The Obama Murders
Thousands
of people are dying in the Mediterranean trying to flee the horror
created by President Barack Obama’s criminal wars across the North
Africa and the Middle East, leaving nations like Libya, Syria and Yemen
in chaos under terrorist gangs backed by America’s “ally” Saudi Arabia.
An estimated 3,000-5,000 people are crowding into boats every day,
willing to die at sea rather than live in the Hell created by Obama’s
insanity.
In discussion with the LaRouchePAC Policy Committee earlier this week, LaRouche emphasized:
He did not mention, however, that two additional Americans had also been killed in these raids. That was left to a statement released by the White House yesterday morning, which described Americans Ahmed Farouq and Adam Gadahn as "fighters" for al-Qaeda, and expressed no regret, nor gave any excuse for the President of the United States killing Americans on his own volition without following explicit Constitutional due process requirements. The White House statement claimed they had not been personally targeted, but only showed up among the dead in a drone attack on an al Qaeda camp. Obama insists that he has the right to determine who is a terrorist and who is not, and to kill anyone he wants to, along with whoever happens to be with them.
Lyndon LaRouche has stated that the world is now closer to global thermonuclear war than anytime in modern history, driven by Obama’s support for a Ukrainian regime which has restored the Nazi battalions which fought alongside Hitler in World War II, committed to a war on Russia, while also supporting al- Qaeda linked terrorist groups in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere, and fully supporting the Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia which created and funds these terrorist groups.
The powers of Wall Street and the City of London are faced with the collapse of the derivative bubble, now far larger than it was before the 2008 collapse due to Obama’s subservience to the too-big-to-fail banks. The coming Greek default, the collapse of the oil patch speculation, or a number of other sparks could blow out the entire system. A revolt is growing within the Democratic Party against Obama and his controllers, as potential Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley has launched a war on Wall Street, demanding the restoration of Glass-Steagall, while he and others are standing up to Obama’s effort to ram the TPP through Congress, denouncing it as a “race to the bottom” which does not facilitate trade, but undermines sovereignty of those foolish enough to join it—including the U.S. itself.
But they must stop the madness now, before economic collapse and war decimate the world population, by ending Obama’s murderous reign of terror, removing him from office now.
In discussion with the LaRouchePAC Policy Committee earlier this week, LaRouche emphasized:
"Not only do we have the drownings in terms of
the Mediterranean coast, on a massive scale, but we also have, to
complement that, we have from California in particular, we have a threat
of depopulation, massive depopulation, from California on the United
States. What this indicates is, that we have, typical, a global trend in
certain parts of the world, especially, to reduce the population
drastically. And includes not only the coast which Obama actually
created by his reign of terror in North Africa, but has been flooding
the waters of the Mediterranean with mass drownings, of people
desperately fleeing away from the reach of the protégés of Obama.
"And you see the same thing is happening in California, but we know
it's not limited there. We know there's a trend throughout the United
States in particular and as in this Mediterranean region, that there's
mass extermination of the human population is under way. And what we're
seeing in what is happening in the mass drowning and similar things in
the Mediterranean coming from Africa, and what we're seeing as
threatened in California, are the same thing: The scheme under the
support of particularly, the currently President of the United States,
Obama, and this genocide policy which is reflected by the policymaking
of Obama among others, is what faces mankind now."
President Barack Obama admitted Thursday morning to killing three
more Americans in January in drone strikes on the Pakistan-Afghan border
area. In speaking to the press, he expressed "tremendous sorrow" that
two Western hostages—American Dr. Warren Weinstein, a USAID worker held
by al-Qaeda since 2011, and Italian Giovanni LoPorto, held since
2012—had been killed in one drone strike. He did not mention, however, that two additional Americans had also been killed in these raids. That was left to a statement released by the White House yesterday morning, which described Americans Ahmed Farouq and Adam Gadahn as "fighters" for al-Qaeda, and expressed no regret, nor gave any excuse for the President of the United States killing Americans on his own volition without following explicit Constitutional due process requirements. The White House statement claimed they had not been personally targeted, but only showed up among the dead in a drone attack on an al Qaeda camp. Obama insists that he has the right to determine who is a terrorist and who is not, and to kill anyone he wants to, along with whoever happens to be with them.
Lyndon LaRouche has stated that the world is now closer to global thermonuclear war than anytime in modern history, driven by Obama’s support for a Ukrainian regime which has restored the Nazi battalions which fought alongside Hitler in World War II, committed to a war on Russia, while also supporting al- Qaeda linked terrorist groups in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere, and fully supporting the Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia which created and funds these terrorist groups.
The powers of Wall Street and the City of London are faced with the collapse of the derivative bubble, now far larger than it was before the 2008 collapse due to Obama’s subservience to the too-big-to-fail banks. The coming Greek default, the collapse of the oil patch speculation, or a number of other sparks could blow out the entire system. A revolt is growing within the Democratic Party against Obama and his controllers, as potential Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley has launched a war on Wall Street, demanding the restoration of Glass-Steagall, while he and others are standing up to Obama’s effort to ram the TPP through Congress, denouncing it as a “race to the bottom” which does not facilitate trade, but undermines sovereignty of those foolish enough to join it—including the U.S. itself.
But they must stop the madness now, before economic collapse and war decimate the world population, by ending Obama’s murderous reign of terror, removing him from office now.
SUPPORTING MATERIAL
Top US, Russian Retired Generals: "How to Avert a Nuclear War"
The world is on the verge of thermonuclear World War III. The reasons
usually given for the confrontation between the US and Russia are
bullshit. Rather, there are some people who intend for this to happen.
"We are on the verge of virtual extinction, as the result of
chain-reaction effects" of the madness of the British Empire and their
Wall Street lackies faced with the end of their bankrupt system, Lyndon
LaRouche said on April 21. Their failure to surrender their weakening
grip on power, will drive them, in desperation, to have Obama launch
World War III. "This is the first threat of human extinction in modern
history," LaRouche concluded.
Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, and retired Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, warned, in an April 19 op-ed in the New York Times entitled "How To Avert a Nuclear War," against one highly likely scenario for how World War III might happen. Cartwright, prior to joining the Joint Chiefs, was commander of US Strategic Command. Dvorkin, in a long career that spanned from 1958 until 2001, played a key role in the 1960's development of Russia's submarine-based nuclear deterrent, and later in the strategic arms talks of the 1970's. These are two men intimately familiar with the strategic nuclear forces of their respective countries, including the command and control systems over those forces.
In their op-ed, Cartwright and Dvorkin proposed that both the US and Russia should eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies. They note, at the outset, the increasing strategic tensions between the US and Russia—tensions that diplomacy has done little to ease. "This makes it all the more critical for Russia and the United States to talk, to relieve the pressures to 'use or lose' nuclear forces during a crisis, and minimize the risk of a mistaken launch," they write. "The fact is that we are still living with the nuclear-strike doctrine of the Cold War, which dictated three strategic options: first strike, launch on warning, and post-attack retaliation." From there, they focus their attention on launch-on-warning, for which the potential of an accidental launch, or a launch based on false information, is very high,— aggravated by short warning times and Russia's compromised warning systems (Russia currently has no operating early warning satellites, depends only on ground-based radar systems). As a result, the timelines, they write, "are very compressed and the opportunities for ill-considered decisions very real."
"This risk should motivate the presidents of Russia and the United States to decide in tandem to eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies," they write. "They should reinstitute military-to-military talks, which were suspended over the Ukraine crisis, to pursue this stand-down as an urgent priority." Such talks, however, are very unlikely as long as the insane Barack Obama is president of the United States.
"In periods of heightened tensions and reduced decision times, the likelihood of human and technical error in control systems increases," they conclude. "Launch-on-warning is a relic of Cold War strategy whose risk today far exceeds its value. Our leaders urgently need to talk and, we hope, agree to scrap this obsolete protocol before a devastating error occurs."
Now you can't say that you weren't warned.
Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, and retired Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, warned, in an April 19 op-ed in the New York Times entitled "How To Avert a Nuclear War," against one highly likely scenario for how World War III might happen. Cartwright, prior to joining the Joint Chiefs, was commander of US Strategic Command. Dvorkin, in a long career that spanned from 1958 until 2001, played a key role in the 1960's development of Russia's submarine-based nuclear deterrent, and later in the strategic arms talks of the 1970's. These are two men intimately familiar with the strategic nuclear forces of their respective countries, including the command and control systems over those forces.
In their op-ed, Cartwright and Dvorkin proposed that both the US and Russia should eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies. They note, at the outset, the increasing strategic tensions between the US and Russia—tensions that diplomacy has done little to ease. "This makes it all the more critical for Russia and the United States to talk, to relieve the pressures to 'use or lose' nuclear forces during a crisis, and minimize the risk of a mistaken launch," they write. "The fact is that we are still living with the nuclear-strike doctrine of the Cold War, which dictated three strategic options: first strike, launch on warning, and post-attack retaliation." From there, they focus their attention on launch-on-warning, for which the potential of an accidental launch, or a launch based on false information, is very high,— aggravated by short warning times and Russia's compromised warning systems (Russia currently has no operating early warning satellites, depends only on ground-based radar systems). As a result, the timelines, they write, "are very compressed and the opportunities for ill-considered decisions very real."
"This risk should motivate the presidents of Russia and the United States to decide in tandem to eliminate the launch-on-warning concept from their nuclear strategies," they write. "They should reinstitute military-to-military talks, which were suspended over the Ukraine crisis, to pursue this stand-down as an urgent priority." Such talks, however, are very unlikely as long as the insane Barack Obama is president of the United States.
"In periods of heightened tensions and reduced decision times, the likelihood of human and technical error in control systems increases," they conclude. "Launch-on-warning is a relic of Cold War strategy whose risk today far exceeds its value. Our leaders urgently need to talk and, we hope, agree to scrap this obsolete protocol before a devastating error occurs."
Now you can't say that you weren't warned.
Russian Defense Ministry Ridicules U.S. State Spokesperson Lies, Accuses U.S. of Training Troops for Urban Assaults
The Russian Defense Ministry official representative, Gen. Igor
Konashenkov, said Thursday that Moscow hoped the Department of State
would be rid of its status as a whirlpool of absurd declarations after
the former spokesperson, Jen Psaki, quit her position, TASS reported
yesterday.
"However, we were mistaken, since the claims voiced by the new spokesperson, Marie Harf, about the concentration of the highest amount of Russian air defense systems in eastern Ukraine since August, again astonish us with the level of their incompetence," General Konashenkov said.
Marie Harf claimed earlier that the increasingly complicated nature of training courses for the Donbass separatists "leaves no doubt that Russia is involved" — i.e., as usual, the claims of troops, tanks, air defenses, etc. come with no effort to provide any evidence.
General Konashenkov joked: "The Russian Defense Ministry will not be surprised if it hears one of these days that Russia is accused of rolling out a strike group of aircraft carriers in the Lugansk region, or of an illegal entry into the First City Pond in Donetsk by a Russian nuclear submarine."
He said such statements aim to stir public commotion ahead of the NATO summit, due in Antalya on May 13-14.
He added, however, that the very real concern is that the U.S. training of Kiev troops, which began this week, is on the storming of buildings in urban districts, and is taking place "in the areas adjoining the zones of conflict in Mariupol, Severodonetsk, Artyomovsk, and Volnovakha," despite claims to the contrary from Washington.
"However, we were mistaken, since the claims voiced by the new spokesperson, Marie Harf, about the concentration of the highest amount of Russian air defense systems in eastern Ukraine since August, again astonish us with the level of their incompetence," General Konashenkov said.
Marie Harf claimed earlier that the increasingly complicated nature of training courses for the Donbass separatists "leaves no doubt that Russia is involved" — i.e., as usual, the claims of troops, tanks, air defenses, etc. come with no effort to provide any evidence.
General Konashenkov joked: "The Russian Defense Ministry will not be surprised if it hears one of these days that Russia is accused of rolling out a strike group of aircraft carriers in the Lugansk region, or of an illegal entry into the First City Pond in Donetsk by a Russian nuclear submarine."
He said such statements aim to stir public commotion ahead of the NATO summit, due in Antalya on May 13-14.
He added, however, that the very real concern is that the U.S. training of Kiev troops, which began this week, is on the storming of buildings in urban districts, and is taking place "in the areas adjoining the zones of conflict in Mariupol, Severodonetsk, Artyomovsk, and Volnovakha," despite claims to the contrary from Washington.
Sen. Schumer: Your Wall Street Friends Are the Currency Fixers
Reports about the April 19 IMF report featured the warning of a
general debt blowout if Greece leaves the euro, or the Federal Reserve
raises interest rates too soon or too fast. But the report also
contained a highly unusual and important admission: The biggest London
banks have been running a trillion-dollar "carry trade" speculation into
China, violating that country's regulations and attempting to
manipulate its currency, the yuan.
To take one exemplary story about the IMF report, that of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the London Telegraph April 20: "Borrowing in dollars outside the U.S. has surged from $2 trillion to $9 trillion over the past 15 years [due to Bank of Japan and Fed quantitative easing—ed.]. Half of this is now concentrated in emerging markets.... It includes at least $1.1 trillion of loans to Chinese companies, much of it through Hong Kong, and intended to circumvent China's internal credit curbs. It is now clear that many banks and investors have been engaged in a currency "carry trade," betting — wrongly, as it now turns out — that the dollar would weaken against the yuan."
Much could be said about this in regard to why there are real estate and commodity bubbles in the Chinese economy.
But what is most relevant is that all of the trans-Atlantic governments, at every G7 and G20 meeting of this century, have relentlessly demanded that China allow the value of the yuan to rise, backed by tirades on the subject from members of Congress and European parliaments and from nearly all trade unions, chambers of commerce, etc.
It turns out, that they were all screaming at China, all that time, to support the City of London banks' Hong Kong carry trade speculations, which required for their super-profitability that the yuan keep rising in value. Under that international pressure China did allow the yuan to rise, slowly but steadily, for years.
But the government of Xi Jinping reversed that policy in 2014, in order to finally enforce its own currency-control policies, which Evans-Pritchard referred to, against the operations of the London banks in Hong Kong.
Result: London and Wall Street speculations "reversed," and big banks lost money. Result: Now some Congressional Democrats object to Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) swindle, not so much because it is an attack on the United States, but that it is not enough of an attack on China. Like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, they say they oppose the TPP; but, they might vote for it if accompanied by a "currency manipulator" designation on China.
Tell the truth, Senator: It is your "constituents" in Wall Street boardrooms, led by their more clever London counterparts, who have been manipulating China's currency, along with rigging international interest rates, foreign exchange markets, gold prices, etc., etc. That has ended with the emergence of the new policy of the BRICS. Obama's TPP is part of an attempt to provoke war with China and Russia. Oppose him.
To take one exemplary story about the IMF report, that of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the London Telegraph April 20: "Borrowing in dollars outside the U.S. has surged from $2 trillion to $9 trillion over the past 15 years [due to Bank of Japan and Fed quantitative easing—ed.]. Half of this is now concentrated in emerging markets.... It includes at least $1.1 trillion of loans to Chinese companies, much of it through Hong Kong, and intended to circumvent China's internal credit curbs. It is now clear that many banks and investors have been engaged in a currency "carry trade," betting — wrongly, as it now turns out — that the dollar would weaken against the yuan."
Much could be said about this in regard to why there are real estate and commodity bubbles in the Chinese economy.
But what is most relevant is that all of the trans-Atlantic governments, at every G7 and G20 meeting of this century, have relentlessly demanded that China allow the value of the yuan to rise, backed by tirades on the subject from members of Congress and European parliaments and from nearly all trade unions, chambers of commerce, etc.
It turns out, that they were all screaming at China, all that time, to support the City of London banks' Hong Kong carry trade speculations, which required for their super-profitability that the yuan keep rising in value. Under that international pressure China did allow the yuan to rise, slowly but steadily, for years.
But the government of Xi Jinping reversed that policy in 2014, in order to finally enforce its own currency-control policies, which Evans-Pritchard referred to, against the operations of the London banks in Hong Kong.
Result: London and Wall Street speculations "reversed," and big banks lost money. Result: Now some Congressional Democrats object to Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) swindle, not so much because it is an attack on the United States, but that it is not enough of an attack on China. Like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, they say they oppose the TPP; but, they might vote for it if accompanied by a "currency manipulator" designation on China.
Tell the truth, Senator: It is your "constituents" in Wall Street boardrooms, led by their more clever London counterparts, who have been manipulating China's currency, along with rigging international interest rates, foreign exchange markets, gold prices, etc., etc. That has ended with the emergence of the new policy of the BRICS. Obama's TPP is part of an attempt to provoke war with China and Russia. Oppose him.
No comments:
Post a Comment