Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina

15/01/2010

Referendum w sprawie Unii sfałszowane?

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 05:22

Artykuł opracowano dla „Wir” nr 1, czerwiec 2004
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Referendum w sprawie Unii sfałszowane?

Jerzy Zarakowski, obnie@interia.pl

Według ustawy o referendum unijnym, aby było ono ważne, musiało głosować minimum 50 % uprawnionych.

Wiadomo było, iż w wyniku nachalnej propagandy i fałszowania wyników, ponad połowa z liczby głosujących będzie „za”. Kluczową sprawą była więc tylko frekwencja. Według ustawy, uprawnionym był każdy polski obywatel – w kraju czy na obczyźnie. Gdyby policzyć wszystkie osoby, które mają za granicą polskie obywatelstwo, to nie było szansy, aby frekwencja przekroczyła 50 %.

Według Głównego Urzędu Statystycznego, poza granicami Polski mieszka na stałe 16 mln Polaków. Dane GUS-u z 2001 roku wykazują następujące liczby polskich obywateli w największych skupiskach za granicą:
USA – 9,4 mln
Brazylia – 1,2 mln
Niemcy – 1 mln
Francja – 1 mln
Kanada – 0,8 mln
Białoruś – 0,6 mln
Ukraina – 0,5 mln
Litwa – 0,28 mln
Rosja – 0,2 mln
Australia – 0,15 mln,
Argentyna – 0,14 mln
Kazachstan – 0,08 mln, itd.
Państwowa Komisja Wyborcza podała następujące wyniki referendum poza granicami kraju:

Liczba uprawnionych: 96 161
Liczba oddanych, ważnych kart do głosowania: 79 452
Frekwencja: 82,6 %

PKW obliczyła, że w USA, gdzie żyje 9,4 mln Polaków, jest 17 450 uprawnionych, a w Brazylii, gdzie żyje 1,2 mln Polaków, uprawnionych do głosowania jest 267 Polaków!

Ustawa mówi jednoznacznie, iż uprawnionymi do głosowania są wszyscy obywatele polscy. Obywatelstwo polskie jest definiowane jednoznacznie (reguluje to ustawa z 1962 roku i późniejsze zmiany). Są dwa główne sposoby nabycia polskiego obywatelstwa:

Zasada krwi (Ius Sanguinis) – Dziecko uzyskuje obywatelstwo polskie poprzez urodzenie z rodziców, z których co najmniej jedno posiada obywatelstwo polskie, bez względu na miejsce urodzenia dziecka – w Polsce czy za granicą (Art. 4 pkt 1 i 2 ustawy o obywatelstwie polskim).

Zagadnienie obywatelstwa dzieci urodzonych z rodziców o różnym obywatelstwie, tj. polskim i obcym, zostało uregulowane w ten sposób, że, stosownie do art. 6 ust. 1 ww. ustawy, dziecko takich rodziców nabywa obywatelstwo polskie poprzez urodzenie, bez względu na miejsce narodzin – w Polsce czy za granicą. Jednakże rodzice w zgodnym oświadczeniu, złożonym przed właściwym organem (konsul dla osób zamieszkałych za granicą lub starosta – dla osób zamieszkałych w Polsce), w ciągu 3 miesięcy od dnia urodzenia się dziecka, mogą wybrać dla niego obywatelstwo państwa obcego, którego obywatelem jest jedno z rodziców, jeżeli według prawa tego państwa dziecko nabywa jego obywatelstwo.

Zasada ziemi (Ius Soli) – Zasada ta ma zastosowanie, gdy dziecko urodzi się lub zostanie znalezione na terytorium RP, a oboje rodzice są nieznani lub nieokreślone jest ich obywatelstwo, bądź nie mają żadnego obywatelstwa (Art. 5 ustawy o obywatelstwie polskim). Dziecko takie z mocy prawa nabywa obywatelstwo polskie.

W świetle tego, absurdem było uznanie przez PKW, że liczbą uprawnionych Polaków za granicą jest ok. 100 tys. osób.

Można przyjąć, iż na 16 mln Polaków mieszkających za granicą, uprawnionych jest minimum 10 mln Polaków, skoro w kraju uprawnionych jest trzy czwarte obywateli.

PKW podała następujące wyniki referendum w kraju:
Liczba uprawnionych – 29 868 474
Liczba oddanych ważnych kart – 17 578 818
Frekwencja – 58,9 %

Zakładając, że wyniki są prawdziwe i dodając wyniki za granicą, przy założeniu 10 mln uprawnionych, a nie 100 tys., otrzymujemy 17,66 mln głosujących i 39 mln uprawnionych, co daje frekwencję na poziomie 45 %.

Jak to się stało, że PKW tak zaniżyła frekwencję?
Mimo iż ustawa o referendum mówi:
Art. 3. 1. Prawo udziału w referendum ma obywatel polski, jeżeli najpóźniej w dniu głosowania kończy 18 lat. Nie mają prawa udziału w referendum osoby: pozbawione praw publicznych prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym; pozbawione praw wyborczych prawomocnym orzeczeniem Trybunału Stanu; ubezwłasnowolnione prawomocnym orzeczeniem sądowym.
Komisja policzyła, jako uprawnionych, tylko te osoby, które wcześniej zarejestrowały się w konsulatach i ambasadach oraz wyraziły chęć glosowania.

Rozmawiałem w tej sprawie z biurem prawnym Komisji Wyborczej i uzyskałem odpowiedź, iż zrobiono tak, ponieważ trudno jest policzyć wszystkich uprawnionych, a ponadto było to zawarte w rozporządzeniu do ustawy.

Tego rodzaju problemy nie są zmartwieniem obywateli – po to płacą podatki na PKW, aby ta potrafiła liczyć głosy. Takie trudności nie mogą tłumaczyć zafałszowania wyników referendum. Stoi to w zasadniczej sprzeczności z przytoczonym przeze mnie artykułem, który jednoznacznie mówi, kto jest uprawniony do głosowania.

Prawo do głosowania jest jednym z najważniejszych aktów obywatelskich w państwie. Państwo to, z pomocą PKW, potraktowało w sposób haniebny swoich obywateli.

Wyników referendum nie da się już obalić, ale obywatel nie jest w tej sytuacji bezradny. Każdy, kto wynikami PKW czuje się pokrzywdzony, ma prawo zaskarżyć ustawę o referendum do Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, jako niezgodną z Konstytucją. Narusza ona bowiem elementarne prawo obywateli do równości wobec prawa w najważniejszym akcie obywatelskim – prawie do głosowania. W kraju, każdy obywatel spełniający wymogi ustawowe, był uprawniony do głosowania. Obywatele za granicą musieli wcześniej się zarejestrować, inaczej nie byli traktowani, jako uprawnieni i ich decyzja o rezygnacji z udziału w głosowaniu nie miała żadnego znaczenia.

Przy tej okazji warto wiedzieć, jakie warunki powinna spełniać skarga konstytucyjna.

Prawo do wystąpienia ze skargą konstytucyjną przewiduje art. 79 ust. 1 Konstytucji RP. Przepis ten określa równocześnie warunki rozpoznania takiej skargi przez Trybunał Konstytucyjny. Szczegółowe uregulowania odnoszące się do skargi konstytucyjnej zawiera ustawa z dnia 1 sierpnia 1997 roku o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym, opublikowana w Dzienniku Ustaw z 1997 roku Nr 102, poz. 643 ze zmianami. Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego publikowane jest w Zbiorze Urzędowym. Dostępne jest ono także na stronie internetowej Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, pod adresem:http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/

Skargę konstytucyjną może dla skarżącego sporządzić wyłącznie adwokat lub radca prawny: skargę konstytucyjną samodzielnie we własnej sprawie może sporządzić sędzia, prokurator, notariusz, profesor lub doktor habilitowany nauk prawnych.

Skarga konstytucyjna jest wolna od opłaty sądowej. Jeżeli skarżący, ze względu na sytuację majątkową, nie jest w stanie opłacić kosztów sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej przez adwokata lub radcę prawnego, ma prawo zwrócić się do sądu o ustanowienie dla niego adwokata lub radcy prawnego z urzędu. Wniosek w tej sprawie należy złożyć do sądu rejonowego właściwego, ze względu na miejsce zamieszkania skarżącego. W przypadku uwzględnienia tego wniosku, skarżący nie będzie ponosił kosztów sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej.

Przedmiotem skargi konstytucyjnej może być wyłącznie akt normatywny (ustawa, rozporządzenie, zarządzenie itp.). Trybunał Konstytucyjny odmawia nadania biegu skargom konstytucyjnym, kierowanym wyłącznie na określone orzeczenie sądu czy organu administracji. W skardze konstytucyjnej można kwestionować wyłącznie regulację prawną, która była podstawą takiego orzeczenia.
W przypadku, gdy zakwestionowany akt normatywny utracił moc obowiązującą, należy wykazać, że wydanie przez Trybunał Konstytucyjny orzeczenia o tym akcie jest konieczne dla ochrony konstytucyjnych wolności i praw.

Trybunał Konstytucyjny rozpoznaje tylko takie skargi konstytucyjne, które związane są z naruszeniem praw lub wolności, określonych w Konstytucji RP.

Trybunał Konstytucyjny może rozpoznawać skargę konstytucyjną wyłącznie wówczas, gdy skarżący wykorzystał już przysługujące mu w ramach postępowania sądowego lub administracyjnego środki zaskarżenia lub środki odwoławcze.

Skargę konstytucją należy złożyć do Trybunału Konstytucyjnego po wyczerpaniu drogi prawnej, w ciągu 3 miesięcy od dnia doręczenia skarżącemu prawomocnego wyroku, ostatecznej decyzji lub innego ostatecznego rozstrzygnięcia. (Nie wlicza się do tego okresu czasu trwania postępowania o ustanowienie pełnomocnika z urzędu, celem sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej). Trybunał Konstytucyjny nie rozpoznaje skarg wniesionych po upływie wymienionego wcześniej terminu.

Do skargi konstytucyjnej należy dołączyć:
- pełnomocnictwo do sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej (w przypadku skargi sporządzonej przez pełnomocnika z urzędu należy do niej dołączyć kopię postanowienia sądu rejonowego o ustanowieniu takiego pełnomocnika oraz decyzji organu samorządu adwokackiego lub radcowskiego, wyznaczającą konkretnego adwokata lub radcę prawnego pełnomocnikiem z urzędu);
- ponadto, w przypadku osób prawnych, aktualny wyciąg ze stosownego rejestru;

- kopię orzeczenia organu władzy publicznej, z którego wydaniem skarżący łączy naruszenie przysługujących mu praw lub wolności o charakterze konstytucyjnym;

- kopię orzeczeń wydanych w związku z wyczerpaniem przez skarżącego przysługujących mu środków odwoławczych lub środków zaskarżenia, łącznie z orzeczeniem wydanym przez organ pierwszej instancji.

Skargę konstytucyjną wraz z załącznikami należy składać w 5 egzemplarzach. W celu przyspieszenia rozpoznawania skarg konstytucyjnych, zaleca się sporządzanie skarg konstytucyjnych według poniższego wzoru. 

Informacje ogólne:
- miejsce i data sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej;
- imię i nazwisko skarżącego (w przypadku skarżącego nie będącego osobą fizyczną należy podać nazwę, osobę lub osoby upoważnione do reprezentacji danego podmiotu oraz określenie podstawy reprezentacji);
- adres skarżącego;
- imię i nazwisko pełnomocnika skarżącego;
- adres kancelarii oraz nr wpisu na listę adwokatów lub radców prawnych.

Określenie przedmiotu skargi konstytucyjnej:
- dokładne określenie zaskarżonego aktu normatywnego ze wskazaniem konkretnego przepisu (lub przepisów), nazwy aktu, daty wydania oraz miejsca publikacji;
- dokładne wskazanie przepisów Konstytucji RP, których naruszenie zarzuca się w skardze konstytucyjnej.

Określenie podstaw skargi konstytucyjnej:
- wskazanie orzeczenia organu władzy publicznej, z którym skarżący łączy naruszenie przysługujących mu praw lub wolności konstytucyjnych (należy podać organ wydający orzeczenie, datę wydania, sygnaturę sprawy);
- wskazanie podmiotowych praw lub wolności o charakterze konstytucyjnym, których naruszenie skarżący łączy z wydaniem orzeczenia określonego w pkt 1 wraz z podaniem przepisów Konstytucji RP, z których prawa te lub wolności są wywodzone;
- dokładne określenie tego, w jaki sposób orzeczenie, o którym mowa w pkt 1, prowadzi do naruszenia konstytucyjnych praw lub wolności skarżącego;
- przedstawienie argumentów wskazujących na ostateczny charakter orzeczenia, o którym mowa w pkt 1, a w szczególności, uzasadniających przekonanie, iż skarżący wyczerpał przysługujące mu środki zaskarżenia lub inne środki odwoławcze;
- podanie daty doręczenia skarżącemu orzeczenia kończącego postępowanie w sprawie będącej podstawą skargi konstytucyjnej;
w przypadku sporządzenia skargi przez pełnomocnika ustanowionego z urzędu:
- podanie daty złożenia przez skarżącego wniosku do sądu rejonowego o ustanowienie pełnomocnika z urzędu celem sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej;
- podanie daty doręczenia skarżącemu pisma informującego o tym, który adwokat lub radca prawny został wyznaczony do sporządzenia skargi konstytucyjnej;
- podanie argumentów przemawiających za tym, iż zakwestionowane w skardze konstytucyjnej regulacje prawne stanowiły podstawę wydania orzeczenia, o którym mowa w pkt 1.

Uzasadnienie zarzutu niezgodności z konstytucją:
- Dokładne określenie, na czym, zdaniem skarżącego, polega niezgodność zakwestionowanych regulacji prawnych ze wskazanymi w petitum skargi przepisami konstytucyjnymi.

Warto, aby obywatele często korzystali z tej możliwości. Tylko wtedy bowiem jest szansa, że państwo zacznie służyć obywatelom, a nie, jak obecnie, gdy jest w wielu przypadkach jego prześladowcą i ciemiężycielem.
………………………………….
Autor jest założycielem ruchu „Obywatelskie nieposłuszeństwo” http://obnie.w.interia.pl
Zaprasza na te strony do lektury ciekawych artykułów, niepublikowanych w głównym nurcie.

On UNMIK-KFOR Impotence

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 05:14

From my old files, for the record of UN-NATO crimes in Kosovo after Milosevic.

====================

Mr. Lindmeier,

I will be as blunt as UNMIK’s cynicism in its “press release”, which reminds me of my pre-school times when, unable to deal with the message, kids told the staff on me. Not only children try to undermine the messenger. You must also be aware of the thief who, to detract attention from himself, shouts and points to bystanders, like UNMIK does to Serb officials. Please pass my comment on to your superiors for a more meaningful answer.

Unfortunately for the “international community”, many denizens of conscience agree with Mr. Dragan Rakic’s complaint. Whom is this “car registration before capturing war criminals” rubbish for? We are tired of UNMIK-KFOR “inability” and perpetual blaming “the Serbs” for own failures to accomplish resolution 1244.

Recently I travelled in Kosovo, stayed with Albanians for a few nights, and visited tightly guarded Serb Orthodox monasteries and enclaves. A vice gripped my throat every time I passed by burned out Serbian houses and Albanian mansions with driveways paved with rubble from Serbian houses. Tears rolled down my face when I saw Serb cemeteries and churches desecrated and ruined. I was terrified when I saw some of them surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers of KFOR who abandoned the posts.

I met Albanians involved in arms trade and sex slavery. A pimp propositioned me to visit his establishment “full of girls from Moldavia”. Learning that I am unemployed, my hosts sincerely proposed that I participate in their arms trafficking. They told me they hate UNMIK and KFOR, and are preparing an uprising. I saw brand-new posters with a logo of the UCK (outlawed and supposedly disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army) in public offices and businesses, even on a road sign next to an UNMIK police station.

Kosovo is dotted with pretentious monuments to fallen UCK men – heroes to the Albanians, war criminals to the Serbs. More than a thousand Serbs are still missing since US-led KFOR marched in and looked through fingers at Albanian extremists’ “revenge crimes”. A Kosovo Serb friend of mine, in Poland since the beginning of NATO attack on Yugoslavia, necessarily stays there to date, otherwise he would risk his life, if he returned. UCK expelled his family to Serbia and Montenegro in 1999. They lost one member and everything they owned. I learned just before last Easter that the Hague “tribunal’s” quest for Albanian victims in Kosovo has unearthed the lost family member.

Most of my Albanian interlocutors (and many Moslems in Montenegro, too) absolutely hate the Serbs. No registration plates will change their hearts. Until the meddling of “humanitarian” West and Islamist states towards the end of the past century, Serbs had no problem living and sharing with Slovenes, Croats, Bosnian Moslems, Albanians and many other groups. Yet, the US-led “international community”, sponsored hate-driven ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, and cynically accused “Milosevic and the Serbs” for doing it to the others. In these “humanitarian missions” Germany supplied arms, mercenaries, money and intelligence to the illegal secessionists in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. No amount of disinformation will obliterate the facts. They are all over to be found, except at the kangaroo court in Hague and in German official statements.

Among lighter “omissions”, UNMIK-KFOR obviously do not react to lies posing as authoritative publications. This is your basic obstacle to normal multi-etnicity declared in resolution 1244. At book stands on Prishtina’s main street I browsed through many books that present propaganda hoaxes against the Serbs (“death camps” in Bosnia and Racak “massacre”, for example) as indisputable facts years after they have been debunked. If anybody in the West tried to spread lies against the Jews, for example, they would not last a minute.

The Albanians I met resent the monthly expenses on Herr Steiner’s mansion in Kosovo no less than they do the salaries of the UNMIK policemen; men from developing countries earn a huge multiple of their domestic pay. We are getting a good value for our taxes: I saw UNMIK toyotas 4WD everywhere, parked by the dozen at every UNMIK post, driving to and fro on every road. What for?

All Serbian vehicles that I saw in Kosovo had Steiner’s plates for the safety of the owners and passengers. Why does he insist on Belgrade’s recognition of something that should have been implemented in June 1999? In Grachanica, one of a few remaining Kosovo Serb enclaves, I saw vendors selling fuel in pop bottles, even though there is a new gas station near the village and Serb prices in dinars are equivalent to euro, the official currency in Kosovo. Serbs would be attacked, if they ventured out – explained several Serbs and Albanians. Minutes from the gas station stands a fort of the Swedish battalion of KFOR.

Why should Belgrade recognize Steiner’s plates if UNMIK-KFOR has not even tried to remove the root of a fundamental personal safety problem of the Serbs in Kosovo? Nebojsa Covic did the right thing when he “disappointed” Herr Steiner.

Serbia has legal, historical and moral sovereignty over its ancient Kosovo. Hopefully Herr Steiner and German members of KFOR and UNMIK realize that they are occupiers in an illegally attacked state, while at the same time their government condemns an lawless attack and occupation of Iraq. When will UNMIK-KFOR bureaucrats get their act together? Not as long as they are the operatives of elites aspring to totalitarian government.

If Kosovo indicates official (overt and covert) German behaviour, I, a Slav and a Pole, am very concerned about Germans posing as benevolent “international community” representatives. Herr Steiner is tacitly implementing Austro-Hungarian empire’s “Serben muss sterben” adage.  Serbia is sovereign in Kosovo, like Poland is over its Western Lands re-gained after WW2. Once Poland joins European Union, revisionists may start taking over our land (see German whistle-blowing at www.freenations.freeuk.com for substantiation of this Polish “hysteria”). Then another Herr Steiner will justify this new “Drang nach Osten” cleansing with a bureaucratic gimmick to full the naive West.

If Slavs were as aggressive and cheeky as Albanians and other radical Balkan Moslems supported by radical Islam and the “international community”, they would be prevailing all the way to Hamburg and the Elbe River, never mind the Balkans. Herr Steiner is playing with fire. If he is oblivious to history, Slavs can be devastating when pressed to the wall. Seemingly mindless destruction by the employees of German-owned farms and businesses that sprout in Poland might be a forewarning, if Germans, hiding under “international community” and “humanitarian missions”, don’t change their social management approach. Until then, the likes of Herr Steiner can ask “dumm” questions – as at the end of his press release – till they drop.

Dr Piotr Bein, PEng
Vancouver, Canada and Szczecin (not “Stettin”), Poland

German PsyOp

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 04:53

An article I found today in my archives,  date unknown.

==================

The last sentence of the article is scary. I have little doubt that the article is one in a series produced by German special PsyOp forces, the “Psycho Truppen” (http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/gc-14.html).

An increased German militaristic and revisionist propaganda activity is taking place. In Slav countries on Germany’s Drang nach Osten map, a whining is heard of supposedly wronged Germans expelled from there after WW II by virtue of the 1945 Potsdam Agreement of the victorious Allies. These are the same Volksdeutsche who helped Hitler’s policy of irredentism, then sabotage, finally murder, plunder and ethnic cleansing of the host nations. This is the same Germany who have not paid EUR billions owed for the biological and material losses of those nations.

In Western power centres, more and more is heard about everything about WW II Germany and Germans except the naked truth: two world’s bloodiest wars of the 20th century. Millions of victims of senseless battles, exterminations, cities levelled, unheard of sufferings and ethnic cleansing – for German Lebensraum, all the way to the Ural Mountains.

A German video game was distributed in the months leading to the September 1st, anniversary of Hitler’s attack on Poland that started the bloodiest war in world’s history. The game, starts with a military order to counterattack on Polish troops who supposedly provoked Hitler by crossing the border.

No, it is not a video joke. The Polish soldiers are depicted as drunkards and cowards. Reportedly, half a million copies in German and English were sold to European youth. As the cinema, TV, colouring books, and video games became the teacher nowadays, these games will brainwash the youth about the WW II history and the Polish nation. The game won the top award in a summer month issue of a leading German computer magazine.

Not much differently, by shameful distortion of truth and outrageous lies, Serbs were demonized before the world opinion, in preparation for criminal wars of the “international community” and NATO in the Balkans.

German secret service, BND, who is a partner in the Psycho Truppen’s dangerous games, played an infamous role in the breakup of Yugoslavia as early as the 1960s. Later, Germany supplied arms, legionists and every possible support against the Serbs throughout the Balkan wars: to Slovenian separatists, to atrocious neo-Ustashe of Croatia, and the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army. In the Balkans, Germany aligned its goals with the most backward and destructive forces of contemporary world : the islamist expansionism and its Al Qaeda, Catholic Croatian nationalism and hatred, and Albanian terrorism.

With NATO, Germany attacked Yugoslavia on false pretenses (comparable only to Bush’s claim of WMD in Iraq), completely illegally in 1999. Luftwaffe participated in a total war attacks, on civil population and targets, reminiscent of Hitler’s attacks on Belgrade. Bundeswehr marched into Kosovo with KFOR. It was the first time since the end of WW II that German forces left their barracks for a war abroad.

In Kosovo, the good ears of BND went deaf to warnings by Serb intelligence about upcoming pogroms of Serbs in March 2004. German KFOR commanders’ eyes were blind to atrocities and crimes committed by the Albanian extremists on Serbs and their property in Kosovo.

How to reform German forces so they could better fight globalist wars? I would say, “Raus! Back to your barracks, eat your Sauerkraut and shut up.” Unless they want to start WW III. Putin made a suggestion today that the Russians should prepare for hardships like those during WW II. Observers say that re-organisation and strengthening of the Russian Army should be completed by 2005.

WCC = War on Climate Change

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 04:40

By Dr. Piotr Bein, PEng,  February 23, 2004

Reading like a militarist propaganda, The Observer article  may well be one. I doubt its contents, and the motive behind its publication.
It is nonsense for Observer/Guardian journalists to overblow publically available information as leaked from secret places  in Washington. I am not surprised. The British press spread extreme Islamist lies against the Serbs, too.
We are told that “suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change”. As if the threats were not known to everyone, except Americans who get their worldview from presidential speeches and the CNN.
And how do we know it was indeed a “suppression”? Bureaucracies are famous for taking ages while reviewing reports for publication. My own, leading edge report in a much smaller bureaucracy, a ministry in the provincial government in Canada, was stopped for almost two years while being “reviewed’ by the top floor and their modestly-paid “consultant’ to remove every word that undermined the ministry’s well-established place in the tail of the subject area.

Recycled alarm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), or hundreds of international scientists researching climate change, have predicted the grim possibilities, but never called nuclear war inevitable. A Pentagon source makes us believe they have their own “IPCC”, better equipped than the world’s best brains on the subject, so we better listen.
IPCC has been steadily warning about the social, economic and political aftermath of climate change around the globe. The deafest ears were American government’s, because doing something about fuel emissions was against the interests of the oil oligarchy. Started in earnest in about 1970s, notably with participation of numerous US scientists, the predictions (except sudden sea level rise next year!) have firmed up by mid-1990’s.
I am rather suspicious that the same thing “leaked” through “top secret”, clairvoyant think-tanks, re-written alarmistically, too.

WOT is dead, long live WCC

Secret is secret, even after the key person dies. Marshall, 82, is alive, “credited with DOD’s push on ballistic-missile defence”. Except for some Pentagon people, everyone knows that terrorists will not launch missiles onto the US of Hysteria, but would sneak dirty, street-level stuff in, or wrap explosives around the waist and hop on a New York bus.
Rumsfeld must be devastated that a most trusted man betrayed him. But frequent mention of terrorism is no coincidence. “War on terror” (WOT) ended up in a fiasco.
Palestinian terrorists still wrap explosives around their waist. Osama is still at large. “Saddam” is actually one of five look-alikes – never mind that not one of them had anything to do with 9-11. Terrorism in Iraq dramatically increased since the Coalition brought “liberation” “for the Iraqi people”. In Afghanistan, the difference is that Taliban just announced retaliation against the occupiers and their quislings. If rumours about some 400 body bags brought monthly from Iraq into one secret morgue in the US are true, imagine the figure when Taliban rolls the sleeves up.
Sensing a failure of the WOT slogan, Pentagon prepared a new reason for being: “war on climate change” (WCC). In the absence of “commies” after Berlin wall collapsed, the self-justification for Western militarism was “humanitarian interventions”, before it became “WOT” after 9-11.
Pentagon was prepared ahead of time. Quite a while ago, on a Pentagon website, I found a report on US military strategy in a warming climate. Reuters wrote on January 14, 2004: “U.N. aims to study link between environment, wars”. I commented, “Sounds like one of Pentagon’s reports: to look for new war reasons once ‘terrorism’ is ‘under control’ (as if terrorism could be conquered by armies).”
WOT nearing natural death, a few rings of the Pentagon building would go under a hammer. So would over 700 US military bases, and the Lear jets that fly military brass between Pacific islands and Swiss ski slopes.
Luckily, we have climate change. The Observer scribes let their fantasy feed from the fringes of scientific prediction. Twisting the Penatgon’s exagerated conclusion that catastrophic climate change scenarios are “plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately,” the scribes emphasized the urgency, as if a $400 billion war budget was not enough.
Finally, Camp Bondsteel base in Kosovo 1 km above see level will qualify for a grant to sharpen up the razor wire and beef up sand bag walls with concrete and titanium. Otherwise, it might be flooded in the Deluge predicted by Pentagon for 2005.

White House “scientific” dilemma

Not by chance, the article mentions last week’s “heavy fire from respected scientists” against the Bush administration. Washington propaganda pundits will declare Bush, great-heartedly turning away from WOT to WCC, to be a “Christ Scientist of Our Times”.
Whether it will be a Bush-President or an Unindicted War Criminal General Clark, the US administration will continue to adore science that suits its policy agenda and will suppress the other studies.
The language of the article does not leave doubts about the authors’ propagandist intentions: “Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.” Right. The American public shot down Kyoto agreement to slow down with greengouse gas emissions. Or did the authors mean that the US public drifted much further away from their governments “policy” since Kyoto? Then the article’s sentence makes sense.
Should the reader still doubt the WCC rationale at this point, reading the stars from their meteorites that fall on Earth comes to rescue. A British lord, former “chief executive of the Meteorological Office – and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism” is invoked as an authority.
Lord authority might work in modern, liberated UK, but not in Afghanistan. Those ingrates will not understand that WOT is WCC until further notice, and that they should return to the caves, instead of seeking revenge for driving their country back to stone age and fertilizing it with uranium manure.
Perhaps foreseeing this undesirable eventuality, the article quotes no less than a rep of an org that brings happiness to all impoverished people – the World Bank. A “chief scientist for the World Bank” who also happened to be a “former chair” of the IPCC, said the Pentagon’s “dire warnings could no longer be ignored.” To Watson’s credit, he knows whom White House listens to – “the oil lobby and the Pentagon”.
Under “something for everyone” motto, the article also quotes Greenpeace, who consistetly covers the military in radioactive war scandals since Iraq 1991, if not Middle East 1970s.

Nuclear rescue

Memories of WOT in Afghan and Iraqi summer will become a pleasant memory in the scorching heat of global warming. Pentagon and other “experts” tend towards US hysteria: “The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.” On the other hand, the Yankees are good at making things worse, so perhaps we should believe and be prepared. Milosevic did not, and has to suffer as a prosecutor of NATO in a former Nazi prison at The Hague.
Apocalyptically, “abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.” Worst, some of them may get an idea to protect (with nukes) national oil resources from evaporation in the global heat.
Pentagon’s “IPCC” did not invent the nuclear trigger from global warming for nothing. Who would be the most likely states to use nuclear weapons when heated up by the global greenhouse? “Axis of Evil”, answered toddlers in my neighbourhood nursery.
Thanks to carbon dioxide, nukes will be alive and well. Elaborate plans to develop nuclear weapon systems that would turn the Earth into a glass ball glowing in the darkness of Universe, will not become pulp. Countless jobs in the glowing “industry” will be saved from extinction. Who said climate change is bad for the economy?
Yes, economy and national security. The Pentagon report was prepared by the cream of US biz: Peter Schwartz, “CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group”, and Doug Randall “of the California-based Global Business Network”. Global the climate change is. How much it has to do with business and the military (complex in short) is a subject for thick books. I am out of this specialty for long. Could someone please check if Schwartz and Randall are not by chance among the few critics of IPCC work?
World population only at half the level predicted for the end of the century, Randall and Schwartz panic already. Are they afraid of losing suburban comfort to the hordes of climate change refugees? Both authors believe in “catastrophic” shortages of water and energy that will plunge the globe into war by 2020. No confidence in Coca Cola and oil companies. Every challenge is a business opportunity, is it not?
If I were Pentagon, I would worry that if radioactive wars continue at present pace, by 2020 there would not be a patch of land left without radioactivity.
The authors of Pentagon report worry that “8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.” I think they should rejoice that US forces know how to deal with mass exodus, as from Kosovo 1999, or Afghanistan 2001-2002. Uranium ammunition comes in handy when the exodus turns “the wrong way”.
America will grow again, better able to pay tooth for tooth, eye for an eye for each nuke launched from a country fried to desperation by the warming climate.

War at last

Pentagon “analysts” have no doubts about the future. “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life. Once again, warfare would define human life,” wrote Pentagon psychos.
Our peaceful times will soon be over. We will have vicious climates to fight with tanks, bombers and radioactive weapons all over the world, from the equator north and south, all the way to the poles.
Resources needed for operations and bases against WCC will eclipse those for WOT. Imagine the challenges to establish US forward bases on each pole, for pre-emptive strikes against Cold, should it threaten to form an alliance with Warmth.
It’s been long time since I read such pro-complex science rubbish. Last time, from the holloway311 series on the du-watch list, about “natural” uranium 236 and plutonium 239.

——————-
Piotr is a former lead researcher on socio-economic issues of climate change with the Canadian federal government. He became an antiwar warrior with 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia. He wrote two books about it (in Polish http://www.gavagai.pl/nato/, in English http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/bein/) and articles to independent media, including Antiwar. He co-founded http://www.du-watch.org against uranium weapons. He authored and co-authored leading papers about official propaganda on uranium weapons, and moderates and manages the du-watch e-group. Recently, he has been nominated assistant editor of the Polish diaspora magazine http://www.infonurt.com
Copyleft Piotr Bein 2004: copy right, left and centre. Commercial exploitation of the article subject to C in a circle.

=============================

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war · Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York Sunday February 22, 2004 The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. ‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’ The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change. Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch. One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible. Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change. Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office – and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism – said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’ Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored. ‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson. ‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated. Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’ Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said. ‘The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’ So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign. The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence. Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. ‘It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.’ Symons said the Bush administration’s close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. ‘This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,’ he added. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.