G09602

to global warming…hot topic right? the water levels could/will raise and we loose some costal land mass and displace some odd millions but we are still here right? the following article is a take on the obvious advantages that can come from the polar ice caps melting. Currently 90% of all international trade is handled through the ocean…and currently it the canals are at their limit and sea travel is doubling every 10-15 years critical mass is approaching in our every growing global community and something is going to have to be done….conveniently the warming of the polar ice caps is opening long sought after sea travel efficient without the need for canal routs…both canals have long been the setting for economic-political conflict and the “war on terrorism” before it took its latest definition….now i’m more inclined to see this as purely opportunistic as opposed to other problem reaction solution methods used by governments throughout history. this is no false flag terrorism or economic military action…but on the other hand climate control/change is a documented government program of many nations form the US to China all the biggies….it is pretty convenient that this not only opens up new oil and gas opportunities but also would make the entire global trade network more efficient and profitable to the tune of billions upon billions…and following the money usually leads the an uncomfortable makiavellian ends justifies the means action…at least if we take cycles in history as evidence. the greeks our great model of republic and governing when faced with any crime the first thing that was always asked was “who profits”? ....so who does? ...no i’m not trying to promote yet another conspiracy but wondering ….is it possible

Shippers chart polar bypass for clogged global trade routes

By David Ibisonin Stockholm from the financial times

Published: August 11 2007 03:00 | Last updated: August 11 2007 03:00

The Arctic is not just about oil and gas. A ship travelling at 21 knots between Rotterdam and Yokohama takes 29 days if it goes via the Cape of Good Hope, 22 days via the Suez Canal and just 15 days if it goes across the Arctic Ocean. In coming years the Arctic will dramatically alter the dynamics of global trade.

A combination of global warming melting the iceand new shipping technology means polar shipping routes will open up in the next few years, drastically reducing the time it takes for container traffic to travel from Asia’s booming manufacturing centres to the west’s consumer markets.

While it is possible for container ships to travel across the Arctic now, the amount of ice in winter makes travel extremely difficult, or too slow and expensive if the ships are accompanied by ice breakers. But this will all change as the ice disappears in coming years.

The emergence of a northern passage across the Arctic connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans could not be happening at a more propitious time as far as global trade routes are concerned. It is estimated that 90 per cent of all the goods in the world, measured in tonnes, are transported by sea, and rapid global economic growth, fuelled by China and India, means existing routes are becoming clogged.

Container shipments on international routes have increased annually by between 5 and 7 per cent in recent years, in line with world trade, meaning the volume of shipments approximately doubles every 10 to 15 years.

The Suez Canal can handle ships with a draught – the depth of water needed for a ship to float – of up to 19 metres, which is sufficient for the largest current container ships but not for the next generation. It is also operating at its maximum capacity, with between 16,000 and 18,000 ships passing through annually. Long queues are commonplace.

The Panama Canal is suitable for ships with a draught of up to 11.3 metres, too small for ships that are now common on longer shipping routes. The Panama government has plans to increase the capacity of the canal, build new locks and deepen and widen the channels. But the planned extensions are not sufficient for a new generation of heavier vessels.

The Arctic is set to become an increasingly important route for world trade, highlighting the need for multilateral agreements over navigation rights and the application of international law in the region.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Based on Ron Paul’s recent surge in popularity, statistical analyst claims that Ron Paul is the underdog candidate of the 2008 election.

from (PRWEB)
Washington D.C. (PRWEB) June 6, 2007 — NFLSystems.com has critically broken down the 2008 election and has decided that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the one that has the highest value.

The web site discredited latest polls showing Ron Paul with very little support as being unimportant at this stage. “The nominating process is still 7 months away and voters have not fully been exposed to the candidates,” says the website. They further explain that “the voters that have seen and heard of Ron Paul like what they see.” The Internet support for the candidate has grown astronomical as if it was a quantum leap in the past month and there is no sign of it slowing down. They explain that Ron Paul’s support would ideally grow once the average voter goes online to learn about the candidates.

The other item the web site points out is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to oppose the war. The web site points out how Paul could win even if he was out of step with the rest of the party with a basketball analogy. It stated that if the two best players are on one team, the third best player would have a better scoring average better because points would be spread evenly across the two great players just as votes would be in a primary or caucus election.

It was also stated in the analysis that if voters’ discontent with the war grows in the coming months before the Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul would be the only formidable Republican for these candidates to support.

For more information, go to http://www.nflsystems.com/2008-election/smart-money-ron-paul-president-2008.html

by Sean Scallon from american chronicle

May 30, 2007

A few weeks ago Ron Paul made his best, in my opinion, appearance on a television news show since beginning his campaign for president. Speaking to John King on CNN’s Late Edition Rep. Paul laid it on the line what his campaign about when he (paraphrasing) that he “wanted the Republican Party to face up to its failure in Iraq.”

No wonder some GOP leaders want to keep Paul out of future GOP presidential debates. The only time a lot of people face up to their failures is in rehab and you can’t shove a whole political party into the Betty Ford Clinic, can you? It’s like the line from a U2 song…

“….You’re dangerous, because you’re honest.”

It’s the stark, honest quality of Paul’s campaign that has drawn many people to it (on the internet at least). Voters are looking for hard answers or at least to a candidate who speaks to his own certainties rather than past clieches, present banalities or the vagueness of the future. Paul’s bluntness about the meaning of 9-11 makes him more endearing. Who could ever imagine a typical Republican these days saying such a thing as “To say they hate us because we’re free is a load of bunk” to an audience that may very well be the epitome of the today’s GOP in a state like South Carolina that’s the very lynch-pin of the military-industrial-security-complex? The late Lee Atwater knew exactly what he was doing in pushing South Carolina Republicans to have a primary instead of a state convention to choose delegates for the GOP convention and making it the first such primary of the South back in 1980. Since then, every GOP nominee has won South Carolina.

Thus the irony of the Paul campaign: He cannot win the GOP nomination without winning South Carolina and yet what he and his campaign represents seemingly threatens what South Carolina currently stands for: big-government conservatism or better yet: right-wing social democracy. For Paul to win South Carolina, the state would have willingly kill and then resurrect itself, like Christ the Savior.

As impossible as that task may seem, it at least gives the Paul campaign a message to deliver and a story to tell. Any successful Presidential campaign is really a story that writes its own ending. It has a reasonable plot, interesting characters, drama and a climax. It has point to it that people can understand and it fits within the national zeitgeist. Yes money is important. Yes organization and institutional support is important too. But the presidential campaign battlefield is littered with candidates who had such things but didn’t win because their campaigns could not tell a broader story than “Hi, I’m Joe Blow and I want to be President.” You know the ones: Ed Muskie, Howard Baker, Ted Kennedy, John Connally, John Glenn, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Bill Bradley.

Paul’s story is about reinvention. The reinvention of conservatism, libertarianism, the Republican Party, you name it and Paul’s is reinventing it. He’s bringing back a style of American politics that is often reinvented from time to time, whether is Robert Taft reinventing Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater reinventing Robert Taft, Ronald Reagan reinventing Barry Goldwater and now Paul reinventing Reagan, or at least the Reagan on 1980 who promised balance budgets, reduced government and a rebuilt military to ward off the weakness that nearly led the U.S. to World War III in Afghanistan and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. These things seem to happen every 20 to 30 years apart.

But Paul comes to this round of reinvention with perhaps a little more wisdom than his predecessors. He understands that any talk of cutting taxes, reducing spending and reducing government as the other GOP candidates have spouted off on, as if they are reading from a candidates’ manual entitled How to Speak Like A Republican, is pointless unless the war itself is brought to a close and the military-industrial-security-complex is reduced significantly in both size and influence. One cannot talk about reigning in the federal government back within the boundaries set by the Constitution unless this done. You cannot call for eliminating the IRS and yet eliminate habeus corpus. You cannot talk about eliminating the Department of Education and yet want to place wire-taps without probable cause on American citizens or read their mail. You cannot talk about reducing governing spending and yet ratchet up the Pentagon’s budget by well over $600 billon. You cannot talk about spreading freedom abroad and then threaten to throw people who smoke marijuana for medical reasons into prisons like common criminals. You cannot talk about returning power to the states and then operate a global empire at the same time. What kind of government would it be that did nothing other than to spy on the people it supposedly serves, harass them at airports, and bomb or threaten those it did not like or toed the line abroad? Something akin to a police/military state living in the shadows of its own fears and justifying itself by those very fears, not to unlike what we have now.

Unfortunately that police/military state not only has wealthy supporters, it has many supporters as well. Much of U.S. society and the economy itself is interconnected with the military-industrial-security complex. Like inoperable cancer, it may be too late to cut it out without serious harm to the host. This is what Eisenhower always feared, that the complex would become government unto itself, reducing the U.S government to impotence as its lackey while making policy that actual government would make official. “God help us if we have a president who doesn’t understand the military,” he once said. Unfortunately few have since then.

Look at what happened to those who at least tried to tame the beast. When the Nixon and Ford administrations tried to limit nuclear weapons in treaties with the Soviet Union`, the response from the military-industrial-security-complex was Team B neoconservatives and Cold Warriors saying the SALT agreements produced a “window of vulnerability” that helped defeat Ford in 1976. The Carter Administration tried to hold the line on defense spending too and then had to increase it late in Carter’s term in response to crisis’ in Afghanistan and Iran. Unfortunately it came too late to prevent the “hollow army” or Desert One disasters which cost him re-election in 1980. Bush I’s own defense secretary, one Richard Cheney, told the public that the defense budget was not a jobs program and thus unemployed military personnel and aerospace engineers and others let go at the end of the Cold War kept Bush II from winning re-election in 1992. And because the U.S. decided to maintain its position of global hegemony after the Cold War, the pressure to “do something” with military became too great for Bill Clinton to handle anymore (especially after being weakened by personal scandal) and thus the U.S. wound-up bombing Serbia. Unfortunately for Al Gore, this “display” of military might in the Balkans was of little use to him in 2000 as the military-industrial-security complex responded to George Bush II’s call of “help is on the way” after a decade of near-starvation by its standards.

So it will be very difficult to bring the military-industrial-security complex down to size and restore the proper place of our armed forces within the society of the Republic that our founders established. Jobs would be lost, careers stifled and some persons whole purpose in life would be forever altered. Most people don’t like such radical change. But if Ron Paul were to be elected president, he would have a mandate for such change, not just from the overall electorate but from GOP voters themselves who have now so identitifed themselves with the military-industrial-security-complex. He would approach the situation as not as some peacenik looking to take out his or beefs and biases against the military (after all, Paul did serve in the Air Force, which is more military service than many of the current candidates have done ) but as a man with mission to restore constitutional government. No doubt original intent is meaningless when you have troops stationed all over the globe and you’re prepared to start World War III over Estonia of all places.

The war in Iraq has exposed the hollowness of empire. The colossus America of 2002 has been replaced by the weary American of 2007 and it can get only weaker in 2008 unless some dramatic change happens. The man responsible for 9-11 remains on the loose six years later. Iraq is an ungovernable mess despite every best of intention. The empire’s garrisons are stretched to the breaking point just to cover its commitments. Its troops still die every day for a cause that has lost its meaning year after year. And yet it seemingly cannot provide the resources to cover its own border or protect it from the silent invasion of it that goes on everyday. With its resources devoted to war and security, it cannot rebuild its cities and towns from natural disaster as quickly as it once did. People have still put up with empire because there hasn’t been any kind of economic calamity that threatens their own personal security or interests. But if such thing did happen, it would snap the empire’s fragile support in two, even in a place like South Carolina.

Actually, there’s just one simple message Ron Paul has to give that all successful outside campaign have done over the years: “It’s time for a change.”

The neocons had their change to remake the world and they’ve failed. The military-industrial-security-complex had its chance to deliver an America victorious and secure and it has failed. The Administration had its chance to create policies against terrorism and they have failed. The Congress had its chance to reassert its role in foreign policy and they have failed too. Now it’s time to try something completely different from the foreign policy consensus of intervention and empire that all parties in Washington subscribe to. “It’s time for a change,” is pretty simple, pretty stark and as direct as can be. Ron Paul doesn’t have to say anything more to the voters than that.

Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and journalist from Arkansaw, Wisconsin

—-the following have yet to be research fully but alone they are pretty powerful and most have sources for you to look up for your selves

“We, the jewish people control America” and other quotes from Israeli leaders 1969-2001

“There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.”
Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

———————-

“The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.”
Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972

———————-

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”
Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972

———————-

“The only solution is Eretz Israel [Greater Israel], or at least Western Eretz Israel [all the land west of Jordan River], without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point … We must not leave a single village, not a single tribe.”
Joseph Weitz, Director of the Jewish National Fund, the Zionist agency charged with acquiring Palestinian land, Circa 194. Machover Israca, January 5, 1973 p.2

———————-

“The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill — From the Nile to the Euphrates.”
Ben Gurion, 1973

———————-

“We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said Drive them out
Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979

———————-

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
Israel Koenig, “The Koenig Memorandum” in 1980

———————-

“ [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.”
Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982

———————-

“When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”
Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983

———————-

“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.”
Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983

———————-

“We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.”
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983

———————-

“Hitler’s legal power was based upon the ‘Enabling Act’, which was passed quite legally by the Reichstag and which allowed the Fuehrer and his representatives, in plain language, to be what they wanted, or in legal language, to issue regulations having the force of law. Exactly the same type of act was passed by the Knesset [Israeli’s Parliament] immediately after the 1067 conquest granting the Israeli governor and his representatives the power of Hitler, which they use in Hitlerian manner.”
Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairperson of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, and a survivor of the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, Commenting on the Israeli military’s Emergency Regulations following the 1967 War. Palestine, vol. 12, December 1983

———————-

We must expel Arabs and take their places.”
David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985

———————-
“The (israeli) army will follow a policy of might, power and beatings”
Yitzak Rabin. New York Times, 1/25/1988

“The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.”
Isreali Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

———————-

“Jewish blood and a goy’s [gentile’s] blood are not the same.”
Israeli Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Inferring that killing isn’t murder if the victim is Gentile. Jerusalem Post, June 19,1989

———————-

“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”
Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989

———————-

“The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the Jordan River for future generations, for the mass aliya [immigration], and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country.”
Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service
“All the Arabs within the borders of the land of Israel are enemies”, “They all have the same aspiration, and they all express it in a similar way: by violence.”
Rafael Eitan, Former IDF commander, New York Times, July 8, 1992

———————-

“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them.”
Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998

———————-

“The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”....
Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

———————-

If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force….”
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000

———————-

“There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies? Not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.”
Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

———————-

“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio

Top globalist warns Congress of provocation or terrorist attack inside U.S.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski tacitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.

Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran,” which would revolve around “some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Brzezinski was careful to highlight the word “defensive” as if to discount its credibility, suggesting that the Bush White House itself would be behind the attack or provocation and subsequently use it as a pretext for war.

“That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance,” argues WSWS.org.

After Senators asked Brzezinski for clarification of exactly what he meant, the Polish-American political scientist referenced the infamous White House memo in which Bush and Blair discussed staging a provocation for an invasion of Iraq following the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Brzezinski cited how Bush “described the several ways in which this could be done,” but refused to elaborate, stating only, “the ways were quite sensational, at least one of them.”

Brzezinski is of course referring to the plan to fly a U2 spy plane painted with UN colors over Iraq and goading Saddam to order the aircraft shot down, resulting in widespread international support for the war. Bush and Blair openly discussed the possibility of staging this provocation along with others during their January 31 2003 meeting.

“If one is of the view that one is dealing with an implacable enemy that has to be removed, that course of action may under certain circumstances be appealing. I’m afraid that if this situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and if Iran is perceived as in some fashion involved or responsible, or a potential beneficiary, that temptation could arise,” said Brzezinski.