9/11, the bigger picture and the quest for truth

http://www.911forum.org.uk/

From the page:”PurposeThis forum currently hosted by www.911forum.org.uk aims to provide access to discussion forums and other online media related to political, economic, social or military events arising from the so-called `War on Terror’. The purpose of this forum is to provide a safe, respectful, positive space for discussion and information sharing. The forum is intended for the use of people who accept the need for a reinvestigation of 9/11 and the war on terror. Those who believe no new investigation is required should only post in the critics corner. The forum administrators are committed to a non-violent transformation of the world based on truth, justice, peace and unity. The forum is independent and not affiliated to any individual organisation, philosophy or worldview. It finds common cause with the truth, social justice, green and peace movements.”——————————————————–Note from usmjam: the quest for the hard awful truth is also shared by true conservative Christians who still believe in the U.S. Constitution. For our own reasons, we know the only hope for freedom is in the basic principles found when you’re priorities are God, family and country. We are not green peace tree huggers, left-lib, anarchists or seekers of some sort of secular humanist “social justice”. We just know that the truth must be sought, and that it can indeed set you free.

About | 1913 Intel

http://www.1913intel.com/about/

From the About page: “1913 Intel is an intelligence blog. It monitors open source news of strategic and geopolitical significance to individuals who follow international developments.

Some of the general types of information followed:

1. Direct and indirect threats to the United States and its allies such as Israel.
2. Developments in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
3. Military and political changes in the world that cause it to be more threatening to free people.

The primary focus of this website is to provide background showing how the world is slowly positioning itself for war. It aims to answer, “We should have seen it coming.”

Several years ago I became concerned about the amount of resources that Russia was pouring into its underground bunker system. Why are they continuing to devote tremendous resources to this system when they are poor?

The military buildup in China became another concern of mine. Why was the so-called “rise of peaceful China”� involving so much increase in military spending? Why did two generals casually threatened us with nuclear war over Taiwan? Why is China building underground bunkers under many of their major cities?

You might think that this is all rather crazy. Before you dismiss my arguments I suggest you read my Theory page. On the Theory page I explain why today is a lot like it was right before World war I. There are five necessary similarities between today and the pre-1914 world:

1. A weakened superpower.
2. The rise of powerful rivals.
3. Weakened alliances.
4. Rogue regimes like Iran, Syria and North Korea
5. The rise of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The general idea is that two opposing sides face each other, but war doesn�t necessarily have to happen. We leave it up to the rogue regimes and terrorist organizations to provide the catalyst allowing the major players to act.

The overwhelming majority of articles posted on 1913 Intel are not written by me. I literally scan hundreds of articles each day in order to bring you the best news in areas monitored by this site. The individual authors of each article are in no way associated with this site. Also, I don’t necessarily agree with each article I post.”

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/06/19/sue-opec-are-you-crazy.aspx

From the page: “Sue OPEC? Are You Crazy?

A bit strangely, two separate op-eds appear today in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times arguing that it would be a good idea to sue OPEC for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. Here’s the crux of the matter:

Unfortunately, over the years, courts have made it nearly impossible to use the act against OPEC, whose members claim they are sovereign nations and thus immune from such prosecution. But OPEC’s behavior is commercial, not governmental or diplomatic. It is perfectly appropriate for Congress to remove these legal obstacles. Foreign businesses and individuals have long been subject to U.S. antitrust laws–even for conduct overseas, if it has substantial effect on commerce here. So should OPEC.

I’m particularly amused by the line that OPECs members “claim they are sovereign nations,” as though it’s somehow open for debate. But beyond this, it’s absurd to say that OPEC’s behavior is “not governmental or diplomatic,” or that, as the Heritage Foundation posits, OPEC is engaged in “purely business activities.” At this level, it’s impossible to distinguish between commercial and diplomatic interests: OPEC member states want to maximize their geopolitical influence, not just their oil revenue. You can’t say that sovereign nations are the equivalent of businesses just because they happen to be selling something.

But even if it were possible to sue OPEC (and Thomas Evans in the NYT op-ed comes up with a novel argument for why state governments might be able to, under Article III of the Constitution), it’s still a pretty dubious idea. Evans says, “Confronted with the likelihood of huge damages and restraint of its illegal conduct, OPEC, or some of its members, might seek a settlement establishing production goals that would provide a price closer to actual costs.” Well, sure, they might. Or they might try to cut production even further in retaliation, or find other ways to attack American interests abroad. Would it end up being a net benefit to Americans? Something tells me I’d rather have the State Department making this decision than a bunch of trial lawyers and judges.”

The coming financial collapse of the U.S. government: Fed papers reveal whats in store for Americans

http://www.naturalnews.com/019659.html

From the page: “The bankruptcy of the United States government has been talked about for years by independent observers. If you’ve read the book, “Empire of Debt,” then you know where the U.S. is headed financially. But most people have no idea about the ultimate financial consequences of decades of borrowing and spending by Washington, and they remain irrationally convinced that the status quo will remain intact for eternity. No one in any position of authority, you see, has yet admitted that the U.S. government is indeed going bankrupt.

Until now, that is.

In a remarkable paper posted by the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, and authored by a Boston University teacher named Prof Kotlikoff, it is revealed in blunt, powerful language that the era of borrowing and spending without consequence may soon come to a close. The paper, entitled, Is the United States Bankrupt?, may not remain posted for very long once the public gets word of what it actually says.

And what, exactly, does it say? For starters, Kotlikoff explains, “Unless the United States moves quickly to fundamentally change and restrain its fiscal behavior, its bankruptcy will become a foregone conclusion.”

The country is bankrupt”

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf

From the page: “Is the U.S. bankrupt? Or to paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bear, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors?

Many would scoff at this notion. They’d point out that the country has never defaulted on its debt; that its debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio is substantially lower than that of Japan and other developed countries; that its long-term nominal interest rates are historically low; that the dollar is the world’s reserve currency; and that China, Japan, and other countries have an insatiable demand for U.S. Treasuries.

Others would argue that the official debt reflects nomenclature, not fiscal fundamentals; that the sum total of official and unofficial liabilities is massive; that federal discretionary spending and medical expenditures are exploding; that the United States has a history of defaulting on its official debt via inflation; that the government has cut taxes well below the bone; that countries holding U.S. bonds can sell them in a nanosecond; that the financial markets have a long and impressive record of mispricing securities; and that financial implosion is just around the corner.”