How The Russian Mob Took Over Part Of America’s Energy Business
What you use to store and process energy has an impact of hundreds of trillions of dollars. Organized crime groups, cartels, monopolies and technology mobsters control parts, of each, of the standard sets of minerals and materials used for energy, mostly via mining cartels. Entire wars are fought over these commodities.
Ener1, A123, Severstal, Solyndra, Tesla Motors, Uranium One have been found to be Russian mob connected.
Senators are now very concerned about corrupt Russian oligarchs deals for & energy minerals including lithium, indium, uranium and other materials that were traded with Russian billionaires by U.S. Senators and Silicon Valley types. This letter from One U.S. Senator, raises many, potentially criminal, issues:
“On April 23, The New York Times reported on details regarding the Clinton Foundation’s ties to a number of investors involved in a business transaction that resulted in the acquisition of Uranium One, owner of U.S. based uranium assets, by Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ), a subsidiary of Rosatom, a Russian government owned company. The transaction raised a number of national security concerns because it effectively ceded 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity to the Russian government. Due to that foreign involvement, a review of the transaction was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), whose membership includes the Secretary of State and of which Treasury is the chair. In addition, during critical stages of the acquisition approval, interested parties made large donations – some in the millions of dollars – to the Clinton Foundation while Ms. Hillary Clinton held the position of Secretary of State. When millions of dollars flow to decision makers who have substantial discretion to provide support for or against approval of controversial transactions, public confidence in the integrity of the process requires a commitment to transparency and responsiveness to oversight inquiries,” reads the letter from Senator Grassley to Attorney General Lynch.
In light of the gravity of the decision to allow a Russian takeover of almost a quarter of U.S. uranium assets, it is in the public interest to determine the facts and circumstances of the transaction, including any potential donations that could have influenced the CFIUS review process. The purpose of CFIUS is to ensure that national security is not undermined by transactions that result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person.
The timing of donations to the Clinton Foundation raises the appearance of potential influence in CFIUS’s review process. According to The New York Times, in September 2005, Mr. Frank Giustra won a uranium deal in Kazakhstan for UrAsia, his company at the time.2 The deal was cut days after he visited the country with President Bill Clinton and after that deal in 2006, Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.3 UrAsia eventually merged with a South African company and became Uranium One.
Reports further indicate that between 2008 and 2010, Uranium One and former UrAsia investors donated $8.65 million to the Clinton Foundation.4 During this period of time, Uranium One’s legal hold on the Kazakhstan-based uranium deposits was in doubt. Allegedly, Uranium One executives contacted U.S. Embassy officials in Kazakhstan to help ensure the validity of their mining licenses.5 According to The New York Times, the State Department cable explaining the circumstances was copied to Secretary Clinton, among other individuals.6 In 2009, when the validity of the mining licenses was at issue, the Chairman of Uranium One, Mr. Ian Telfer, donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation via his family charity called the Fernwood Foundation.7 In the same year, ARMZ acquired a 17% stake in Uranium One and the parties sought an initial CFIUS review.8
In June 2010, Rosatom, via ARMZ, sought majority ownership in Uranium One. According to news reports, Mr. Telfer donated $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation during this crucial time.9 In total, Mr. Telfer donated over $2 million through 2013.10 In addition, in June 2010, President Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia, funded by a Russian investment bank that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock and also reportedly had ties to the Kremlin.11 In October 2010, CFIUS approved Rosatom’s plan to acquire a controlling 51% stake and, in January 2013, Rosatom purchased all remaining Uranium One shares.12
If the news reports are true, Secretary Clinton’s involvement in the decision-making process needs to be more closely examined given that the Clinton Foundation was accepting donations from parties who had a stake in the outcome of the uranium deal.
Similar Deals Denied by CFIUS
In contrast to the Rosatom deal, similar transactions have been scuttled by CFIUS. For example, in December 2009, Northwest Nonferrous International Investment Corp, a subsidiary of China’s largest aluminum producer, attempted to acquire a U.S. based mining company.13
Reportedly, Treasury objected to the acquisition because the U.S. company, Firstgold, owned property near U.S. military bases.14 In June 2010, a Chinese company withdrew its proposed acquisition of a fiber optic and solar panel company, Emcore, due to regulatory concerns.15 In another acquisition, a Chinese firm invested in Ralls Corp., operator of a wind farm project.16 CFIUS initiated contact with Ralls, reviewed the acquisition and recommended that Ralls cease operations until the investigation was completed due to concerns the US Navy had regarding the placement of wind turbines near or within restricted drone testing airspace.17 Eventually, President Obama issued an executive order requiring Ralls to divest itself of the wind farm project due to a determined threat to national security.
It is clear that some potential acquisitions have caused substantial concern within the upper echelons of government to such a degree that the acquisition was denied. Indeed, Secretary Clinton shares a concern about foreign governments, such as China, acquiring U.S. tech firms and was recently quoted by C-SPAN:
A lot of foreign companies particularly Chinese companies, but not exclusively, are looking to buy American companies, particularly with advanced technology. And, it’s very unfortunate.19
Here, a Russian government controlled company was able to acquire 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity, yet the transaction was approved – and apparently approved in record speed. According to a letter sent by Uranium One to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Uranium One and ARMZ jointly filed notice with CFIUS in the first week of August 2010 regarding the transaction.20 In return, on October 22, 2010, CFIUS informed Uranium One and ARMZ that “there were no unresolved national security concerns regarding these transactions under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended.”21 The amount of time between filing and final resolution is less than the 75-90 day review that, according to statute, is generally the timeline.22
It is unclear why this uranium deal was approved when other deals with similar national security implications were not.
Conflicts of Interest
The facts and circumstances of this matter raise a number of important questions regarding possible conflicts of interest and potential quid pro quos.
According to the Office of Government Ethics, federal law requires executive branch employees be disqualified from matters that have a direct and predictable effect on the employee’s own financial interests or if persons or organizations with which the employee is unless the employee first obtains an individual waiver or a regulatory exemption applies.23 Notably, the Clinton Foundation includes
the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative which, according to the memorandum of understanding between the Clinton Foundation and Obama Administration, “…works with the mining industry, local and national governments, and other non-governmental organizations to enable sustainable growth in countries where the mining sector plays a significant role.”24
The risk of conflicts with Secretary Clinton at State was so great that the Clinton Foundation and the Obama Administration entered into a memorandum of understanding which, in part, required donations to be disclosed. However, millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from executives with an interest in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction were not disclosed, breaching the agreement.25
Accordingly, please answer the following:
1. What role did the Department of Justice play in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? Please explain in detail.
2. Please list the Department of Justice personnel that were involved in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction.
3. Did Secretary Clinton’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation require her to recuse herself from the CFIUS’s review of the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? If so, did she recuse herself? If the relationship did not require recusal, please explain why not.
4. Was Attorney General Holder briefed by Department of Justice personnel regarding the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? If so, by whom and how many times? If not, why not?
Please number your responses according to their corresponding questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request. Please respond no later than July 16, 2015. If you have questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
———————————————————————————–
The oil and battery industries have spent over $73 Billion on disinformation and lobby campaigns to keep it from happening.
Kleiner Perkins, Elon Musk and a cartel of Silicon Valley VC’s that control the battery market, will stop at nothing to sabotage it.
The most powerful thing in the galaxy, our Sun, is powered by it.
You can get it from any organic material, or body of water, anywhere, in any country, any place on Earth.
If the word is even mentioned once in any blog, anywhere on the internet, it triggers alerts in hundreds of hired “Meat Puppet” farms where assigned blog trolls rush to the blog to cut-and-paste their assigned disinformation text in order to create doubt and concerns about it.
Unlike the competing solutions, It leaves no toxic waste, can’t cause cancer and turns into something that can saves lives after you use it.
The new Feature Film: “MERCHANTS OF DOUBT”, reveals the names and tactics behind the disinformation campaign against it.
Secretary of Energy: Steven Chu held financial interests in the competing technologies and actively sabotaged every effort for it under his regime. 15 U.S. Senators worked with him, on delaying it, because they also held stock in the competing effort.
Almost every taxpayer cash award winner that Steven Chu’s Dept. of Energy gave money to had an investment in the War in Afghanistan and the lithium, indium and other minerals from Afghanistan, which they planned to use in their “Cleantech” companies to obsolete this competing solution. Some say that was an “organized crime”-level corruption effort to claim to do a “feel-good” thing in order to get free taxpayer cash without a big ruckus.
It has hundreds of technical, national security, job, economic and infrastructure advantages over any competing solution.
People have been killed over it.
It affects hundreds of trillions of dollars of global markets.
If the West loses control of the Middle East: IT WILL BECOME THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING ON EARTH!
What is it?
HYDROGEN!
By spending billions of dollars trying to kill hydrogen, and the people around it, they are killing families, children, economies and the future of the world
HYDROGEN POLITICS: Here is how it works:
While all of the falsified points against hydrogen have been countered in numerous papers, such as: http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf and at: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#LibFuelCellsHydro
It is important to consider the following:
The oil and auto industry consider the battery industry to be a failed technology that can never be made or delivered in the form factor, price point, range or efficiency that they care about. So they got together and used “layered anti-evangelism” to manipulate the battery industry.
“Layered anti-evangelism” is an intelligence agency third world manipulation device that works like this:
1. Select the target: In this case it is hydrogen fuel cells, which have been demonstrated to beat batteries on every business front.
2. Select your internal agents. In this case lobbyists and “writers” that are paid by the oil and auto industry.
3. Have the agents contact and talk to the “sheep”. In this case the sheep are the writers for battery industry trades and heads of battery lobby or support organizations.
4. Have the agents convince the sheep via skewed data provision. In this case selected reports were written and then shown to the sheep to convince the sheep that hydrogen fuels cells would steal their funding, put them out of business and that the only source of hydrogen was from the “evil oil companies”.
So you have battery evangelists who are anti-hydrogen sheep such as Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Alec Brooks, EV World Sam Thurber and a few ex-CIA directors, like James Woolsey . All of whom get paid to nay-say it by their investment conduits.
Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are shot down by hundreds of sites with facts, ie: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid985.php
WHY? Because you can make hydrogen at home and the ability to do it fast, cheap and clean is coming 40 times faster than they thought.
This happened, using the same process, to:
1.) Electric light rail in America (US Vs. National City Lines, 334 US 573)
2.) The EV1 (Movie: Who killed the electric car) Etc.
The interventions of these ‘doubters’ fall into a number of clear categories which I’ll summarise as:
1 “You can’t succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc etc) before”. – May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel’s wonderful (and short!) book, “Longitude”, which offers a perfect map of the tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, historically, of course – from Gallileo onwards.)
2 “It’s inefficient to carry around”. Rather as it’s inefficient to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, you can find a better argument than that, surely?)
3 “This technology is not a solution and never will be.” This very much reminds me of the IBM’s famously short-sighted take on the prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought-process rooted in volume-producers’ vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery-less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar panels (sorry, can’t remember who, but you know who I mean). On this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, for me to witness a “leading and respected” Professor of Transport rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words “it will never be more than just power storage on a trolley”. Given that this “expert” was advising ministers of state setting future national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought was “Who pays this man’s research grant?”
So let’s be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that invention can’t possibly have the answers. From a position of some expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the “you-don’t-understand-how-our-industry-works” argument has been the policy instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York’s energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple rejoinder: “WHY does your industry work like that? Against customer choice?”). And then of course there’s the entire consumer movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember “Unsafe at Any Speed”?). We can and should ask the same questions of the conventional auto industry.
The good news is that genuine innovation will out – as long as ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the early lessons of the twenty first century, thank goodness, is that the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication – terrorising one’s customers into rejecting alternatives – increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on their own independently-gathered information about benefits and risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against “selling by fear” is also now happening in the political field. Now why might that be?) As a consumer, one doesn’t have to agree with the in-ya-face techniques of anti-corporate critics like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn’t it old-tech that brought us dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources?
So c’mon people, how about a reward system for “spot the spoiler”? I’m all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to sabotage your success.
Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, and let consumers decide for themselves!
1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock H2 because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 does beat batteries on every front so they should be SCARED!
2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don’t use steel. Steel is too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case.
3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by the oil companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood created by the battery and steel guys.
4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil but they only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so fast and they are trying to slow it down even more.
5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is getting all of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH.
You can make hydrogen at home with free energy. If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will PLUS Gasoline is the number one cause of cancer and birth defects. You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2!
WIKILEAKS recently exposed the following secret documents:
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1977STATE000430_c.html
Date:
1977 January 3, 00:00 (Monday)
Canonical ID:
1977STATE000430_c
Original Classification:
UNCLASSIFIED
Current Classification:
UNCLASSIFIED
Handling Restrictions
— N/A or Blank —
Character Count:
8833
Executive Order:
— N/A or Blank —
Locator:
TEXT ON MICROFILM,TEXT ONLINE
TAGS:
ENRG – Economic Affairs–Energy and Power | OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development | TECH – Technology and Science–Technology | UK – United Kingdom | US – United States
Concepts:
AGREEMENTS | HYDROGEN | PRODUCTION | PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE | SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION | TECHNOLOGICAL EXCHANGES
Enclosure:
— N/A or Blank —
Type:
TE
Office Origin:
ORIGIN ERDA – Energy Research and Development Administration
Office Action:
— N/A or Blank —
Archive Status:
Electronic Telegrams
From:
Department of State
Markings:
Margaret P. Grafeld Declassified/Released US Department of State EO Systematic Review 22 May 2009
To:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Paris)
This set of documents, and related documents, demonstrate that National governments considered the production of hydrogen from water as the “Single most valuable and history changing technology modern society has ever encountered…”
ADDRESS OF MICHAEL C. RUPPERT- FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB – SAN FRANCISCO
Thank you for that gracious introduction. Let me begin by thanking Pat Lamken for inviting me to be here today and for her efforts to arrange – what is certainly for me – a historic landmark in my 26 years of work to bring to light information – vitally important, life and death, information – which has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. This information has also remained completely unaddressed or even publicly acknowledged by those elites in both America and the world that determine and shape public policy and direct the course of human events.
I say this with the full and complete awareness that I am tonight standing partially in the midst of those elites and that those elites are listening. I have long been aware of the stature and prestige of the Commonwealth club, for its ability to attract some of the World’s most influential speakers; also for its reputation for bi-partisanship; and perhaps most importantly for its willingness to present conflicting or opposing viewpoints.
My appearance here tonight no doubt marks a departure for the club even from that inspiring record. With today’s remarks I intend to establish a whole new definition of “conflicting viewpoint.” I applaud the club’s record and am mindful that, had it not been for the dangerous and epochal historical events taking place around us, I would never have been afforded such an opportunity as this. Because clearly, my writing and public speaking have demonstrated that where we are today is exactly where I said we would be if something fundamental was not changed about how we both view the world, and how we interact with it.
Before preparing this speech, of course, I did some research to see who had spoken here before. I was happy to see that I follow on the heels of such notables as former CIA Director James Woolsey and two members of the Kean commission on 9/11: Slade Gorton and Richard Ben-Veniste. These are not people who I would call
“kindred spirits.” I also saw the name of homeland security secretary Tom Ridge and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. These are also leaders of whom I have been sharply critical in the past and will be sharply critical of in the future. I also saw names like John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Liberman and Madeleine Albright.
My record as a journalist and lecturer shows that I have not embraced, and have indeed been fiercely critical of, most of these opinion makers. While I am more inclined to find Kinship with Dennis Kucinich, I also state categorically that no political leader who does not address the real causes of the problems facing us will ever be considered by me as a true kindred soul – or as a political champion for the future.
Such praise and endorsement I offer only to the likes of my good friend, the Honorable Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, and to former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts. I heartily recommend them to the club as potential speakers for future events.
I also saw the names of spiritual leaders and independent or International voices like Al Franken, Jane Goodall, Arianna Huffington, the Rabbi Michael Lerner, Norman Mailer, Ted Turner, Hans Blix and King Abudullah II.
In looking at this long list of prestigious speakers I was very aware that the life’s work of Michael Ruppert did not place me in any category that fit with these people. For the most part – I have long considered them to be part of a serious problem rather than pathfinders to its solution.
That realization brought to mind what was perhaps the single most memorable line from the 1992 vice-presidential debates in which Ross Perot’s running mate, retired navy Admiral James Stockdale – a medal of honour winner and Vietnam POW – asked, “who am I?” And “why am I here?”
I am not prone to over-analyzing such opportunities. I have always said that, if given the chance, I would walk into the Lion’s den or the devil’s bedroom to make my case and that is what I intend to do today. This is as close as I have come thus far to either. For here, I can see tonight parts of the elite whose consciousness and attitudes must be changed if humanity is to even partially meet the challenges that are “in our faces.”
For any of you who might be either lions or devils I hope that you have had a good meal recently and also that you have checked your pitchforks at the door. I also implore that your ears be open and your minds accessible.
For those of you who realize that a global crisis is casting Its shadow across the entire planet, and who wish better to understand its dynamics, I am here to offer some of my experience and learning as a “mapmaker” who has no allegiance to partisan politics or any desire except to tell you the truth, no matter how disquieting it may be, or how divergent it may be from whatever cherished beliefs you may Hold; from whatever cosmological principles you may believe in; or from whatever economic or other personal interests you may have. A spiritual teacher once told me that my problem was not that I thought highly of myself; not that I thought lowly of myself; but that I thought constantly of myself. In that vein, Let us all tonight try to think of issues larger than ourselves, our personal interests, our wants, or our fears.
Viewed from almost any perspective; be it geopolitics, economics, climate, spreading warfare that threatens to unleash a global orgy of blood letting, rising energy prices, documented energy shortages, fresh water shortages, biological warfare, the repression of civil liberties at home and abroad, or any of a dozen other issues; planet earth and all of its inhabitants are in great danger. This is not a time to think of national security. It is a time to think of planetary security – indeed, of planetary survival.
And I must recognize also that I would never have been afforded this incredible opportunity to speak to you today, had it not been for the consistent support and generosity; the research and activism; the courage and disenfranchisement, and above all the loyalty of all those people who have helped my newsletter, “From he
Wilderness”, grow in just six years from 68 to more than 15,000 monthly readers worldwide. Today our web site at http://www.fromthewilderness.com averages more than 12,000 visitors a day. These include members of congress, business and economic
Leaders, professors at more than 30 universities, respected Journalists, and political leaders in many countries. If anything had an impact on my thinking as I prepared these remarks it was my awareness that these loyal supporters are the people on whose behalf I presume to speak. It is their voice and their commitment which has given rise to my voice. I could not and would not be here were it not for them.
But I also, if I may be that bold, presume to speak for all mankind, regardless of religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual preference, bank account or any other artificial distinction.
This is no time to be shy. This is not a time when men and women of good conscience can afford to be politically correct or be guided by anything except a willingness to discard every “cherished” belief or opinion which stands in the way of an accurate and fearless appraisal of the world around us.
As I have said so many times in the last three years while delivering more than 40 lectures on the truth and lies of 9/11 and peak oil, in eight countries: the events in the five years following the attacks of September 11th will determine the course of human history for the next 500 years or more.
I can only assume that the record of my lectures and writings, wherein I have come to be known as a man who backs up everything he says and presents it to his audiences for verification, had something to do with how the board of governors reached its decision to extend this invitation. For many years now not a single fact, citation or piece of evidence, presented in my lectures, or in my best-selling video, “the truth and lies of 9/11” has been proved inaccurate.
I am known as a man who does not expect people to take his word on faith but who asks and even expects people to challenge his research, evaluate it, and reach their own conclusions.
Operating under the assumption that the past credibility of my research has produced a record which got me in the door at the commonwealth club, I am today, in the interest of time and for maximum impact, going to dispense with my customary slide presentation. I fully expect that anyone who challenges or disagrees with my assertions will go out and do some checking for him or her self.
Almost everything I present to you today will be fully documented – by means of approximately 1,000 endnotes – in my soon to be released book, “crossing the Rubicon: the decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil.”
The book, published by new society publishers, should be available for sale from the FTW web site within 2-3 weeks and It will go on sale nationally, through all major outlets, by mid-October.
September 11th
Both here in the united states and around the world I am not alone in believing that the attacks of September 11th were facilitated, orchestrated and executed by the United States Government. However, there is a great deal of misunderstanding and conclusion jumping about these assessments that is not supported by the evidence. I was trained as a police officer and detective, and for many years now I have been an effective investigative journalist because I have adhered to strict evidentiary and investigative standards.
The 9/11 attacks were the result of deliberate planning and orchestrated efforts by identifiable leaders within the US Government, and the energy and financial sectors, to see a Pearl Harbour-like attack which would provide the American Empire with a pretext for war, invasion and the sequential confiscation of oil and natural gas reserves, or the key transportation routes through which they pass. 9-11 was a premeditated murder and in my book, and here tonight, I will name some of the suspects who committed the crime. In my book I will show you overwhelming evidence of their guilt which I would be proud and confident to place either before a district attorney or a jury.
Historically, the assertion that the United States Government would orchestrate an attack upon American interests has ample precedent. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski described the need for such an event in several places in his 1997 book “the grand chessboard.” It was I who first brought this book to worldattention in late 2001. The project for a new American Century made reference to the need for such an attack in its 2000 report “rebuilding America’s Defences.” declassified top Secret documents disclosed by author James Bamford in his
book, “body of secrets” tell us that in 1962 the joint chiefs had approved a plan called “Operation Northwoods” which was a covert operation that would shoot down American aircraft and stage attacks on American military facilities with the intent of blaming those attacks on Fidel Castro and prompting the subsequent us invasion and occupation of Cuba.
The declassified Northwoods documents can be seen and downloaded from the FTW web site. But once viewed, they cannot be ignored.
Therefore it cannot be said that such a thing has never been conceived of or carried out by American political leaders. From the sinking of the battleship Maine, to the Gulf of Tonkin, and indeed, even to Pearl Harbour itself, history today provides us with abundant documentation of US government complicity in varying degrees in similar attacks. The book “day of deceit” and other records from the national archives
have shown us that the Roosevelt administration had broken the Japanese codes well before December 7th, and that a conscious decision was made to allow the attack on Pearl Harbour to take place. This was intended to provide the necessary impetus for us entry into the second world war at a time when great Britain was buckling under the military Blitzkrieg, aerial bombing and u-boat warfare of the Third Reich.
Crossing the Rubicon is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the centre of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for peak oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen.
Simply defined, peak oil is that moment in time when global oil – and natural gas – production begins an irreversible and permanent decline which will not yield or give way regardless of how much money and effort is spent trying to change it.
With demand still accelerating rapidly in both the us and the Industrialised and developing world, the arrival of peak oil literally describes a point of overshoot in which economic and ecological stasis – let alone growth – becomes unsustainable. Over the course of the last three years,“from the wilderness” has pioneered the investigation and documentation of this crisis. With the invaluable research and writing of FTW’s energy editor Dale Allen Pfeiffer, a geologist, and through