Skip to content

CIA’s Bin Laden Hunter Ordered to Stand Down 10 Times – Tokyo’s High Radiation Level – Is a Balanced Budget Amendment Necessary?

June 8, 2011

CIA’s Bin Laden Hunter Ordered to Stand Down 10 Times

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

New American
June 8, 2011

Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) Osama bin Laden unit, told the U.K. Daily Telegraph in a recent interview he was prevented from capturing or killing the terrorist by his superiors on at least 10 separate occasions.

The 22-year CIA veteran-turned-whistle=blower resigned from the agency in 2004, disgusted by the government’s lies surrounding the terror war. And he’s been embarrassing the U.S. establishment ever since.

In 1995, Scheuer was selected to lead the spy agency’s bin Laden efforts. By then the militant Islamist was exiled in Sudan after angering Saudi authorities. Bin Laden was running several businesses in the African nation that Scheuer suggested disrupting. “We formulated operations and submitted them for approval but they would not approve any of them,” the ex-CIA official told the Daily Telegraph. “If we had been able to deal a serious economic blow it could have been a show-stopper.”

The next year, bin Laden declared war on the American government. And in 1997, when bin Laden was again living in Afghanistan, Scheuer said his team groomed a band of Afghans to capture the suspected terror boss. There were at least two “clear opportunities” to bring down bin Laden by the middle of 1998, according to Scheuer. But in both cases, he said, CIA bosses refused to proceed.

Then, in August of that year, bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network bombed two American embassies in Africa. Bin Laden said the embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, was targeted for serving as a U.S. intelligence hub for the CIA. The attacks killed numerous U.S. diplomats and at least two CIA agents, according to the Associated Press.

Scheuer told the Telegraph that following the missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998, there were at least eight other chances to get the terror mastermind. By that point, bin Laden was supposedly among the U.S. government’s most wanted criminals. But for some unknown reason, senior officials refused to authorize his capture or assassination.

“One 50-cent round could have put us all out of our agony,” Scheuer explained. But that didn’t happen, as high-level authorities consistently ordered the CIA unit not to stop bin Laden.

In 1999, Scheuer told the paper that he sent an angry letter to higher-ups demanding to know why his men were risking their lives for somebody the U.S. government did not seem to want stopped. “I don’t know what you are doing when you talk to the President but he will not get a better opportunity than this,” Scheuer explained to his superiors.

Eventually, the bin Laden-unit chief, Scheuer, was dismissed from his position before being reinstated after the September 11 attacks. A few months after that, the U.S. government and its allies had bin Laden surrounded in the mountains of Tora Bora in Afghanistan. But yet again, high-level officials let him escape.

Senate investigation from 2009 explained some of the details in its summary. With bin Laden trapped, “calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan,” the document states. “The vast array of American military power … was kept on the sidelines.”

And according to the report, the decision not to capture or assassinate bin Laden, or at least cut off his escape route, was made by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks. Despite subsequent Bush administration protestations to the contrary, “the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora,” the Senate report concluded.

More than a few other reported examples of bin Laden being deliberately allowed to escape by senior officials in the United States and other governments have surfaced over the last decade. But according to the current version of President Obama’s ever-changing narrative, the terror leader was finally shot through the head by U.S. forces after being found unarmed at a hideout in Pakistan. His body was then supposedly dumped in the ocean for unknown reasons.

But questions continue to plague the government on almost every front. Since resigning over government lies, Scheuer in particular has been a persistent thorn in the side of American officials. He has published several widely acclaimed books criticizing U.S. policies including Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror and Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. And he regularly makes inflammatory statements in media appearances and speeches, too.

Last month, speaking in the U.K., Scheuer said American and British officials including Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron “don’t have a clue” about the terror war or what is going on in the West. “The main recruitment sergeant for al Qaeda is Barack Obama,” he charged.

And according to Scheuer it has nothing to do with America‘s rapidly vanishing freedoms, as the government continues to claim. “We are being attacked in the West and we will continue to be attacked in the West as long as we are in Afghanistan, as long as we support the Israelis, as long as we protect the Saudi police state,” Scheuer told the crowd. “They can’t cope with the fact that it’s nothing to do with the way we live. It doesn’t have anything to do with elections or democracy or liberty.” He asserted that the West was being attacked for “supporting fascism across the Middle East,” not so-called “gender equality” or any such notions.

In the recent past, Scheuer also accused the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission of deliberately hiding the truth about the attacks. “It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom,” he told Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Numerous lawmakers and high-level officials have also made various allegations about why it took the government 10 years to get bin Laden. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), for example, accused then-President George W. Bush of “intentionally” allowing bin Laden to elude capture to justify the invasion of Iraq.

As The New American reported recently, bin Laden, his al-Qaeda network and other Islamic extremistshave indeed enjoyed a sort love-hate relationship with the American government for decades. Even now,the Obama administration and the United Nations are backing an insurgency in Libya against its former ally, dictator Moammar Gadhafi, where certain leadership elements are known to be affiliated directly with al-Qaeda and related groups.

Why high-ranking officials in the U.S. government would have let bin Laden escape on so many occasions is certainly a matter that should be investigated by the press and authorities. Speculation has been running rampant for years. But unfortunately for Americans, analysts don’t expect serious inquiries to happen any time soon.


Japan: Land Of The Rising Sun And The Irradiated Ground

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Zero Hedge
June 8, 2011

Perhaps the reason why so far nobody has been too concerned about the radiation levels in and around Tokyo, some 140 miles southwest of Fukushima, be that everyone is looking for radiation in all the wrong places? As the following very disturbing video demonstrates, a quick trip down the street with your personal Geiger counter indicates, the radiation gradient between the air and the ground is orders of magnitude. It is unclear if the ground is such a more generous source of radiation due to radioactive rains seeping into the ground, due to irradiated water in the subsoil, or for some other reason. What is pretty certain, is that unless Japanese citizens have learned to fly and avoid the ground altogether, by walking each and every day, they absorb substantial abnormal amounts of radiation. How soon before we transition from videos of earless mutant bunnies to those of something far more tragic?


In the Founders’ Corner A Balanced Budget Amendment?

| Print |  E-mail
Written by Scott N. Bradley  –  New American
Wednesday, 08 June 2011 00:00
Do we need a “Balanced Budget” Amendment? NO! A constitutionally sound, informed electorate could quickly bring about the conditions that would allow the nation to balance the federal budget and end deficit spending. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “A nation that expects to be ignorant and free … expects what never was and never will be.” The voters must come to understand that it is our responsibility to make certain our Representatives honor their oath of office and keep their actions constrained within the scope and bounds established by the Constitution (no, the Constitution does not say “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — that was Karl Marx).Put simply, if Congressmen were simply to honor their oaths of office to abide by the Constitution, the deficit problem would take care of itself. But were they to fail to do so, the only way the budget would be balanced is through a combination of gimmickry and higher taxes.

Currently, upwards of 80 percent of expenditures authorized by Congress and insisted upon by the executive branch (at the pandering insistence of the voters) violates the U.S. Constitution. Whether it is unconstitutional military “adventurism” around the world, foreign aid, ever-expanding entitlement programs, or redistribution of wealth to States, corporations, communities, or individuals, none of these activities is allowed by the Charter of the Nation. Immediate steps must be taken to curtail these encroachments. “Sunset” clauses must be incorporated into all entitlement programs, and no additional entitlement programs authorized. No Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary if we insist that our elected Representatives keep their actions (and expenditures) within the bounds established by the United States Constitution!

In November 2010, using the power of the ballot box, we could have removed all of our unfaithful U.S. Congressmen and 1/3 of our Senators. A year from now we again have the opportunity to do the same thing, and also cleanse the executive branch.

There are currently a number of proposed Balanced Budget Amendments that have been introduced in the House and Senate. Each of these potential proposed Balanced Budget Amendments contains a number of fatal flaws: They all allow deficit spending based upon agreement of 60 or 67 percent approval of both houses of Congress (depending upon the amendment being considered). With this stipulation, 60 Senators and 261 Congressmen, or 67 Senators and 292 Congressmen may approve a deficit budget. Because most Senators and Congressmen support the unconstitutional idea of buying votes back home by delivering largess out of the public treasury to their constituents, it is not hard to see how most budget votes will easily attain the required threshold as pork is added to the budget to buy the vote of a Senator or Congressman so that he can buy the votes for himself back home! The practice of adding additional expenditures to buy the votes of reluctant Congressmen will continue at an even greater rate than it has in the past. Historically, most budget votes have easily attained a 60 percent approval threshold. So we can see that unless Representatives are willing to keep their actions within constitutional bounds, most budgets will exceed the available funds, and the result will be further deficits in spite of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

And if the Balanced Budget Amendment is in place, and when the required deficit-allowing threshold is not attainable, but the majority still want to spend the money they feel they need to spend (usually for items and issues not constitutionally allowed, but for such items as entitlement programs, stimulus packages, etc., and which they think are “important” for them to get reelected), they will wring their hands in impotent despair and bemoan the fact that the Constitution now requires the budget to be balanced; therefore,  they will be required to raise taxes to cover the expenses, which they may do by meeting another vote threshold. Even those who prefer a tax increase to a budget deficit will at some point reach the breaking point where they will no longer be able to sustain themselves because the government has devoured their entire living (“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” — Declaration of Independence). The proposed amendments also allow the national debt ceiling to be raised with approval of 60 Senators and 261 Congressmen.

Additionally, all of these provisions may be set aside with the approval of 51 Senators and 218 Congressmen if the United States is involved in a declared war.  More astounding, however, is the provision that allows continued deficit spending if 60 Senators and 261 Congressmen can be frightened into the belief that there is a serious threat to national security — made fearful enough to vote to suspend the Balanced Budget Amendment. If this provision seems reasonable, consider how rare the moments are in recent decades where the fearmongers have not promoted the idea that we are in a constant state of some kind of threat (à la the TSA’s grope and nude photo-op sessions every time you fly). Consider the fright-frenzy that led to the passage of the Fourth Amendment-destroying USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 (House vote: 357 yeas, 66 nay; Senate vote: 98 yeas, 1 nays), and its recent renewal (House vote: 250 yeas, 153 nays, 28 not voting — for special favors could 11 more yeas have been bought? — Senate vote: 72 yeas, 23 nays, 5 not voting). The lopsided votes associated with the passage of a host of other freedom-destroying “national security” issues such as the fabricated fear that drove the passage of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and the Military Commissions Act could also be cited. Food for thought!

In addition, it would be a miracle if the national leadership did not regularly resort to spending “off budget” (which is currently a common practice for “important” expenditures that they do not want to have calculated in the national debt for various reasons).

Today’s politicians have buried the nation in debt. They have done this by ignoring the constitutional limits of their power, acting as though they have power to tax and spend for any whim that strikes them. They tax trillions of hard-earned dollars each year from the citizens of this land, only to spend hundreds of billions (and even trillions) more each year than they collect. Sadly, most of the spending is not authorized by the United States Constitution.

There is an additional extreme danger we must associate with the effort to obtain a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution: We may be certain that in the current political world a Balanced Budget Amendment will not garner the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratification of three-quarters of all states to become an amendment. Consequently, as the call for a Balanced Budget Amendment increases in popularity among the good and caring people of the nation, they will become frustrated with Congress and call for a constitutional convention as provided for in Article V of the Constitution. In 1983, the United States came within two states of calling a constitutional convention, as the popular outcry for a Balanced Budget Amendment pushed the nation dangerously close to a Constitution-destroying constitutional convention. If that happens, we will lose the entire Constitution, as a new one will be written and brought forth (as happened in 1787 during the only other constitutional convention this nation has experienced). In the current political environment, with the current lack of soundly principled statesmen, and with the current state of ignorance among the electorate, we must not be led into the trap of a con-con!

The solution is a return to the constraints of power on the federal government that exist within the U.S. Constitution. The problem is not with the Constitution. The Constitution is not flawed. It does not need to be changed in order to bring spending under control. The problem is that we have stopped applying the Constitution. We do not have to amend the Constitution to solve this problem, and we do not have to risk a con-con to bring things back into proper order. The solution is to begin again to abide within the constraints so carefully defined within the plain English words of the U.S. Constitution. James Madison stated that the powers of the national government were “few and well defined.” Perhaps, when the people of the nation again understand that fact, the nation’s leadership will be compelled to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Hopefully, the electorate will become soundly grounded “constitutionalists” who will vigorously insist that their Representatives abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution, and that they will not hesitate to remove from office any and all who violate that strict oath.

Scott Bradley, a candidate for the United States Senate in 2006 and 2010, holds a Ph.D. in Constitutional Law. He is the founder and chairman of the Constitution Commemoration Foundation, Inc., and is the author of a book and DVD/CD lecture series entitled To Preserve the Nation.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: