Saturday, September 24, 2016

WAYNE MADSEN: Beware The Coming Obama Center, A Force For Conflict And Disruption

A monument to corruption, treason, avarice and pure EVIL  

By Wayne Madsen

There is an ominous operation that will soon appear in south Chicago’s Jackson Park, one that will advance the cause of political disruption and international conflict around the world. 

The Barack Obama Center and Presidential Library will become a magnet for those malevolent forces wanting to advance Obama’s "existing international order" and a nightmare for nations and leaders hoping to stem the tide of globalization, free trade, open borders, and social and religious bedlam.

On September 20, Obama gave an inkling as to the priorities of his center in his final speech as U.S. president before the United Nations General Assembly. 

Obama’s presidential center may be the most malignant for the United States and the rest of the world in the history of non-profit and tax-exempt centers dedicated to preserving the memories of past American presidents.

Unlike the Jimmy Carter Presidential Center in Atlanta, which has advanced the cause of democracy and free elections around the world, the Obama Center, run by the tax-exempt Obama Foundation, will advance the concept of American bullying of countries, leaders, and political parties that fail to fit in with Obama's worldview of a globalized world full of compliant and complacent participants. Obama lectured the General Assembly that the "existing international order" is here to stay and broadly hinted that anyone or any nation that does not agree with it should suffer the consequences from a globalized world.

Obama's vision of "international order"

Although they have done their fair share of harm to international relations, the top priority of the William J. Clinton Foundation and Clinton Presidential Center has been to shake down countries around the world for donations in return for high-level U.S. government access. In Clinton’s view, it has been "pay-to-play," regardless of the human rights records of the countries kicking in the cash to the Clinton Foundation and associated "charities." In contrast, the Obama Center will be a major international status quo propaganda operation to challenge nationalist, secessionist, and popular right-wing and left-wing governments and political parties the world over.

In his speech, Obama laid out what he considers to be threats to his idea of a unitary world under supranational authorities like the United Nations and European Union. Obama said large nations, even his own, must be willing to give up some of their sovereignty and abide by overarching international laws and conventions. That would, of course, include the inability of nation-states to govern the flow of non-citizens across their national borders.

Ironically, while Obama and like-minded globalists like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, in co-sponsoring the migrant conference, urged the world’s civilized nations to accept possibly millions of refugees from such terrorist breeding grounds as Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Chad, and Ukraine, little was said about Obama’s administration having done so much to create refugees and displaced persons in the first place. "Regime change" and constant U.S. drone attacks on civilian targets have their consequences and one of them has been millions of migrants and refugees.

Obama's primary targets and, presumably, those of the embryonic Obama Center are: aggressive nationalism; crude populism, which Obama separated into the categories of "right-wing" and "far left;" unfettered migration across international borders and refugee "rights;" and climate change and trade barriers – not radical Sunni jihadism – which Obama sees as fostering international terrorism and sectarian violence. Unlike his past speeches before the General Assembly, Obama's final General Assembly speech remained uninterrupted by applause from the assembled delegates.

It is clear that in addition to "right-wing" populists like Donald Trump; National Front leader and 2017 French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen; the leaders of the UK Independence Party and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party; and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Obama includes Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and others in the category of "far left populists." It is conceivable that flush with millions of dollars from billionaires like George Soros and Evelyn de Rothschild, the Obama Center will serve as a major disruptor of peace and cease fires around the world, while it masks its true intentions with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize laureate status.

The Obama Center will also be at the forefront of providing jobs to migrants at the expense of the citizens of nations that are forced to accept them. Obama’s UN initiative on migrants received pledges from such firms as Accenture, Airbnb, Citigroup, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, Google, and IKEA to fund the relocation of migrants and provide them with jobs, many quality jobs that will give them preference over American, Canadian, British, French, German, and other workers.

Unlike his veiled criticism of Russia’s president and America’s Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Obama had no sharp words at the UN for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has imprisoned thousands of Turkish citizens in a virtual nationalistic and Islamist pogrom. Following Obama's speech one day later, Erdogan complained to the General Assembly that all of the UN Security Council's five permanent members are «Christian countries» representing only "Europe, America, and Asia."

Erdogan's comments came as a surprise to permanent member China, which is officially an atheist country but has an overwhelming majority of hundreds of millions of practicing Buddhists and only a small number of Christians within its borders. Obama has sought Erdogan's counsel on a number of issues dealing with the Middle East and Islamist terrorism and it shows.

The Obama Center will also back gay rights, particularly in largely non-Muslim countries like Russia, Uganda, China, Poland, Guyana, Ethiopia, and Jamaica, where such practices violate religious and social customs and mores. The Obama Center has already received upward to $1 million from the Gill Foundation of Denver, which supports gay and lesbian rights. Regardless of its commitment to gay rights, the Obama Center will steer clear of criticizing Muslim nations for their policies toward gays. After all, it can be expected that, like the Clinton Foundation, the Obama Center will find itself awash in funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

As gleaned from his UN speech, the Obama Center will also champion the cause of international "free trade" agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and oppose further "Brexit" attempts within the EU. At the UN, Obama called for more trade agreements like the TPP and it is certain that given some of his center's deep-pocketed corporate donors, lobbying for further free trade agreements will be a major focus of the Obama Center. 

One such agreement will be the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), which has run into severe opposition in Europe, particularly in Germany and France, and another move to create a Western Hemisphere free trade area extending from Tierra del Fuego to the Canadian Arctic.

Anti-China activities will also be a priority for the Obama Center. Obama told the General Assembly that Russia and China were to blame for "militarizing some rocks and reefs," primarily a reference to the South China Sea but also a glance at the growing number of Russian defensive military bases on uninhabited Russian islands in the Arctic region.

In its opposition to "aggressive nationalism," the Obama Center will find a number of partners, particularly Soros's Open Society Institute and Foundation, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, which have all targeted the governments of Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and more recently, the Philippines, with increasing ferocity and vigour.

Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen
Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist, Madsen has over twenty years experience in security issues. 

As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. Madsen has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club, Madsen is based and reports from Washington, D.C.

Why Washington Is Determined To Oust Assad By Supporting The Terrorists

Obama, Pentagon, DOD determined to provoke Russia in Syria sparking WWIII  

By Timothy Alexander Guzman

Washington will stop at nothing to remove Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. There will never be peace in Syria as long as Washington and Israel continue to arm and support terrorists groups including the Islamic State, the Al-Nusra Front and other terrorist organizations to defeat the Syrian government. It is evident that Washington gave the green light for airstrikes against Syrian forces in close proximity to an army base by the al-Tharda Mountain in the Deir-ez-Zor region killing more than 62 and wounding over 100 Syrian government forces. 

The airstrikes allowed ISIS to advance on an army base which was an important front against ISIS. The U.S. and Russia began a ceasefire to target ISIS and other terrorist groups but instead the U.S. decided to aid ISIS fighters by attacking Syrian government and help advance ISIS fighters.

The New York Times headline read as if it were an accident on September 17th ‘U.S. Admits Airstrike in Syria, Meant to Hit ISIS, Killed Syrian Troops’ quoted a senior Obama administration official who claimed that “its regrets to the Syrian government through the Russians for the “unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces” fighting the Islamic State.” 

Russia called for an emergency United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting which was called a “Stunt” by Samantha Power, U. S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Power: UN voice of  CIA/ISIS
Was it an accident? Press TV reported what Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin thought about the incident when he said “It is highly suspicious that the United States chose to conduct this particular air strike at this time.” The ceasefire was supposed to take full-effect on September 19th. “It was quite significant and not accidental that it happened just two days before the Russian-American arrangements were supposed to come into full force.” The U.S. aided ISIS fighters by hitting Syrian government targets in a strategic location already surrounded by ISIS. 

Churkin was correct to point out that if the U.S. had waited two days they could have conducted airstrikes on al-Nusra targets which would have been more effective:

The beginning of work of the Joint Implementation Group was supposed to be September 19. So if the US wanted to conduct an effective strike on al-Nusra or Daesh, in Dayr al-Zawr anywhere else, they could wait two more days and coordinate with our military and be sure that they are striking the right people… Instead they chose to conduct this reckless operation.

U.S. airstrikes against the Syrian government forces was clearly intentional since it allowed ISIS to advance to a key position. What does not make sense is Centcom’s response to the airstrikes. 

The New York Times published Centcom’s statement claiming it was “tracking” Daesh for some time, but could not distinguish between ISIS fighters and Syrian government forces? Centcom’s response: “Coalition forces believed they were striking a Daesh fighting position that they had been tracking for a significant amount of time before the strike,” the Centcom statement said. 

“The coalition airstrike was halted immediately when coalition officials were informed by Russian officials that it was possible the personnel and vehicles targeted were part of the Syrian military.”

However, The Syrian government also believes that the U.S. airstrikes were intentional. The New York Times article published the Syrian government’s response:

The Syrian government insisted that the strike was not a mistake. Instead, the government said it was “a very serious and flagrant aggression” that aided the Islamic State and proved its long-held assertion that the United States supports the jihadist group as part of an effort to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

NYT, CNN, Fox "News" must all be held responsible and accountable for lying and shilling America into illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria

“These attacks confirmed that the U.S. clearly supports the terrorism of Daesh,” SAMA television, a state-run news outlet, said, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. The channel quoted a statement issued by the Syrian military’s general command, which said the attack exposed “false claims of fighting terrorism” by the United States.

Syria Does Not Want to Be Under America’s “Sphere of Influence”

Washington wants a Syrian president that would allow Western corporations, banks to exploit Syria. Washington also wants a president that would allow its policies dominate the political landscape. Assad is not that president. Syria is not on their list of vassal states. There are several reasons to consider Washington’s motivation to remove Assad from power. First, the Republic of Iran has significant influence in the Middle East and has a strong relationship with Syria. 

McCain is point man for the arming and supply of CIA/ISIS

As we know, Iran and Syria are part of the “7 countries in 5 years” plan that was admitted by a Pentagon official to former General Wesley Clark on Democracy Now that included Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and then the major prize, Iran. Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon) and Iran have not surrendered their sovereignty which is a major problem for Washington’s geopolitical blueprint.

Washington is not concerned about the Syrian people or democracy. It’s about geopolitical control over natural resources to enrich American corporations. Pipeline politics plays an important role in the Middle East. Assad refused a gas pipeline through Syria to make its way to the European Union. Pepe Escobar wrote an article in 2015 for theStrategic Culture Foundation titled ‘Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War’ which explains the motivations behind Washington’s call for Assad’s removal:

It all started in 2009, when Qatar proposed to Damascus the construction of a pipeline from its own North Field – contiguous with the South Pars field, which belongs to Iran – traversing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria all the way to Turkey, to supply the EU.

Brennan will be seated in the dock at The Hague alongside Obama and the rest of his White House criminals

Damascus, instead, chose in 2010 to privilege a competing project, the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria, also know as "Islamic pipeline." The deal was formally announced in July 2011, when the Syrian tragedy was already in motion. In 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed with Iran. Until then, Syria was dismissed, geo-strategically, as not having as much oil and gas compared to the GCC petrodollar club. But insiders already knew about its importance as a regional energy corridor. Later on, this was enhanced with the discovery of serious offshore oil and gas potential.

Oil and gas has always been a major factor for conflict in the Middle East and soon it will be water. The Middle East including Syria (crude oil, gas, iron ore, asphalt, marble etc.) has abundant natural resources and that is something Western corporations and governments will stop at nothing to gain control of.

Another important factor to consider is the fact that Syria’s central bank is state-owned and operated by the Syrian government, not the Rothschild’s banking dynasty, not Wall Street or any other member of the international banking cartel located in the U.S., U.K. and the European Union. The Syrian government issues its own interest-free currencies that help the Syria’s real economy in terms of labor and production. The Syrian government also provides “no-interest credit” to help Syrian people finance small businesses, housing, helps maintain roads and numerous other initiatives. No-interest credit and issuing currencies is an alternative to a usury-based banking system that provides high interest rate loans provided by the banking cartels (JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, and the World Bank etc.) that accumulates massive debts which becomes impossible to repay. 

What happens when the debt cannot be repaid? Privatization forces the government to sell public assets for “pennies on the dollar” to pay back the debts and apply austerity measures by cutting their citizens pensions, cut social services and other benefits and an increase in taxes on almost everything including food. Leave it up to the banking cartels and you will have a country of “debt slaves”. Something Assad would wish to avoid for Syria.

Syria is also relatively “debt-free” from the claws of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which has enslaved numerous countries. Debt is a form of control for international banking cartels as Latin America, Asia and Africa has witnessed for decades. Sovereign nations have suffered economically under IMF economic reforms.

Washington is also aiding Israel’s long-term goal of becoming the sole nuclear power in the region and is one of the only U.S. allies besides Turkey (whose relationship with Washington remains intact despite recent tensions) and the despotic regimes in the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. Washington and Israel are intent on“Balkanizing” Syria for Israel’s expansion. 

An article written by Global Research author Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in 2011 titled ‘Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”explains Israel’s long-term plan by breaking several Middle Eastern and North African countries into smaller and more controllable ‘nation states’ so that Israel can be the dominant power in the region. Nazemroaya wrote:

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Three stooges determined to spark WWIII in the Middle East

In early 2016, The Guardian reported that Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Syria could be partitioned as a solution to the civil war saying “this can get a lot uglier and Russia has to be sitting there evaluating that too. It may be too late to keep it as a whole Syria if it is much longer”. Kerry’s idea of breaking-up Syria into several small states is obviously following in the footsteps of the Yinon Plan.

An ideal democracy for Washington in Syria is a “Syria without Assad”. Washington is not looking for peace in Syria unless they have someone they can manipulate politically and economically as they continue to arm and support ISIS and other terrorist organizations. That is what Syria and Russia must come to realize because any negotiations with Washington must be observed with caution. Until then, there is no peace or justice for the Syrian people and that is the reality. How far is Washington willing to go? The evidence is clear; we know that the U.S. government will do anything even if it means doing something only the criminally insane would consider and that is to arm and support terrorists for geopolitical objectives.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

U.S. Soldiers Want Fewer "Nation Building’ Interventions, More Attention At Home

U.S. military has been decimated first under Bush/Cheney then under Obama criminals and Pentagon/JCS madmen  


After 15 years of wars, a majority of US service members are deeply skeptical about America’s foreign interventions. The US should focus on homeland defense and jobs instead of invading and “stabilizing” countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, a new poll shows.

Most active-duty members of the US military would prefer the government to refrain from overseas missions involving so-called nation-building, a number of costly and ambiguous efforts to reconstruct post-war countries, according to a poll run by the Military Times and Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF). The survey, described by the Military Times as a first-of-its-kind study, included a question: “How do you view the US government’s continued involvement in nation-building efforts, establishing democracies in the Middle East and North Africa using US military and financial support?”

About 55 percent of service members said they “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” those efforts, while 23 percent responded positively to an idea of carrying out such missions. The remaining 22 percent were either unsure or of no opinion on the issue.

The majority of US servicemen surveyed by the Military Times and IVMF believe that the government should be more involved in combatting terrorism (62 percent), homeland defense (68 percent), cyber security (81 percent) and nuclear deterrence (51 percent).

Notably, the troops expressed the most negative response on delivering foreign military aid to the US allies. 

About 62 percent said they believe Washington should be less involved with the foreign aid, and just 10 percent said the US must proceed with it.

Those who were against the foreign aid said they believe the US-run post-war reconstruction efforts comes at the expense of solving American’s most pressing problems.

“We need to get out of foreign affairs and focus on our own country,” Duane Hulbert, a 26-year-old Air Force staff sergeant who responded to the survey, told the newspaper. “We need to build jobs around clean, renewable energy sources … It’s time to focus on how to protect this one world we live on. If we destroy it there is no going back.”

Other respondents seemed disillusioned with those nation-building efforts because they feel that the US non-military support for such goals has been used improperly.

The poll, conducted between September 8 and 15, surveyed 2,207 active-duty troops through a voluntary and confidential online vote. Responses came from each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and undisclosed overseas locations, the Military Times wrote.

Nearly 15 years of post-9/11 wars, namely Afghanistan and Iraq, have not only cost thousands of American soldiers’ lives and trillions of dollars spent on military expenditures, but those countries landed in disarray shortly after the US interventions.

Afghanistan, a country where never-ending war goes on for decades, is still struggling with Taliban, economic hardships and a sinister threat of emerging Islamic State’s (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) affiliates keen to seize the country. 

In Iraq, IS has seized considerable part of the country despite the ongoing US-led coalition aerial campaign against the terrorists. Most analysts believe the terror group’s top military brass comprises former Iraqi officers who radicalized and turned violent after suffering defeat in 2003 war.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.