FBI, Burning Man, Area 51, Land Theft, & KFC From Space

EXTRACT "A cultural and artisan event" FBI files on Burning Man "The greatest known threat in this event is crowd control issues and the use of illegal drugs by participants."   by JPat Brown |  edited by Michael Morisy September 1, 2015 The 29th annual Burning Man festival kicks off this week in Nevada's Black Rock Desert. Among those paying close attention to the festivities will be the FBI's Special Events Management unit, who have kept files on "burners" since at least 2010. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/sep/01/burning-man-fbi-file/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Posted August 31, 2015 - 9:23pmUpdated August 31, 2015 - 11:08pm Family rejects Air Force's $5.2 million bid for land near Area 51 By Keith RogersLas Vegas Review-Journal Members of the Sheahan family said Monday they have rejected the Air Force's $5.2 million offer to buy their land and mining claims near Groom Mine, next to the secret Area 51 installation where the U.S. military and CIA have tested spy planes and stealth aircraft for six decades. [...] ... stake in the combined 400 acres of property and unpatented mining claims is worth considerably more, not counting the reparations they say they are owed by the Air Force and Department of Energy for "abuses and atrocities" that date back to the early 1950s. That's when they said their ore processing mill was fire-bombed by a military jet and their property was showered by radioactive fallout from numerous above-ground nuclear weapons tests. Most recently, when some family members visited the property in the restricted area 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas — as the Air Force has allowed them to do about once a month — guards held them at gunpoint, including a 7-year-old girl who was "traumatized" by the show of force, Danny Sheahan said. "It seems like machine guns solve anything on the property out there. That's not the American way," he said. A Nellis Air Force Base spokesman said in an email Monday that the Air Force "is unaware of any evidence to support this claim." The Air Force claims the family's activities over the past several years have impeded its efforts to use the range for flight tests like those that have spawned the nation's stealth aircraft at Area 51. The airstrip on the Groom Dry Lake bed, known as Watertown, began operation in 1955 to test the U-2 spy plane. Nellis officials have said the presence of civilians in the restricted area poses safety and security risks and results in costly delays of flight operations. "We're interrupting their operations? Really?" Joe Sheahan said. "We didn't parachute into their backyard. They parachuted into our backyard." The Sheahan's ancestors established mining for silver, lead, copper, zinc and small amounts of gold dating back to 1889. Manning said the family owns six patented claims in addition to 15 unpatented claims that are leased to the Bureau of Land Management. She said the family's ore processing mill exploded and burned in June 1954 when a jet's wing fuel tank was dropped on it. The Air Force said the incident was adjudicated in the United States Court of Claims. Manning said, however, "Our grandparents ran out of money trying to fight it." http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-rejects-air-forces-52-million-bid-land-near-area-51 ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. COMMENT Wondering why FBI were at some hippy festival had me wondering if it had anything to do with whatever military testing they do out there in the desert, or whether they simply monitor groups of gathered people as a matter of course. Burning Man Festival  Black Rock Desert, about 177km north of Reno "Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration. ..." Well, that's me out.  I didn't inherit the collaboration gene. Area 51 aka Homey Airport Groom Lake Dreamland Paradise Ranch Base Watertown Area 51  134 km north-northwest of Las Vegas  southern shore of Groom Lake, is a large military airfield  acquired by the United States Air Force in 1955 ...   ... area around Area 51  incl. the small town of Rachel (pop. 54, 2010 census) on "Extraterrestrial Highway" (Nevada Highway 375) = popular tourist destination. 2006 KFC installed a giant company logo on the ground north edge of Rachel claims it is first logo visible from space [here] [memo written in 1974 to CIA director William Colby by an unknown CIA official] ... the CIA considered no other spot on Earth to be as sensitive as Groom Lake Theories for secrecy:  alien craft reverse engineering & alien viruses work.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51 Well, that was an interesting diversion. The desert looks beautiful.  The record high temperature doesn't seem all that high, but the lows look really low. I still haven't figured out why the FBI is conducting surveillance ops, but I feel sorry for the family in the above story. Look how long the US government has screwed that family over.  They're still waiting on reparations from the 1950s.  And this is a family that settled there in the late 1800s. The government could easily cut this family a fair deal if they want their land, but they're screwing this family and have done so for decades, while using American taxpayer money to fund wars on behalf of corporate interests and using taxpayer money to bail out corporations and financial institutions. Disgusting.  Oh, and so is that tacky KFC graffiti that can be seen from space. ꕤ

America - Penal Colony: Animal Welfare Activists Charged for 'Terrorism'

#animalwelfare  FBI Arrests and Charges Animal Rights Activists for 'Terrorism'  #animalwelfare  Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act 2006 USA federal law criminalizes damaging or interfering with ops of an animal enterprise Idaho ag-gag law 2014 criminalizes recording of animal-rights abuses taking place at livestock ops http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/FBI-Arrests-and-Charges-Animal-Rights-Activists-for-Terrorism-20150725-0014.html #animalwelfare #cali USA  FBI arrests activists accused of releasing 5,740 mink http://www.lewistownsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/891259/FBI-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-5-740-mink.html?isap=1&nav=5013 #animalwelfare USA Pair of animal rights activists indicted by feds / terrorism for freeing 1000s of minks nationwide Conspiracy to Violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act govt allegations based on: *raising money on: eBay and Amazon "federal indictment centers around the procurement of money and then circumstantially ties it to the alleged activities" *transacted strictly in cash *avoided cell phones or Internet while active  *used unspecified "encrypted" e-mail https://hacked.com/feds-charges-mink-saviors-with-eco-terrorism-can-face-10-years-in-prison-and-a-250-000-fine/ --------------------- COMMENT Deleted my earlier comment because it was disjointed and not at all well thought out.

US - CORPORATE IMPERIALISM - AFRICA

Getty Images Blurb & Pic President And Mrs. Obama Host White House Dinner For US-Africa Leaders Summit By Chip Somodevilla (GETTY) – 5 minutes ago WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 05: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) talks with former President Jimmy Carter during a dinner on the occassion of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit on the South Lawn of the White House August 5, 2014 in Washington, DC. President Barack Obama is promoting business relationships between the United States and African countries during the three-day U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, where 49 heads of state are meeting in Washington http://www.google.com/hostednews/getty/article/ALeqM5gdC9kehjCB6lopysJOLS7JIPFnYQ?docId=453229576

Awkward.
Wonder if Kerry and Jimmy Carter had a chat about Palestine?

The only thing Obama's promoting is US enrichment and advantage from Africa.  LOL

At US-Africa summit, Obama announces $33 billion in new commitments to Africa By Julie Pace Associated Press Tuesday, Aug 5, 2014 The bulk of the commitments came from private-sector companies, including Coca-Cola and General Electric, underscoring Africa’s growing appeal to businesses. The continent is home to six of the world’s fastest-growing economies and a rapidly expanding middle class with increased spending power. Yet Obama noted that U.S. trade with the African continent is about the same as its trade ties with Brazil and that just about one percent of U.S. exports go to sub-Saharan Africa. “We’ve got to do better, much better,” he said during closing remarks at a daylong session that brought together U.S. and African politicians and business leaders. “I want Africans buying more American products and I want Americans buying more African products. The U.S. is hardly alone in seeing economic potential in Africa, with China, Europe and India moving aggressively to tap into Africa’s growing markets. China in particular is hungry for oil, coal and other resources and is eager to develop the roads, bridges and ports needed to pull them out of Africa. “We also realize we have some catching up to do,” said Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor and billionaire businessman who opened the summit Tuesday. “We are letting Europe and China go faster than the U.S.” Obama has sought to cast the U.S. as a better partner for African nations than China, arguing that his administration has a long-term interest in the continent’s success and is not simply seeking to extract resources for its own purposes.  [Aaww, he's wooing Africa's potential for the US.] ... About 100 U.S. companies were represented at Tuesday’s conference. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry also addressed the attendees, as did former President Bill Clinton, who declared that the U.S. has “only barely scratched the surface” of Africa’s economic potential.   [More.  Gimme more.] In conjunction with the meeting, U.S. companies announced $14 billion in investments for Africa. Among them: a $5 billion investment from Coca-Cola to fund manufacturing lines and production equipment; $2 billion investment from GE by 2018; $200 million in investments across Africa by Marriott, and a $66 million commitment by IBM to provide technology services to Ghana’s Fidelity Bank. The White House also touted another $12 billion in new commitments for Obama’s Power Africa initiative from the private sector, World Bank and the government of Sweden. Obama announced the Power Africa initiative last summer, setting a goal of expanding electricity access to at least 20 million new households and commercial entities. The president said that with the new financial commitments, he was boosting that goal to 60 million homes and businesses. Obama also announced $7 billion in new government financing to promote U.S. exports to and investments in Africa. That includes $3 billion in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank aimed at supporting American exports to Africa over the next two years. The Ex-Im Bank is at the center of a political controversy in Washington, with some Republicans seeking to shutter the bank and threatening to block its reauthorization when Congress returns from recess this fall. The GOP lawmakers seeking to shut down the bank argue that its spending is politically motivated and unnecessary. GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who was among the business leaders participating in Tuesday’s summit, appealed to Congress to renew the bank’s charter, saying its existence signals to other countries that the U.S. government believes in investing overseas. “The fact that we have to sit here and argue for it is just wrong,” Immelt said. Obama also signed an executive order Tuesday creating an advisory committee comprised of private sector representatives who will advise the White House on ways to boost economic ties with Africa. http://beta.mirror.augusta.com/news/business/2014-08-05/us-africa-summit-obama-announces-33-billion-new-commitments-africa?v=1407275383

$14 billion in investments for Africa

• $5 billion investment from Coca-Cola to fund manufacturing lines and production equipment
• $2 billion investment from GE by 2018

• $200 million in investments across Africa by Marriot
• $66 million commitment by IBM (technology services) to Ghana’s Fidelity Bank
• $12 billion extra for Obama’s Power Africa initiative*

  (*from the private sector, World Bank and the government of Sweden [Sweden's corporate fat cats have got drilling licenses in Africa.])

• $7 billion new govt financing (promo U.S. exports + investments in Africa.)

(includes $3 billion in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank aimed at supporting American exports to Africa over the next two years)

Look how tight the US is with Sweden.  They're raiding Africa together.  LOL.

All these big corporations aren't putting money into Africa because they're wanna-help-nice-guys; Africa has what they want -- and they don't want China, India and Europe getting ahead of them in the moolah (+ resources, strategic advantage etc) stakes in Africa and it's all about ... erm, ... tapping into Africa's markets. 

'Power Africa' initiative is just another way to exert influence in Africa and keep a hold on investments.

Lenin would probably call this imperialism. 

So this is a corporate imperialist race to grab resources, markets and to wield influence in Africa, for the enrichment of the corporate elite.

Don't know why the Republican's are whining about the Export-Import Bank; they'd be first to finance export/import etc - it's right down their alley.

Get a load of the 'advisory committee comprised of private sector representatives' that Obama's signed off on.  LOL  That's who runs the White House then.  

Ron Paul - Why won't Obama leave Ukraine alone?

Why Won’t Obama Leave Ukraine Alone? “AMERICA ESCALATES WHILE IT DEMANDS RUSSIA DE-ESCALATE” By Ron Paul President Barack Obama announced last week that he was imposing yet another round of sanctions on Russia, this time targeting financial, arms, and energy sectors. The European Union, as it has done each time, quickly followed suit. These sanctions will not produce the results Washington demands, but they will hurt the economies of the U.S. and EU, as well as Russia. These sanctions are, according to the Obama administration, punishment for what it claims is Russia’s role in the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and for what the president claims is Russia’s continued arming of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Neither of these reasons makes much sense because neither case has been proven. The administration began blaming Russia for the downing of the plane just hours after the crash, before an investigation had even begun. The administration claimed it had evidence of Russia’s involvement but refused to show it. Later, the Obama administration arranged a briefing by “senior intelligence officials” who told the media that “we don’t know a name, we don’t know a rank and we’re not even 100 percent sure of a nationality,” of who brought down the aircraft. So Obama then claimed Russian culpability because Russia’s “support” for the separatists in east Ukraine “created the conditions” for the shoot-down of the aircraft. That is a dangerous measure of culpability considering U.S. support for separatist groups in Syria and elsewhere. Similarly, the U.S. government claimed that Russia is providing weapons, including heavy weapons, to the rebels in Ukraine and shooting across the border into Ukrainian territory. It may be true, but again the U.S. refuses to provide any evidence and the Russian government denies the charge. It’s like Iraq’s WMDs all over again. ... even as the U.S. demands that the Russians de-escalate, the United States is busy escalating! In June, Washington sent a team of military advisors to help Ukraine fight the separatists in the eastern part of the country. Such teams of “advisors” often include special forces and are usually a slippery slope to direct U.S. military involvement. On Friday, President Obama requested Congressional approval to send U.S. troops into Ukraine to train and equip its national guard. This even though in March, the president promised no U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine. The deployment will be funded with $19 million from a fund designated to fight global terrorism, signaling that the U.S. considers the secessionists in Ukraine to be “terrorists.” Are U.S. drone strikes against these “terrorists” and the “associated forces” who support them that far off? The U.S. has already provided the Ukrainian military with $23 million for defense security, $5 million in body armor, $8 million to help secure Ukraine’s borders, several hundred thousand ready-to-eat meals as well as an array of communications equipment. Congress is urging the president to send lethal military aid and the administration is reportedly considering sending real-time intelligence to help target rebel positions. But let’s not forget that this whole crisis started with the U.S.-sponsored coup against Ukraine’s elected president back in February. The U.S. escalates while it demands that Russia de-escalate. How about all sides de-escalate? Even when the goals are clear, sanctions have a lousy track record. Sanctions are acts of war. These sanctions will most definitely have a negative effect on the U.S. economy as well as the Russian economy. Why is “winning” Ukraine so important to Washington? Why are they risking a major war with Russia to deny people in Ukraine the right to self-determination? Let’s just leave Ukraine alone! Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here. SOURCED - FIT NEWS - here. RON PAUL @ here.

COMMENT

Why is pretty obvious:

Obama's got an eye on prospective:

• Corporate enrichment:

• rape of Ukraine; and
• rape of Russia's energy markets in Europe.

• Fat cat buddy enrichment.

• European market for US infrastructure, gas, etc.

• Strategic military advantage.

• Another piece of Europe under the US thumb.

Ukraine's a pawn as well as prey ... but the big game prey is Europe ... Obama and co want to carve it up.

LATIN AMERICA - US TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATE INTERESTS & CIA

CIA in LATIN AMERICA "Fuelled by the Cold War and transnational corporate interests, the U.S. has covertly tinkered with the governments of Latin American countries since World War 2, producing an extremely violent and unstable political climate. This history gives context to the growing anti-Americanism in Latin America, most visibly illustrated in the open defiance of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales to US policy. It also gives context to the recent trend in Latin America to elect left-wing governments." Source - Sakura Saunders - Geopolitical Monitor - here. .................................................................................................

British Guiana (Guyana) 1953-64 Cuba 1959 Ecuador 1960-63 Peru mid-1960s Dominican Republic 1963-65 Uruguay 1964-1970 Chile 1964-1973 Bolivia 1964-75 Argentina 1970s Nicaragua 1978-1990 Honduras 1980s Grenada 1979-1983 El Salvador 1980-92 Haiti 1987-94 Panama 1989 Venezuela * Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile have all elected left governments within the last 5 years. Source - Sakura Saunders - Geopolitical Monitor - here.  .................................................................................................

This article is a good read for anyone who wants a quickie CIA in Latin America overview

Article @ Geopolitical Monitor - Sakura Saunders - here.

Wow, they've been busy!

Argentina - what's likely to happen following default

 LAHT Article

"Barings tried for years to reach a settlement on the debt, repeatedly sending representatives to Buenos Aires, but it was not until 1857 – 29 years after the default -- that Barings and bondholders (backed by the threat of some stiff English gunpowder diplomacy) reached a settlement with what was now the Republic of Argentina -- by issuing new bonds, of course.

And with Argentina’s credit now restored with a £1.6 million Barings recapitalization of the arrears, Barings went on to market another £550,000 for Argentina in the first portion of a £2,500,000 33 year Argentina 6% bond maturing in 1899 and even more issuance followed.

By 1890, however, Argentina was on the brink of default again and almost took Barings down with it. With the Bank of England becoming the world’s lender of last resort, it was Baring’s old rival, Rothschild, who would persuade the British government to put together what became a £17 million rescue on the principle that the collapse of Barings would be a “terrific calamity for English commerce all over the world.” [LAHT]

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

The world of bonds/debt and investment seems to have:

* a villain (defaulting debtor)
* a victim (investor)
* a rescuer (financial group or even foreign government bank)

What seems to happen is that someone comes along (a group of big investors or a goverment) and offers a bail-out and restructured terms ... and the debt carries over in some shape or other.

If nations that are indebted aren't careful, they stand to lose territory (and maybe even sovereignty), is what I got out of it. 

So that maybe explains why people are prepared to continue to invest in a 'bad' lender.  Countries have value:  resources, territory, strategic location etc.

What's going to happen?  I'm guessing there's going to be a buy-out and restructuring on terms that probably aren't favourable to Argentina? 

But having read about the 65% 'haircut' or whatever it was, it doesn't sound like the terms are all that great for the lenders.  But it depends on how you view profits, I guess.  In other words, how much profit is enough profit?

Argentina - Bonds - And history of 'bondage'

Eighth time unlucky 

Cristina Fernández argues that her country’s latest default is different. She is missing the point 

Aug 2nd 2014 

ARGENTINA’S first bond, issued in 1824, was supposed to have a lifespan of 46 years. Less than four years later, the government defaulted. Resolving the ensuing stand-off with creditors took 29 years. Since then seven more defaults have followed, the most recent this week, when Argentina failed to make a payment on bonds issued as partial compensation to victims of the previous default, in 2001.

Most investors think they can see a pattern in all this, but Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, insists the latest default is not like the others. Her government, she points out, had transferred the full $539m it owed to the banks that administer the bonds. It is America’s courts (the bonds were issued under American law) that blocked the payment, at the behest of the tiny minority of owners of bonds from 2001 who did not accept the restructuring Argentina offered them in 2005 and again in 2010. These “hold-outs”, balking at the 65% haircut the restructuring entailed, not only persuaded a judge that they should be paid in full but also got him to freeze payments on the restructured bonds until Argentina coughs up.

Argentina claims that paying the hold-outs was impossible. It is not just that they are “vultures” as Argentine officials often put it, who bought the bonds for cents on the dollar after the previous default and are now holding those who accepted the restructuring (accounting for 93% of the debt) to ransom. The main problem is that a clause in the restructured bonds prohibits Argentina from offering the hold-outs better terms without paying everyone else the same. Since it cannot afford to do that, it says it had no choice but to default.

Yet it is not certain that the clause requiring equal treatment of all bondholders would have applied, given that Argentina would not have been paying the hold-outs voluntarily, but on the courts’ orders. Moreover, some owners of the restructured bonds had agreed to waive their rights; had Argentina made a concerted effort to persuade the remainder to do the same, it might have succeeded. Lawyers and bankers have suggested various ways around the clause in question, which expires at the end of the year. But Argentina’s government was slow to consider these options or negotiate with the hold-outs, hiding instead behind indignant nationalism (see article).

Don’t try to flee, Argentina

Ms Fernández is right that the consequences of America’s court rulings have been perverse, unleashing a big financial dispute in an attempt to solve a relatively small one. But hers is not the first government to be hit with an awkward verdict. Instead of railing against it, she should have tried to minimise the harm it did. Defaulting has helped no one: none of the bondholders will now be paid, Argentina looks like a pariah again, and its economy will remain starved of loans and investment.

Happily, much of the damage can still be undone. It is not too late to strike a deal with the hold-outs or back an ostensibly private effort to buy out their claims. A quick fix would make it easier for Argentina to borrow again internationally. That, in turn, would speed development of big oil and gas deposits, the income from which could help ease its money troubles.

...

EXTRACTS ONLY ... FULL @ ...

SOURCE - Economist - here.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21610263-cristina-fern-ndez-argues-her-countrys-latest-default-different-she-missing

----------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

Good article.  

Never imagined I'd find something to read in this kind of publication.  Barely know what a bond is.  LOL

Bond issuer is indebted to bond holders and the bond issuer must pay interest (coupon ... periodic interest rate to maturity) to bond holders, or pay up the principal and interest owed.

Banks and financial organisations buy bonds and on-selling them to investors. 

Argentina issued it's first bond 1824 -- so this is when it made it's first big borrowing.  

I thought it was a typo so I checked it out elsewhere.

Bond was $1mil to mature 46 years later, underwritten by Baring Brothers [LAHT].

The first default 4 years later was because of a war with Brazil [LAHT] that began a couple of years after the bond was issued (or borrowing was made).

British bondholders ('lenders/investors') were pissed off that Argentina couldn't repay its debts:

disgruntled bondholders in 1832 took to the London papers in a huge press campaign against Argentina, vilifying the Argentine government for its delinquency, and later that year, Britain would send ships to occupy the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. [LAHT].

Check out the LAHT article - it's got some awesome history ... Argentina almost took Barings down with them ... Rothschild to the rescue ... forced 'pegging' peso to gold ... history repeats itself 100 years later with IMF as lender of last resort.

I'm still learning, but it looks pretty exciting to a learner.

Looks like the technicality clause expires at the end of the year.  But what does that mean?  

Is Argentina going to renegotiate or is Argentina going to fight it out with appeals?

The writer says to look to history, so I'm going to have a closer look at the article.  :)

Argentina - Injustice?

Updated August 1, 2014 3:29 PM The Justice of Argentina’s Default A federal judge in New York has ruled that Argentina must pay a small group of creditors in full — about $1.5 billion — even though it got 93 percent of its other bondholders to accept partial payment in a debt restructuring after its 2001 default. Now it faces default again because the judge has refused to let it pay any other creditors until it pays these hedge-fund investors, whom critics call “vultures.” Critics of the ruling say it will encourage other creditors to demand full payment, scuttling the debt deal and make future debt restructurings elsewhere impossible. Is it fair to make Argentina choose between defaulting and paying some of its past creditors in full? Could that help prevent struggling countries from recovery economically? Source - New York Times - here.

Hmmmm ... I'm a tad confused.

Argentina didn't choose to default, if the bank Argentina paid the money into was barred from making the transfer.

Shouldn't the headline read:  'The injustice ... "

RUSSIA - MORE SANCTIONS

RUSSIA HIT BY NEW WORLD SANCTIONS By Press Association Published: 10:35 AEST, 30 July 2014 The European Union and US are to impose new economic sanctions against Russia following the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which has been blamed on Moscow-backed rebels in Ukraine. ... arms embargo, a ban on the sale of dual use and sensitive technologies, and a ban on the sale of bonds and equities by state-owned Russian banks in European capital markets. Eight more officials ... expected to be subjected to asset bans and travel freezes. David Cameron said the new sanctions should send a message to Mr Putin that his behaviour in Ukraine was unacceptable" and Russia could expect "tough action" from the international community until it changed course. [DAVID CAMERON TAKING NICK CLEGG'S POSITION ... RIGHT DOWN TO THE PUTIN'S 'BEHAVIOUR' BULL ...  THESE U.S. SOCK PUPPETS AREN'T EVEN ORIGINAL ... LOL] The measures were agreed as world aviation chiefs set up a "senior level" international task force to deal with the threat to passenger planes following the downing of flight MH17. [NOT JUST ANY 'CHIEFS' ... WORLD! AVIATION CHIEFS ... NOT JUST ANY LEVEL ... 'SENIOR LEVEL'! ... TO DEAL WITH THE NON-EXISTENT THREAT TO PASSENGER PLANES, AS AIRCRAFT ARE EXPECTED TO BE DIVERTED FROM A THE UKRAINE WAR ZONE. EXAMPLE OF BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA RIGHT THERE, FOLKS.] ... EU sanctions had been imposed after Russia ignored calls to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, with arms and fighters continuing to flow across the border in support of the pro-Moscow separatist rebels. [SAY THE ALLIES OF THE US, WHOSE PUPPET GOVERNMENT IS INSTALLED IN UKRAINE, WHILE U.S. MAKES A CORPORATE & MILITARY, IMPERIALIST GRAB IN EUROPE.] "It is meant as a strong warning: illegal annexation of territory and deliberate destabilisation of a neighbouring sovereign country cannot be accepted in 21st-century Europe," he said. [WHO HAS A LONG AND DELIBERATE RECORD OF DESTABILISING AND COLONISING THE WORLD? THE SAME PARTIES WHO ARE SELF-APPOINTED ARBITERS OF WHAT IS 'ILLEGAL'.  LOL.] Signs were emerging of concern in the City of London about the possible blowback sanctions on Russia could inflict on the UK economy. Energy giant BP - which owns a 20% stake in Russian oil firm Rosneft - warned that further international sanctions could have a "material adverse impact" on the company's business in Russia and its own financial position. [PERFECT THEN. KEEP 'EM COMING.  LOL.] The EU discussions on enhanced sanctions came as the US accused Moscow of increasing troop numbers on its border with Ukraine and shipping more heavy weaponry to the pro-Moscow rebels. [TROTTING OUT THE SAME-OLD SAME-OLD ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE RUSSIAN 'BOGEYMAN' ... ON RUSSIAN SOIL.  MUCH THE SAME MOB WHO INVADED RUSSIA IN 1918.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2710280/RUSSIA-HIT-BY-NEW-WORLD-SANCTIONS.html

This is a wonderful lesson on 21st century imperialism and propaganda in action.

It's basically a how-to, if you observe the parties carefully.

That headline ought to read 'Hit by New World Order' sanctions.

An alternate take on the anti-Russian sanctions - here.

US - 'Partnerships' - NATO - Trade - US Imperialism - War - Death for Profit

"Monday, 28 July 2014 16:52 Another Way To Police the World Written by John F. McManus Another Way To Police the World On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement. After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.” Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations — with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders. Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the United States is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want the United States committed to being their defender. What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO. The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense. A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP). Just as NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the United States with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it. John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission." Source - The New American - here. More like 'another way to pillage the world'. No chance of US foregoing any of the joys of 'partnership', or abandoning NATO or any of the tools that serve corporate American interests. So if corporate America goes to war; heed the call and die for global corporate profits.

US GRAB FOR UKRAINE - 1991-2014 - COST $5 BILLION

US Grab for Ukraine - 1991-2014 COST:  $5 BILLION DOLLARS Source:  Youtube   Published on 9 Feb 2014   "American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion "After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe")."

TWITTER - UNITED FOR UKRAINE

TWITTER

LOL

Hungry Corporate American Vultures Eagerly Poised Over Ukraine

Corporate American Vultures

Multi-source Article

 ...

To their credit, senators from both parties voiced frustration with the Obama administration’s continued passivity at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing Wednesday. “What are we waiting for?” asked Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J. Administration officials predicted that the oft-promised sanctions would come “very soon” if Russia did not change course — perhaps following a European Union summit meeting next week. But the White House has not committed itself to unilateral action if the European Union falters.

The administration is not wrong to prefer joint action with the Europeans if it is achievable. But the United States has the power to impose crippling unilateral sanctions on Russia, especially through the banking system. If the Ukrainian government can act without the permission of France and Germany, so can the United States.

SOURCE - here.

Article appears both:

1.  Huston Texas (the oil capital)
     (under 'Opinion' - The Courier of Montgomery County)

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/opinion/ukraine-deserves-support/article_646dfc05-debc-5962-a445-6b41606f4e85.html
Posted: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:29 pm
[Quoted as 'Washington Post' article]



2.  Washington Post - political capital - 
     under 'opinion'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-should-follow-ukraines-lead-and-act-unilaterally-on-russia-sanctions/2014/07/10/a355c460-0853-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html
[Posted: July 10]

----------------------------------------------------
COMMENT


The article sings the praises of the puppet government and claims it's doing wonders without help from the US and the EU.

Never mind the crippling sanctions on Russia from both the US and the EU, as well as the unrelenting pressure which includes provocations in the Ukraine, US naval exercises in the Black Sea, the blockage of Russia's Southstream project in Bulgaria, and the constant lobbying for further sanctions and calls to action, in the US political arena and in the corporate controlled press.

Corporate America thirsts for the blood of east Ukrainians:

It remains to be seen whether Ukrainian forces can finish off the insurgents while observing a pledge to avoid civilian casualties and whether Putin will step up his military support for his proxies. The Russian leader has been playing what NATO’s secretary general correctly termed a “double game,” offering fake compromises to the West while continuing his campaign to make Ukraine ungovernable. Putin has economic as well as military cards to play: He has suspended Russian gas deliveries to Ukraine and threatened to impose crippling trade tariffs. He has patience and plenty of time; for the moment he is popular at home, and the Russian stock market is rising. [Posted: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:29 pm - source - here.]

And, of course, it accuses Russia of this and that.

Mentions supsension of Ukraine gas deliveries, but does not state that the Ukraine has not paid their gas bill.  LOL.

The 'crippling trade tariffs' are what exactly?  Is it, 'pay your gas bill'?  Or is it something else?

Whatever this is, it's like a mass newspaper-lobbying drive to blacken the target and to urge sanctions - making out how 'brave' the Ukrainian government is, how recalcitrant the Russians are, and how 'reluctant' the Democrats government is.  LOL


Meanwhile, US 'oil central' and US 'politics-finance central' feed on write-up that leaves one with the distinct impression that corporate America is a vulture -- a vulture eagerly poised and hungry for a long anticipated, bloody, Ukraine meal.

UK - STEPPING UP MILITARY SPENDING - TO MEET US DEMAND FOR DOLLARS FROM ALLIANCE PARTNERS

Britain to detail 1.1 billion pounds investment in defence

LONDON Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:25am BST

(Reuters) - British Prime Minister David Cameron will announce 1.1 billion pounds of investment in defence on Monday, his office said, to bolster the country's ability to respond to threats such as global terrorism.

Britain has cut defence spending by around 8 percent over the last four years as part of a government plan to reduce a record budget deficit. Spending cuts included shrinking the size of the armed forces by around a sixth.

The investment, funded from savings made by the defence ministry, includes 800 million pounds for intelligence and surveillance, the government said, to extend the "range and flexibility" of British defence including the ability of special forces to respond to the threat of terrorism and hostage taking.
There will also be a 300 million pound investment in existing resources such as a new so-called E-Scan, or electronically scanning, radar for the Typhoon jet.

"Having modern, technologically advanced and flexible Armed Forces to protect us and our interests is vital," Cameron will say during a visit to the Farnborough air show, according to comments released by his office in advance.

"Because of the difficult decisions we have taken to tackle the deficit we are able to make these vital investments in our defence capabilities."

The government will also set out plans to boost Britain's defence industry, which employs more than 160,000 people and generated 9.8 billion pounds in exports in 2013.

This will include 4 million pounds for a maritime intelligence-focused centre in Portsmouth where scientists, engineers and naval specialists will work together to develop technology for use in autonomous unmanned boats and submarines.


SOURCE - UK Reuters - here.

----------------------------------------
COMMENT

Funny reading the 'Cameron will say...'.
Why the heck doesn't HE just say it?

Laugh is, it's not him doing the saying; it will be something his spin-doc (Cameron's 'Larynx') speech writer cooked up months in advance, so the show comes off just right.

If you think I'm kidding, Google 'The prime minister's larynx'.
Heck, I'll make it easy for you.  Here's a link to the 'raven haired poet' 'former ice-cream seller', Larynx article - here.

Gee, the UK commitment to spending wouldn't have anything to do with the US, would it:

----------------------------------------

Europe's Free Ride on the American-Defense Gravy Train

In a joint press conference in Warsaw with his Polish counterpart last month, President Obama declared that, while America's commitment to Europe was unwavering, "every NATO member has to do its fair share," committing "a proportional amount" of resources to the common security. Defending against future threats is "going to require some joint capabilities that right now we don't have," the president urged, and investing in them is "going to require every NATO member to step up."  He noted that "We have seen a decline steadily in European defense spending generally" and exhorted "that has to change."

[TAG TEAM!]
The next day, defense secretary Chuck Hagel continued where his boss left off, observing, "I am troubled that many nations appear content for their defense spending to continue declining." "Europe still lives in a dangerous world," Hagel said. "A world where peace must still be underwritten by the credible deterrent of military power." [LAUGHABLE]

[OBAMA'S CHEER-SQUAD]
A couple weeks later, national security advisor Susan Rice chimed in. While "The United States' commitment to the security of our allies is sacrosanct and always backed by the full weight of our military might," she assured, "we expect our partners to shoulder their share of the burden of our collective security." She added, "Collective action doesn't mean the United States puts skin in the game while others stand on the sidelines cheering. Alliances are a two-way street, especially in hard times when alliances matter most." Accordingly, "we expect every ally to pull its full weight through increased investment in defense and upgrading our Alliance for the future. Europe needs to take defense spending seriously and meet NATO's benchmark—at least two percent of GDP—to keep our alliance strong and dynamic." [CORPORATE PROFITS ARE TWO-WAY ALSO! LOL]  [Hilarious!]

Alas, none of those statements mentioned consequences if the Germans and others don't step up.  [Don't sweat it; UK dances to Obama's tune.]

Calls from America for European allies to pull their own weight, pay their fair share, be a security provider rather than a consumer, or at least meet their minimum commitment (once 3 percent of GDP, now 2 percent, and still unmet by the overwhelming number) have been predictably ignored since the 1970s, if not longer. With the end of the Cold War and the Alliance's original raison d'être, the argument has been even more difficult to make. The combination of the global recession, demographic challenges, and public weariness after a decade of fighting in Afghanistan made it impossible, with even stalwart allies like the United Kingdom making drastic cuts in defense spending. [But look how useful the Alliance has proved!  LOL]

[LIES - NO AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA IN THE UKRAINE...US PUPPET GOVT IN UKRAINE IS AGGRESSOR AGAINST UKRAINIANS.  BULLSHIT ABOUT 'THREATS'.]
The recent Russian aggression in Ukraine was the latest wake-up call for NATO's oldest allies that they face real security threats. (The newer allies, who came under Moscow's dominance during the Soviet days, ostensibly didn't need the reminder but their spending patterns say otherwise.)  But the administration's actions belied their tough words, making clear that the United States would fill any shortfall from European underinvestment.  ['MERICA, FUCK YEAH!  OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA PUMP THE $$$ INTO THEIR UKRAINE INVESTMENT...THEY'VE ALREADY COMMITTED BILLIONS!!!]

In the very same speech where he was exhorting the allies to do their "fair share," Obama was touting the European Reassurance Initiative, an unconditional American investment of "up to $1 billion" to "bolster the security of our NATO allies here in Europe." Presuming Congress approves (no small detail, that), "the United States will pre-position more equipment in Europe. We will be expanding our exercises and training with allies to increase the readiness of our forces." Additionally, the president promised, "We'll increase the number of American personnel—Army and Air Force units—continuously rotating through allied countries in Central and Eastern Europe. And we will be stepping up our partnerships with friends like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as they provide for their own defense." All of this was intended to "be a powerful demonstration of America's unshakable commitment to our NATO allies." [WHOEVER BELIEVES THIS IS ABOUT 'DEFENCE', 'THREATS', 'RUSSIAN VIOLENCE' etc IS A STOOGE...THIS IS ABOUT US IMPERIALISM IN EUROPE, ON BEHALF OF CORPORATE AMERICA...& THE U.K. -- DANCING TO US & TO CORPORATE TUNE - AIDS AND ABETS. SIMPLE.]

[PUPPET GENERAL BREEDLOVE]
Recently, General Philip Breedlove, who commands U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, issued a public plea to stop the drawdown of American troops on the continent and, in fact, "We may need to add additional rotational forces to cover the sustained and persistent presence that we are now envisioning." He added, "For the last 12 to 14 years, we've been looking at Russia as a partner . . . making decisions about force structure, basing investments, etcetera, etcetera, looking to Russia as a partner. Now what we see is a very different situation." [THE GENERAL DOES WHAT HE'S TOLD TO DO BY THE ADMINISTRATION...WHO ARE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THEIR CORPORATE OWNERS.  OH, SURE.  FREE-FOR-ALL CORPORATE AMERICAN OWNED GOVERNMENT/MILITARY WAS EARNESTLY WORKING WITH THEIR COMMIE 'BROTHERS'.  LOL.]

Quite naturally, European politicians facing tough budgetary decisions will see this as an invitation to free ride on the American gravy train. With their publics reassured that United States troops will protect them from an increasingly belligerent Russia, why wouldn't they? [OMG!  THIS IS HILARIOUS.  PPL, YOU CAN'T DREAM THIS STUFF UP.  THE ONLY AGGRESSOR IS THE IMPERIALIST CARVING UP EUROPE & THE REST OF THE WORLD.]

In fairness to the administration, they're speaking to multiple audiences. They're simultaneously trying to signal resolve to Moscow, reassurance to our Eastern and Central European allies and partners while exhorting our richer allies in the West to do more. While they're not mutually exclusive, they're certainly not mutually supporting. [EVER THE 'DEFENDER' CLOAK, LOL]

Demands to do something the receiver doesn't want to do—in this case, spend money that could go to social welfare programs or job creation on defense—are useless without an "or else." [FUCK ME, THE GUY GIVES THE GAME AWAY RIGHT THERE!!  LOL!!  GOLD, PPL.  THIS IS GOLD!]  While senior American officials have been vaguely threatening for years that, if the Europeans didn't pony up for their own defense, the American taxpayer would stop doing it for them, it's long been obvious that the threat is hollow. To be sure, the United States has drawn down most of its huge pre-positioned force from the Cold War days. But there's simply no question that we'll respond rapidly in the event an ally is seriously threatened. So long as the Europeans know that's true, they're unlikely to change their behavior.  [TRUTH?  WHAT A LOAD OF GARBAGE.]

SOURCE - The National Interest - here.

----------------------------------------

'The National Interest' needs a name change to 'The Corporate Interest'.

This isn't about dangers or threats.  

This is about spin to get the dollars to fund a US imperialist take-over of Eastern Europe -- for corporate America and their co-investors.


It's the US that is preparing to wage war on European soil, by the sound of it.

We're fucked.  These war-monger are going to drive the next world war.

Back to Cameron.  He's going to play the ability to meet 'threats' card with the public, to justify spending on guns instead of welfare.

He's going to sweeten the blow with assurances that savings had been made on prior military spending cuts...so, folks, it's not that bad.

He's going to sell it by telling the public its about modernising catch-ups & about CREATING JOBS.

LOL.  This is brilliant.

It's been timed in advance of the pending conference, so it looks like this is Cameron's masterly decision, instead of his master's.

That's my take on it.

LOL ... MWWWAAAAAAAHHH!!!

----------------------------------------
P.S.  

GOVT SPIN RELATED:

Announcement at the 'air show' is perfect for Cameron, also.  It's a corporate event...promoting industry...it's a prestigious exhibition, most likely...it flexes (in a way) corporate and military muscles & they're up for admiration...and it's the perfect time to announce TECHNOLOGY SPENDING & NEW DEFENCE JOBS SPENDING.  LOL.

So this must have been planned for MONTHS...this 'sudden' billion dollar spending on military announcement.  LOL.


The Farnborough air show is being hosted at an airfield in rural England at present (it alternates with Paris annually). 

Exhibtion of war & passenger aircraft, I understand. 

----------------------------------------

Boeing and Airbus Dominate:

And with the headwinds of the global economic crisis mostly behind the industry, business is booming again.

Jetliner output at rivals Boeing Co. ... and Airbus Group EADSY  NV is at record highs. The two together are delivering 100 passenger planes of all sizes to the world's airlines each month. They are also expanding their manufacturing footprints, both in the industrialized and industrializing world, as Airbus adds plants in Tianjin, China, and Mobile, Ala., while Boeing expands in South Carolina.

For many, the highlight of the military side of the show was expected to be the Lockheed Martin F-35. The fighter's excursion here was intended to shore up overseas support. Lockheed Martin needs orders beyond the U.S. to meet cost-reduction targets. 

But the fighter is, for now, a no-show, grounded after an engine fire in Florida three weeks ago.  [OOPS]

SOURCE - Wall Street Journal -July 14, 2014 12:15 a.m. ET - here.

----------------------------------------

Boeing =  US
Airbus Group = multinational - R/O Netherlands but main office France.