budbromley

Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi. A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: “I am with KSM.”

Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable “pocket litter.”

Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer. Instead he is taken to a secret CIA “black site” in an undisclosed location.

Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be. Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation. When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: “Soon, you will know.”

It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of “enhanced interrogation techniques” approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include waterboarding. He begins telling his CIA de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda’s operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids. He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists.

KSM’s questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world. In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed
1994-1995 plan known as the “Bojinka plot” to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean. Years later, an observant CIA officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM’s description of his plans for a
Bojinka-style attack. In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.

On the night of Aug. 9, 2006, they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find a USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven
Trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:

* United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 PM
* Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 PM
* Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 PM
* United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 PM
* United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 PM
* American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 PM
* American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 PM

They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives. And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared.

Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airlines plot, most would not be able to tell you much. Few Americans are aware of the fact al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude. And still fewer realize the terrorists’ true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the CIA interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda.

Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: “I know this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: “The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” Even Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged: “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” Leon Panetta, Obama’s CIA Director, has said: “Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon.”

John Brennan, Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied: “Would the U. S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities, I would say yes.”

On Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491, closing the CIA program and directing that, henceforth, all interrogations by U. S. personnel must follow the techniques contained in the Army Field Manual.

The morning of the announcement, Mike Hayden was still in his post as CIA Director. He called White House Counsel Greg Craig and told him bluntly: “You didn’t ask, but this is the CIA officially non-concurring.” The president went ahead anyway, overruling the objections of the agency.

A few months later, on April 16, 2009, President Obama ordered the release of four Justice Department memos that described in detail the techniques used to interrogate KSM and other high-value terrorists. This time, not just Hayden (who was now retired) but five CIA directors, including Obama’s own director, Leon Panetta objected. George Tenet called to urge against the memos’ release. So did Porter Goss. So did John Deutch. ,Hayden says: “You had CIA directors in a continuous unbroken stream to 1995 calling saying, ‘Don’t do this.'” In addition to objections from the men who led the agency for a collective 14 years, the President also heard objections from the agency’s covert field operatives. A few weeks earlier, Panetta had arranged for the eight top officials of the Clandestine Service to meet with the President. It was highly unusual for these clandestine officers to visit the Oval Office, and they used the opportunity to warn the President that releasing the memos would put agency operatives at risk. The President reportedly listened respectfully, and then ignored their advice. With these actions, Barack Obama arguably did more damage to America ‘s national security in his first 100 days of office than any President in American history.

http://sfachapterix.blogspot.com/2017/04/book-excerpt-courting-disaster-how-cia.html

As President George W. Bush’s top speech writer, Marc Thiessen ( The Kelly File on FOX ) was provided unique access to the CIA program used in interrogating top Al Qaeda terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM).

Now, his riveting new book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe (Regnery), has been published. This is an excerpt from Courting Disaster.

A calm and clearly presented short video about Trump’s fools errand, the bombing of Syria, costing taxpayers about $100,000,000.  Trump’s bombing of Syria does not make America great again. It shames us. And right on cue, Democrats, Hillary, Neo-cons, RINOs and their international equivalents want more of it. This short video explains it calmly and clearly. The public has been duped again. Presidents change. The deep state and the oligarchy do not change. The swamp has not been drained and Trump is now stuck in their quagmire. Only YOU can fix that.

AGW is not about science.  It is about politics.

AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming, is the theory that human-produced CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.  It prescribes that world government must control carbon and energy so that humans do not destroy life.

Gina McCarthy, Obama’s second EPA administrator, admitted AGW was about politics, not about science, when confronted, during a 2015 House hearing. She admitted that, by the agency’s own climate models, the effect of Obama’s EPA Clean Air policies with regard to carbon, their effect would be only 1/100th of a degree Celsius.   As I and others have explained previously, no one can measure average global temperature, nor average U.S. temperature, nor average Holualoa temperature to either a precision or an accuracy of 1/100th of a degree C.)

If it were about science, the discussion would already be over.  The AGW theory fails the most important criteria of science…which is, if your theory does not agree with the experiments, then your theory is wrong.  If you cannot measure the temperature effect which your theory proposes, then your experiment is wrong;  it’s a failed hypothesis, and a very poorly constructed scientific hypothesis at that.  AGW alarmists persist because of the politics, i.e. the money and power that it brings them.

Science and scientists are merely what and whom the politicians point to and will blame to take the heat off the politicians.  Any malaise and damage that comes about by loss of the public’s confidence in science and scientists plays into hands of collectivist politicians who want to control victims.  They do not want thinking citizens, they want books burned and people who disagree to be sued or arrested.

Instead, McCarthy testified that success should be measured in terms of “positioning the U.S. for leadership in an international discussion.”

Consider this blog post from Powerline:

Well, to be fair, the Democrats don’t want to burn books that point out how unscientific the global warming scare is. They want to recycle them. The Daily Caller reports:

Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.

But if the arguments in favor of global warming hysteria are so strong, why do they need to “trash the book”? Why not respond to its arguments?

Just kidding.

“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

Got that? If you make scientific arguments against a fraudulent claim that benefits government, you are “anti-science.” And if you tell the truth about the Earth’s climate, you are a “climate denier.” What a stupid phrase! Do the Democrats mean to imply that some people deny the Earth has a climate? Apparently so.

So who are the “anti-science” authors of a book that dares to tell the truth about government-funded global warming alarmism?

The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer.

When it comes to the Earth’s climate, Democratic Congressmen Scott, Grijalva and Johnson are entirely ignorant. But what they do know is that the whole point of global warming hysteria is to give the government more power over the economy. That, they are in favor of! The excuse is mostly irrelevant.

Why do you think our federal government has funded global warming alarmism to the tune of $40 billion? It is all about power and money. And if you blow the whistle on the liberals’ scam, your book should be thrown in the trash! We wouldn’t want America’s students to get a balanced view of the facts relating to climate, not when so much money is at stake.

——————–

Here is the link in case you want to share the Powerline post above: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/democrats-lose-argument-try-to-burn-books.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

And here is the link to the book these Democrats want teachers to destroy.  Free to download  https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

“During the campaign, you promised not to embroil the United States in the Middle East’s petty wars. You correctly stated that we have no clue who the Syrian rebels are. You wisely argued that as bad as dictators like Bashar al-Assad may be, they at least keep terrorists at bay. What’s changed? Do pictures of dead innocents render irrelevant all the logical points you raised while running for office? Is America to go to war every time a leader around the world kills innocents? ‘But he gassed babies,’ pundits say.

“True, but why is death by gassing worse than death by bullets? Death is death. Some people evoke Hitler’s gassing of Jews. Well, I am a Jew,” writes Mr. Resnick. “I grew up reading Holocaust memoirs. And I don’t recall anyone ever making a moral distinction between the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz and the gunning down of 35,000 Jews over two days at Babi Yar. President Trump, you were the one who bucked the entire establishment.

“While everyone else’s brains turned to mush upon seeing a picture of a bloody Syrian boy, you wisely reminded us that America must come first; that it is not our job to fight everyone else’s wars; that with $19 trillion in debt we literally cannot afford to make it our job; that an American president’s duty is to his own people, not to the world. Mr. President,” writes Mr. Resnick, “please don’t become Bush III. All we need is more intervention in the Middle East. You yourself said that if our politicians had done nothing during the last 15 years — that if they had just gone to the beach — we would be better off today.

“What’s changed? Why get involved in this Syrian mess? Why oppose a man fighting radical jihadists?” That’s Assad fighting ISIS. “Please, President Trump: Please return to your common-sense approach to world affairs. Please only commit American troops to battle when America’s national security is at stake. Please don’t listen to your Russophobe advisers. Russia doesn’t threaten us.

“Under communism, Russia was ideologically committed to worldwide domination. But communism is history. All Putin wants is to make Russia great again, just like you want to make America great again. Russia has zero interest in America. Russia’s glorious period under the czars never included domination over Western Europe, let alone the United States.” Please, Mr. President, don’t do it again.

Now, for those of you who are alarmed at Trump’s military action in Syria last night, and specifically those of you who are alarmed because this is not to type. The president during campaign — all those tweets even before he became a candidate — was suggesting that action like this is uncalled for.

It’s unproductive, it’s not useful, it’s a waste of money, and it potentially lures America into Middle East wars that we have no business being in.

By Elliott Resnick, Writer, The Jewish Press

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/06/whats-changed-president-trump/

Applying the information in this article from the Hoover Institution at Stanford by itself defeats the arguments of even the most virulent and highly credentialed global warming alarmist.  These fraudsters have bilked tax-payers out of more than $40 Billion just for climate research and in the U.S. alone. That amount does not include billions more taxpayer dollars spent for grants and loans to set up green energy companies, or payments to the UN IPCC, or payments to the Green Climate Fund and so forth, all based on false information and false alarm. But the climate alarmists in the U.S. and 190 other countries are working full time to scare you into spending trillions more dollars to save the planet.

http://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

When robots make everything, who will be able to buy anything? This oneway technocracy street with no turning back on which we have to adapt or die, you might want to consider this: unless you have a society with no money and everything is abundant and free … a utopia far beyond UN Agenda 2030 and living wage socialism…then this oneway street is going the wrong way.

Did you want to hook up to the matrix now Mr. Heinlein?

Or, instead perhaps many of us will adapt, reverse course and grow our own bananas in the country, happy to let technocracy run the cities. But then the question is: will the technocracy let us be free? You should know that the answer is no, that is not how technocracy works. Technocracy is driven to control everything. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. If that day comes, the robots will be farming humans.

Technocracy is a sad dystopia if you are human. I am not suggesting that we all become Luddites. I am suggesting that there several ethical, moral and economic problems that must be dealt with before suiting up. There is little trust in any political system anywhere, too many lies and liars, no trust in mainstream media, shooting wars in 10 countries, one or more political systems who want to dominate the world, and a worldwide credit bubble that is ready to blow. Who wants to bring a robot up in that environment?

Since government is the least effective and most wasteful system in existence, shouldn’t government and public services be the first system to be fully automated and artificially intelligent? A goal of politician-free government is something that will unify humans and improve life far more than burger flipping robots and employee-free businesses. Let’s automate government first; great payback.

Just a thought.

President Trump tweeted that he had been spied upon.  A media frenzy began which was intended to negatively impact President Trump in his first quarter in office.  How was that organized?  Who led that effort?  The American people and the world would like to know.

It was all over the news that last December 2016 a meeting occurred between Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador.  Flynn was fired.  In some reports it was mentioned that such meetings by members of a president’s transition team and ambassadors of many countries occur commonly and are not illegal.

Nevertheless, the implication that played through the press and politicians was that Trump and his team and/or the Russians had done something wrong.   And Congress is still spinning its wheels on that story.

But the most significant questions, the questions for criminal law, the questions ignored by the press and people who claim to be journalists, academics, inspectors general, Judges and Congressmen are (1) how did intelligence know about the meeting?  And (2) how did intelligence know exactly what was discussed at the meeting?  And (3) how did that information end up in a story reported in the New York Times?  At each step, who requested and who authorized that spy craft?  The answers to these questions lead to serious federal crimes and jail time …and perhaps the gallows.

Many Americans and other nationalities can see that there is a civil war going on inside the “Deep State.”  It is past time to put it all on the table and to let Americans judge for themselves without your filters.  We will decide for ourselves.  Don’t try Obama’s non-transparent most transparent administration ever.  We are talking about hanging offenses.

Lest you forget: you work for us.  Stop your warmongering.  If you don’t come clean, and fast, then we will get rid of all of you, “drain your swamp” as Trump said, and we will watch many of you swing from the gallows after adjudication.  As the smartest man in the room said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

In the following video, a high school physics teacher carefully explains the physics of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-2001. 58 minutes. Watch and change your view of the world.

Over in another social media, an executive of a major corporation responded to me that his company “like Apple, Google, Walmart, P&G and others”… “reaffirm our Act on Climate Pledge” based in part on the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle is a false premise in this context and must be discarded. The Precautionary Principle requires that you do no harm or less harm.  In other words, he and his company presume that reducing CO2 emissions does no harm or less harm than doing nothing about CO2. But that is categorically false.

The ONLY vector for carbon to enter the biological food chain is via CO2 in the atmosphere which is used by plants in photosynthesis. Animals, bacteria, etc then metabolize the carbon containing molecules produced in plants and thus progressively that carbon is passed up the food chain where it becomes part of your body.

In other words, for his company or for the world to decide to reduce CO2 emissions is a decision to reduce the growth of plant life which will consequently reduce all life on this planet. Therefore that decision contradicts the principle to do no harm. Removing or reducing CO2 emissions is NOT a harmless decision, and you can easily prove that for yourself.

Here is a simple and inexpensive experiment to prove that more CO2 is better.  Make two terrariums with the same mix of various plants and fish, frogs etc if you wish in both terrariums, both with glass plates on top to seal them. Put them both in normal sunshine side by side. In one terrarium have only normal tap water. In the other terrarium replace some of the tap water with some seltzer water or add a small amount of dry ice to increase the CO2 concentration in that terrarium. You can then watch the terrarium with higher CO2 become greener and more abundant. And after that, to further prove it, add some seltzer water or dry ice to the terrarium which previously had only tap water. You will then see the growth of that terrarium improve. This is the reason CO2 is used widely in commercial greenhouses to increase the growth of green plants.

In summary, reducing the emissions of CO2 harms all life by reducing the growth of plants in the oceans and lands of earth, which in turn will reduce all life on earth.  Removing CO2 is not harmless.

In the last 600 million years, only the last part of the Carboniferous Period and in the ice age and in our present age have CO2 levels been less than 400 ppm. Plant life is starving for more CO2 today at only 400 ppm.  Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 20° C (68° F), then cooling over millions of years to about 12° C (54° F), which is about average global temperature today. CO2 concentration in the early Carboniferous Period was about 1500 ppm, almost 4 times higher than today, declining to about 350 ppm CO2 by the middle of the Carboniferous. The explosion of abundant plant growth and coal beds that formed in the swamps occurred 286 – 360 million years ago and is the reason for the name, “Carboniferous Period.” This was still 30 million years before dinosaurs lived, and as far as we know there were no humans, factories or SUVs. The Carboniferous was a time when Earth was ruled by giant plants and insects in vast jungles and swamps, and glaciers grew and melted. It is a period well worth studying since there were many similarities to today in climate changes and environmental conditions. It is interesting to read about it as you observe your terrarium experiment.

We’ll see whether this executive accepts my proposal to debate. (This is an illustration of the Carboniferous period.)