#2512: Blair’s Climate Bait and 350 Switch – Obama Punked With Nine Eyes Nukes – Serco 8(a) Digital Fires

A Request by United States Marine Field McConnell 
Images Leading To A Proof by Contradiction Of Assertions Below 
Plum City Online – (AbelDanger.net) 
November 20, 2015


2. AD ASSERTS THAT BLAIR WILL PUNK OBAMA INTO CONCESSIONS BY THREATENING HIM WITH NUKE ATTACKS THROUGH THE NINE-EYES SURVEILLANCE NETWORKS as funded through Blair’s $95 trillion Carbon Disclosure Project launched on December 4, 2000 from 10 Downing Street.


United States Marine Field McConnell (https://abeldanger.blogspot.com/2010/01/field-mcconnell-bio.html) invites Abel Danger researchers and those whom it may concern to send him images or information which can lead to a proof by contradiction of the assertions above.

Skyfall – MI6 Is Blown Up 

Blair’s C from Spectre and the man inside Clinton’s server.

WTC Building 7 Collapse – 23 angles 

Serco‘s used ITT ad hoc waypoints in decoy/drone maneuvers on 9/11 and provided Starwood Nine Eyes surveillance in Paris during the Eagles of Death concert

Defense Ammunition Center [Run by Serco 8(a) protégées]

D.O.A. w/ Jello Biafra- Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors [1989] Full Album 
[Serco 8(a) visas for the Pickton pig-farm snuff film crew] 

Outsourced to Serco in 1994

Militant BLACK Obama [Punk] Youth Group: Let’s SCARE the SHIT out of WHITE Grandma?

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” Barack Obama 

Climate change, water scarcity, flooding, pollution and deforestation
present material risks and opportunities to investors.
In order to protect
their long term investments, institutional investors must act to reduce the
long-term risks arising from environmental externalities. CDP investor
initiatives – backed in 2015 by more than 822 institutional investors
representing an excess of US$95 trillion in assets – give investors access to a
global source of year-on-year information that supports long-term objective
analysis. This includes evidence and insight into companies’ greenhouse gas emissions,
water usage and strategies for managing climate change, water and deforestation

“Blair to lead campaign on climate change
Act urgently or global
warming will be irreversible, former PM warns
Friday 14 March
2008 11.45 GMT
Tony Blair is to
lead a new international team to tackle the intractable problem of securing a
global deal on climate change which would have the backing of China and
The former prime
minister believes he can help prepare a blueprint for an agreement to cut
carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, and has the backing of the White House, the UN
and Europe, including Gordon Brown.

He told the Guardian
he has been working on the project with a group of climate change experts since
he left office last summer, and will publish an interim report to the G8 group
of industrialised nations this summer.

“This is
extremely urgent. A 50% cut by 2050 has to be a central component of this. We
have to try this year to get that agreed, because the moment you do agree that,
then you have something for everyone to focus upon. We need a true and proper
global deal, and that needs to include America and China,” Blair said.

He is due to reveal
the initiative this weekend at a meeting of the G20 in Japan, before travelling
to discuss the plans with the Chinese and Indian governments. “There is a
deadlock. Everyone is agreed where we want to get to, but unless you agree on
the framework for getting there, you are left with a process and not a
result,” he said.

He said the world had
less than two years to secure a deal, or accept that global warming is

“The fact of the
matter is that if we do not take substantial action over the next two years,
then by 2020 we will thinking seriously about adaptation rather than

Blair played a key
role in putting climate change on to the international agenda, and in trying to
persuade the Bush administration that it could play a part in a global deal to
cut carbon emissions.
He will formally
launch the initiative at a meeting in Tokyo following talks with Yasuo Fukuda,
the prime minister of Japan, the current president of the G8. “People
often say to me there are a lot of climate change plans out there, and I say
‘how many of them are politically doable? So the experts are providing
technical knowledge, and specialist insight, but what I am trying to do is
guide it politically,” Blair said.

He is backed by the
Climate Group, a not-for-profit organisation supported by business. He is
drawing together a team of international experts, including Sir Nicholas Stern,
the author of the groundbreaking report on the costs of climate change, and
specialists from China, Japan, the US and Europe.

The UN needs to agree
a new climate change deal by the end of the year to replace the Kyoto treaty
that expires in 2012. Talks in Bali in December nearly collapsed with US
insisting it will not join a deal that does not include the world’s second
largest total emitter China.

The Chinese insist
that their emissions are dwarfed by the US, and America must make the main
contribution. The UN conference in Bali agreed there had to be contributions by
all countries, but no agreement exists on what this means.

Blair said:
“Essentially what everyone has agreed is that climate change is a serious
problem, it is man-made, we require a global deal, that there should be a
substantial cut in emissions at the heart of it, and this global deal should
involve everyone, including in particular America on the one hand and China on
the other, so it is the developed and developing world.

“The question is
what is the framework that gets everyone in the deal?”

Following an interim
report in June, his team intends to set out the continuing differences between
the big countries next summer, then produce economic models to show that fears
over the sacrifices required can be overcome.

“The one thing I
am absolutely sure of is that we are not going to get the action necessary by
telling people not to consume. The Chinese and Indian governments are
determined to grow their economies. They have hundreds of millions of very poor
people – they are going to industrialise, they are going to raise their living
standards, and quite right too.”

The initiative was
disclosed yesterday as the prime minister, Gordon Brown, launched a campaign to
get Europe to slash taxes on “green goods” such as environmentally
friendly fridges, telling government leaders the move would be a powerful lever
in the fight against global warming.
The Brussels summit of
27 government leaders last night grappled with a timetable for an ambitious
action plan to slash greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020.

This article
was amended on Friday March 14 2008. The not-for-profit organisation backing
Tony Blair’s project to develop a blueprint for tackling climate change is the
Climate Group, not the Climate Change Group. This has been corrected.”

“Sir Robert John Sawers GCMG (born
26 July 1955) is a formerBritish diplomat and
senior civil servant.
He was Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6),[1] a
position he had held from November 2009 until November 2014.[2] He
was previously the British
Permanent Representative
 to the United
 from August 2007 to November 2009.[3][4]
Foreign and
Commonwealth Office[edit]
Sawers joined
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in
1977.[8] In
his early career, Sawers worked in Yemen and Syria, on behalf ofMI6.[1][9][10] He
became Political Officer in Damascus in
1982 and then returned to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to take up the
role of Desk Officer in the European
 Department in 1984 and Private Secretary to the Minister of
State in 1986.[8]
He was based in Pretoria and
then Cape
 in South Africa from 1988 to 1991[8] during
the first part of the transition from apartheid.[11] He
returned to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office yet again to take up the
roles of Head of European Union Presidency Planning Unit in 1991 and Principal
Private Secretary to Douglas Hurd in 1993.[8] The
period was dominated by war in Bosnia, crises in the Middle East, and the
debate in Britain on the European Union.
From 1995 to 1998 he
was in the United States and spent a year as an
International Fellow at Harvard University[8] and
later at the British Embassy in Washington
D. C.
, where he headed the 
Foreign and Defence Policy team.[8]
From January 1999 to
summer 2001 he was Foreign Affairs Adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair,[8] dealing
with all aspects of foreign and defence policy and working closely with
international counterparts.[11] The
period included the Kosovo War. He also worked on the Northern Ireland peace process and
the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. He reviewed the Iraq
sanctions policy during this period and issued a document that included
consideration of regime change.[12]
He served two years in
the Middle
 as Ambassador to Egypt from 2001
to 2003,[8] and
for three months was the British Government’s Special Representative in Baghdad[8] assisting
in the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority as
the transitional government during the Occupation of Iraq.
In August 2003 Sawers
was appointed Director General for Political Affairs at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In
this post he advised the Foreign Secretary on political and security issues
worldwide and negotiated on behalf of the Foreign Secretary with international
partners in the G8,
EU and the UN. He was particularly closely involved in policy on IranIraqAfghanistan and
the Balkans.
Sawers headed the British team in the EU-3negotiations over
Iran’s nuclear program in 2006,[13] utilising
his scientific background on nuclear matters.[14]
In 2007 he became
British Permanent Representative to the United
Sawers is a governor
of the Ditchley Foundation, which aims to promote
international, especially 
Anglo-American, relations.[15]
Chief of the Secret
Intelligence Service[edit] [Check
C in Spectre]
Sawers was announced
as the new chief of the Secret Intelligence Service on 16
June 2009, succeeding Sir John
. He took up his new appointment in November 2009.[1] In
July 2009 his family details were removed from the social networking site Facebook following
media interest in the contents.[16][17] On 10 and 16 December 2009 Sawers
gave evidence to The Iraq Inquiry.[12][18] In
July 2010 his salary was revealed to the public to be in the range of £160,000
to £169,999.[19]

During the Syrian
Civil War
 Sawers supported the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David
 in drawing up plans to train and equip a Syrian rebel army of
100,000 to overthrow President Bashar
, as an alternative option to the government’s
 for limited direct military involvement. The plans were rejected
by the National Security Council as
too ambitious.[20] Ultimately
on 29 August 2013, parliament refused to support the government’s plan to
participate in military strikes against the Syrian government.[21]

Sawers announced his
intention to stand down from chief of the Secret Intelligence Service by
November 2014, the fifth anniversary of his appointment.[2] He
was replaced by Alex Younger.[22]
Already Knight
Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George
 (KCMG), he was
appointed Knight
Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
 (GCMG) in the
2015 New Year Honours for services to national security.[23][24]

“Ex-MI6 chief Sir John Sawers: We cannot stop terrorism unless we spy on
innocent people
[Spectre = Special Executive for Counter Intelligence
Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion]
Former head of Secret
Intelligence Service uses first speech since leaving to say there cannot be
‘no-go areas’ on internet as he warns of ‘all but inevitable’ attack on UK
By David Barrett, Home Affairs
Correspondent, and Colin Freeman
9:30AM GMT 20 Jan 2015

The British security
services will not be able to prevent terrorism unless they monitor the internet
traffic of innocent people, the former head of MI6 has said.
Sir John Sawers, the
chief of the Secret Intelligence Service until November last year, warned a
successful terrorist attack on the UK by Islamic militants is all but
inevitable as he said there cannot be “no-go areas” on the internet.

In his first public
speech since stepping down from the spy chief role he said: “There is a
dilemma because the general public, politicians and technology companies, to
some extent, want us to be able to monitor the activities of terrorists and
other evil-doers but they don’t want their own activities to be open to any
such monitoring.

“The benefit of
the last 18 months’ debate is that people now understand that is not possible,
and there has to be some form of ability to cover communications that are made
through modern technology.”

Sir John said the
internet had to be open in the same way as communities in the real world. 
17 Jan 2015

Amid wide public
debate about the need for new online surveillance powers, he said: “The
Prime Minister was right when he was saying last week we can’t afford to have
complete no-go areas.

“We cannot have
no go areas in our communities where the police cannot go, because that just
allows space room for the evil-doers to ply their trades.

“It is the same
in the virtual world.

“If you allow
areas which are completely impenetrable then you might feel comfortable that
your communications are private and no one else can see them, but so are those
who are trying to do you down and undermine your society.”

He said the
revelations by Edward Snowden, the former CIA contractor, had captured the
public’s attention because they had not been properly informed about the
security services’ online surveillance capabilities.

Snowden, who revealed
top secret details about online monitoring, had “thrown a massive rock in
the pool”, said Sir John, but he admitted that the move had led to a
public debate.

Sir John went on that
Snowden “gained traction” because the public did not know that GCHQ,
the Government listening post, and its US counterparts “could monitor
traffic on the internet in the way that it could”.

“It was certainly
a great concern for me that the, if you like, the informal co-operation that
worked well between most technology companies and communication companies and
security services was broken by the Snowden revelations and has not been
repaired,” he said.

“These new
developments in technology and in communications are vastly advantageous to our
economies and to our way of life and to family cohesion.

“But if a
technology companies allow to be developed areas which are simply impenetrable,
you are inviting problems.

“We have to find
a way as a society whereby the technology companies … and those responsible
for the security of our societies can work together so that the interests of
both can be met with limited compromise.

“Now, I do not
believe that there is a trade-off between security and privacy. I think they go
“If you have a
society which evades and abuses privacy, then ultimately there will be a
reaction against the damage to your security.

“If you do not
have any security then all your basic freedoms are at threat.

“So we have to
find a way of building the trust in governments and in technology companies
that both the private uses that people justifiably expect to be able to have of
these new technologies and the public goods are both being met at the same

“Now Snowden
threw a massive rock in the pool. The ripples from that still have not died
down, but it has provoked a debate on these very difficult issues.

“There needs to
be some new compact between the technology companies and those who are
responsible for security if we are not to see events like we saw in Paris last
week and which we have seen also across in Yemen, in Nigeria, and so on become
more and more features of our lives.”
“We cannot afford
for that to happen.”

Sir John said there
were so many terror plots ongoing that it was a certainty that the security
services would not be able to foil them all.

“We are not
saying that an attempted terror attack is highly likely, but that an attack
actually getting through is highly likely,” he told an audience of
business leaders in London.

Sir John said while
the majority of the British-based Muslims who had gone to fight in Syria would
probably pose no security threat when they returned home, a “hard
core” would almost certainly 
 attempt to mount terror attacks.

“I think the
great majority of them are probably mightily relieved to get back
[to the UK],
but there will be a hardened core who are absorbed into extremist ideology who
will pose a real threat to us back here.

“The security
community has done a fantastic job keeping threats at bay, but if I was to sit
here and ask ‘will the goalkeepers of the police and security services foil
every single attempt to score a goal?’, the answer is no.

“At some point a
threat will get through,” he said at the central London launch of the
Edelman Trust 

Barometer, an international survey of public trust in
institutions including the security services and other government institutions.

The UK survey found
public trust in the intelligence agencies was far higher than for other
official bodies.

It found 64 per cent
said they trusted MI6 and 72 per cent trusted MI5, the domestic security
agency, compared with a 43 per cent rating for government overall.

Sir John said the
security agencies had begun to rebuilt public trust following concern over the
“dodgy dossier” under Labour prime minister Tony Blair in 2003, which
was later used to justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam
Hussein’s regime was claimed to have weapons of mass destruction.

Sir John said the
British agencies had achieved the turn-around by being “skilful and clever
rather than violent and thuggish”, in a reference which will be widely
interpreted as a veiled swipe at the CIA.

The American agency’s
involvement in torture was detailed in a report from the US Senate 
Committee last month.

Spy fiction such as
James Bond films also helped boost the reputation of the British agencies, Sir
John admitted.

“Our favourable
reputation in popular fiction, as we all know, helps on trust,” he said.”

“What’s really at stake at the Paris climate conference now marches are
By banning protest at
COP21, Hollande is silencing those facing the worst impacts of climate change
and its monstrous violence
Friday 20 November
2015 14.56 GMTLast modified on Friday 20 November 201522.04 GMT
Whose security gets
protected by any means necessary? Whose security is casually sacrificed,
despite the means to do so much better? Those are the questions at the heart of
the climate crisis, and the answers are the reason climate summits so often end
in acrimony and tears.

The French
government’s decision to ban protests, marches and other “outdoor activities” during
the Paris climate summit is disturbing on many levels. The one that preoccupies me most has to
do with the way it reflects the fundamental inequity of the climate crisis
itself – and that core question of whose security is ultimately valued in our
lopsided world.

Organisers of
cancelled Paris climate march urge global show of support
Here is the first
thing to understand. The people facing the worst impacts of climate change have
virtually no voice in western debates about whether to do anything serious to
prevent catastrophic global warming. Huge climate summits like the one coming up in Paris are rare exceptions. For just two
weeks every few years, the voices of the people who are getting hit first and
worst get a little bit of space to be heard at the place where fateful
decisions are made. That’s why Pacific islanders and Inuit hunters and
low-income people of colour from places like New Orleans travel for thousands
of miles to attend. The expense is enormous, in both dollars and carbon, but
being at the summit is a precious chance to speak about climate
 in moral terms and to put a human face to this unfolding

The next thing to
understand is that even in these rare moments, frontline voices do not
have enough of a platform in the official climate meetings, in which the
microphone is dominated by governments and large, well-funded green groups. The
voices of ordinary people are primarily heard in grassroots gatherings parallel
to the summit, as well as in marches and protests, which in turn attract media
coverage. Now the French government has decided to take away the loudest of
these megaphones, claiming that securing marches would compromise its ability
to secure the official summit zone where politicians will meet.

Once again, the
message is: our security is non-negotiable, yours is up for grabs
Some say this is all
fair game against the backdrop of terror. But a UN climate summit is not like a
meeting of the G8 or the World Trade Organisation, where the powerful meet and
the powerless try to crash their party. Parallel “civil society” events are not
an addendum to, or distractions from, the main event. They are integral to the
process. Which is why the French government should never have been allowed to
decide which parts of the summit it would cancel and which it would still hold.
Rather, after
the horrific
attacks of 13 November
, it needed to determine whether it had the will and
capacity to host the whole summit – with full participation from civil society,
including in the streets. If it could not, it should have delayed and asked
another country to step in. Instead the Hollande government has made a series
of decisions that reflect a very particular set of values and priorities about
who and what will get the full security protection of the state. Yes to world
leaders, football matches and Christmas markets; no to climate marches and
protests pointing out that the negotiations, with the current level of emission
targets, endanger the lives and livelihoods of millions if not billions of

And who knows where
this will end? Should we expect the UN to arbitrarily revoke the credentials of
half the civil society participants? Those most likely to make trouble inside
the fortressed summit? I would not be at all surprised.

Call climate
change what it is: violence
Rebecca Solnit

It is worth thinking
about what the decision to cancel marches and protests means in real, as
well as symbolic, terms. Climate change is
a moral crisis because every time governments of wealthy nations fail
to act, it sends a message that we in the global north are putting our
immediate comfort and economic security ahead of the suffering and survival of
some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. The decision to ban
the most important spaces where the voices of climate-impacted people would
have been heard is a dramatic expression of this profoundly unethical abuse of
power: once again, a wealthy western country is putting security for elites
ahead of the interests of those fighting for survival. Once again, the message
is: our security is non-negotiable, yours is up for grabs.

One further thought. I
write these words from Stockholm, where I have been doing a series of
climate-related public events. When I arrived, the press was having a
field day with a tweet sent by Sweden’s environment minister, Åsa Romson.
Shortly after news broke of the attacks in Paris, she tweeted her outrage and
sadness at the loss of life. Then she tweeted that she thought it would be bad
news for the climate summit, a thought that occurred to everyone I know who is
in any way connected to this environmental moment. Yet she was pilloried for
her supposed insensitivity – how could she be thinking about climate change at
a time of such carnage?

The reaction was
revealing, since it took for granted the notion that climate change is a minor
issue, a cause without real casualties, frivolous even. Especially when serious
issues like war and terrorism are taking centre stage. It made me think about
something the writer Rebecca Solnit wrote not long ago: “climate change is

‘Our melting,
shifting, liquid world’: celebrities read poems on climate change
Read more

It is. Some of the
violence is grindingly slow: rising seas that gradually erase whole nations,
and droughts that kill many thousands. Some of the violence is terrifyingly
fast: storms with names such as Katrina and Haiyan that
steal thousands of lives in a single roiling event. When governments and
corporations knowingly fail to act to prevent catastrophic warming, that is an
act of violence. It is a violence so large, so global and inflicted against so
many temporalities simultaneously (ancient cultures, present lives, future
potential) that there is not yet a word capable of containing its
monstrousness. And using acts of violence to silence the voices of those who are
most vulnerable to climate violence is yet more violence. 

In explaining why
forthcoming football matches would go on as scheduled, France’s secretary of
state for sport said: “Life must go on.” Indeed it must. That’s why I joined the climate
justice movement. Because when governments and corporations fail to act in a
way that reflects the value of all of life on Earth, they must be

“Private sector contracts Our [Serco] private sector business has
secured a number of contract extensions with customers in the UK and Europe.

The contracts, which run for periods of three to eight years, have a total
value of £34m. They include a five-year extension of a contract valued at over
£8m with RWE Npower to provide integrated facilities management services at
Didcot Power Station and an expanded contract with Starwood Group to provide a
range of support services to
[elite Fabian guests at ] hotels in the Group.
This expansion, which has a three-year term and is valued at £3.6m, includes
the provision of buildings maintenance and security, engineering support and help desk

“When Marriott International’s  [$12.2 billion bid for Starwood
Hotels and Resorts Worldwide
 was announced on Monday morning,
investors and analysts were surprised.
It was not the sale
itself — 
Starwood, whose brands include Westin, W and Sheraton, had effectively put
itself up for sale in late April — but that the buyer was 

Of all the rumored
suitors — 
Hyatt Hotels Corporation, InterContinental Hotels Group and a few
Chinese companies — Marriott had not been seen as being in the mix. On
Marriott’s earnings 
call on April 30,
the company’s chief executive, Arne Sorenson, waved off a question about a
combination, saying it was inconsistent with its previous acquisition strategy.”

“On a
mission in Mexico City, unofficially ordered by the 
previous M by way of a posthumous
message, James Bond kills two men arranging to blow up
a stadium and gives chase to Marco Sciarra, an assassin who survived the
In the ensuing struggle,
Bond kills Sciarra and steals his ring, which is emblazoned with a stylised
octopus. On his return to London Bond is indefinitely suspended from field duty
by the 
current M, who is in the midst of a power struggle
with C, the head of the 
privately-backed [Serco] Joint Intelligence Service,
which consists of the recently merged 
MI5 and MI6.
C also campaigns for Britain to join
“Nine Eyes”, a global surveillance and intelligence co-operation
initiative between nine member states
[Five Eyes + BRIC]. C uses his influence
to close down the 
’00’ section, believing it to be outdated.”

“Project Overview:
Since 2008, Serco has
assisted DAC with the analysis, design, development, implementation,
management/ administration, and evaluation of integrated, enterprise-wide and
component-specific training, learning, knowledge management, and strategic
human resource management interventions that are critical to achieving their
mission. Serco holds an OPM TMA TO with DAC and also a contract through GSA
Millenia Lite. When the GSA contract could not support all of DACs needs, Serco
recommended the use of the OPM TMA vehicle. Through these contracts, Serco
provides training program management support to deliver multi-faceted best
practice solutions in training development and delivery, knowledge management,
portal technologies, course conversions (ILT and CBT to WBT), mobile
performance applications, and Learning Management Systems support. Serco
applies the ADDIE model to all course development activities including ILT,
WBT, and leading-edge technologies including mobile performance applications.
Serco provided LMS support and also developed and continues to manage DAC’s Ammunition
Community of Excellence.
Types of Solutions

Serco converted DAC
curriculum from predominantly ILT to a blended training environment that
provided DL, ILT support, continuous performance support through a CoP, and
mobile application tools for approximately 110,000 students annually. To date,
Serco has worked with DAC to grow their online curriculum to more than 60
courses representing approximately 240 hours of training. Serco assisted DAC in
migrating to the mandated Army Learning Management System (ALMS) in less than
six months. Serco also provides ongoing support for the identification of new
DL courses while maintaining and updating the spectrum of existing courses. On
the ILT front, Serco provides design support and, when required, additional
facilitator/instructor support for several courses.
The CoP provides a
repository of relevant materials, a forum for collaborative sharing of
information, and an “Ask an Expert” capability for soldiers to receive answers
to their questions from qualified DAC resources. The CoP enjoys more than
10,000 active members and has received numerous accolades from appreciative

Most recently, Serco proposed the inclusion of mobile application tools
and games to reinforce training and provide continuous
and “in the field” performance support
. To date, Serco has developed
six mobile apps which have been distributed for both the iOS (Apple App Store)
and Android (Google Play) environments. Together, these apps have reached over
15,000 soldiers and have allowed DAC to become a center of excellence in this
burgeoning training environment.”

“Al Gore Suspends 24-Hour Climate Concert Event in Wake of Paris Attacks
 NOVEMBER 13, 2015 | 05:29PM PT
Senior Editor@tedstew
In the wake of the
terrorist attacks in Paris, former Vice President 
 suspended a 24-hour
climate change webcast, based in the city, which started on Friday.

The webcast,
24 Hours of Reality and
Live Earth
, started at 9 a.m. PT
and was scheduled to end at 9 a.m. on Saturday. Gore anchored from a studio set
up at the foot of the Eiffel Tower, but went live to express his condolences.

“Out of solidarity
with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our
broadcast of 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth,” he said. “Our thoughts are
with all who have been affected and the entire nation of France. We send our
condolences to the families of those who have been killed or injured.”

Among those who
performed during the webcast were 
, who performed just outside
the Eiffel Tower at about 6:30 p.m. Paris time. The band returned to London later in the evening. “All safe,”
on Twitter

The 24-hour webcast
was set to feature artists, entertainers and climate experts as a prelude to
the upcoming Nov. 30 United Nations Conference on Climate Change. Others
scheduled on the bill included Bon Jovi, Elton John and Pharrell Williams.

Pray for Paris,”
Williams posted on 

“French Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror Attacks
Global Research,
November 15, 2015
Paul Craig Roberts 16 November 2015
I have received a
report from European security that there was a massive cyber attack on French
systems 48 hours prior to and during the Paris attacks.

Amongst other things,
the attack took down the French mobile data network and blinded
police surveillance. The attack was not a straightforward DDOS attack but
a sophisticated attack that targeted a weakness in infrastructure hardware.

Such an attack is
beyond the capability of most organizations and requires capability that is
unlikely to be in ISIL’s arsenal. An attack on this scale is difficult to pull
off without authorities getting wind of it. The coordination required suggests
state involvement.

It is common for
people with no experience in government to believe that false flag attacks are
not possible, because they think the entire government would have to be
involved and not everyone would go along with it. Someone would talk. However,
if the report I have received is correct, hardly anyone has to be involved, and
security forces are simply disabled.

Remember the reports
that during 9/11, a simulation of the actual events that were occuring was
being conducted, thus confusing responsible parties about the reality.
I am unable to reveal
any further information.

If security experts
find the information credible, they should direct their inquiries to the French

Dr. Paul Craig
Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and
associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business
Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many
university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide
following. Roberts’ latest books are
The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and
Economic Dissolution of the West
 and How America Was Lost.
The original source of
this article is 
Paul Craig Roberts

are the Nine Eyes in Spectre (James Bond 24)?
Spoiler Alert : in the
2015 James Bond film, Spectre, there is mention of a new intelligence
organisation that they’re setting up called Nine Eyes.

What organisations or nations would have been involved ? (Couldn’t work it out
during film)

1 Answer [Wrong]
Graeme Shimmin, I write Bond-influenced novels and so
have researched them all.
Views • 
Graeme is a Most Viewed Writer in James Bond 007 (creative
 with6 endorsements.
It’s not an organisation,
it’s an intelligence-gathering alliance named for its real world counterpart
the Five Eyes*

The Five Eyes comprise the main English-speaking countries who have been
interoperating in intelligence-gathering since World War Two.
New Zealand
In real life, there’s
also two looser intelligence-sharing alliances:

The Nine Eyes: The Five Eyes plus Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and

The Fourteen Eyes: The two above groups plus Germany, Sweden, Belgium,
Spain, and Italy

It is clearly established in Spectre that South Africa is one of the
countries in the Nine Eyes group (as it vetoes its creation) [China is also in
the presentation by “C”]. Which perhaps implies that it’s an alliance of
English-speaking countries. But the meeting is in Japan, which perhaps implies
it’s an alliance of the G8+South Africa (for some reason).

In the end I think it’s unclear exactly who is in – but the implication of the
conversations the characters have is that the Nine Eyes will have total surveillance
of the entire world, which the Five Eyes already has in theory – the countries
of the alliance have responsibility for surveillance throughout the
world, it’s not like they’re listening to everything.

8(a) Business Development Program[edit] 
The 8(a) Business Development Program [controlled through Serco protégée Base
One Technologies and Clinton server] assists in the development of small
businesses owned and operated by individuals who are socially and economically
disadvantaged, such as women and minorities. The following ethnic
groups are classified as eligible: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans;
Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians);
Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan [Mineta interned in WWII], China
(including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The
Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau),
Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga,
Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins
from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands
or Nepal). In 2011, the SBA, along with the FBI and the IRS, uncovered a
massive scheme to defraud this program. Civilian employees of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, working in concert with an employee of Alaska Native
Corporation Eyak Technology LLC allegedly submitted fraudulent bills to the
program, totaling over 20 million dollars, and kept the money for their own
use.[26] It also alleged that the group planned to steer a further 780 million
dollars towards their favored contractor.[27]”

Canada 2020 and the New Malthusian Takeover
of Canada

Matthew Ehret / March 12, 2014
By Matthew Ehret-Kump
Today, the Canadian political landscape is being remoulded by a grouping of
British agents who seek to accomplish an overhaul of the Liberal Party
structure in line with the reform conducted 54 years ago with the British-run
ouster of the “continentalist” liberals of C.D. Howe and Prime
Minister St. Laurent during the interim period of 1957-1963.

This 1957-1963 destruction of the once pro-development spirit of the Liberal
Party of Canada was replaced by a Fabian Society/Rhodes Scholar-run
instrument of technocratic fascism culminating in the 1968-72 revolution in
cybernetic affairs early on in the mandate of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. This
federal “Quiet Revolution” put a complete halt to scientific and
technological progress and ushered in the green destruction of the
pro-development orientation that had hitherto dominated top down policy making
and mass popular consciousness in Canada and replaced it with a new
oligarchical system of control in government based on Trudeau’s commitment to
Cybernetics and Systems Analysis. In fact, as Julian Huxley outlined over 20
years earlier, Cybernetics and Systems Analysis-thinking would be the tools
selected to repackage “Eugenics” and “Malthusianism” under
new names.”

Yours sincerely,

Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year
airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307

David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well
blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation

690 Total Views 1 Views Today
Please follow and like us:

Related Post