Video Episode

The Afghan war has provided NATO with access to control the $200+ Billion opium trade. The war has given NATO a key toe-hold in a geostrategic region, bordering perennial US target Iran as well as providing access to the key Central Asian nations- a vital area in NATO’s ongoing quest to encircle China and Russia. The occupation also affords the ISAF forces direct access to Afghanistan’s mineral resources, and the compliant Kabul regime is only too happy to allow multinational corporations access to those resources.

Preserve the crime scene. Follow the money trail. Establish the motive. Look for those with the means to pull off the crime. Any criminal investigator will tell you that these are the most basic principles of any investigation. But none of them were followed on 9/11. Of course, there was no serious criminal investigation. No attempt to preserve the evidence or establish the means, motive or opportunity. No inclination to follow the money.

It has long been acknowledged that the Saudis have been one of the key players funding, arming, training and smuggling terrorists into Syria during the conflict. But the Saudi connection to the fighting in Syria took on a new dimension in the wake of last month’s chemical attack on Ghouta. The Saudis are now being blamed for supplying the chemical weapons that the rebels used in the attack.

We are being told that this attack is being prepared because Assad crossed the “red line” of chemical weapons use. This is a lie. America has never cared about the victims of chemical weapons attacks ever in its history unless it can achieve its own military objectives by parading on the corpses of those victims. This time is no exception.
Find out more about the history of America’s chemical hypocrisy in this week’s EyeOpener report with James Corbett.
Watch the Preview Clip Here:

** Due to a large number of requests we are opening this podcast to all.
Ayssar Midani, a French Syrian citizen and political activist, joins us from Damascus to talk about the latest developments in Syria. We talk about the history of the terrorist jihadi insurgency in the country and their prior use of chemical weapons, the latest attack and claims of satellite evidence proving that the attack was not launched by government officials, and the likely consequences of a US-led strike on the country.

Watch the Preview Clip Here:

As new revelations of NSA abuses continue to emerge on a daily basis, even the most politically oblivious Americans are now aware that the 4th Amendment has for all intents and purposes been consigned to the dustbin of history. This will be no surprise at all, however, for those who have been following the escalating chain of abuses that have been taking place in America’s border areas for decades now.

The modern supermarket is less and less a place to purchase food for the household and more and more a warzone where shoppers have to negotiate a minefield of toxic chemicals and additives.

The politicians, the media, the financiers and the other supporters of the status quo are not particularly threatened by mass political movements, marches on Washington, or demands for government to do something about the situation. But what they do live in mortal fear of is that people will start taking the matters into their own hands and doing the only thing that it is within our direct and immediate power to do: to withdraw our money from the financial web that they have spun around us. The idea of a Wall Street boycott is neither new nor radical.

There are people who are still hoping that some Congressional committee or some brave Senator or some court case will somehow put an end to the total surveillance madness that has been carefully built into the very source code of the software and operating systems and internet services which billions around the world continue to use. This not only overlooks the fact that the entire program was overseen from its very inception by these same legislators and courts.

Every time we see a systemic failure such as the 2008 collapse of Lehman Bros and subsequent market panic, the inevitable question is “what is the government going to do about it?” Just as inevitably, the answer is that the government will pass more legislation, or even give more power to the very regulators who failed so signally to stop the crisis from occurring in the first place. The assumption is that the regulators are the defenders of the public interest and that they only need more money and authority to properly fulfill their mandate.