Reports commonly say Bill Gates– through his philanthropic foundation work– is ‘saving lives’ and ‘feeding the world’s poor.’ In fact, the billionaire is made out to be almost a saint.
Why? The simple answer is that many media voices are foundation funded– with grants and partnerships paid directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The very journalistic outlets who should otherwise be holding Gates’ policies accountable with tough questions and volumes of scrutiny are instead financially-tied to his work.
A big part of the problem is that Bill Gates, son of a top Planned Parenthood official, is in league with a group of wealthy eugencists working to reduce the world’s population.
But instead of admitting the agenda he is working towards, much of his heavily-backed efforts are branded in “the media” under hopeful sounding terms like “global health,” “feeding the world’s poor,” “fighting disease” and other positive buzz terms.
Look at the secret meeting of billionaires back in 2009, at which Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and numerous other celebrity elites gathered to coordinate population reduction-targeted programs.
Note the difference between ABC’s dull headline “Meeting of America’s Richest About ‘Need,’ Attendee Says” vs. the London Times eye-catching headline “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation.”
Despite winning the event’s annual straw poll for the last two years running, Ron Paul has seemingly been excluded from this year’s CPAC conference, with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich announced as keynote speakers but Paul appearing nowhere on the roster.
The exclusion of Paul is likely a maneuver by GOP insiders to re-align CPAC, the biggest annual conservative confab, with the Republican establishment and prevent an embarrassing straw poll defeat for likely presidential pick Mitt Romney, who Paul beat in 2010 and 2011.
Fellow presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum will all address the event scheduled to take place in Washington, but Ron Paul will be absent.
“Although a combination of factors might be at play, including Paul’s focus on the Maine caucuses, a changing of the guard at the top of CPAC’s management team is likely behind Paul’s exclusion,” notes Stephen Woodward.
Indeed, the selection of former chairman of the Florida Republican Party Al Cardenas to lead CPAC has brought with it a decidedly neoconservative flavor to the 2012 event.
Besides Romney and Gingrich, the likes of Ann Coulter, John Bolton, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Herman Cain and Rick Perry will all speak at the conference.
During a post CPAC 2011 interview, American Conservative Union (ACU) chief Cardenas put Ron Paul supporters on notice by warning them that they would not be invited to the 2012 event if they failed to act with “civility” after previous speakers Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were booed by Paul activists.
The change in direction seemingly stems from a revolt, characterized by Politico as a “conservative civil war,” that preceded last year’s conference fueled by concerns expressed by establishment Republicans that the conference was turning “libertarian”.
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who boycotted the 2010 and 2011 conferences because of the attendance of Ron Paul and his supporters, is set to return to speak at the 2012 event.
CPAC’s move to marginalize true conservatives like Ron Paul also stems from concerns that the rival Values Voter Summit is gaining more prominence within establishment Republican circles.
Paul has won the CPAC straw poll for the past two years running and has spoke at the last three conferences.
Following his victory last year, Fox News reported that Paul had been booed by the audience when his win was announced. In reality, Fox played footage from the previous year’s event when Mitt Romney supporters had loudly booed the result and Paul supporters had been absent due to a Campaign for Liberty meeting running late.
Although Ron Paul supporters have presumably been uninvited because they booed Cheney and Rumsfeld, Romney fans who booed Paul will be in attendance at CPAC 2012, highlighting the hypocrisy behind Paul’s exclusion.
White House spokesman Jay Carney rebuffed questions about whether President Obama had violated intelligence restrictions on the secret U.S. drone program in Pakistan when he openly discussed the subject.
Obama, speaking at an online town hall sponsored by Google, twice uttered the word “drones” as he explained their precise and “judicious” use against al-Qaeda targets. Asked if the president had made a mistake, Carney said he was “not going to discuss . . . supposedly covert programs.”
Obama was responding to “Evan in Brooklyn,” who said that the president had “ordered more drone attacks in your first year than your predecessor did in his entire term.”
The American Civil Liberties Union said that the CIA’s refusal to release information about drone killings was illegal.
When the CIA argued that even the “fact of the existence or non-existence” of such a program was classified, the ACLU responded that then-CIA Director Leon E. Panetta had spoken openly of U.S. “hits” and “strikes” against al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.
Prior to James Clapper’s intelligence report before the Senate warning of Iranian attacks inside the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations posted an article on its Foreign Affairs website pushing the idea that al-Qaeda and Iran are working together.
Iran’s alleged cooperation with al-Qaeda adds scary dimension to its unsubstantiated nuclear threat.
“Iran appears willing to expand its limited relationship with al Qaeda. Just as with its other surrogate, Hezbollah, the country could turn to al Qaeda to mount a retaliation to any U.S. or Israeli attack,” Seth G. Jones wrote.
Jones argues that Iran’s Quds Force initiated the relationship with al-Qaeda by importing several hundred of its members. He notes that the U.S. was engaged in talks with Iran and demanded it deport al Qaeda leaders to their countries of origin. Iran allegedly refused to do this.
Iran would later arrest and either imprison or put al-Qaeda member under house arrest. Despite this crack-down, Jones argues, Iran is an important al-Qaeda hub, even though the purportedly late Anwar al-Awlaki denounced Iran in 2010.
Jones’ assertion on a nefarious Iran-al-Qaeda nexus is the stuff of official conspiracy theories arising from the 9/11 Commission report and from accusations made by Bush-era neocons.
Much of the information used to establish the Iran-al-Qaeda relationship was gained during the interrogation of supposed al-Qaeda detainees. The U.S. claims a number of alleged 9/11 hijackers and al-Qaeda operatives traveled to Iran to and from Afghanistan, but does not offer any direct evidence of links between flights and the Iranians.
It should also be noted that Iran had attempted to work with the Bush administration on delivering al-Qaeda members held in Iran to the newly installed government in Afghanistan in exchange for information on Guantanamo detainees suspected of killing nine Iranian diplomats in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1998.
The Iranian request was denied after Bush declared Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Prior to Bush’s snub, Iran had turned over hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects to U.S. allies following the defeat of the Taliban. It provided valuable intelligence, names, photographs, and fingerprints on suspected al-Qaeda members it held.
The CFR report – while mentioning Iran’s detention of al-Qaeda suspects and also the unlikelihood of Shi’a Iran and militant Sunni Wahhabists collaborating – bases its assumptions on a deeply flawed 9/11 narrative and a number of historically inaccurate (or at best omissive) “facts” about the CIA created and nurtured terror group.
The neocons have readily picked up on the CFR report and are pushing it as a pretext to invade Iran.
“Jones is clearly sensitive to the possibility that the evidence he has produced could strengthen the hand of those who argue for military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” writes former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen. “He concludes that a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could backfire by pushing Iran and al Qaeda closer together.”
“This is certainly a risk that must be weighed before any military action is taken. But policymakers could reasonably conclude that the risk of a closer Iran-al Qaeda alliance does not, in the long run, outweigh the risk of an Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons,” Thiessen concludes.
The neocons are a one-trick pony and have already demonstrated their willingness to fall back on the same fallacious line of reasoning that provided much of the impetus for the invasion of Iraq.
This time around, however, they will allow Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites under the pretext of mad ayatollahs in possession of nuclear weapons.
A larger and more ominous attack on Iran’s government and civilian infrastructure will be carried out by the United States, as it was in Iraq.
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.
Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.
One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression. ”
Considering that the Gulf of Token incident was a deliberate fabrication to escalate the Vietnam War, one many members in Congress are shown to have acknowledged and debated even at the time, or the more recent Iraqi WMD hoax, there is certainly a historical precedence to create such provocations when targeted nations refuse to provide them.
With this in mind, and noting an overt, ongoing series of bold acts of war carried out by the US and Israel inside of Iran, along with sanctions and planned blockades, also acts of war, the corporate-financier oligarchs have been confounded by what seems to be infinite Iranian patience to endure such provocations.
US foreign policy makers have noted for years now that Iran in actuality poses no threat to US or Israeli national security and their acquiring of nuclear weapons serves more of a deterrence against future military incursions against the Islamic Republic by the West, than a means to launch unprovoked attacks against nations that each possess nuclear deterrents of apocalyptic scale.
While Iran endures an increasing torrent of unprovoked attacks, they steadily advance their defensive capabilities to ward off what seems like an inevitable invasion by the West, who has already invaded and occupied for years nations to its east and west on false pretenses, and have for the past year fueled foreign-funded revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa.
Time is on the Iranians’ side, as Western attempts to destabilize and destroy Syria drag on, and an increasing number of people around the world begin to understand the true source of instability behind the so-called “Arab Spring.”
While behind closed doors US policy makers admit Iran is driven by self-preservation and protecting the influence it is steadily gaining throughout the Middle Eastern region it borders, the message they desperately seek to relate to the public is one of an irrational apocalyptic theocracy eager to usher in Armageddon.
However, reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.”
The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran is indeed driven by self-preservation.
Brookings notes that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion.
Despite this documented evidence, the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. made a startling statement recently, citing an already discredited alleged “Iranian plot” involving an assassination attempt of a Saudi ambassador on US soil, that Iran is “now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”
What Clapper describes is not in fact an impending Iranian attack, but a false flag event to be blamed on Iran to fit the criteria for a suitable justification for war, clearly defined by the Brookings Institution’s report.
What is more troubling is that the Washington Post, which reported Clapper’s comments, acknowledges that “a covert campaign is already underway to thwart Iran’s alleged ambition to develop a nuclear weapon.”
And while the US has officially denied carrying out any act of violence inside of Iran, it is a matter of public record that the US State Department in conjunction with the UN is harboring a US State Dapartment listed “foreign terrorist organization,” the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) in Iraq, who has for decades carried out such violent attacks within Iran.
In fact, the same Brookings Institution report cited above, also proposed the use of MEK as a suitable US proxy in provoking Iran. It would turn out that the alleged “Iranian-Saudi assassination plot” cited by Clapper, was more plausibly the work of MEK, than the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
And as Al Qaeda is re-purposed for overthrowing America’s enemies in Libya and Syria, withLIFG terrorist leader Abdul Belhaj (aka Abdul Hasadi) literally leading NATO-armed legionaries into battle in now two nations, the “terrorists threat” has been shifted onto Iran – the sort of conveniently timed plot twist to be expected for a “War on Terror” that is a verifiable fraud.
Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking the United States. US policy makers have expressed a documented desire to provoke the Iranians into a war the Islamic Republic is clearly trying to avoid.
The United States government is on record funding, arming, and training terrorist organizations (LIFG & MEK) on it’s own “foreign terrorist organization” list,a violation of their own anti-terrorism laws.
They have failed categorically to provide convincing evidence regarding the alleged “Iranian-Saudi assassination plot,” more over, the evidence suggests it is instead, the latest in a long string of contrived federal entrapment cases.
If an attack occurs on US soil or against US allies in the near future under these circumstances, it is most likely Clapper, General Petraeus at the CIA, and Israel’s Mossad that will be to blame.
As was the case in Vietnam, and more recently the fraudulent casus belli against Iraq, the West is being led into another infinitely destructive war, jeopardizing the lives of millions, and further bankrupting already destitute nations reeling from 10 years of unending war.
It is essential to raise awareness of US policy makers and their desire to provoke war with an unwilling adversary and the documented history the United States government has in manufacturing provocations when none can be goaded.
It is also important to remember that no matter how detestable our political leaders may be, there is a corporate-financier oligarchy above them pulling the strings.
It is important to vote warmongers out of office, but just as important to identify the strength of the corporate-financier oligarchs that drive them and undermine them at all costs.
An influential bipartisan think tank has called on Washington to deploy yet another carrier battle group in a bid to threaten Iran, despite the presence of two U.S. warships already in the region.
“The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran’s nuclear program, a bipartisan group said,” reports Haaretz.
The organization behind the call, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), is a think tank that counts amongst its directors Norman R. Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, as well as Jane Garvey, an executive director at JPMorgan. The group is headed up by former Senators including Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George J. Mitchell.
Entitled Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock, the report calls on the Obama administration to “bolster the presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman by deploying an additional carrier battle group and minesweepers off Iran, conducting broad military exercises in the region with allies, and prepositioning supplies for the possibility of military action against Iran.”
There are already two carrier battle groups located in the waters just outside Iran, with the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Abraham Lincoln already stationed in the region, along with the USS Makin Island (LHD-8), a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.
Last month, three aircraft carriers patrolled the sensitive waters near the Strait of Hormuz, with the USS John C. Stennis briefly remaining in the region before being replaced by the Lincoln.
US intelligence officials upped the rhetoric against Iran during congressional testimony by claiming that Tehran is prepared to launch reprisal attacks inside the United States.
Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. cited the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil as a sign that, “Some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”
As we documented at the time, according to retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, no information concerning the supposed plot even existed within FBI channels, strongly suggesting the story was manufactured by the Obama administration.
The New York Times also reported that the dubious nature of the plot caused “a wave of puzzlement and skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts.”
Advocates of an attack on Iran have implied that the US could stage a provocation as a pretext for a military assault.
In January 2008, Dick Cheney’s office considered staging an incident to be blamed on Iran wherein US ships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz were attacked.
Following the announcement that a third US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, would be heading to patrol waters near the Strait of Hormuz in March, it has also been revealed that the nuclear submarine USS Annapolis and the destroyer USS Momsen are also likely to heading towards the Persian Gulf in the build up to a possible attack on Iran.
“Two ships of the US Navy, the nuclear submarine USS Annapolis and the destroyer USS Momsen have passed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. Although their destination is confidential, they are now getting dangerously close to the Persian Gulf,” reports RT, citing Interfax News Agency.
With the likely destination of the two ships being the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of operations, they will be joined next month by the USS Enterprise, the third aircraft carrier to be stationed in the region along with the USS Vinson and the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The US also has a 15,000-men force deployed in Kuwait comprising of an expeditionary marine battalion and an amphibious landing group. British and French warships are also acting as escorts to the US aircraft carriers.
What all this means is that the United States will have a massive naval presence just off Iranian waters to coincide with rhetoric concerning an attack reaching a crescendo.
Earlier a prominent bipartisan think tank, ostensibly a front for the US military-industrial complex, called on the Obama administration to increase pressure on Iran by sending even more naval firepower to the tense region.
The US is currently conducting its biggest naval exercises in over a decade.
The Bold Alligator joint Navy and Marine Corps exercise, taking place off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina, is clearly geared towards simulating a naval conflict with Iranian forces despite official claims to the contrary.
“Navy and Marine forces involved with the exercise will work scenarios involving mine warfare, countering small boat attacks and other irregular threats and fighting in shallow coastal waters, (Command chief Adm. John) Harvey pointed out. Those threats, among others, are the hallmarks of Iranian naval forces,” reports AOL News.
Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil choke point, have led many to speculate that the trigger for a military assault aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities could happen in the waters of the Persian Gulf.
Tehran is set to conduct more naval exercises in the Strait later this month. Experts estimate that around 1,000 mines would be required to block the 55km wide passage and that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have already stockpiled 2,000 mines for that very purpose.
