unless the killing was necessary to prevent imminent serious physical danger to third parties);

“(3) failing to superintend subordinates guilty of chronic constitutional abuses;

“(4) spending appropriated funds in violation of conditions imposed for expenditure;

“(5) intentionally lying to Congress to obtain an authorization for war;

“(6) failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of nonenforcement;

“(7) substituting executive agreements for treaties;

“(8) intentionally lying under oath to a Federal judge or grand jury;

“(9) misusing Federal agencies to advance a partisan political agenda;

“(10) refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents or testimony issued for a legitimate legislative purpose; and

“(11) issuing Executive orders or Presidential memoranda that infringe upon or circumvent the constitutional powers of Congress.”

Note that Rep. Yoho’s bill will come into effect as soon as it is passed by a majority of the House of Representatives. There is no need for any action by the Senate.  Rep. Yoho has two cosponsors: Republicans Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Tom McClintock of California.  Republican Justin Amash of Michigan was a cosponsor, but withdrew on June 9.  We don’t yet know his reasons for withdrawing, but they probably involve the intensity of the struggle,— in a fight which some would have you believe is not even happening at all.

All the focus now on the immediate need to remove Obama, has led some to look again at the provisions of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prescribes how to remove a President “who us unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” but who fails to step down of his own accord,— requiring a little shove, one might say.

The usual presentation of Section 4,— indeed what has been our usual presentation of Section 4,— says that the Vice President and a majority of cabinet members must vote to declare the President’s (in this case) mental incapacity.  But in fact, that is not what it says.  That is but one alternative.  The other alternative is that the Houses of Congress establish by law another “body,” which would be in effect a special commission to investigate and vote on the President’s capacity to continue in office.

Quite a difference, potentially.

Lyndon LaRouche added tonight that there has to be a bipartisan move to dump Trump. There’s an opportunity right now for Democrats and Republicans to join together to sink Trump on a genuinely nonpartisan basis. If they come out and say it together, it redefines the nature of the Presidential campaign for 2016. Even January is too late. It should happen now, a nonpartisan organization against Trump, and the same combination has to move to dump Obama.

The IMF changed the rules of its (poisonous) lending on Tuesday, explicitly to allow Ukraine not to pay its debts to Russia. It is still trying to think of a formulation for the “rationale,” but clearly London and Washington have agreed that confrontation with Russia must be the task of every “Western” institution.

The IMF released the following: “The IMF’s Executive Board met today and agreed to change the current policy on non-toleration of arrears to official creditors. We will provide details on the scope and rationale for this policy change in the next day or so.”

This rule, for now, will affect only Ukraine and Russia.

The IMF earlier changed its rules to allow lending “into arrears” for Ukraine — lending them more while they were not paying back old IMF loans. Then, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde began personally to negotiate write-offs of Ukraine’s existing foreign debt with its creditors — the opposite of the IMF’s policy toward Greece, as was noted, and although Ukraine’s economy and currency are more and more prostrate. Ukrainian President Poroshenko and Prime Minister, Victoria Nuland’s “man Yats,” blatantly used the earlier IMF loan tranches to fund the military for war with Russia.

Wednesday’s declaration means that nations in default on debts to other countries can still receive new IMF loans. Not coincidentally, Ukraine has announced it will not meet its $3 billion debt to Russia due at the end of the year, and has refused to negotiate restructurings offered by Russia.

The Wall Street Journal notes that Russia has rejected Ukraine’s proposal to take a haircut on the $3 billion bond, while Ukraine rejected a Russian counter-offer that would have required Ukraine to pay the entire amount, but over a longer time frame. “That standoff threatened Ukraine’s IMF bailout and other Western aid contingent on the funds financing, including from the U.S. and Europe,” says the Journal.

“I’d like to remind that only Russia offered help to the Ukrainian economy and, two years ago, granted a loan to the country that had no access to external markets,” Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said to journalists on Tuesday. The IMF decision to change its lending policies has been made “in prejudice of Russia and to legalize Kiev’s capacities not to pay its debts,” he said, calling the decision “precipitated and preconceived.”

A commentator on RT TV said the move represents a push by the United States to split the world’s currencies into two blocks: a dollar (Japanese yen, euro, pound) block for which debts MUST be repaid, and all others, explicitly referred to as loans in BRICS currencies, for which repayment is optional.

Part 4 of the Basement’s Galaxy Class Series. To understand the climate we experience on Earth we have to know our Galactic environment. As the Solar System travels through the Galaxy–into and out of its spiral arms, above and below the disk, through regions of higher and lower amounts of activity–the Earth’s climate system has changed and evolved in response. Our Earth’s own history provides a new window into the study of our Galaxy.