American States Call For Independence

There hasn't been much talk in the popular media about America's We the People website.  It was created by Barack Obama's administration in September 2011, with the goal of soliciting opinions from citizens and which promised to release an official response when the number of signers of an individual petition reached a certain threshold.

Since the re-election of Barack Obama, unhappy Americans have been using the website to create petitions promoting the secession of 35 of the country's 50 states. The bar was first set at 5,000, but the powers that be quickly upped the ante to 25,000.

The day after the US election the petition for Texas had quickly passed the threshold and had gathered well over 77,000 signatories.  It has now received 116,248. Louisiana has garnered 36,775, Florida 34,513, Georgia 31,835, Tennessee 30,855 closely followed by Alabama with 30,067.

Five states have two petitions and Georgia leads with three that together  attracted over 33,000 signers the day after Obama's election.

A few counter secession petitions have been started as well, including one that calls for deportation of signers of secessionist petitions (25,115) and another that suggests they should be stripped of their citizenship and exiled (15,053).

It will be interesting to watch out for the White House response although I doubt if it will be at all favourable given America's past history.

Tweet

Will Faslane Be Scotland's Bargaining Tool?

Fifty years ago I doubt if any Scottish independence supporters would have dreamt that their country would be the talk of Washington and Moscow steamies, but it is and the interest of the Russians is said to be causing 'jitters' in senior American circles.

One of Putin's US political counsellors made an appearance at the National Capital Tartan Day Committee's (NCTDC) Tartan Day 2012 Symposium in Washington at the end of last month.  His attendance was unusual because it was the first time a Russian has shown up at one of these events.

But why was he there?  Maybe to admire the tartans (if there were any on show) but his main interest was discussing Trident and the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent should Scotland decide to vote Yes in the 2014 referendum.

A senior Congressional aide stated many US political experts believe that if Scotland does decide to become independent the SNP will be forced to abandon its opposition to basing nuclear missiles on the Clyde as part of the separation agreement. "A favourable outcome would be that the bases would still be available for the Trident fleet and would be leased to the new British government," he added.

All very neat and tidy for the US because some Americans are said to be worried independence would 'weaken the military power of America's staunchest ally'.  I don't agree that there is any 'special relationship' between the US and the UK. The US is well known for looking after its own interests and those of its allies are secondary.

Republican Congressman John J Duncan, who is co-chair of the Friends of Scotland Congressional Caucus, is one of the biggest supporters of Scottish interests in Washington DC.  He can't understand the SNP's opposition to nuclear weapons.

The SNP is currently reviewing its NATO policy and it is expected to decide that an independent Scotland would apply to be a member.

However, the NATO decision, or any others, will not belong solely to the SNP. When Scotland is independent all political parties will be forced to declare their policies and membership of NATO will be just one of them. Scotland could even decide to have a defence force similar to Finland - a non-NATO EU country.

The people should be asked if they want nuclear weapons to reside in their country and the SNP would be sensible if they included a NATO referendum in their independence proposals.

Negotiations between Westminster and Holyrood will be ongoing in the next two years or so, with oil and Faslane being prominent subjects for discussion. I can't see any political party in Scotland bartering North Sea oil, but will Faslane be the bargaining tool?

There's no doubt the Russians and Americans will be keeping a close watch on developments.

source

Tweet

Why We Need A New 9/11 Investigation - Guest Post

A guest post by Stewart Cowan

Why We Need A New 9/11 Investigation

I was out and about on September 11th 2001 and the first inkling I had that the attacks had taken place was on seeing a picture of one of the Twin Towers on fire on a newspaper stand in the centre of Glasgow while changing buses. When I reached my friends’ house around dinner time, the telly was on and I was finally able to catch up with what had happened: the jets hitting the Towers and pulverising them, the attack on the Pentagon and the other plane that never reached its intended target but crashed in a Pennsylvanian field. Building 7 was still standing at this point (more on that later).

Naturally, I was gobsmacked with what I saw, but at the same time, I just could not believe that the authorities in the US could not have known that something this big was going to happen. I told a few people what I thought, but I pretty much kept quiet about it for the next couple of years – until I came across the “9/11 Truth Movement” and realised that millions of people had the same suspicions I had. I found out that not only did some people think that the government let it happen, but that they made it happen.

Further investigation was called for on my part.

I quickly learned that there were a great many inconsistencies and unbelievable coincidences in the official 9/11 story. For example, no steel framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before. Even those which had been ablaze for many hours never fell to the ground. Yet three of the World Trade Centre buildings fell completely – even the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) which was not hit by a plane.

For many, Building 7 is the biggest ‘smoking gun’ of all because it resembles a classic controlled demolition. 1,500 architects and engineers agree and want a new investigation. So many people in New York City have never seen footage of Building 7’s collapse, that a poster and TV ad campaign is underway this week.

And Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. But then, the chairman and vice chairman wrote in their book that the Commission was “set up to fail”.

When George W Bush gave his evidence to the Commission it was not under oath and he was chaperoned by Dick Cheney, the man responsible for making NORAD stand down, according to “conspiracy theorists”. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President had ordered the plane heading for the Pentagon NOT to be shot down. This testimony was omitted from the Commission’s final report.

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating that restrictions on information from the Presidential Daily Briefs meant that the investigation was “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States”. Another Commissioner, Timothy Roemer said, "To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all."

In Cheney’s new book , which seems to have been released to coincide with the tenth anniversary, he claims that he did order that Flight 77 could be shot down when it was eighty miles out then again when it was sixty miles out, but it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. He also claims that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania because passengers stormed the cockpit, aware of what had already happened that morning, however, the large area across which the wreckage extends suggests that the plane exploded in mid-air, and pictures from the alleged crash site leave us wondering where the actual plane is, if it crashed without being blown out of the sky first.

It is also difficult to see how a large passenger jet could have made such little initial damage to the outside of the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed.

Osama bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (he had actually been a CIA 'asset' in Bosnia) and ‘al Qaeda’ was a name made up by Western intelligence to give the impression that disparate groups of Islamic terrorists had a united front. After the end of the Cold War, a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights.

And 9/11 was the excuse the US Government needed to invade Afghanistan.

Many people find it impossible to believe that there could have been any government involvement, but history provides many examples of “false flag” terrorism where state-sponsored attacks were carried out and blamed on political enemies. Operation Gladio was the name given to the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operations in Europe after World War II to keep communism in check, and many civilian deaths can be attributed to Gladio over decades which were to discredit the likes of the Red Brigades.

And a secret US Government document from 1962 called Operation Northwoods, now declassified, actually suggests hijacking planes then blowing them out of the sky and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext to invade the now Communist island.

I cannot possibly mention all the inconsistencies in a blog post where it has taken others whole books to set out their arguments, but I join the calls for a proper investigation into 9/11 because it just doesn’t add up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts (father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury) wrote last month, “Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”.

I can appreciate that this is what keeps a great many people from questioning the official story. This weekend emotions will be high as we relive those desperate events of a decade ago, but many people who lost family members on 9/11 don’t believe the government’s version of events and have become activists for truth.

They aren't afraid to face the truth because they want justice for their loved ones. 

Tweet

Libya: The Longer The Fighting The Better?

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an expert in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He believes the European economy is being remodeled as the EU drives itself further into the orbit of the US and backs away from Russia, which, he says, is an actual dependable and stable form of energy for Europe.

Tweet

'The Scottish Government is answerable only to the Scottish people'

Having watched the BBC news, the US senator Menendez has once again been thwarted by Alex Salmond. Those of my readers who are 'body language' experts could see that, underneath his smiling persona, Mr Salmond was seething.

Menendez, in his desperate attempt to be elected in the forthcoming US senate elections, has now suggested that he send a delegation to interview Scottish ministers over the Lockerbie affair.

Alex Salmond has said: "There is no way on earth that the Senate foreign relations committee would be allowed to hold hearings or interview ministers in either London or Edinburgh, as it was unconstitutional and unprecedented. The Scottish Government is only answerable to the Scottish People".

Well done Eck. But there are serious worries within the Scottish population - not least the SNP's insistence that, should Scotland take the decision to be independent, they should be part of the EU. More and more people in Scotland are becoming disillusioned about the EU and the SNP are missing the opportunity for the nation to discuss their concerns. Why can't Alex Salmond show the same leadership as he has with the US and commence a nationwide discussion about their policy? The SNP's policy was formed many years ago and I have no idea if it has been revised in the meantime, but what I do know is that, with their present stance, they will lose many votes.

The SNP won't lose votes because of their confident stance against four US senators though. The only people who will lose votes are the four US senators.

source

Tweet

A Special Relationship Video

Captain Ranty left a comment on my post regarding the 'Special Relationship'. He mentioned this video which he has on his blog and I do feel it's worth viewing. I can say the 13th Article of Amendment is not noted in the current US Constitution and when I have more time I will research this further.

Tweet

What's Cameron Playing At?

What's David Cameron playing at? I've just heard on radio that he's changed his mind and decided he'll meet the four US senators who, in a vitriolic rage, publicly accused Scotland and the Westminster government of a conspiracy between BP and themselves regarding the release of Megrahi.

Now it appears Cameron has found time to talk to the senators. What an embarrassment for Britain. Would Obama agree to formally meet any of our Lords or MPs about a situation which concerned them if he was on a brief visit to London?

How disappointing to find out so soon into his premiership that David Cameron is no different to recent Prime Ministers and is prepared to be bullied by the US instead of defending Britain first and foremost. There are processes through which the senators' questions can be answered but reorganising his schedule in order to formally talk with them isn't one of them. The Americans will be delighted to find they have another compliant poodle.

source

Tweet

The 'Special' Relationship

David Cameron travelled to Washington yesterday for his first official visit to the United States since becoming Prime Minister in May.

A strategy for what he calls a 'vital year' in Afghanistan is likely to be top of the agenda when he meets the US president today yet Cameron, in his remarks about the UK being the junior partner in the imaginery relationship, leaves him at a serious disadvantage. Since we are regularly preached to about equality in this country, why would a prime minister openly admit to being the submissive partner in any relationship?

The coalition government's handling of the Afghanistan war has been dreadful to date. First we were told that all troops would be home by the next election; then Liam Fox suggested they were there for the long haul of at least 10 to 20 years and the latest from the Prime Minister is that they will return by 2014.

Strategy? There is no strategy. Obama judges his allies by the extent of their commitment to his ever-changing plans for this war which he personally has intensified because he needs to show the Americans that withdrawal will start before the next US election.

Next on Obama's agenda will possibly be BP which is now being linked to the Megrahi's release. David Cameron has been most vocal in his opinion that the release was a big mistake yet he must be aware there is considerable doubt to Megrahi's guilt. Lallands Peat Worrier has an excellent post regarding one aspect of the Megrahi story while Lobbydog shows just how well Nigel Sheinwald, the British Ambassador in Washington, is fueling the flames of the situation. Calls have been made for an investigation and it's report US officials in Washington have confirmed that they want to ask past and present UK ministers to give evidence about their handling of the case - casting a shadow over former justice secretary Jack Straw and the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

But Scotland's First Minister refuses to let any investigation stop with his Justice Minister. He's suggested that the US senators look elsewhere. "It is important to understand that what the American senators want to inquire about is whether there was a deal in the desert with Col Gaddafi," he stated. "The best way to answer that would be to call Mr Blair and ask him directly." Well done Alex Salmond.

The foreign relations committee will move quickly this week to identify witnesses to testify at hearings, set for 29 July, on BP's alleged involvement in the Megrahi case. It is not clear if any Britons asked to give evidence will oblige. The hearings are threatening to add serious new strains between the US and Britain but there is no sign that the Obama administration means to distance itself from the Senate's initiative.

In the past week not only has David Cameron treated Scotland like an ill-behaved child but decided he'll continue the fictitious believe that there is anything special about our relationship with the US. It's time he started to talk up Britain and put our interest first and last, but will he during this visit? My image is of a fawning British Prime Minister happy to take instructions from a US president who has lost the confidence of his people. Mr Cameron isn't doing too well in his choice of best friends.

Christopher Meyer:

If ever there was a moment for Britain to press the reset button, it is in its relationship with America. That should be David Cameron's paramount objective.

He will need to do so with a tough-minded realism, in which the national interest is not sacrificed to the sentimental rhetoric of the Special Relationship.

Tony Blair's approach to the U.S. must be buried once and for all.

source plus others

Tweet

US Gives Go-Head to BP Takeover

A few weeks ago, when the US President was attempting to act tough with BP, one of my regular readers asked the question 'What's Obama up to?' The MSM, on both sides of the Atlantic, were profuse with their commentaries, many of which desperately tried to convey President Obama as a caring individual even though he had ignored the spill for some considerable time, yet there were a few who were cynical.

We're all aware American companies were involved in the drilling process for the project but not much was said about them and their shares held their value, whilst BP's dropped like a stone; partly because of the President's vitriol aimed at BP senior management. The protests from the UK regarding the fact that nearly half of BP's shareholders are American appeared to fall on deaf ears and the US President continued to emphasise the British association with BP - until the Prime Minister decided to take some action and telephone President Obama. Since then there has been relatively little spin from the White House.

'What's Obama up to' is answered today in the Sun. The paper alleges the US oil company Exxon has been given White House approval to make a £100 billion bid for BP. Sources said Exxon was told President Obama's administration would not stand in the way of any deal. According to the article BP has been trying to persuade investors across the Middle East to buy share to stop a takeover from a rival such as Exxon.

So becoming personal about the bosses of a multinational company may well pay off for the US President. There's no doubt many in Britain will be keeping a close eye on the situation.

Tweet

The US Wakens to the Demise of their Freedom of Speech

If the US Senate approves President Obamam's nomination of Elena Kagan (pictured) for the US Supreme Court, it will be the end of the First Amendment right of free speech and move the US a giant leap closer to Obama's goal of making the US a socialist nation and becoming America's first dictator, states Newsmax.

Kagan is presently solicitor general, the top government lawyer who argues the administration's cases before the Supreme Court. She supports the idea that it is acceptable for the government to restrict any form of speech if it is deemed to be offensive to society or to the government.

Why would President Obama want to appoint someone to the US Supreme Court who has had no judicial experience whatsoever? Perhaps it has something to do with her undergraduate thesis where she wrote how it saddened her that socialism was declining in America, especially for those that wanted to change America.

It seems Americans are waking up to the eradication of what they believe is the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Ms Kagan states: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against it's societal costs."

I'm delighted Americans are protesting about the election of Ms Kagan. Here in the UK we know how our freedom of speech has been diminished in the past 13 years, along with other liberties. Good luck to them.

Tweet

Stack's 'Rant'

Most of you will have heard or read about Joe Stack (pictured above), an American who flew a plane into a tax office building in Austin, Texas this week.

He left a 'suicide note' in the form of a text document online and it is being referred to as a ramble or rant by much of the media.

Decide for yourself.  It's certainly worth reading.  The paragraph which struck the biggest chord with me was:

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual". Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes... isn't that a clever, tidy solution.

Thanks to Richard

Tweet

Climate Change, Al Gore and Awakening Americans

Courtesy of OBS

Tweet

Obama Proves Practice Makes Perfect

Obama shows that practice makes perfect. All these years in front of the mirror has obviously paid off.

This video shows 130 Obama 'meets and greets' condensed into 22 seconds. Enjoy!

Barack Obama's amazingly consistent smile from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.

With thanks to Dick Puddlecote

Tweet

Rejection Can Cause Depression

We really ought to have some sympathy for our Prime Minister. Once more he's been snubbed by Obama and his lackeys have been doing their best over the weekend to say Brown's request for a meeting was "overplayed".

British officials made five attempts to secure official talks with the US President and even agreed to a policy change in an attempt to land a joint appearance between the two leaders, said diplomatic sources.

But the White House rebuffed the offers and Mr Brown, who had hoped to increase his popularity by appearing on his own with Mr Obama, had to settle instead for a snatched conversation with the President in the New York kitchen.

Unrequited love can lead to serious depression so is it any wonder our PM is believed to be taking antidepressants? Keep taking the pills Gordon, I don't think Barack wants to be friends.

Tweet

Afghanistan - the Hidden Costs

Fitaloon has an excellent post about a report in the Guardian which gives details of the seriously injured soldiers in the war in Afghanistan.

As well as our 17 dead this month, more than 157 soldiers were treated at the field hospital at Camp Bastion last week according to army medics. "There have been injuries like you've probably never seen or experienced," said a medic on Radio 4's Today programme.

This is the hidden tragedy of this unwinnable war. Men who have been wounded so severely -but their lives saved owing to modern medicine - who will possibly never live a normal life again. Then of course there's the mental anguish caused to many seeing their colleagues blown apart. Another hidden price our troops pay to 'protect' us.

I quote this from Fitaloon's post:

It is worth noting that the victim of a roadside bomb while on foot patrol near Sangin on Sunday, was Corporal Joey Etchells, 22, from 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Joey was 22 and on his third, yes third tour of Afghanistan.

Surely we cannot continue to agree to this war in which we're sacrificing our own to this degree. Our troops must be brought out of this hellish situation.

History shows this war will not be won. History will also show that Britain will pay dearly in the long term, for being one of the largest aggressors in Afghanistan. All this for the friendship of the US.

This is a war which involves many other countries. Are they prepared to send in large amounts of their military? No, because the people wouldn't stand for it. Why do we?

Tweet

BBC and MISINFORMATION

I've been working in the sitooterie this afternoon with the radio for company.  BBC Scotland news reported that Barack Obama is visiting Iraq and is at a US airbase, but he's unable to meet the President because the weather is too bad for helicopters to fly. It was also said President Obama will be telephoning the Iraqi President instead. As I used to say 20 years ago 'big deal.'

We all know a US military base in Iraq comes under the US constitution and is not part of the occupied country, therefore Obama is not in Iraq he's visiting a US base.  Quite an insult to the Iraqi hierarchy for him to act in such a manner and I'm sure there will be plenty international comment.

Yesterday Obama told the Austrians their language was Austrian and now another big faux pas. It's my understanding the American President has an entourage of hundreds with him on this trip. Obviously he's forgotten to bring any talent from his Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service.

As I was writing this I notice Craig Murray, who has considerable expertise in the diplomatic field,  has posted about the same thing.  Like me he's astonished at the level of insult to the Iraqi President.  

Tweet