Archive for March 22nd, 2011

Pronk Pops: Show 20, March 22, 2011: Segment 3: Earthquake Damages Japanese Nuclear Plant At Fukushima Daiichi, Four Explosions and Four Nuclear Reactors Flooded With Seawater To Contain Release Of Radioactive Material and Plant Released Radioactive Materials To Stop Pressure Buildup–Partial Meltdown Of Nuclear Core Feared–Radioactive Material Escaping From Plant–Over 250,000 Ordered Evacuated From 20 Kilometer (12.4 Miles) Radius From Plant–Videos

Posted on March 22, 2011. Filed under: Business, Economics, Government Spending, Politics, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 20: March 22, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-20

Listen To Pronk  Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

The Precautionary Principle Who Benefits?


The Precautionary Principle


Corporations vs Nature, Precautionary Principle

“…The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.[1] …”

Beware the Precautionary Principle

“…We have seen the impact of this thinking in recent debates on genetically modified crops, ‘novel’ foods, ‘greenhouse’ gasses and even the mythical ability of cellular phones to fry the brains of those who use them. At every stage the opponents of technological progress argue that just because there is no evidence of harm, that does not mean that something is not harmful. We have to ‘prove’ that it is not harmful before we embrace it.

This form of pre-scientific thinking presents a serious obstacle to rational discussion. The absence of an effect can never be proved , in the way that I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. All I can say are two things: firstly, sustained observation over the past 20 years has revealed no evidence of their presence, and secondly the existence of fairies, in my garden or elsewhere, is very unlikely on a priori grounds. This is how science works – precisely in accord with the principles of Karl Popper that hypotheses cannot be proved, only refuted.

The precautionary principle is, however, a very useful one for consumer activists precisely because it prevents scientific debate. The burden of evidence and proof is taken away from those who make unjustified and often whimsical claims and placed on the scientific community which, because it proceeds logically and rationally, is often powerless to respond. This is what makes the principle so dangerous. It generates a quasi-religious bigotry which history should have has taught us to fear. Its inherent irrationality renders it unsustainable.

Everything in life involves a risk of some kind. Throughout our evolution and development we have sought to minimise and manage risk, but not to eliminate it. Even if this were possible, it would undoubtedly be undesirable. A culture in which people do not take chances, where any form of progress or development is abandoned ‘just to be on the safe side’, is one with a very limited future. The very nature and structure of all human societies are what they are because individuals, in co-operation with each other, have taken their chances – seeking the rewards of well-judged risk-taking to the enervating constraints of safe options. Had the precautionary principle been applied the Pilgrim Fathers would never have set sail for America in their fragile ships. Life-saving advances in medicine would have been halted when the first patient died on the operating table.

The champions of the precautionary principle, of course, will argue that what we choose to regard as modern progress is nothing more than the manifestation of greed and exploitation. But in their vehement critique of the interests and power of ‘big business’ – forces which they see as inexorably apocalyptic – they cling to a naïve and romantic vision of agrarian idylls which have never existed and can never exist. In doing so, they offer no sustainable solutions to the potential problems which are recognised by us all. Their rhetoric, however, is sufficiently seductive to win over those whose anxieties about food, health and the environment have been generated and nurtured by those very same people who now purport to offer a solution. Create an unfounded scare, provoke fears, sell them the precautionary principle – a style of marketing of which ‘big business’ would be proud. …”

How Safe Are America’s Nuclear Reactors?

UPDATED March 13-18,2011

Fukushima: battle to cool reactors with helicopters and water cannons

Japan Tsunami: Japan Military Helicopters dump water on nuclear plant

BREAKING! Japanese Citizens Now Being Instructed To Move Away From SECOND Nuclear Power Plant!

Nuclear Whistleblower Explains Design Flaws Of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant In Japan

Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation exposure: How far will this go?

Japan: Prime Minister – Radiation Leaks – 3rd Reactor Explosion – Meltdown Fears – 3am GMT

Third Explosion at Japanese Nuclear Reactor Plant

Japan earthquake after effects 2nd explosion at nuke plant

Second explosion at Japanese nuclear plant

Japanese nuclear Power plant meldown, Uranium Cores Exposed!

Huge Explosion Blasts Smokes at Japan Second Nuclear Power Plant Reactor

Post-Disaster- Media Explores Worst-Case Scenarios

JAPAN: Problems still plague Fukushima nuclear plants – NHK 110313

Japan’s radiation exposure risks

What Is a Nuclear Meltdown?

3rd NUCLEAR PLANT IN JAPAN HAS FAILED Nuclear crisis worsens

Japanese Nuclear Plants’ Cooling Systems Fail PLANT EXPLODED

Expert Analyzes Japanese Nuclear Plant Explosion Video

Meltdown threat: Japan ‘preparing for worst’

Explosion at nuclear plant in Japan

Japanese Nuclear Plants’ Cooling Systems Fail PLANT EXPLODED

Japan 2011 Earthquake 6 – Nuclear Alert 2 of 2 – BBC News America

Japan’s Chernobyl? Radiation pressure fears at Fukushima plant

Japan Earthquake Damage to Nuclear Plants Blast 3-9-2011

Japan declares Nuclear Emergency after earthquake

Background Articles and Information

Nuclear Power – How it Works

How nuclear energy works

CGS nuclear power plant tour (how it works)

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

“…The Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant(福島第一原子力発電所 Fukushima Dai-Ichi Genshiryoku Hatsudensho?, Fukushima I NPP, 1F), often referred to as Fukushima Dai-ichi, is a nuclear power plant located in the town of Okuma in the Futaba District of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. The plant consists of six boiling water reactors. These light water reactors have a combined power of 4.7 GW, making Fukushima I one of the 25 largest nuclear power stations in the world. Fukushima I was the first nuclear plant to be constructed and run entirely by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).In March 2011, in the immediate wake of the Sendai earthquake and tsunami, the Japanese government declared an “atomic power emergency” and evacuated thousands of residents living close to Fukushima I. Ryohei Shiomi of Japan’s nuclear safety commission said that officials were concerned about the possibility of a meltdown.[1][2]Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant, 11.5 kilometres (7.1 mi) to the south, is also run by TEPCO.The reactors for units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, for units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and unit 4 by Hitachi. Architectural design for General Electric’s units was done by Ebasco. All construction was done by Kajima.[3] From September 2010, unit 3 has been fueled by mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel.[4][5] Units 1–5 had/have a Mark 1 type (light bulb torus) containment structure, unit 6 has Mark 2 type (over/under) containment structure.[6]Unit 1 is a 439 MW boiling water reactor (BWR3) constructed in July 1967. It commenced commercial electrical production March 26, 1971, and was scheduled for shutdown on March, 2011. It was damaged during the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami.[7] Unit 1 was designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake.[6] It was inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered.[6] …”

Japan evacuates 50,000 after nuclear power plant explosion

By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times

“…Japanese officials, trying to calm a stunned nation, say the explosion didn’t damage the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor itself but merely caused the collapse of a wall outside. Japanese television is reporting that at least three residents among 90 tested showed excess exposure to radiation.More than 50,000 people were evacuated Saturday after an explosion at a Japanese nuclear plant hurled plumes of smoke over the Pacific Ocean and sent officials scrambling to calm residents already shattered by the largest earthquake in the nation’s recorded history.Japanese authorities hastened to assure the public there was no danger of a meltdown at the the Fukushima Daiichi plant along the lines of the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, but they were unable to explain why excess levels of radiation were detected outside the plant’s grounds.Japanese Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant was caused by a buildup of hydrogen in the cooling system. He insisted that the explosion didn’t cause any damage to the reactor itself but merely caused the collapse of a wall outside.”We are evacuating people just as a precaution,” Edano said at a news conference, even as television footage showed white smoke billowing from the reactor, followed by a black cloud. “There is no risk to inhabitants of the area.”

Japan evacuates 50,000 after nuclear power plant explosion

By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times

“…Japanese officials, trying to calm a stunned nation, say the explosion didn’t damage the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor itself but merely caused the collapse of a wall outside. Japanese television is reporting that at least three residents among 90 tested showed excess exposure to radiation.More than 50,000 people were evacuated Saturday after an explosion at a Japanese nuclear plant hurled plumes of smoke over the Pacific Ocean and sent officials scrambling to calm residents already shattered by the largest earthquake in the nation’s recorded history.Japanese authorities hastened to assure the public there was no danger of a meltdown at the the Fukushima Daiichi plant along the lines of the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, but they were unable to explain why excess levels of radiation were detected outside the plant’s grounds.Japanese Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant was caused by a buildup of hydrogen in the cooling system. He insisted that the explosion didn’t cause any damage to the reactor itself but merely caused the collapse of a wall outside.”We are evacuating people just as a precaution,” Edano said at a news conference, even as television footage showed white smoke billowing from the reactor, followed by a black cloud. “There is no risk to inhabitants of the area.”

Another Look at the Nuclear Situation in Japan, Part II”…The emergency cooling system ultimately failed at the Number 1 reactor at Fukushima. In order to prevent the possibility of a meltdown, they’ve decided to flood the containment vessel with salt water and boric acid. The water, as always, is intended to cool the reactor. The salt will corrode all the metal in the reactor over time, so this move means they’ve decided that the number 1 reactor is a loss, which probably has as much to do with the reactor’s age as anything else. The boric acid, on the other hand, is intended to slow the chain reaction further. As the result of a chemical reaction, hydrogen gas began to build up. Hydrogen gas being very flammable, this buildup caused the explosion.It is important to note that according to experts (I’m going with David Lochbaum who was cited in the New York Times) this happened in the turbine hall, NOT in the containment vessel where the nuclear fuel is. A number of alarmists have suggested that the fact that it happened outside of the containment vessel means there is a leak, but this doesn’t seem to be the case to me. There are two general designs of boiling water reactors: in one the steam that is produced by water being exposed to the core is used to turn the turbines that produce electricity directly, and in the other there is an intermediary heat exchange so that the irradiated water isn’t used to turn the turbines. Presumably (and I don’t know this to be true, but it seems likely), this reactor is of the former design. If this is the case, the turbine hall is constantly exposed to irradiated gases and so can be used to store gases in case of an emergency. Of course, this is all a bit of guess work because I don’t have any special knowledge and am relying on news reports and my less than technical understanding of reactor design.The explosion was quite alarming, but it did not damage the containment vessel as far as anyone can tell. All of the really nasty stuff remains safely tucked away in many tons of steel and concrete. According to reports, the explosion did not increase the amount of radiation present outside of the plant. I’m not entirely clear on how this could be given that the turbine hall likely housed a fair bit of radiation. …”

Fukushima nuclear plant blast puts Japan on high alert

“..Japan is battling to stave off a nuclear disaster after an explosion at a north-eastern nuclear plant in the wake of the enormous earthquake and tsunami.


Authorities are evacuating tens of thousands of residents living within a 12 mile (20km) radius of the Fukushima Daiichi plant and those within 6 miles of a second installation in Futuba, 150 miles north of Tokyo.The explosion followed warnings of a possible meltdown after problems with the cooling system and confirmation of a radiation leak at Fukushima No 1 plant. But nuclear safety officials said it was unlikely the reactor had suffered serious damage, according to the Kyodo news agency.

It is feared that 1,300 people died in Friday’s double disaster, most being killed as the wall of mud and water engulfed buildings, roads and vehicles, Japanese media reported. But the priority now is to tackle the crisis at the power plant. …”

Nuclear Power Plants and Earthquakes


  • Japanese, and most other, nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earth movement, to shut down safely.

  • In 1995, the closest nuclear power plants, some 110 km north of Kobe, were unaffected by the severe Kobe-Osaka earthquake, but in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings.

  • In 1999, three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during the devastating Taiwan earthquake, and were restarted two days later.

Design criteriaNuclear facilities are designed so that earthquakes and other external events will not jeopardise the safety of the plant. In France for instance, nuclear plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as the 1000-year event calculated for each site. It is estimated that, worldwide, 20% of nuclear reactors are operating in areas of significant seismic activity.Because of the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in Japan, particular attention is paid to seismic issues in the siting, design and construction of nuclear power plants. The seismic design of such plants is based on criteria far more stringent than those applying to non-nuclear facilities. Power reactors are also built on hard rock foundations (not sediments) to minimise seismic shaking.Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion. These used to be specified as S1 and S2, but now simply Ss, in Gal units. The plants are fitted with seismic detectors. If these register ground motions of a set level (formerly 90% of S1), systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown. The logarithmic Richter magnitude scale (or more precisely the Moment Magnitude Scale more generally used today) measures the overall energy released in an earthquake, and there is not always a good correlation between that and intensity (ground motion) in a particular place. Japan has a seismic intensity scale in shindo units 0 to 7, with weak/strong divisions at levels 5 & 6, hence ten levels. This describes the surface intensity at particular places, rather than the magnitude of the earthquake itself.

Kelley Says Japan Nuclear Reactor Not Another Chernobyl

Kelley Sees Progress in Japan Nuclear Health Precautions

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Shaken and Stirred–Japanese 9.0 Richter and X Mercalli Scale Earthquake Shifts Earth’s Axis and Giant Tsunami Ocean Wave Moves Japanese Coast–Thousands Feared Dead–Videos

Michael Crichton–The Language of Fear–Nuclear Plants From Chernobyl To Fukushima–The First Information Casualty Is The Truth–Video

Mile Island–Videos

Disaster at Chernobyl–Videos

Nuclear Safety, Is It Possible–Yes We Can!–Videos

Nuclear Renaissance–Videos

Crucial power cable connected at Japan’s nuclear plant

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Pronk Pops: Show 20, March 22, 2011: Segment 1: F-15 Crashes In Libya, Segment 2: One Unconstitutional and Undeclared War Too Many: The Great Pretender, Peace Candidate And Noble Peace Prize Winner, President Barack Obama Undeclared War On Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi In Defense Of Libyian Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Rebels Linked To al-Qaeda and The BP Libyian Oil Deal Linked To Obama Campaign Contributions–A Political Payoff!–Obama Has To Go In 2012–Videos

Posted on March 22, 2011. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , |

 Pronk Pops Show 20: March 22, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-20

Listen To Pronk  Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Today in History for March 22nd


The Stamp Act


“…The Stamp Act of 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London and carrying an embossed revenue stamp.[1][2] These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money.[3] The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years’ War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.

The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent—consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.[4]

Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” by also passing the Declaratory Act. This incident increased the colonists’ concerns about the intent of the British Parliament that helped the growing movement that became the American Revolution.[5][6] …”

“…The Stamp Act was passed by Parliament on March 22, 1765 with an effective date of November 1, 1765. It passed 245-49 in the House of Commons and unanimously in the House of Lords.[27] Historians Edmund and Helen Morgan describe the specifics of the tax:

The highest tax, £10, was placed … on attorney licenses. Other papers relating to court proceedings were taxed in amounts varying from 3d. to 10s. Land grants under a hundred acres were taxed 1s. 6d., between 100 and 200 acres 2s., and from 200 to 320 acres 2s. 6d., with an additional 2s 6d. for every additional 320 acres (1.3 km2). Cards were taxed a shilling a pack, dice ten shillings, and newspapers and pamphlets at the rate of a penny for a single sheet and a shilling for every sheet in pamphlets or papers totaling more than one sheet and fewer than six sheets in octavo, fewer than twelve in quarto, or fewer than twenty in folio (in other words, the tax on pamphlets grew in proportion to their size but ceased altogether if they became large enough to qualify as a book). The amounts had to be paid in sterling, not in colonial currency, but the administration did not propose thus to draw hard money out of the colonies. The proceeds of the tax were to be expended in America in procurement of supplies for the troops stationed there.[28] …”


Prohibition: The Forgotten Crusade


Prohibition: To Drink or Not to Drink (


Prohibition Ended!

Repeal of Prohition

“…The Cullen-Harrison Act, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 22, 1933, authorized the sale of 3.2% beer (thought to be too low an alcohol concentration to be intoxicating) and wine, with the first legal beer sales since the beginning of Prohibition on January 16, 1920.[1] In 1933, the state conventions ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment. The amendment was fully ratified on December 5, 1933. S Federal laws enforcing Prohibition were then repealed. Some states, however, continued Prohibition within their jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of all states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local Prohibition. For a time, 38% of Americans lived in areas with Prohibition. By 1966, however, all states had repealed their state-wide Prohibition laws, with Mississippi the last state to do so.[2] …”




Segment 1: F-15 Fighter Crashes Near Benghazi, Libya–Pilots Ejected and Rescued–Video

US warplane crashes in Libya



Video of F-15 ruins in Libya after US fighter jet crashes near Benghazi





F-15 fighter jet crashes in Libya

“…Two crewmen reported to be safe and unhurt after crashing near Benghazi following apparent mechanical failure

“…Two US airmen were forced to eject from their F-15E fighter jet over Libya on Monday night after an apparent mechanical failure, the US military said.

The wreckage of their F-15E Strike Eagle jet, which crashed at 9.30pm GMT, was found near Benghazi.

Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the Africa Command, said both crew members had been safely recovered and had received only minor injuries. Crawley said the crash was likely to have been caused by mechanical failure rather than hostile fire. He declined to give the location of the crash and would not say how the rescued crewmen were picked up or where they were taken.

The aircraft, based at RAF Lakenheath, was flying out of Italy’s Aviano airbase in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn at the time of the incident. The cause of the crash is being investigated. …”


U.S. F-15 fighter jet crashes in Libya; both crew members rescued

“…A U.S. Air Force fighter jet crashed Monday night in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crew members were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (4:30 p.m. CDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.

The crash was the first major loss for the U.S. and European military air campaign, which over three nights appears to have hobbled Gadhafi’s air defenses and artillery and rescued the rebels from impending defeat. But the opposition force, with more enthusiasm than discipline, has struggled to exploit the gains. …”

“…He said the second crew member came down in a different field and was picked up by a helicopter, an account that coincided with the U.S. explanation of the rescue.

A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The two were separated after ejecting from the crippled jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Africa Command spokesman Vince Crawley said, adding they sustained minor injuries.

The aircraft, based out of Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, was flying out of Italy’s Aviano Air Base in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The cause of the crash is being investigated.

The Air Force has said only that B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighters are participating in operations over Libya. The U.S. involvement in Libya is being run by Africa Command, which is based in Stuttgart, Germany. …”


Background Articles and Videos


F-15E Eagle – Generation Jet Fighter (Part 1)


F-15E Eagle – Generation Jet Fighter (Part 2)


F-15 lands with one wing


F-15 Eagle – Best Jet Fighter in Aviation History

Segment 2: One Unconstitutional and Undeclared War Too Many: The Great Pretender, Peace Candidate And Noble Peace Prize Winner, President Barack Obama Undeclared War On Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi In Defense Of Libyian Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Rebels Linked To al-Qaeda and The BP Libyian Oil Deal Linked To Obama Campaign Contributions–A Political Payoff!–Obama Has To Go In 2012–Videos


“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington, Farewell Address to the People of the United States

A Bridge Too Far Ending

Great Pretender

Oh yes, I’m the great pretender
Pretending I’m doing well
My need is such
I pretend too much
I’m lonely but no one can tell

Oh yes, I’m the great pretender
Adrift in a world of my own
I play the game but to my real shame
You’ve left me to dream all alone

Too real is this feeling of make-believe
Too real when I feel what my heart can’t conceal

Oh yes, I’m the great pretender

Just laughing and gay like a clown
I seem to be what I’m not you see
I’m wearing my heart like a crown

Too real when i feel what my heart can’t conceal

Oh yes, I’m the great pretender
Just laughing and gay like a clown
I seem to be what I’m not you see
I’m wearing my heart like a crown
Pretending that you’re…
Pretending that you’re still around

President Obama Audio on Libya Invasion

Libya Bombing: ‘Interventions never end!’


Libya Erupts in Now-Contiguous North African Democratization Wave – Wikistrat CoreGap 11.07


SA@TAC – Obama’s Libyan War


Phyllis Bennis: Analysis on the No-fly Zone & the Air Strikes Launched By Allied Forces on Libya



Phyllis Bennis on Libya


Libya: Countdown to War?

Gaddafi’s ‘Long War’: Million weapon handout to fight US & allies

First Air strike against Libya


French Fighters Attack Qaddafi’s (Libyan) Forces: French President Sarkozy takes the lead!

BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)


Coalition force launches attack on Libya


President Obama’s Statement on Libya


ABC This Week Roundtable, Attack on Libya George Will, Paul Wolfowitz, Robin Wright, Jane Harman March 20


Michael Savage March 21 2011 hr 1 all 4 segments

Ron Paul: Let the People of Libya Decide!


Ron Paul: Why Obama Is Wrong on Libya


Rep. Kucinich: Only Congress Has the Power to Take this Nation into War


Lugar on Face the Nation – Libya

Glenn Beck-03/21/11-A


Glenn Beck-03/21/11-B


Glenn Beck-03/21/11-C

U.S. Backs Libyan Al-Qaeda While Hyping Terror Attacks Inside America – Alex Jones Tv 5/6


Medveded calls to stop Libya conflict started by ‘shameful’ govt actions

The Insane Cost of War


US Navy launches Tomahawk missiles on Libya


Ron Paul: Libya “No-Fly Zone is an Act of War”


Newt: US should go into Libya guns blazing “this evening”


2nd Wave Of Strikes Has Begun – Stealth Bomber’s Bombing Libya


Gaddafi compound hit by missile as dozens die in coalition strikes


Clinton suggests Libya no-fly zone won’t work


Clinton warns of Libya civil war


Obama Argues With Himself – LIBYA WAR Moamar Ghadaffy! iOwnTheWorld

Democrats Accuse Obama of Waging War Because Of Oil


USA praised Sarkozy’s Oil deal with Libya to release guilty jailed prisoners DOUBLE STANDARDS !!!


Oil jumps as West strikes Libya

France recognises Libya opposition


Inside Story – Gaddafi’s options


Obama Too Soft For Neocons

Lockerbie Bomber was Released as part of a $24 Billion BP Deepwater Drilling Deal with Libya


Big oil controlling Obama


John Bolton on Pan Am Bomber Release WikiLeaks Exposed


Libya frees al Qaeda linked group

Glenn Beck-06/15/10-B


The “Peace Candidate” Obama Promised To End The War Back In 2007!


Barack Obama on Iraq, Opposition from the Start


2002 Barack Obama Interview: Against Iraq


16 Lies in 7 Minutes: Obama’s First State Of The Union Video Breakdown


Robert Fisk : Obama will be worse than Bush


Who REALLY rules the dictators of the Muslim World? – Robert Fisk


Robert Fisk: Gutless U.S. Reaction to Egypt – Democracy NOW!


Eisenhower 1956–David Nichols analyzes the president’s year of crisis


Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex


Pete Seeger: Where Have All the Flowers Gone?


“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

~George Washington


As a classical liberal I oppose government intervention both at home and abroad.

Ron Paul is right, the United States should declare war before it goes to war.

The people of Libya should revolt and overthrow Ghadaffi.

The United States should not intervene in a civil war.

The United States should not be engaged in nation building.

The United States should not be the policemen of the world.

The time has come abandon a warfare and welfare economy and state and go to a peace and properity economy and constitutional republic.

Both Bing West and Robert Fisk are right, declare victory and get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bring all the American troops home and drill, drill, drill.



Let Libyans Fight Their Own Battles…


Obama Attacks Libya, and Where’s Congress?

By J.B. Williams

// //

“…Under what authority did Obama green-light this dictatorial assault?  To be certain, Qadaffi is no prize, but what Obama just did is nevertheless unacceptable.  Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his oath of office, Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution, and the War Powers Act — all in one mindless, knee-jerk decision.


Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution identifies the U.S. president as the commander-in-chief and the civilian oversight of the U.S. military.  But the clause gives the U.S. president no authority to use military might to enforce his political will upon foreign nations.


Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution bestows the power to declare war solely on the U.S. Congress.  It requires both the commander-in-chief and Congress to commit U.S. troops to combat, without which any deployment of troops is wholly unconstitutional.


The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a U.S. president from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.


SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.


A U.S. commander-in-chief can order use of military force under only three specific conditions:


  1. a declaration of war,
  2. specific statutory authorization, or
  3. a national emergency created byan attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


The U.S. Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII.  But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, not only did he consult Congress in advance, but he sought and received specific statutory authorization from Congress before ordering troops into combat.  Bush complied with the Constitution and the War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3).  He also had a broad coalition of U.N. partners driven by years of U.N. resolutions defied by Iraq. …”


Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace


Book TV: Thomas Barnett “Great Powers”

Riz Khan – Robert Fisk – 1 Oct 08 – Part 1



Riz Khan – Robert Fisk – 1 Oct 08 – Part 2


Robert Fisk & Jeremy Bowen – On War & The Role Of Media

The Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG)

“…The Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG) also known as Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya is the most powerful radical faction waging Jihad in Libya against Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi’s regime. Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, LIFG was banned worldwide (as an affiliate of al-Qaeda) by the UN 1267 Committee.[1]

LIFG was founded in the fall of 1995 by Libyans who had fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. It aims to establish an Islamic state in Libya and views the current regime as oppressive, corrupt and anti-Muslim, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. LIFG claimed responsibility for a failed assassination attempt against Gaddafi in February 1996, which was in part funded by MI6 according to David Shayler, and engaged Libyan security forces in armed clashes during the mid-to-late 1990s.[2] They continue to target Libyan interests and may engage in sporadic clashes with Libyan security forces.[3] They strongly deny any links with al-Qaeda and are keen to emphasize that LIFG has never carried out an attack outside Libya or against civilians.[citation needed]

On October 10, 2005, the United Kingdom’s Home Office banned LIFG and fourteen other militant groups from operating in the UK. Under the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000, being a member of a LIFG is punishable with a 10-year prison term. The Financial Sanctions Unit of the Bank of England acting on behalf of HM Treasury issued the orders to freeze all their assets.[4] The fourteen banned groups were:

  • Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
  • Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain
  • Ansar al-Islam
  • Al Ittihad Al Islamia
  • Islamic Jihad Union
  • Ansar al-Sunna
  • Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin
  • Harakat ul-Mujahidin/Alami
  • Jundallah
  • Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
  • Lashkar-e Jhangvi
  • Khuddam u-Islam
  • Jamaat ul Furquan
  • Harakat ul Jihad ul Islami
  • Harakat ul Islami (Bangladesh)

Mohammed Benhammedi lived and worked in Liverpool at the time of the UN sanction against him. Sergey Zakurko, the father to his Lithuanian mistress was suspended from his job at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP) for fear that the link could pose a security threat.[5]

One of al-Qaeda’s most senior members, Atiyah Abdul-Rahman, is purportedly a member of LIFG as well.[6]

The “Summary of Evidence” from Mohammed Fenaitel Mohamed Al Daihani’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal. states: “The Sanabal Charitable Committee is considered a fund raising front for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.”[7] …”



Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 6March 23, 2005 07:00 PM Age: 6 yrsCategory: Terrorism Monitor By: Gary Gambill

“…Following 9/11, Qadhafi jumped at the opportunity to collaborate in the Bush administration’s war on radical Islamist terrorism. Just weeks after the attacks, a CIA team flew to London to meet face to face with the man believed to have planned the 1988 Lockerbie bombing – Musa Kusa, the head of Libyan intelligence. Kusa provided the CIA (and also Britain’s M16 foreign intelligence service) with the names of LIFG operatives and other Libyan Islamists who trained in Afghanistan, as well as dossiers on LIFG leaders living in the UK. In light of the central role of Libyan Afghans in al-Qaeda, this was a major intelligence windfall for the Bush administration.

The American government, for its part, officially designated LIFG as a terrorist organization. Although LIFG does not have a presence in the United States, the Bush administration’s designation is not merely symbolic. For starters, it means that any state providing assistance to LIFG can potentially be designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department. More importantly, it means that any member of LIFG living in undemocratic countries backed by the United States (e.g. Pakistan, Egypt) runs the risk of arrest and “rendition” back to Libya.

That Britain has not designated LIFG a terrorist organization is significant, as several prominent leaders of the group continue to live in London and Manchester. All of them strongly deny any affiliation with al-Qaeda and are keen to emphasize that LIFG has never carried out an attack outside Libya or against civilians. [7] This may be technically true. One member of LIFG living in Britain was jailed for sixteen months without charge after he allegedly sent money to a suspected al-Qaeda member, but was eventually released because the government failed to present concrete evidence of criminal activity in court. According to the U.S. State Department, LIFG was “involved in planning and facilitating” the May 2003 bombings in Casablanca, but the suspects in this case were non-Libyan members of the Fighting Islamic Group in Morocco (FIGM). Although the two groups are almost certainly linked by more than ideological affinity, the U.S. government has never released information clarifying their relationship. …”[tt_news]=30147

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Jan 17, 1961 Pt 1


Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Jan 17, 1961 Pt 2


The Other Side Of Suez 1956 – BBC Documentary – part(1/3)


The Other Side Of Suez 1956 – BBC Documentary – part(2/3)


The Other Side Of Suez 1956 – BBC Documentary – part(3/3)


Julian Assange: The man who leaked the world


Should We Intervene in Libya?

By Victor Davis Hansen

“…There are plenty of good arguments for imposing a no-fly zone in Libya. Without Libyan-government air strikes, the rebels might have a better chance of carving out permanent zones of resistance. Qaddafi has a long record of supporting anti-American terrorism, whether in the form of killing Americans in Europe during the Reagan administration or masterminding the Lockerbie bombing that took down a Pan Am 747 jumbo jet, killing 270 in the air and on the ground. In humanitarian terms, Libyans have been living an ungodly nightmare since Qaddafi’s coup in 1969, and it would be a fine and noble thing to lend them a hand to end their four-decade-long misery. The world would be a better and safer place without Qaddafi and his odious clan in power.

“…But all that said, using military force at this moment in Libya is a bad idea, and for a variety of reasons. I supported the Iraq war on the basis of the legitimate 23 writs adduced by both houses of Congress, in bipartisan fashion, which went well beyond trumped-up fears of massive arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. We had been in a de facto war with Saddam since 1991, and he was an enemy as sinister as Qaddafi but far more powerful. In some sense, America had been responsible for encouraging a popular revolt among Shiites and Kurds, and then allowing a defeated Saddam the means by which to put it down savagely. The mission was clearly articulated: to remove Saddam Hussein and foster a consensual government in his place. When we went into Iraq in 2003, less than 100 Americans had been killed since 2001 in Afghanistan, which was relatively quiet after two years of fighting. Indeed, the American fatality rate there would stay well below 100 per year on average during the first six years of the Afghan war and the first four years of simultaneous conflict in Iraq. That is not true today, as 499 Americans were killed just last year in Afghanistan, more than the cumulative fatality rate for the first seven years of the war. …”

“…Do we express support for regime change in a Middle Eastern country when protesters pour into the streets, or only when such protesters seem to be on the edge of winning? By what criteria is Mubarak worse than Ahmadinejad or Assad? Will those who might replace King Abdullah in Jordan be better or worse? Is the Saudi autocracy less harsh to its own than the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, or is it Saudi Arabia’s unique oil status that earned its present exemption from American pressure? And as we contemplate moving into Libya, are we opposed to or supportive of the ongoing Saudi incursion into Bahrain to stamp out dissidents there? Are the Saudis acting as good allies who are protecting Western petroleum interests and the contractual integrity of U.S. military installations, or as reactionary forces that are denying the people a voice in their own affairs? And is a new Egypt going to be more tolerant of religious minorities than Mubarak’s Egypt? No one in Washington seems to be cognizant that those in power in Iran, Syria, and Libya are much worse than the dictators and kings in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf — nor does anyone seem aware that, at least for now, popular plebiscites in the Middle East without constitutional guarantees and institutionalized human rights (and a large American ground presence to help draft and enforce a new constitution) would translate into more, not less, illiberal government. …”

Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy:U.S. Military Document Reveals

“…Well known to the United States policymakers in Obama White House and Clinton State Department along with the National Security Council but not widely known to American mainstream media, the U.S. West Point Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center document reveals that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq’s Islamic militancy on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The analysis of the Combating Terrorism Center of West Point was based on the records captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border.

The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million).

Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.

If the 2007 captured records revealed the Eastern Libyan participation in the anti-coalition forces militancy in Iraq one could imagine the Banghazi-Darnah export of Islamists since then.

“Libyans were more fired up to travel to Iraq to kill Americans than anyone else in the Arabic-speaking world,” Andrew Exum, a counterinsurgency specialist and former Army Ranger noted in a blog posting recently. “This might explain why those rebels from Libya’s eastern provinces are not too excited about U.S. military intervention. It might also give some pause to those in the United States so eager to arm Libya’s rebels.”

Despite this data and information available to the United Stated government Secretary of State Hilary Clinton met late Monday 14 with a leader of the Libyan rebel movement in Paris privately and without a public statement. Mrs. Clinton met the opposition rebel leader Mahmoud Jibril at her hotel in Paris after attending a dinner with foreign ministers of the countries of the Group 8 who discussed ways to increase pressure on Colonel Qaddafi’s Libyan regime. …”

Paraded on Libyan TV, the rebel ‘Al Qaeda fighter’ from Britain

“…A British citizen captured in Libya has been branded an Islamic terrorist by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

Salah Mohammed Ali Aboaoba was paraded in front of the world press yesterday by officials who claim he has been helping Al Qaeda fuel unrest in the country.

Flanked by officers, the father-of-four said he was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist organisation banned in Britain.

Speaking through an interpreter, Mr Aboaoba said he moved from Yemen to Britain in 2005 and travelled to Libya late last year.

He claimed he had been granted asylum in the UK and lives with his family in Manchester, where he raised funds for his jihadist group.

‘I do indeed have British nationality,’ he said. ‘I was not involved in any terrorist activity against Britain, apart from my funding involvement with the LIFG.’ …”

Read more:

Read more:


Read more:

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

President Obama And His Administration, British Petroleum and British Government Conspired For The Release Of Lockerbee Pan Am Flight 103 Bomber To Obtain Libyan Oil!–Facts Or Conspiracy Theory–You Be The Judge–Video

Did President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, or Attorney General Holder Vigorously Protest The Release of The Lockerbie Convicted Murderer To The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Brown, Foreign Secretary Miliband, or Lord Chancellor Straw? If Not Why Not?

Robert Fisk–The Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of The Middle East and On War and The Role Of Media–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...