Welcome to The Truth News.Info
The Trillion dollar criminal case against top Davos, UN officials & others will go ahead despite sudden death of key witness
By Benjamin Fulford
Criminal charges will be filed this week in New Jersey in a $1 trillion robbery case that implicates top officials of the World Economic
Forum (Davos) top UN officials including UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and members of the Italian P2 Masonic Lodge, according to top US
law enforcement officials and lawyers for the owners of the over $1 trillion in stolen financial instruments. The individual directly
responsible for stealing the funds, P2’s Daniele Dal Bosco was recorded asking Giancarlo Bruno “Head of the Financial Services Industry” at
Davos to have myself and three other individuals murdered. In addition, Joe Bendana, the man who assisted in the case within the US on behalf
of Neil Keenan and also provided affidavits to other governments and Interpol was also threatened directly by Dal Bosco 4 days before he was
found murdered in his residence, Newark, New Jersey, last Saturday, September 4, 2010. Police are treating the death of Bendana as a homicide
because of the threats and because there was a security breach at his residence the night he died.
Read story and comments here
//////////////////////
by Fred Reed ( From Paul, news contributor) Much hoorah, there is, over the mosque that may or may not be built in New York. I don’t give a tinker’s damn (whatever precisely that may be; I presume that tinkers’ oaths were thought more efficacious than others) whether they build it or not. The matter does however put to rest for me any hope of rationality in human affairs. This, I grant, could be accomplished with a very small bed. At this writing, the government’s war for oil and AIPAC has more or less solidly metamorphosed, among the rubes at least, into a war against Islam. Men of thunder and portent peddle the notion like starving encyclopedia salesmen. No less a political howitzer than Pat Buchanan says that the mosque should not be built, because of the religious motivation of the Saudis who attacked the towers. His view has been eagerly received by the populace. Now it seems that yahoos at some fourth-grade church in Florida plan to burn a Koran to commemorate 9/11. Splendid, this. We are telling 1.3 billion Moslems that America is not fighting Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or Terror. No. It is Islam itself we hate. How very wise. This will make it so much easier to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those security forces that GIs are supposed to be training – the ones with the AKs – they will know that their trainers are their enemies. Curiously, this is just what bin Laden tells them. Glands again trump minds, if any. Consider that ten minutes before the first tower got hit in New York, the thought had occurred to practically no one in America that Islam constituted a mortal threat to all that we hold holy, chiefly chain restaurants and iPods. But Islam afterwards offered to fill this void that the Russians had wimped out on. For a brief period after the implosion of the Soviet Union, Americans had no threat to worry about. They found it deeply puzzling. Weren’t we supposed to be afraid of something? It didn’t feel right. Then came New York, and suddenly we saw it: The Clash of Civilizations. Islam was out to get us. Why hadn’t we noticed? A roaring hatred for Moslems sprang up from people who had never met a Moslem, who had a garden slug’s grasp of history. A deep satisfaction came over the land. We had been made whole again. Battling Mohammedans quickly became an industry. The government at first tried to peddle Terrorism as the enemy, not Islam, but it didn’t stick. Something more robustly flackable was wanted. I find Buchanan, of the American Conservative, proclaiming that Islam is a Culture of Jihad, and most militant. No doubt. Very. Would it be poltroonish of me to note that just now Christian armies are busily annexing and wrecking Afghanistan and Iraq, having recently bombed Somalia? That they use robotic aircraft to murder Yemenis, that they hunt down Moslems in the Philippines (where after 1898 Americans engaged in atrocities that would win the admiration of the Japanese), encourage Israel to ruin Lebanon and to run a concentration camp for Moslems in Gaza, enthusiastically murder Pakistanis from the sky, and threaten Syria and Iran? Those Moslems. Militant, they are. The bastards. The Islamic countries listed above are only those currently attacked by America. Let us look at the matter in another way. I append here a list of all Christian countries conquered by militant Moslems since 1529: Next, a partial list of Moslem countries conquered by Christians: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq (the first time), Iraq (again), Iran, Pakistan, East Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai…. This list does not include such minor Christian conquests as North, South, and Central America, India, China, Southeast Asia, black Africa, and such. Unconscionable, Moslem aggressiveness is. Buchanan regards the events of 9/11 as no end grievous. So do I. Yet perhaps people who live in glass pots and kettles shouldn’t call names. The UN’s figures give 600,000 Iraqi children dead because of the American embargo, which didn’t allow, for example, chlorine to sterilize water. This is equivalent to 6.4 million dead children in the United States. Hmmm: If Moslems had killed this trifling number of our sprats, might we wax grumpish? Yes, I know, the UN is a commie Marxist socialist anti-American conspiracy, and not as trustworthy as the American propaganda apparatus. All right. Let’s assume that the UN lied by a factor of ten, and thus only 60,000 Iraqi children died thanks to us. Thus, if 3,000 Americans died in New York, we owe the Moslems some 57,000. No? If I may sally briefly into unloved seriousness: What puzzles me, as one who has lived extensively abroad, is how little Americans are able to see things through the eyes of others, how little empathy they have (this latter defect being characteristic of both psychopaths and narcissists).Consider a headline from Antiwar.com of a sort appearing almost daily: “US Drone Strike Destroys House Full of Children in Pakistan. Apparently no one in the Great Rubber Room north of Mexico has an inkling why this might arouse hatred in Pakistanis. Can you imagine the fury that would ensue if a Moslem blew up a house full of American kids in, say, Queens? But when we kill their kids, no one cares. “Yeah, well. Tough. Giv’em a few dollars.” Buncha dirty raghead larvae. No better than cockroaches, right? Now, we’re going to have a pop quiz. Take out a sheet of paper. Question: Can you think of any reason why Moslems might be unhappy with America? Right! They hate our freedoms. In which case they daily have less to hate us for. It doesn’t pay to underestimate an enemy, I hear. All right: Moslems are so very dangerous not just because of their many extremist groups – Salamists, Al Sushis, the Falafel, and the Wasabi for example – but because of their immense industrial strength, which doesn’t exist. With the possible exception of Turkey, not one Islamic nation is in the First World. I picture bearded, turbaned warriors wading ashore on aquatic camels, causing no end of panic in Atlantic City. I mean, what do camels eat? The horror. Herewith a searing insight for the ever-puzzled State Department: Actions have consequences. If you support Batista, you will engender Fidel. If you support the Shah, you will get Khomeini. If you attack Moslems, you will get bin Laden. It might be better to stay home and read a book. //////////////////////////////// Middle East Loses Trillions As U.S. Strikes Record Arms DealsSeptember 2, 2010 By Rick Rozoff The Internet has provided the world with, if nothing else, instantaneous access to news and in-depth information previously available only to governments and think tanks. It has also allowed for the exchange of data and analyses between groups and individuals around the globe, in part by making one tongue, English, the language of the World Wide Web. It remains to be seen whether the keystroke is mightier than the sword. An illustrative case in point is an August 29 report from China’s Xinhua News Agency on a news article by Egypt’s Middle East News Agency regarding a study conducted by the Strategic Foresight Group in India. The latter, a report published in a book entitled The Cost of Conflict in the Middle East, calculates that conflict in the area over the last 20 years has cost the nations and people of the region 12 trillion U.S. dollars. The Indian report adds that the Middle East has recorded “a high record of military expenses in the past 20 years and is considered the most armed region in the world.” [1] The study was originally released in January of 2009 and was recently translated into Arabic by the Institute for Peace Studies of Egypt. It estimates that in a peaceful environment the nations of the Middle East could have achieved an average annual growth in gross domestic product of 8 percent. Sundeep Waslekar, president of the Strategic Foresight Group and one of the report’s authors, was quoted in January of last year saying of the region’s nations, “The choice they have to make is the choice between the danger of devastation and the promise of peace.” [2] An account of the presentation of the report last year added that the cost of conflict in the region is estimated at 2 percent of growth in gross domestic product. In regards to specific cases, it stated: “One conclusion is that individuals in most countries are half as rich as they would have been if peace had taken off in 1991. “Incomes per head in Israel next year would be $44,241 with peace against a likely $23,304. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip they would be $2,427 instead of $1,220. “For Iraq, income per head next year is projected at $2,375, one quarter of the $9,681 that would have been possible without the conflicts of the past two decades.” [3] Other sources estimate the overall rate of unemployment in the Middle East at 20-25 percent, with joblessness in nations like Lebanon and Yemen at 30 percent or more. This despite the fact that the region has achieved one of the more impressive successes in improving educational opportunities, measured by the amount of years students spend in school, in the world. The Middle East requires comprehensive regional development, but instead is receiving billions of dollars worth of arms. The area’s nations could be spending that sum on rural and urban infrastructure, dams and reservoirs, desalination and irrigation, forestation and fisheries, industry and agriculture, medicine and public health, housing and information technology, equitable integration of cities and villages, and repairing the ravages of past wars rather than on U.S. warplanes, attack helicopters and interceptor missiles. An American news report of a year ago revealed that, according to a U.S.-based consultancy firm, several Middle Eastern nations are slated to spend over $100 billion on weapons in the upcoming five years. Most of those arms purchases – “unprecedented packages” – will be by Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the “core of this arms-buying spree will undoubtedly be the $20 billion U.S. package of weapons systems over 10 years for the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.” The expansion of American arms sales and military presence in the Persian Gulf targets Iran in the first place. The same feature documented plans for the U.S. to supply Egypt with a $13 billion arms package and Israel with $30 billion in weaponry over ten years, the latter “a 25 percent increase over previous levels.” [4] A year later it was disclosed that Washington will sell $13 billion worth of arms and military equipment to Iraq, “a huge order of tanks, ships and hardware that U.S. officials say shows Iraqi-U.S. military ties will be tight for years to come.” A $3 billion deal for 18 F-16 Fighting Falcon multirole jet fighters is also in the works. Iraq will become one of the largest purchasers of U.S. weapons in the world. According to the U.S. Army’s Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, ranking American officer in charge of training and advising Iraqi troops, such military agreements help “build their capabilities, first and foremost; and second, it builds our strategic relationship for the future.” [5] With 4.7 million Iraqis displaced since 2003, 2.2 million as refugees in Jordan, Syria and other nations, and a near collapse of the nation’s civilian infrastructure since the U.S. invasion, surely there are better ways of spending $16 billion that on American arms. To Iraq’s south, last month the U.S. announced one of the largest weapons sales in its history: A $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon notified Congress of the colossal transaction which the U.S. legislative body will approve later this month. Over the next decade Washington will supply Saudi Arabia with F-15SA Strike Eagle jet fighters (SA is for Saudi Advanced), 72 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, 60 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, helicopter-carrying offshore patrol vessels and upgrades for the 96 Patriot Advanced Capability-2 interceptor missiles already stationed in the kingdom. Last month Kuwait announced that it planned to purchase more than 200 U.S. Patriot anti-ballistic missiles in a $900 million deal. The U.S. Defense Department also advised Congress of that transaction, stating “Kuwait needs these missiles to meet current and future threats of enemy air-to-ground weapons.” The news agency which reported the above, Agence France-Presse, also provided the following information: “The U.S. has several military bases in Kuwait, including Camp Arifjan, one of the biggest U.S. military facilities in the region. There are between 15,000 and 20,000 U.S. troops stationed in Kuwait.” [6] The American Fifth Fleet is headquartered in neighboring Bahrain. The U.S. is also providing Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile interception batteries. Last year Washington approved the transfer of a Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile shield system to the United Arab Emirates. The deal, estimated to cost $7 billion, is the first transfer of the advanced interceptor missiles outside the U.S. In May the Barack Obama administration requested $205 million from Congress for the Israeli Iron Dome layered interceptor missile shield, in the words of a Pentagon spokesman “the first direct U.S. investment in the Iron Dome system.” [7] In the autumn of 2008 the U.S. opened an interceptor missile radar base in Israel’s Negev Desert centered on a Forward-Based X-Band Radar with a range of 2,900 miles. This August 15 Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced his country is to receive – one can’t say buy – 20 U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters worth $96 million apiece along with spare parts, maintenance and simulators. “The $2.7 billion deal will be paid for using U. S. military assistance.” [8] The fifth generation stealth warplanes are the world’s most advanced. According to Israeli government sources in reference to the prospect of eventual deployment of Russian air defenses to Iran and Syria, “the purchase of F-35 fighters would effectively eliminate the threat from Russian-made S-300 air defense systems because a series of computer simulations had clearly demonstrated that new U.S. stealth fighters outperform the Russian missiles.” This year the State Department confirmed that $2.55 billion in U.S. military assistance was given to Israel in 2009 and that the figure will “increase to $3 billion in 2012, and will total $3.15 billion a year from 2013 to 2018.” [9] That is, will grow by almost 25 percent. Since the administration of Jimmy Carter and his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski bought off Anwar Sadat and through him Egypt in 1978 at the expense of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and other Arab states, Washington has provided Cairo with $1.3 billion a year in military aid, adding up to $50 billion by 2008. In January of this year General David Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command and now in charge of 150,000 American and NATO troops in Afghanistan, visited Yemen and called for more than doubling military aid to the strife-torn nation from $70 to $150 million annually. He was later forced to retract his comments, but the Wall Street Journal reported on September 2 that “The U.S. military’s Central Command has proposed pumping as much as $1.2 billion over five years into building up Yemen’s security forces.” The United Nations Statistics Division estimated Yemeni gross national income per capita for 2008 at $1,260. The U.S. has launched several missile strikes inside Yemen over the past nine months and “U.S. Special Operations teams…play an expansive role in the country.” [10] Funding for what the Pentagon describes as a counterterrorism program in the country has grown from $5 million a year in fiscal year 2006 to over $155 million four years later. Washington is planning to add unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) equipped with lethal missiles operated by the Central Intelligence Agency to its operations in Yemen, replicating the same arrangement in Pakistan. After the so-called Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 – modeled after comparable “color revolutions” in the former Soviet states of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively – led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country and the installation of pro-Western Fouad Siniora as prime minister, the U.S. reestablished military contacts with Lebanon, which had been broken off after 1983. A dozen U.S. military officials travelled to Beirut at the end of the year, inspecting bases as part of a “comprehensive assessment of the condition of U.S.-made equipment in the Lebanon armed forces.” [11] After the Israeli invasion of the country the following summer, Washington started military aid to the nation of four million people which two years later had exceeded $410 million. According to an Associated Press account in 2008, “The [George W. Bush] administration has spent about $1.3 billion in the past two years trying to prop up Siniora’s Western-allied government, including about $400 million in military aid.” [12] On October 6, 2008 the U.S. established a joint military commission with Lebanon “to bolster military cooperation.” The, by Lebanese standards, unprecedented donations of arms and military equipment by the Pentagon were explicitly for internal use – against Hezbollah – and for deployment at the Syrian border. Not for defending the nation against the country that had invaded it in 1978, 1983 and 2006 – Israel. On August 2 of this year, a day before two Lebanese soldiers were killed in a firefight with Israeli troops on Lebanese territory, Congressman Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, blocked a $100 million security assistance package to the Lebanese military. There should be no misunderstanding: The Pentagon has not built up the armed forces of post-”Cedar” Lebanon to defend the nation, its people or even the army itself. The sum blocked by Berman, added to that already provided by the Pentagon, well exceeds half a billion dollars. That amount of money would go a long way in alleviating the suffering of 900,000 Lebanese displaced and in rebuilding some of the 30,000 housing units destroyed by the Israeli military in 2006. Weapons are the most expensive of manufactured goods and the least productive, generating no value and designed only to destroy and kill. They are not produced solely or primarily to be displayed in parades or at air shows. The Middle East is that part of the world that has known the least peace in the past 60 years and that is in most need of it. Regional disputes – over land and borders, over water and other resources – need to be resolved in a non-antagonistic manner. The foreign and national security policies of the region’s states need to be demilitarized. Conventional and nuclear disarmament is imperative. Washington pouring over $100 billion in news arms into the Middle East will not contribute to the safety and security of its inhabitants. It will not benefit the nations of the region. In truth not a single one of them. 1) Xinhua News Agency, August 29, 2010 ////////////////////////////////////// National Infrastructure Bank: Another Trilateral Ripoff?By Patrick Wood September 9, 2010 Obama’s slick 2010 Labor Day speech that promised an additional Federal stimulus for a sick economy, was a ringer. Here's why -- buried in the $50 billion infrastructure stimulus promise is the following statement:
Infrastructure Bank? Smartest investments? Obama would have you think that this was his brainchild, but it is not. It will, however, effectively centralize another key area of our economy, namely infrastructure, into a government run enterprise that mostly benefits the private capital of the global elite, and in particular, members of the Trilateral Commission. For a historical perspective, we need to look back to August 2007 during the Bush administration when S.1926 was introduced (National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007) by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). The failed bill provided for an independent government entity (think FDIC, for instance) with a five-member board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 2009, the Obama Administration promoted similar legislation introduced into the House as H.R.2521 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to "facilitate efficient investments and financing of infrastructure projects and new job creation through the establishment of a National Infrastructure Development Bank, and for other purposes." [Emphasis added] The Administration was so certain that this would pass (it has not) that the 2010 budget included appropriations for a National Infrastructure Bank. (See Investing for Success, Brookings Institution, p.11) Dodd himself called S.1926 a “unique and powerful public-private partnership” that would offer a “fresh solution to the challenge of rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.” It was originally to be funded by a $60 billion bond issue which would be then leveraged with private capital. Obama’s new twist is to forget the bond and just give $50 billion of taxpayer money directly to kick-start the NIB. A public-private partnership in this context is reminiscent of the World Bank's Public-Private Partnership in Infrastructure program (PPPI) whose objective "is to provide capacity building to help client governments create the proper environment to develop successful and sustainable PPPs, as well as to provide technical assistance to client countries in issues related to PPP program design, development, and implementation." However, the World Bank explains their agenda more fully: "The program initially focuses on core infrastructure sectors– energy, water, transport, and telecommunications– and will progressively cover the main social sectors such as education, health and housing." This may suggest the intended meaning of "other purposes" mentioned above in H.R.2421. Obama made no mention of NIB revenue bonds that would be used to pay back loans with by tolls, fees, etc. Most importantly, all infrastructure spending/lending/appropriations would circumvent Congress forever more. In fact, the whole affair would be off-agency, meaning that the accounting for it would not show up in the national budget, but would potentially create a huge contingent liability for taxpayers down the road. So, who were the policy wonks behind the NIB and S.1926 in 2007? (You know it wasn’t Dodd or Hagel!) Fortunately, the press release on Dodd’s own website gives full credit: “Last year, Senators Dodd and Hagel signed on to a set of ‘Guiding Principles for Strengthening America’s Infrastructure’ developed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Commission on Public Infrastructure,” said CSIS President and CEO John Hamre. “These principles were established to recommend changes to rebuild America’s decaying infrastructure. CSIS is proud to have helped stimulate this important initiative. Proud, indeed! This traitorous and globalist think tank was originally established by a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, David Abshire. The current CSIS board is stacked with notorious Trilateral Commission members like Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Brock, Harold Brown, Richard Armitage, Carla Hills (architect of NAFTA), Henry Kissinger, Joseph Nye, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft. This supposedly "bi-partisan" S.1926 was subsequently co-sponsored by twelve other senators including Hillary Clinton and, you guessed it, then-Senator Barrack Hussein Obama. This is one more piece of evidence that both Clinton and Obama operate solidly within the Trilateral orbit. There is no argument that the U.S. infrastructure is a shambles. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that it would take $1.6 trillion to fix it. The final tab will be much higher. Of course, neither the Feds nor the states have that kind of money but the Trilateral Commission has repeatedly proven its ability to sucker the taxpayers into paying for the Commission's global trade schemes… in this case, the final implementation of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) trade routes throughout the U.S. As reported in my detailed 2005 report, Toward a North American Union, NAFTA was created in the first place exclusively by members of the Trilateral Commission: George H.W. Bush, Carla Hills, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In recent years, NAFTA's infrastructure grid has been developed and plotted by an organization known as the North America Corridor Coalition, Inc. (NASCO). The recently updated NASCO web site shows a plethora of infrastructure plans that are tightly integrated with the implementation of NAFTA, which will undoubtedly be brought into play through the new National Infrastructure Bank.
Citizen revolts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2007-2008 were successful at smacking down the infamous Trans-Texas NAFTA Super-Corridor along I-35. This likely will not happen again. Such pesky citizens and their state governments will be rendered irrelevant with decisions being made at the national level by a private board that will operate behind closed doors with little or no public input or recourse. The Brookings Institution explains it this way:
Thus, where local and state government cooperation is lacking, the NIB would "catalyze" projects and make them happen in spite of such "insufficient institutional coordination". In short, the NIB scheme sets up the American taxpayer for yet another pillage and plunder operation at the hands of the Trilateral Commission and their global elite cronies. When projects fail, taxpayers will pay for that as well. S.1926 did not pass in 2008 and H.R. 2521 did not pass in 2009, but now that Obama has put it at the top of his agenda, it will likely pass before December 31, 2010. Or… Obama could simply create it by fiat through an Executive Order! How much more Trilateral abuse can the taxpayer's Treasury endure before the whole economic system in the U.S. just collapses from exhaustion? No one can say for sure, but it seems awfully close to this writer! Unfortunately, mid-term elections will do absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of this nefarious and unelected group that quietly hijacked the U.S. Executive Branch as far back as 1976 with the election of James Earl Carter and Walter Mondale, both of whom were early members of the Trilateral Commission. That and every administration since then has been stocked full of Commission members, all eager to promote Trilateral-style globalism and demote U.S. sovereignty and prosperity. Other resources:
----------------------- Patrick Wood is the editor of The August Review, The August Forecast and is Executive Director of Idaho for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise (Idaho-SAFE). //////////////////////////////////////// 10 Reasons Our Fresh Water Supply is in Deep TroubleBy Jeffrey Green September 13, 2010 Fresh clean water is essential to all life forms. It seems that a resource so vital should not be corralled, controlled, or corrupted by any corporation or government. However, with fresh water supplies under assault on multiple fronts, governments seek to further clamp down on individual human usage, while doing very little to reduce the reasons for the contamination. At the same time, corporations that repackage water and sell it back to the public enjoy financial benefits from the scarcity of their "product." As our public drinking water becomes more limited because of contamination, the purification process applies more chemicals -- which further compromises the quality of water. Incidentally, most public water companies still put sodium fluoride in the water despite that it is proven to be a neurotoxin. In fact, a town in California is being fined by the state health department for NOT fluoridating the water.
|
