Before we look into the drug trade in Afghanistan subsequent to the US-led invasion, we need to consider the CIA’s history of drug dealing. 

“Allegations linking CIA secret operations and drug trafficking have persisted on and off ever since the Agency’s founding in 1947. Rep. John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, convened a special seminar on Capitol Hill to focus on the issue. A distinguished panel of experts discussed the new revelations as well as CIA covert actions in Southeast Asia. Their testimony is startling.” -David Barsamian, Director, Alternative Radio

I am going to give examples of the CIA’s involvement in the drug trade.

Investigations uncovered the “secret 1981 agreement” between the Department of Justice and the CIA, which relinquished any requirement from the CIA to report any drug-related activities by its agents.  Volume 2 on the CIA Inspector General’s Report on Contra drug smuggling and CIA complicity was made available in 1998.  CIA Inspector General, Frederick Hitz, confirmed in the report the allegations made by contra traffickers of the Nicaraguan contra movement of the 1980s, it being a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration which was recruited to attack Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. The claims were that the contra movement was teeming with cocaine traffickers and money-launderers and that Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council protected these drug operations to the extent that any federal investigations were nipped in the bud.  In fact, evidence published by Hitz proved that the drug trafficking and money laundering could be traced right back to Reagan’s National Security Council where Lt Col, Oliver L. North supervised over contra operations.  Even when contra money raisers were arrested, the CIA would reimburse the drug money to the contras confiscated by the police. Former DEA agents have reported that 50-70% of cocaine entering the USA went through drug cartels that enjoyed CIA protection.  The drug ring belonging to Rafael Caro Quintero and Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo was one of them and they smuggled four tons a month into the US during the Contra war.

Interestingly enough, illicit cocaine trafficking dropped by 90% in relation to the disbandment of the contras and the end of the CIA’S covert mission in Nicaragua.

According to the affidavit of Bradley Ayers, a former CIA operative, he testified that he examined planes belonging to airlines contracted under the Department of Defence to transport material for the Contras at Miami International on several occasions between the years 1985-1986. 

He found residue of marijuana and a powdery substance that proved to be cocaine.

Quote from his affidavit:

“For reasons which I trust may be obvious to you and from your reading of the prospectus to my book in progress, OUT OF POCKET, I did not go to the authorities with this information. Over the past months I have continued to try to encourage media attention to the problem of selective enforcement in the war on drugs and feel that now, with revelations that are being made, it is my duty and an appropriate time, despite the risks, to come forth with this information.”

 Bradley E. Ayers
 

VARIOUS QUOTES:

  “…my reports contain not only the names of traffickers, but their destinations, flight paths, tail numbers, and the date and time of each flight.” (1994 interview (How the Contras Invaded the United States, by Dennis Bernstein and Robert Knight, (c) 1996

"For decades, the CIA, the Pentagon, and secret organizations like Oliver North's Enterprise have been supporting and protecting the world's biggest drug dealers.... The Contras and some of their Central American allies ... have been documented by DEA as supplying us with at least 50 percent of our national cocaine consumption. They were the main conduit to the United States for Colombian cocaine during the 1980's. The rest of the drug supply for the American habit came from other CIA-supported groups, such as DFS (Mexican CIA), the Shan United Army in the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia, or any of a score of other groups and/or individuals like Manual Noriega." (The Big White Lie: The CIA and the Cocaine/Crack Epidemic, 1993)

 "I personally hit the top of the drug world, dealt with the top traffickers in the world posing as a criminal ... and in every case found these traffickers in bed with our Central Intelligence Agency. Exactly as Senator Al D'Amato said, 'We're in bed with these guys…we still are. But it’s worse than that." (From a 1995 radio interview)

– Michael Levine

Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit: “In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA.” — FROM: Peter Dale Scott & Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Berkeley: U. of CA Press, 1991, pp. x-xi.

“I personally am convinced that the Justice Department is against the best interests of the United States in terms of stopping drugs…  What has a DEA agent who puts his life on the line got to look forward to?  The U.S. Government is not going to back him up.  I find that intolerable.”  — United States Congressman Larry Smith, speaking on the floor of Congress.

We don’t need to investigate [the CIA's role in Contra drug trafficking]. We already know. The evidence is there.” Jack Blum, former Chief Counsel to John Kerry’s Subcommittee on Narcotics and Terrorism in 1996 Senate Hearings 

DRUGS IN AFGHANISTAN

Before the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production was at a minimum, being directed to only small regional markets, according to Alfred McCoy.  (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997). 

Within two years of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, the Pakistan-Afghanistan border became the top heroin producer.  The Islamic military groups and organizations that were created in the light of the Soviet war were funded by the proceeds of the Afghan drug trade.

Because the Pakistan military and Afghan resistance were under the guidance of the CIA and Pakistan, heroin labs were able to be established on the Afghan and Pakistani border, both countries forming part of the Golden Crescent drug trade.  The Washington Post reported in May 1990, that one of the leading heroin manufacturers was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan leader and the recipient of half of the covert arms the USA provided to Pakistan.  Hekmatyar was notorious for his brutality.  His group, Hezb-e-Islami clashed with other Mujahideen fighters in a bid for the capital, Kabul.  In fact, his legacy of brutality and death was so terrible, that many ordinary Afghans welcomed the emergence of the Taliban.  Despite this, the CIA still remained an ally of his. 

And, of course, in 2003 the US State Department labelled him a terrorist because of his alliance with the Taliban, just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were deemed terrorists when their usefulness wore off. 

From these heroin labs on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Sicilian Mafia was responsible for importing the drugs into the US, which become 60% of the US market.

There are former CIA operatives that have confessed their covert operation led to the growth of the Pakistan-Afghanistan heroin trade.  In 1995, former CIA Director, Mr Charles Cogan, admitted that the explosion of the drug trade was collateral damage.  He believed that the Cold War was far more important than the “drug war”. 

“Our main mission was to do as much damage to the Soviets. We didn’t really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,” he told Australian television. “I don’t think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes, but the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.” (Alfred McCoy, Testimony before the Special Seminar focusing on allegations linking CIA secret operations and drug trafficking-convened February 13, 1997, by Rep. John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus)

Today, more than 90% of drugs sold globally come from Afghanistan, it being the major supplier of heroin.  It is tied into Pakistani politics and the militarization of the Pakistani state.  It influences the Pakistani economy along with its financial institutions, that being involved in money laundering and is protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence.

The average price of a gram of heroin in Western Europe has dropped from $251 a gram to a mere $75.  This has resulted in the Columbian drug lords becoming more ruthless because the Asian market has now significantly taken their cut. 

The Taliban implemented an opium eradication program in 2000-2001 with the support of the United Nations with the result that opium production dropped by more than 90%.  It became illegal to grow poppies in Afghanistan.  Anyone caught cultivating poppies would be punished, most likely by death.

During the US led invasion in Afghanistan, Bush Junior ordered that the opium harvest not be eliminated in fear it would destabilise the Pakistani government and President Musharraf would be ousted.  This is despite the fact that Bush had earlier acknowledged that there was a link between terrorism and drugs.

Apparently, Islamic radical groups linked to the ISI get their primary funding through opium production and it is them who would do the ousting.

It has been claimed that plans to clear poppy field and pursue major drug figures have been thwarted by corruption in the Afghan government but US State Department officials said that the Pentagon leaders refused to bomb drug laboratories and rebuffed offers from the Afghan government and other agencies to destroy the poppy fields, bar shipments and capture traffickers.

Prior to the decision not to destroy the opium harvest, the US and its allies signed a worldwide ban on opium sales.  A United Nations report stressed the urgency to destroy the 2002 opium crops before the end of spring of that year. 

“The global importance of the ban on opium poppy cultivation and trafficking in Afghanistan is enormous,” states the January 2002 U.N. report on drug trafficking.

“Afghanistan has been the main source of illicit opium: 70 percent of global illicit opium production in 2000 and up to 90 percent of heroin in European drug markets originated from Afghanistan,” states the U.N. report.

According to intelligence sources, the UK and French government approved of the CIA’s decision to defy the UN global ban on opium traffic but an allied intelligence official who works closely with US law enforcement sneered:

“The CIA did almost the identical thing during the Vietnam War, which had catastrophic consequences – the increase in the heroin trade in the USA beginning in the 1970s is directly attributable to the CIA. The CIA has been complicit in the global drug trade for years, so I guess they just want to carry on their favourite business,” noted an allied intelligence official who works closely with U.S. law enforcement.

“The sole reason why organized crime groups and terrorists have the power that they do is all because of drug trafficking. Like the old saying, ‘those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it,’” stated the official.

Many Afghan farmers are opposed to opium eradication because their livelihoods are threatened.  This is the excuse given for not eradicating the crops.  It would hurt the Afghan economy and, according to a Fox News report, the US military wants to respect the farmers’ “cultural decisions”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR3EZq1TKU8

There is a way to shed these farmers dependence on opium farming.   According to intelligence sources, farmers could be given a grant of $200 a year.  This would be enough to halt opium production.  The United States does have the money.  Billions have been pumped into the Afghanistan war already.

IS THE USA INVOLVED IN DRUG TRAFFICKING IN AFGHANISTAN?

Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov accused the United States of drug trafficking by referring to the reports that the USA transported narcotics out of Afghanistan using its military planes.  He believed there was no smoke without a fire.  The report was from a TV investigation created by the Russian channel “Vesti”.  It reveals how heroin made in Afghanistan is transported out of the country on military cargo planes to the base of Ganci in Kyrgyzstan and Inchirlik in Turkey.  Afghan journalist, Nushin Arbabzadah, wrote in “The Guardian”, that it was possible that drugs fill military coffins instead of bodies. “I think it is possible that this happens, but I can’t prove it,” he said.

The drug problem in Russia was due to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s when its soldiers became addicted to heroin and smuggled it back to Russia. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the drug trafficking from Afghanistan across Central Asia to Russia and finally to the west of Europe intensified.  Today, Russia was about six million drug users.  That is 20 times more than before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So imagine Russia’s “horror” when it discovered that the drug trade had ballooned in Afghanistan when it supported the US led invasion.  It had been previously banned by the Taliban. 

This is a classic case of one pointing a finger and having three pointing back at them.  If Russia had not invaded Afghanistan, Russian soldiers would not have gotten hooked on heroin in the first place.

“Unfortunately, they [NATO] are doing nothing to reduce the narcotic threat from Afghanistan even a tiny bit,” Putin raged. 

Russia’s suspicion that the US was complicit in the rise of a narco state was compounded by reports that the cultivation of opium poppies was growing in Iraq, too.

 “The Americans are working hard to keep narco business flourishing in both countries,” says Mikhail Khazin, president of the consultancy firm Niakon. “They consistently destroy the local infrastructure, pushing the local population to look for illegal means of subsistence. And the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] provides protection to drug trafficking.”

Russian journalist, Arkadky Dubnov, quoted anonymous Afghan sources as saying, “85 per cent of all drugs produced in southern and south-eastern provinces are shipped abroad by U.S. aviation.”  He was also told that the military acquired drugs through local Afghan officials.  Dubnov also claimed that the administration of President Hamid Karzai, along with his brothers, Kajum Karzai and Akhmed Vali Karzai, is heavily involved with the drug trade.

Russian General, Mahmut Gareev, an ex-commander of Russian troops in Afghanistan told “Russia Today”, “The Americans don’t obstruct the production of drugs in Afghanistan because it supplies them with at least 50 billion dollars a year. It’s no secret that the Americans transport drugs out of the country onboard military flights.”

The Russian economist, Mikhail Khazin was quoted as saying: “The Americans work hard to run their narcotics business in Afghanistan through the protection provided by the CIA to local drug traffickers.”

Nikolai Bordyuzha, CSTO Secretary-General, quoted a Pentagon general who told him: “We are not fighting narcotics because this is not our task in Afghanistan.”

Is the United States merely complacent regarding the issue of drugs or is it actually involved in it?

CONCLUSION:

The facts presented throughout the blog prove beyond a doubt that there are never opposing countries or sides.  Even though it may appear on the exterior that countries are at war with one another, they all have one goal and that is to usher in a new age of the New World Order.  Every war promotes that agenda just that much further because war stirs up fear in people’s minds, they demand to be protected, which gives governments the right to make up new policies that appear to be addressing the “war on terror”.  It shall be evident over the years in the future that our individual rights will be taken away for the excuse that we can live in a “safer” world.

Sources:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/50029

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2701547.stm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIAdrug_fallout.html

http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/outline.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIADrugConfession.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/28/95240.shtml

http://www.counterpunch.org/walberg05282008.html

http://www.geopium.org/drugtradeinasia.html#crescent

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/10/15/how-deeply-is-the-u-s-involved-in-the-afghan-drug-tradeo.html

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/in-afghanistan-poppy-eradication-pits-russia-vs-nato/

After thinking about this matter very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that both sides have a point and thus have attempted to reconcile them.

Saying that obedience is not a requirement to be saved can also mean that one doesn’t lose their salvation just because they disobey God subsequently to turning their lives over to Jesus. Everybody knows that it is not humanly possible to obey God at all times. If we could, what is Jesus needed for? He KNOWS we cannot be sin free on our own. He knows we will never stop sinning for it is in our nature. Therefore, it is true that one cannot lose their salvation if they have subsequently disobeyed God after being born again. It is also true, however, that one has to strive to obey God at all times and that requires discipline. We must not abuse the gift of salvation. The desire to obey God comes naturally once one truly loves God and has truly accepted salvation. Somebody who continuously disobeys God without the slightest remorse clearly has not accepted the gift of salvation in the first place, thus can’t lose it.
 

The most important factor to take into consideration is the element of INTENTION. I think it is pretty clear to many that life is not always black and white. There are a lot of shades of greys, too. The very same act can be analysed in completely different contexts. One person may not sin committing an act while another committing the very same act may very well be sinning. For example, a woman may choose to have an abortion because she is told that her baby is mentally disabled and has congenital disorders which would seriously deprive the child of any quality of life. She is putting the child’s best interests at heart by aborting it. Another woman may have an abortion because she deems it a form of contraceptive, being too lazy to use contraceptives. She obviously has very selfish motives and has a blatant disrespect for life. We can see the very same act has been committed by the two women in my example, yet the intentions are very different. Another example is lies. One can argue that lying is unacceptable in all situations, but I beg to differ. I think it boils down to intention again. One may commit the so-called white lie to spare another’s feelings. Others may blatantly lie to further their own wicked agenda. Have their both disobeyed God even though their intentions for the same act are very different?

It is clear to me that one doesn’t lose their salvation if they disobey God provided they show true repentance for it and strive not to do the sin again. If one is not remorseful, they clearly have not accepted salvation in the first place. Salvation means that God continuously forgives those who truly repent. However, one must respect God by striving to live as virtuously as possible.

Illustrating the concept of intention, I think it can be deduced that people must refrain from judging others. What appears to be a sin on the outside may very well have been justified. A judge cannot make a judgement on a case without hearing both sides of the story. Since we do not know all the facts about anyone, we cannot make an accurate judgement. That is why Jesus said not to judge.

You can tell if someone truly has accepted Christ as their saviour by observing their actions. Do they have love in their conduct? If they don’t, they have not accepted salvation.

Has anyone ever wondered why Jesus is depicted as having long hair, despite the fact that Jewish men back then were required to have their hair short? Why was he white? There were no white Jews prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.  And sometimes he has blue eyes. In a lot of pictures Jesus looks, well, pretty.  Considering the Bible never described Jesus before, how does anyone know what He looked like? We can get a basic idea.  Jews were olive-skinned, the men had short hair, etc.  So why on earth is Jesus depicted the way He is?

Why does Jesus make those hand signals, like the one I mentioned earlier?  I saw a picture of Christopher Columbus do the same.  He was a Freemason. 

Why does Jesus have a halo around His head?

If you want to know the answers, watch the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtkU6P0JeYs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ziEUn3B0g&has_verified=1

Haiti:

Not many people are aware of this, but just before the Haiti quake, a test of the Transnational Information Cooperation project belonging to DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency) was in progress.  That system involved steps that the US would undertake in a scenario whereby Haiti would require relief in the wake of a hurricane.  SOUTHCOM (US Southern Command) decided to go live with the system after the quake struck. 

Interestingly enough, the Royal Navy flotilla was withdrawn weeks before the disaster because of budget constraints, the Ministry of Defense said.  If it has been in service, it would have provided relief in the first hours after the Haitian earthquake.

It is noteworthy to remember that on the day of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, a practice drill simulating a terror attack involving planes going into buildings, an attack on the Pentagon and the White House was taking place which ultimately caused confusion to those who were supposed to give the orders to scramble the jets in response to the airplanes flying in the no fly zone.  So it does seem a mighty coincidence that SOUTHCOM decided to test the system just before the quake struck.  That’s not the only coincidence.  I might as well mention that in the summer of 2005, a practice drill to respond to a F3 hurricane took place also, the fictitious hurricane being “Hurricane Pam”, to learn how to respond to the worst case scenario.

And, to recall, BP, with much foresight, lobbied to extend the exemptions of inspections.  This indicates that BP knew that an oil spill was very likely.

MOTIVE:

Why does the Global Elite purposely create problems, get the public to react and then provide the solutions? Why would America want to murder its own people by being instrumental in the 9-11 attacks? Why would the US government want an oil spill? Why would the Global Elite purposely keep Haiti in a state of ruin?

Readers may notice that I appear to use the word the “United States” and the “Global Elite” synonymously.  They aren’t exactly the same but the United States is the headquarters of the Illuminati and thus their most powerful weapon.

The motives for all this are population reduction, centralization and the complete implosion of the world economy in order to bring the New World Order into fruition. To break this down briefly, the NWO is the policy of a one world government that has eventually come to being through centralization of all countries.  There will be a one world currency and we will be just world citizens instead of being citizens of a particular country.  Under the NWO, individual rights must be ceded, private property also and one must be micro-chipped.  That is not a conspiracy theory.  That is an admission from Nick Rockefeller himself.  Everybody’s details are on this microchip, from your banking details, ID, financial history, etc.  No one can buy or tell without being chipped and it merely gets switched off if someone decided to rebel against the NWO.  These are the words of Nick Rockefeller himself, as relayed by his friend, Aaron Russo.

9-11

9-11 shows a clear case of creating a disaster, getting the public to react in a certain way, then reacts in a way that advances the Global Elite’s agenda.  This is very clear if one peruses the Project for a New American Century document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses:  Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. 

It was established in the spring of 1997 and was founded by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsveld.  Bill Kristol is the chairman.  Other members included, Richard Perle, dubbed “The Prince of Darkness” who is former chair of the Defence Policy Board, Elliot Abrams of the National Security Council, former presidential candidate, George Bauer, Governor Jeb Bush and former director of the CIA,  Robert James Woolsey.

Consider these PNAC excerpts:

“The Project for the New American Century was established in the spring of1997. From its inception, the Project has been concerned with the decline in the strength of America’s defences, and in the problems this would create for the exercise of American leadership around the globe and, ultimately, for the preservation of peace.

Either alternative seemed to us to be short-sighted. The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining pre-eminent military power, global technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.

This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of U.S. military forces. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.  The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this “American peace.

Yet unless the United States maintains sufficient military strength, this opportunity will be lost. And in fact, over the past decade, the failure to establish a security strategy responsive to new realities and to provide adequate resources for the full range of missions needed to exercise U.S. global leadership has placed the American peace at growing risk. This report attempts to define those requirements.”

What this is essentially saying is that America is seeking global domination and the way to maintain its “superpower” is to increase its military presence around the world.  The question posed at the time is how can America increase its military presence without any reason to dominate countries?

Consider this also:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

So without some huge catastrophic event, like Pearl Harbor, the United States world domination plans would take too long to realize.  The following year this was written, 9-11 happened.

The terror attacks that day gave the United States the excuse to invade Afghanistan.  It has been established that the United States had plans to install a gas pipe in Afghanistan before 9-11.  To establish bases in Iraq, the pathetic claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was made despite the fact that it was found that he did not have such weapons.  Since America doesn’t listen to anyone, including the United Nations, they embarked on an illegal war.

Oil Spill

Obama has been advocating “clean energy” for a while now while Sarah Palin says, “Drill, baby, drill!”  It just seemed so remarkably coincidental that the oil spill should come along quite conveniently to strengthen Obama’s case. Even some members of the Rockefellers say it is time to move beyond the oil age.  How else do you convince the public to wean off oil unless some catastrophe demonstrates just how bad it is?

Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has overruled an independent investigation into the Gulf disaster.

The Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed the amendment to the CLEAR Act offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy that would establish a bipartisan, independent, National Commission on Outer Continental Shelf Oil Spill Prevention.   The commission would be comprised of technical experts to study the actual events leading up to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  This is opposed to the commission set up by Obama which only included environmental activist and no petroleum engineers.

 “To investigate what went wrong and keep it from happening again, the commission must include members who have expertise in petroleum engineering.  The President’s Commission has none,” Cassidy, the amendment’s author, told HUMAN EVENTS after the announcement.  “It defies common sense that this amendment passed unanimously in committee, only to be deleted in the Speaker’s office.”

Republican Doc Hastings, a Republic on the Natural Resources Committee, said the commission set up by the Obama administration was clearly to protect his best interests.

 “By deleting the bipartisan, independent oil spill commission that’s received bipartisan support in both House and Senate committees, Democrats have shown they are more interested in protecting the President than getting independent answers to what caused this tragic Gulf spill.  Some of the biggest failures that contributed to the Gulf disaster are the direct responsibility of the federal government and by deleting this bipartisan, independent commission, Democrats ensure that only the President’s hand-picked commission will be digging into any failures of his own Interior Department appointees.  There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium that will cost thousands of jobs,” Hastings said.

It should also be noted that it appears as if the Democrats are using this oil spill disaster to add in a medley of regulations and new standards and laws for drilling that is has nothing do with offshore drilling.

“Even more outrageous is this bill’s attempt to use the oil spill tragedy as leverage to enact totally unrelated policies and increase federal spending on unrelated programs by billions of dollars. What does a solar panel in Nevada, a wind turbine in Montana, uranium for nuclear power, or a ban on fish farming have to do with the Gulf spill? Nothing — but the spill is a good excuse to try and pass otherwise stalled or unpopular new laws,” Hastings said.

Republican John Fleming said Obama’s commission has no findings or recommendations made.

 “This ‘fix it’ bill is being rammed through without an accurate and full understanding of what actually went wrong. The Presidential Commission is just barely beginning its work, no investigations are yet concluded, and the failed [blowout preventer] still on the ocean floor, yet we are voting on a bill without knowing what went wrong,” Fleming said. 

“Furthermore, at a time when Washington should be focused on creating jobs, this bill will do just the opposite by hampering future energy development and stifling job creation along the Gulf Coast,” Fleming added.  “This knee-jerk legislation — coupled with the Administration’s damaging Moratorium on offshore drilling — will worsen, not help, the situation.”

 “This bill has less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production,” Cassidy said.

Here are some of the measures included in the CLEAR Act:

-     Imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes for onshore natural gas and oil production. It fundamentally changes leasing onshore by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which affects not just leasing for natural gas and oil, but also for renewable energy including wind and solar. Forest Service and BLM leasing are shoved into the three new agencies that are replacing the former Minerals Management Service (MMS).

-     Creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two programs that have nothing to do with the oil spill (the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund). In the version of the bill headed to the House floor, Democrats added brand new language that expressly allows this $30 billion to be earmarked by the Appropriations Committee.

-     Raises taxes by over $22 billion in ten years – with the taxes eventually climbing to nearly $3 billion per year. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families and businesses, hurt domestic jobs, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. This tax only applies to U.S. oil and gas production on federal leases – giving an advantage to foreign oil and hurting American energy jobs.

-     Requires the federal takeover of state authority to permit in state waters, which reverses sixty years of precedent. The mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the federal government are being used as justification to expand federal control by seizing management from the states.

-     Allows 10% of all offshore revenues – an amount possibly as high as $500 million per year – to be spent on a new fund controlled by the Interior Secretary to issue ocean research grants (ORCA fund). There is no requirement that the fund is used for the Gulf region or anything related to oil spills or offshore drilling. These funds can be earmarked.

HAITI:

The Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused the United States of causing the earthquake in Haiti.  He believes that the US was testing a tectonic weapon to produce eco-type devastations. He also claims that the motive behind this was so that the US would have a reason to occupy Haiti.  The US had deployed thousands of troops to bring law and order.  He went onto say that the US would set off an earthquake in Iran with the result that the US military will also occupy Iran to keep the peace.  I find it fascinating that, according to a confidante of Nick Rockefeller who told him this, Venezuela is going to be the next country invaded by America.

Here are excerpts from a press release on January 26^th, 2010

“Today 80 US religious denominations, human rights groups, and development agencies including the Jubilee USA Network, the AFL-CIO, and the ONE Campaign sent a letter to US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, urging him to negotiate immediate debt cancellation for Haiti by the international financial institutions

As the International Monetary Fund prepares to meet on Wednesday to vote to approve a $100 million emergency loan for Haiti and discuss possible debt cancellation, the groups urge the United States use its leadership to ensure that Haiti’s existing debt be cancelled definitively and that any new money comes in the form of grants, not loans.

As the International Monetary Fund prepares to meet on Wednesday to vote to approve a $100 million emergency loan for Haiti and discuss possible debt cancellation, the groups urge the United States use its leadership to ensure that Haiti’s existing debt be cancelled definitively and that any new money comes in the form of grants, not loans.”

More than half of Haiti’s outstanding debt is owed to the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) ($442 million), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ($165 million), and the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) ($39 million) — institutions where the US government has a significant voice on the Executive Board.

What happens when all the debts of a country have been cancelled? Those who are owed the debts become the owners of that country.  Therefore, the Haitian government will have no say and quite frankly, I believe that to be in the case of Haiti right now. 

ECONOMY COLLAPSE:

The Louisiana economy has been badly affected by the oil spill due to the fishing that has had to be put on hold and the suspension of off shore drilling which, by far, makes up the majority of the Louisianan economy.  The Global Elite are making it their top priority to collapse the world economy so that they can introduce a brand new economy under a one world government. 

Greg Palast is a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation and the British Newspaper The Observer.  He received about a thousand pages of documents from within the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, controlled by NM Rothschild and 40 of the wealthiest people in the world.  These two organisations work in conjunction with the World Trade Organization.  The WTO is in control of the world movement of capital.  These papers come from Joe Stiglitz, then vice president of the World Bank, who got fired.  Before he was fired, he took a large stack of classified documents.  They stipulated the requirements that the IMF and World Bank imposed on nations:

1. to sign secret agreements of 111 items

2. in which they agreed to sell off their key assets – water, electric, gas, etc.

3. in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really devastating to the nations involved

4. in which they pay off the politicians billions of dollars to Swiss bank accounts to do this transfer of a countries fixed assets

If they do not agree to these steps they are cut-off from all international borrowing. Today if can’t borrow money in the international marketplace, no one can survive, whether you are people or corporations or countries. If that does not work they overthrow the government and plant lies about the former government and/or even rewrite history.

More information here:

http://www.infowars.com/palast.htm

If you know the formula of the Illuminati, which is problem-reaction-solution, everything makes sense. You can then know how to look beyond the official story to see the truth.

Oil Spill:

The serious effects from coming into contact with oil has been downplayed by both BP and the Exxon Valdez, the latter being responsible for the 1989 oil spill in Alaska, but the dangers are very real.

Kindra Arnesen’s husband, both living in Louisiana, was on a shrimping trip during the time of the oil spill. He phoned his wife to tell her he was feeling sick and it wasn’t just him. He witnessed people from seven other shrimping vessels getting sick, one draped over the side of the vessel throwing up.

Tony Hayward, the then CEO of BP, had his own theory why people were getting sick:

“Food poisoning is clearly a big issue,” he said. “It’s something we’ve got to be very mindful of.”

However, Ricki Ott, a marine toxicologist writes:

“Local fishermen hired to work on BP’s uncontrolled oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico are scared and confused. Fishermen here and in other small communities dotting the southern marshes and swamplands of Barataria Bay are getting sick from the working on the cleanup, yet BP is assuring them they don’t need respirators or other special protection from the crude oil, strong hydrocarbon vapors, or chemical dispersants being sprayed in massive quantities on the oil slick.

Fishermen have never seen the results from the air-quality monitoring patches some of them wear on their rain gear when they are out booming and skimming the giant oil slick. However, more and more fishermen are suffering from bad headaches, burning eyes, persistent coughs, sore throats, stuffy sinuses, nausea, and dizziness. They are starting to suspect that BP is not telling them the truth.
And based on air monitoring conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Louisiana coastal community, those workers seem to be correct. The EPA findings show that airborne levels of toxic chemicals like hydrogen sulphide, and volatile organic compounds like benzene, for instance, now far exceed safety standards for human exposure.”

Not only has BP not been forthright but they have blatantly endangered the lives of these fisherman/cleaners deliberately. For some strange reason, BP didn’t allow cleaners to wear respirators with the result people were getting sick, some coughing up blood. They say it wasn’t necessary. In fact, workers were threatened with dismissal should they wear respirators.

Merle Savage was a volunteer worker of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. She was assigned to clean the rocks that were oil-coated but Exxon never provided legitimate safety training, therefore she didn’t think twice about spraying hot water over the rocks. She didn’t realize the danger of inhaling the oil fumes.

It wasn’t long until she started feeling dizziness and believed she had contracted the ‘flu since the workers were housed in close quarters. Eventually, she developed these symptoms: cirrhosis of the liver, rheumatoid arthritis, diarrhoea and respiratory problems.

Ricki Ott, the marine toxicologist specializing in oil pollution said to her that respiratory and central nervous system problems are common among oil spill cleanup workers.

Exxon did a “Tony Hayward” and said that cleaners were only suffering from the ‘flu.

Today, those in Louisiana are reporting burning, itching skin with lesions. People are coughing up blood and are suffering from nosebleeds. Other symptoms include aching bones, weight loss, stomach pains and styes in the eyes.

Micha Walsh was a Gulf Coast volunteer in Grand Isle for four weeks and received heavy toxic exposure due to here three hour research trip at Barataria Bay collecting water samples. She says that the news reports that there is no oil to be seen is false and that the Barataria Bay area of south Louisiana is heavily oiled.

One of the researchers was soon coughing up blood.

9-11

In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, the White House instructed the EPA to mislead the public into believing that the air was safe to breathe. Many first responders to the disaster didn’t think there was any danger to their health and have subsequently died or have fallen ill.

The dust from the collapsed towers was extremely toxic, according to air pollution expert and University of California David Professor Emeritus Thomas Cahill. It consisted of thousands of tons of toxic debris with more than 2500 contaminants, which included asbestos, lead and mercury as well as unprecedented levels of dioxin and PAHs from the fires that burned for three months. These can trigger kidney, heart, liver and nervous system deterioration. All this was known to the EPA at the time of the collapse. The EPA was also responsible for not telling the public about the toxicity of the dispersants BP used to disperse the oil in the Gulf, as you may recall.

NYPD member, Cesar Borja, developed pulmonary fibrosis. Health effects also extended to some residents, students and office workers of Lower Manhattan and nearby Chinatown.

The most serious of all the ailments is cancer. Seventy five recovery workers at Ground Zero have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that about six doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as most likely being caused by the exposure.

LIES BORDERING ON INSANITY:

Oil Spill:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was accused by local environmentalists and fishermen of being complicit in covering up bad news. The NOAA issued a report claiming that tests of 600 fish caught in waters “near the edge of the oil” have proven negative for chemical toxins. The fisherman say, however, that is ridiculous because there are no fish in the waters in the oil zone or near it.

Reputable sources say that BP has been spraying a bleaching agent on Louisiana’s beaches at night to make it appear as if it has been cleaned up.

Probably the most insane thing is BP’s recovery plan which includes naming dead people as responsible parties and plans to save the walruses and seals. I’m still trying to figure out if they were playing the fool or if they really did think walruses and seals frequented the Gulf.

9-11

If the disaster was not so devastatingly tragic, these lies would be considered hysterically funny. These people in power treat the public as if they have an IQ of 10. Probably one of the worst and craziest lie about this disaster was the FBI’s claim that they had found one of the hijacker’s passports that had miraculously survived the crash of the plane and ensuing inferno. It wasn’t even singed. That is how the FBI knew that Arabs were involved. Funny! There were no Arab passengers on the planes that went into the World Trade Centre, according to the passenger list. And the owner of the passport is still alive. Many of the “hijackers” are actually alive and well and the FBI has not bothered to amend the list.

The FBI also knew that the hijackers were trained to fly planes. Their proof? One of the hijackers had left one of their suitcases behind at the airport and inside was a training manual on how to fly a plane. A list of the 19 hijackers was also found in the luggage but six are still alive.

LIASING WITH THE ENEMY

Oil Spill:

When ever there is a war or when one country has wrong another, be rest assured, the parties involved are never against one another, but are merely just two sides of the same coin. An example of this is BP’s love affair with the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the US government watchdog of the oil industry. They did everything together, from sleeping with one another to sniffing lines of cocaine on their desks.

So deep was their love, the Interior Department exempted BP’s drilling operation in the Gulf from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents. Three reviews of the area concluded that the oil spill was unlikely.

The excuse for the MMS’s decision to give BP a categorical exclusion from the Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 and the fact BP lobbied for 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions, was that neither the MMS nor BP anticipated such a huge spill. That is just plain pathetic and wrong. It suggests that they were colluding together. It is my opinion that this oil rig explosion was deliberately caused for the political ramifications are significant and nothing in politics is coincidental, according to Franklin D Roosevelt.

9-11

Now the enemy of the United States and the CIA is supposed to be Al Qaeda, namely Osama bin Laden but it is a known fact that bin Laden is a former CIA agent and that Bush is great friends with the bin Laden family.

On November 2, 2001, the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that while Osama bin Laden was in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection in July of that year, he was met with a top CIA official, presumably the chief of station. It took place in his private suite at the American hospital in Dubai at the same time Osama was wanted for the bombings of two US embassies and the attack on the USS Cole. He was even eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before he left office, but on July 14th, 2001, he was allowed to leave Dubai and there was no American resistance to that.

In January of 2001, the Bush Administration had ordered the FBI and intelligence agencies to “back off” investigations involving the bin Laden family, which included two of bin Laden’s relatives, Omar and Abdullah. Those two were living in Falls Church, Va, which happened to be situated right next to CIA headquarters.