Obama - Netanyahu Row Over Speech to Congress Is Theater, Was Planned in 2009

From RadioFreeBlood

This Dog and Pony show will also help to insure that JEB and the GOP get the uninitiated Jewish vote in 2016 (as planned)

US and Israel attempting to establish feigned “diplomatic row” to justify “unilateral” Israeli attack on Iran.

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost – up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution’s policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retropspect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength – which according to Brookings – is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest – considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel – is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a “unilateral” Israeli first strike on Iran – an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves 

The Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible “peaceful” options before resorting to violent regime change.  The report states specifically that:

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Of course, Iran – as admitted to by Brookings themselves – is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely “superb offer.” The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy – one for public consumption (making “superb offers”) and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

At one point in the policy paper, Brookings would state:

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, 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.)

Here, Brookings policymakers openly conspire to undermine global peace by “goading” another nation into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from. Provoking a nation that poses no threat to the national security of the United States is a clear violation of international law – with the Brookings paper serving as a literal signed confession.

Yet despite this open admission, conspiring against world peace, what is of more interest is the United States’ plans to disavow any responsibility for an attack it would use its regional proxy, Israel, to carry out in its place. It states specifically under a chapter titled, “Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that:

…the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives). 

To no one’s surprise the British Daily Mail now reports in an article titled, “President Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iranian nuclear facilities last year, claim sources,” that:

President Obama is alleged to have stopped an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets, according to reports to emerge from the Middle East at the weekend

The threat from the U.S. forced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to abort a planned attack on Iraq, reported Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

Netanyahu will be in Washington for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama’s cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran. 

Here, the Daily Mail repeats a growing narrative that dovetails neatly into long-standing US foreign policy described by the Brookings Institution’s report in 2009 – down to the letter. In fact, the prospect of “shooting down” Israeli planes was discussed as one of many props used in this geopolitical theater.

The US, as prescribed by Brookings, is portrayed as desperately trying to hammer out an almost unreasonably accommodation with Iran, while “mad dog” Israel seeks to unilaterally attack Iran – thus giving the US the plausible deniability it openly claimed it would disingenuously attempt to create ahead of any Israeli attack on Iran. It should be noted that the summation of Israel’s military might is a result long, extensive, and continuous US military support meaning that Israeli military operation is even possible without it.

Also of interest is Israel’s habitual, belligerent, serial acts of inhumanity against both its own people and the Palestinians whose land Tel Aviv has seized and continues to occupy. The nature of these acts is not one of self-preservation, but of intentional provocation – creating predictable political divides across the West easily manipulated particularly at times like these where a “regrettable” attack made upon Iran, a nation the West has thus far failed to topple with terrorism, US-backed sedition, sanctions, and covert provocations, is now in the cards.

It is also clear that the 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” policy paper still represents a vivid window into a much deeper and well-entrenched doctrine still to this day being used to reorder the Middle East into alignment with Western special interests.  It is a signed confession of a now evident conspiracy against global peace and stability. It should be read, in full, before the United Nations Security Council  before those who wrote it and the corporate-financier interests who sponsored it are brought to international justice.

Anything less proves that the United States and its regional proxies, not Iran, are the rogue states, working against global peace and stability, with many standing examples already of their atrocities on display, and more – apparently – still to come.

Obama Secretary of Defense Nomination is from Goldman Sachs

RadioFreeBlood.com 

President Obama on Friday announced his nomination of Ashton B. Carter, a physicist and former deputy defense secretary, to replace Chuck Hagel as defense secretary. Video by Reuters on Publish Date December 5, 2014. Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times.

On December 5, 2014, Carter was nominated by President Barack Obama to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel

So Who IS Ashton Carter?
He was deputy secretary of defense from October 2011 to December 2013, serving as the DOD’s chief operating officer overseeing more than $600 billion per year and 2.4 million civilian and military personnel, and managing global 24/7 operations. From April 2009 to October 2011, he was undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics with responsibility for procurement of all technology, systems, services, and supplies, bases and infrastructure, energy and environment, and more than $50 billion annually in R&D.

Previously, Carter was a senior partner of Global Technology Partners focused on advising investment firms in technology and defense.

He has been a consultant to Goldman Sachs and Mitretek Systems on international affairs and technology matters, and speaks frequently to business and policy audiences. Carter was also a member of the Aspen Strategy Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Physical Society, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. Carter was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Carter was also co-director of the Preventive Defense Project, which designs and promotes security policies aimed at preventing the emergence of major new threats to the United States.
From 1990 to 1993, Carter was director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Chairman of the Editorial Board of International Security. Previously, he held positions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and Rockefeller University. (See David Rockefeller – Predatory Globalist)

He received bachelor’s degrees in physics and in medieval history from Yale University, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa in 1976. He then received his doctorate in theoretical physics from the University of Oxford in 1979, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. (A system to create Global Govt initiates, founded by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902, South African financier, British statesman and industrialist, who wanted to make Africa a “British dominion from the Cape to Cairo”), with the financial support and guidance of Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild

He was a physics instructor at Oxford, a postdoctoral fellow at Rockefeller University and MIT, and an experimental research associate at Brookhaven and Fermilab National Laboratories.
Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy during President Clinton’s first term.

Carter noted that China was a central economic partner and that ‘The Shift to Asia’ is principally an economic matter with new security implications. India, Australia, and New Zealand were mentioned as forthcoming security partners (AKA the TPP Agreement currently on the “fast track” for the Obama Admin. See: Obama’s TPP Negotiators Get Big Bonuses From Wall Street)
(DARPA) Carter had been a longtime member of the Defense Science Board and the Defense Policy Board, the principal advisory bodies to the Secretary of Defense. During the Bush administration, he was also a member of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice‘s International Security Advisory Board
Carter’s views on Iran have been perceived as hawkish. In 2006, he authored a report advocating use or threat of force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (Exposed by the Reese commission as an endowment for WAR)  

Conclusion:

Carter is certainly a man from Wall Street, and a long standing member of the Global Govt round tables. He shares a high level tech background with the recent Obama Nominee for AG, Loretta Lynch. (Also from Wall St. as well as the NY Federal Reserve. MORE on Ms Lynch HERE)
There seems to be a major preparation ongoing for some kind of Cyber War. This war to be blamed on set up enemies such as “ISIS”, Syria, and North Korea etc… Would be impossible to prove to the American Citizenry. We would have to “trust” the powers that be, that whatever occurred went down per the official story. The I – Patriot Act has already been written.
Ashton Carter has been up for nomination for past duties in the US Central Govt…. He has passed unanimously each time.

CFR member Ashton Carter-Devil in The Details of War http://t.co/Hqy9mDVj9G War = CFR profits http://t.co/cRRHjK0D9P pic.twitter.com/xVF6TTCHFJ
— Tom Jefferson (@tjefferson1976) December 21, 2014

Help Obama Kickstart World War III

Be a trendy Google, Facebook loving Obama supporter and you'll get to wear your mark of the beast in a brand new cool looking Apple iWatch, which can be synchronized with your Google Glass and all your Google and Apple products whether you like it or not.

Just pay your taxes and watch TV so Obama can continue executing a plan that was laid out years ago, even before 9/11/2001.

Obama Supports Al-Qaeda. Blowback is Inevitable. Americans should be FURIOUS!

"Blowback" - invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended results of American actions abroad. Chalmers Johnson wrote a great book on it.  If you do not describe American foreign policy as "empire building" then you are a MORON.  If you blame just Obama, then you are a MORON because regime change has been in the works since before George Bush took office.  For more on that, read The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski.  He's the guy who CREATED the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1970's, provoking the USSR to invade, which ultimately caused their bankruptcy.  

At the very least read this passage:

Indeed, the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Mali, Bosnia and other countries – and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries.  So moderate Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa are becoming furious at U.S. interventionist policies.

---From Zerohedge---

The protests in Egypt against president Mohammed Morsi were – according to the BBC – the largest in history.

The Egyptian military threw Morsi out in a coup today.

Why?

Irish Times reports:

Army concern about the way President Mohamed Morsi was governing Egypt reached tipping point when the head of state attended a rally packed with hardline fellow Islamists calling for holy war in Syria, military sources have said.

***

Mr Morsi himself called for foreign intervention in Syria against Mr Assad, leading to a veiled rebuke from the army, which issued an apparently bland but sharp-edged statement the next day stressing that its only role was guarding Egypt’s borders.

***

“The armed forces were very alarmed by the Syrian conference at a time the state was going through a major political crisis,” said one officer, whose comments reflected remarks made privately by other army staff. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to talk to the media.

***

For the army, the Syria rally had crossed “a national security red line” by encouraging Egyptians to fight abroad, risking creating a new generation of jihadists, said Yasser El-Shimy, analyst with the International Crisis Group.

At the heart of the military’s concern is the history of militant Islam in Egypt, homeland of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The military source condemned recent remarks made by “retired terrorists” allied to Mr Morsi, who has deepened his ties with the once-armed group al-Gamaa al-Islamiya.

Obama had recently sent American troops to prop up Mursi, and the protesters were furious at the U.S. for backing Islamic radicals.

(The U.S. backed Egypt's previous dictator, as well).

Support of Western intervention in Syria was also one of the main causes of the recent enormous protests in Turkey … which came close to toppling the Turkish leadership.

Indeed, the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Mali, Bosnia and other countries – and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries.  So moderate Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa are becoming furious at U.S. interventionist policies.

Note:  The coup is a set-back for the U.S., because Egypt - unlike Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran - isn't on the 20-year-old list of countries targeted for regime change.

What Is a Transition Town? Why Do People Think We Need One?

If you ever end up reading this book, I sure would like to know what you think.  I am just a regular guy and reading this, along with other related books you see in the TwistedPolitix Reading List, doesn't look so bad.  The idea here is to finally get out of the boom bust cycle twisted economix and war presented by our world power hungry.  That just means making your local economy more resilient to outside forces, like bribery, corruption, racketeering, fear, uncertainty and doubt.  It would resemble life in the past in the sense that we were more locally involved, but that technology would be more advanced in some areas and behind in others.  Forget Obama, Romney, or Ron Paul for now.  Just think about how this economy and life in general could improve.  This is where you go think, not disengage behind a screen.

Transition Handbook

The first of these was the Transition Handbook, by Rob Hopkins.

Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, describes it well:

“The Transition concept is one of the big ideas of our time. Peak oil and climate change can so often leave one feeling depressed and disempowered. What I love about the Transition approach is that it is inspirational, harnessing hope instead of guilt, and optimism instead of fear. The Transition Handbook will come to be seen as one of the seminal books which emerged at the end of the Oil Age and which offered a gentle helping hand in the transition to a more local, more human and ultimately more nourishing future.”

Why Democrats, Independents, Republicans Can All Get Behind Mitt Romney in 2012

(This is still a draft and several revisions will be made over the next few days so come back!)

This is the interview that convinced me to vote for Mitt Romney, even though I am a HUGE Ron Paul fan, and voted for Obama in 2008.

This is my list of reasons for begrudgingly supporting Mitt Romney in 2012.

Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney and he and his father the Most Honorable Dr. Ron Paul is behind some VERY IMPORTANT issues.

• Legalizing industrial hemp.  Ron Paul submitted legislation in May 2011 called the Industrial Hemp Farming Act (HR1831) that would legalize non-narcotic industrial hemp.  Hemp is a HUGE part of the solution to the energy crisis, national security crisis, climate change (drought), the trade deficit, the ailing auto industry, the national debt, and more.
• Audit and End the Federal Reserve.  Ron Paul has spoken endlessly on this topic and recently Rand Paul submitted legislation to audit the Federal Reserve.  For EXCELLENT research on the twisted history of the Federal Reserve, watch Money Masters by Bill Stills.  This is actually MORE important than hemp but not as personal to me since I want to build cars our of American hemp - (see Wikispeed).
• Sound Monetary Policy - Ron Paul and Rand Paul are gaining support across the country for sound monetary policy that reduces the Federal Reserves ability to monopolize our currency and perpetuate poverty with their pump and dump falsely created economic cycles.  Economic variances will always exist.  Panics will happen, but we should not allow CENTRAL PLANNERS to manage our entire economy.  This is a form of Communism.  Yes, the Federal Reserve and all its puppet central banks around the world are GREATLY responsible for war, debt, and the destruction of the social progress that has been made by our founding fathers.  Gold and silver should be part of the global monetary supply officially to curtail central bank printing fiat money.
• Ending the IRS and the Federal Income Tax.  Who wouldn't be behind this.  How else can you starve the beast that has build a military empire around the world? Between the CIA, the US Military, and the Federal Reserve, backed by our tax dollars illegally stolen by the IRS, the USA has been in so many wars, I doubt any American could name all the countries and all the invasions, all the tackled leaders, all the death and destruction.  Rape, pillage, and plunder in the name of "liberty" and "democracy".  BS.

Obama and Romney Are the SAME! so I can vote my for Mitt Romney with social conscience still intact.  Let's face it, Romney doesn't look like a bad guy.  It's his party I am not so fond of because the GOP includes in its umbrella Neo Cons who are responsible for stripping social benefits in order to make room for militarism.  That is FASCISM.  

Why NOT Obama?

Yes, I voted for Obama in 2008.  I read both of his books, did extensive research and finally decided that the GOP was the greater of 2 evils.  Little did I know then that The Republican and the Democrat presidential candidates are guided by the same puppetmasters.  They are the ones who REALLY deserve our WRATH!

• Erosion of Civil Liberties - Obama has made continuous efforts to STRIP THE UNITED STATES OF OUR SOVEREIGNTY, grounding his ability to remove democratically elected leaders with NATO forces and suggesting that the UN and NATO give him the right to declare war, without Congress.  He should have been impeached for Libya.  Sound radical and conspiratorial? Do the research.  SOPA, NDAA, indefinite detention, Nation Defense Resource Preparedness (NDRP), and most recently the Transnationl Pacific Partnership Pact (or whatever name it has now) that would allow corporations in 8 other nations to completely circumvent our national laws.  This guy was a constitutional law professor and head of the Harvard Law Review?
• Bank Bailouts - He did nothing to counter the rising power of the Big Banks that manipulate our policy, steal wealth from the middle class, cause financial havoc, all the while taking bailouts.  Privatized gains and socialized losses.  What is that but SOCIALISM.  It is NOT capitalism.  Free markets would have allowed the Big 4 banks to collapse years ago.  Instead they are protected by government, at our expense.

What has Obama done well?

I will give him credit where credit is due.  Obama came into office on the hopes and dreams of those who were completely disillusioned by the damage that George Bush did with his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and massive deficits, scandals, and treason.  It wasn't hard for ANYONE to look better than Bush.  That was probably part of an elaborate plan to deceive us, but I will save that for later.

• Healthcare Reform - I am a social liberal progressive, I think.  I am not sure what the proper label is for my positions.  I think there should be competitive private healthcare for all, insured by the US Federal government or State governments.  This could be in the form of a public option or universal healthcare.  I am not caught up on the label.  Healthcare should be a natural right of every American citizen, regardless of race, state of residence, financial wherewithal, or current health condition.  Obama did manage to get more Americans covered, but did nothing to address the rise of healthcare costs.  This was a big failure, but let's give him points for trying.
• Energy policy - Obama has done quite a bit to support renewable energy.  This is the WISE business choice.  We need to be talking about efficiency, conservation, alternative sources, balanced usage, and ending the wars.  Something closer to the Carter Doctrine but without the part about "protecting our national interests abroad at all costs".  That part was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the creator of the Mujahidin, National Security Advisor to Carter, and father of the 2 sons who were advisors to BOTH McCain and Obama in the 2008 elections.  Again, we have had puppetmasters controlling our government for generations and very few of us recognize that.  Ron Paul gets it.
• The BP oil spill - By forcing BP to put aside $20B, Obama avoided the catastrophic financial damage that could have been inflicted on the region like Exxon did with the Valdez in Alaska nearly 30 years ago.  Very few people have been paid for the damage in that case.  The oil companies get away with murder all the time.  A more balanced energy policy and hard nosed investigative journalism may put the Four Horsemen back in their proper place - to serve the greater good of society.
• Bank Subsidies in the Form of Educational Loan Origination and Servicing - I am pretty sure that Obama led the effort to remove the middleman banks from educational loans that cost borrowers about $6B in fees each year.

Last But Not Least

This is where a little bit of twisted logic comes into play.  It is