Sunday, November 22, 2015

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Still trending in the world wide web via the social networking sites are the Paris attacks and then the attack in Mali. Although some pundits believe that the two recent attacks are not related, just the same the world is now being terrorized and the latest attacks are sowing fear globally. Especially when reports of possible more terrorists attacks in different parts of the world are on the internet.

Actually, it is through the internet that netizens are becoming more aware of what is really going on especially if one will visit websites of patriotic citizens of the world through their blog or as writers of progressive websites, and fortunately there are many such sites that one can access with ease. Thinking public should not rely much on mainstream media and must be critical enough in analyzing reports.

One such analysis came from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts through his intriguing set of questions about the Paris attacks. "Most pundits believe that the Paris attack is the same as the terror attack in mainland USA in September 11, 2001 and they call it '9/11 French style'. And when we mention 9/11, it is a false flag operation."

Then the perennial question – who benefits? And if most Americans believed that 9/11 was an inside job, what then is the Paris attack? Who gave the funds to the ISIS/ISIL terror group? Who wrote the script? In other words, who is pulling the strings?

Here is one answer posted at Nov. 16 by Arjun Walia – “On more than one occasion, Russian President Vladamir Putin has revealed information that Western media won’t air. Two months ago he provided information illustrating that ISIS is funded by the West, and now he is making more noise at the G20 summit that’s currently taking place in Turkey, where he has supposedly shared intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues."

As RT News reports:

[During the summit] "I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them."

He also voiced his concern regarding the illegal oil trade by IS, stating that he has seen photos taken from space and from aircraft that demonstrated the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products.

I’d also like to mention that I am aware that RT news is sponsored by Russia and misconstrued as counter propaganda, but the fact remains that Putin has said that Western nations are funding ISIS before. Here is one of multiple examples.

At the summit he also stated that:

“The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000  to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon. “

"Again, it’s not the first time Putin has stressed that people who are going after ISIS and invading other countries (U.S. and their allies) are the very same people who funded and created ISIS in the first place.”

And here is what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has to say – “Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting to note that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims. In past years on several occasions, I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrorists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat free as birds.

How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has been very supportive of the Palestinian statehood was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?

With the Paris terror attacks, what was impossible became possible, and the President of France immediately announced the closing of France’s borders. The border closings will spread. The main issue of the rising dissident political parties will be defused. The EU will be safe, and so will Washington’s sovereignty over Europe.

Whether or not the Paris attacks were a false flag operation for the purpose of obtaining these results, these results are the consequences of the attacks. It is believed that these results to serve the interests of the European political establishment and Washington.

Is ISIL so unsophisticated not to have realized that? If ISIL is that unsophisticated, how did ISIL so easily deceive French intelligence?

Can westerners be intelligent to fall for a story set in stone prior to any evidence? In the West, it is perceived that facts are created by self-serving statements from governments. Investigation is not part of the process. When 90 percent of the US media is owned by six mega-corporations, it cannot be any different.

As the matrix grows in the absurdity of its claims, it nevertheless manages to become even more invulnerable.” (Posted Nov. 14, 2015)

Former FBI whistleblower, author, Sibel Edmonds in her interview by Sophie Shevardnadze of Sophie&Co at in October 13, 2014, more than a year ago:

Sophie Shevardnadze: So what you’re saying basically is that it was expected for ISIS to turn into something so powerful, into a powerful group, but they are not just admitting to it?

Sibel Edmonds: To answer the question briefly, the ISIS is what the U.S. media and the propaganda creators behind the media decided to create. I mean, tomorrow or 3 months from now we will start hearing another name, that we’ve never heard of, and within a month they can make that the world’s greatest or the most dangerous threat. And, again, that is the main concept here, and I know the Western media, U.S. media, they have been playing it as such, but they did exactly the same thing with Al-Qaeda. I mean, Al-Qaeda was hundred people, or 100,000 people, or ten million people… Another interesting perspective in this is that I referred to the brand-change, and sometimes you have to switch the brand for the marketing purposes – with ISIS as you can look at and see from the term, from the name now, the brand created, the Western powers have gotten closer to just name and link the entire global terrorism to Islam, and that’s another marketing strategy by the U.S., NATO and main Western countries.” (

There are still a lot of perspectives coming from different analysis from various observers and experts alike but one thing for sure, the design for the next world war has started just like in the past, one false flag op can lead to a world war. This one is worst – it’s the perpetual war on terror on a global scale. The goal? To sustain the perpetual war machine designed and managed by the globalists.

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

Once again the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition against the Philippines' Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US was deferred November 16. It was reset to December 16 or thereafter.

It was reported at Manila Times (November 8) that “the Supreme Court (SC) is poised to declare the controversial Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States constitutional, according to unimpeachable sources.

The Manila Times has gathered from several sources that an 82-page draft decision upholding the constitutionality of the defense agreement had been circulated among the 14 magistrates. The ponente of the case is Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

In her draft decision, Sereno said EDCA is “not constitutionally infirm,” the sources told the Manila Times. According to the decision, President Benigno Aquino III, as head of the executive department, has the power to sign agreement on matters of foreign affairs and national security.

An overwhelming majority of the justices are inclined to agree with Sereno since no dissenting opinion had been issued.

Some of the justices who do not see eye to eye with the Chief Justice, however, are waiting for a magistrate to issue a separate opinion concurring with the constitutionality of EDCA and they will favor that opinion so that Sereno will not gain credit from President Aquino because she is the ponente of the case.

A source said CJ Sereno circulated her draft decision days before the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to please Malacañang and gain 'pogi' points [credit] from the President. The EDCA decision is seen to be the Philippines’ “gift” to US President Barack Obama, who will be flying this week in Manila to attend the APEC summit scheduled from November 17 to 19.”

What went wrong (or right)? Well, the Senate did the right thing through Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago together with the other 14 senators, adopted Sen. Santiago’s resolution expressing the strong sense of the Senate that, absent their concurrence, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is a treaty prohibited under the Constitution.

Beside Santiago, those who voted in favor of the resolution were Senators Sonny Angara, Nancy Binay, JV Ejercito, Chiz Escudero, TG Guingona, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Serge Osmeña, Koko Pimentel, Grace Poe, Ralph Recto, and Cynthia Villar. The 15th vote came from Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was not at the session hall during the vote, but later manifested that she is voting in the affirmative.

Plenary approval formalizes Senate Resolution No. 1414 as the Senate’s position on the question of the validity and effectivity of the EDCA. Only Sen. Sonny Trillanes voted against the resolution, deferring to the Supreme Court. Under the same premise, Senate President Frank Drilon and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile abstained. Sen. Bam Aquino, who was not in session during the vote, later manifested his abstention.

In her sponsorship speech, Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations, argued that the EDCA “belongs to the category of prohibited treaty. Namely, it is a treaty of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities without the concurrence of the Senate.”

Santiago, the foremost constitutional expert in the Senate, insisted that “other than concurrence of the Senate, no authority expressly transforms a treaty into law.” She cited the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, Article 7, Section 21, which states that:

"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."

The senator added that the need for Senate concurrence was made an integral part of the nature of a special kind of treaty—that which involves “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities”—by the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25:

.… foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.… and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. (Emphasis added)

Santiago said the EDCA falls under this prohibition, as it had substantive provisions on the establishment, location, stationing of the U.S. military forces and storage of military facilities in Philippine territory.

“That such a prohibited ‘treaty’ has been concluded by the Executive Department as an executive agreement testifies to its inherently prohibitory nature under the Constitution,” the senator added.

She further claimed that the prohibitory character of Article 18, Section 25 trumps Article 8, Section 4(2), which Macalañang used to defend the EDCA as an executive agreement. The Constitution, Article 8, Section 4(2), states that:

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc…. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

“On the remote assumption that this provision may be applicable to a case involving the constitutionality of a treaty or executive agreement, it must exclude from its applicability the prohibited treaty as described in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25,” Santiago said. These articles of our constitution are legal matters that are all binding.9

The Senate statement on EDCA comes a week before U.S. President Barack Obama’s expected arrival in the Philippines for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meet.

The senator added that she hopes the Supreme Court, to which she sent a copy of the proposed resolution in June, will consider the strong statement from the Senate “with decisive concern.”

Need we say more? Our congratulations to Sen. Santiago! Hoping that the SC decision come December will favor the Senate and let the Senate of the Philippines deliberate on the EDCA.

It's not the Americans fault per se but we really have to deal with them in a position of strength and level the playing field. Our colonial mentality should be redirected once and for all to get what's due us.

Monday, November 9, 2015

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

Yes–China Is A Threat to U.S. Interests by Matt Vespa posted at last  November 6. Vespa stated that “Over the past couple of years, China has built several man-made islands near the Spratly archipelago to prevent any challenges to China’s sovereignty in the region (via the Diplomat):

"The United States and China are hurtling toward a showdown over Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea. The U.S. Navy is poised to sail near seven artificial islands China constructed in the Spratly archipelago over the past two years as a means to challenge any excessive or illegitimate Chinese sovereignty claims there."

In Beijing, meanwhile, opposition to U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) around the artificial islands is hardening, as evidenced by the threat China’s state-run Xinhua news agency issued last week:

"America’s provocative attempt to infringe on China’s South China Sea sovereignty are sabotaging regional peace and stability and militarizing the waters…China will never tolerate any military provocation or infringement on sovereignty from the United States or any other country, just as the United States refused it 53 years ago [during the Cuban Missile Crisis]."

This Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) issue was answered by China’s President Xi Jinping  in a promise to safeguard freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, where tensions have flared due to overlapping claims and the US Navy’s move to challenge Beijing’s massive island building.

Speaking at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, China's President Xi said there has never been any problem with freedom of navigation and overflight, “nor will there ever be in the future.”

He said China need unimpeded passage through the waters more than anyone else.

“We have absolute confidence and capability in maintaining the peace and stability. This can be done through negotiations and the establishment of reasonable maritime rights,” Xi added.

China criticized last week’s patrol of the USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, within the 12-nautical-mile (22-kilometer) territorial limit of Subi Reef, one of the South China Sea features that have been claimed, expanded and reinforced by China over objections of other claimants, particularly the Philippines.

The US Navy said it wanted to demonstrate the principle of freedom of navigation.

China has called it a “deliberate provocation,” and sent two warships to shadow the US vessel and issued warnings. Although China labeled the action illegal, international law allowed warships to transit other countries’ territorial seas under the principle of “innocent passage.” (AP posted at

It would be an endless issue until China gives in from what they claimed as undisputed sovereignty over territories as per historical ‘facts’ according to their history books. Otherwise other claimants  have the right to their claim based on international law.

A very hot and controversial issue that will go down in history and could span over several administrations which was suggested by Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, that the country’s dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea should be made an election issue, with each presidential candidate obliged to make public his or her stand. And that the question will be “if elected president, ‘will you withdraw the case, if it’s still pending’?” he said.

Methinks that our ‘relationship’ with Uncle Sam should be included also as one of the election issues. The pending passage of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) should be tackled and the next set of leaders must give their stand on giving up our military bases as forward bases by the US military troops as hundreds of US soldiers will be based here on rotational basis in line with Obama’s pivot to Asia soon.

If China will continue to threaten the region as per the American view, our next leaders must give their clear foreign policy and not just rely on day to day band-aid solution to any eventuality that will come our way as a sovereign nation.

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Word War: Laying the Predicate by Erick San Juan

Word War: Laying the Predicate by Erick San Juan

Maintaining peace and stability in the world’s busiest sea lane, the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, is once again put to a test on how the G2 (China and US) could manage to keep the region peaceful. After the US destroyer USS Lassen (sail-past) entered what China claims as a 12-mile or 21-kilometer territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, a group of reefs, islets, and atolls, word war has started again.

According to reports, China's naval commander told his U.S. counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States will not stop its "provocative acts" in the disputed waterway, the Chinese navy said on Friday.

Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.

The two officers held talks after a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing's man-made islands in the contested Spratly archipelago on Tuesday.

China has rebuked Washington over the patrol, the most significant U.S. challenge yet to territorial limits China effectively claims around its seven artificial islands in one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

"If the United States continues with these kind of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war," the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.

"I hope the U.S. side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and U.S. navies that has not come easily and avoids these kind of incidents from happening again," Wu said. (Reuters)

China has been reminding the US and the rest of the world that any miscalculation can trigger a conflict in the South China Sea and will surely drag other countries as alliances are already in place. Just like in the past world wars where allies are used as cannon fodders and worst, being short changed in the end.

Sounds familiar? We had our bitter share of history and loss of precious lives should be the top consideration if ever history be repeated. I have been reminding our leaders to be wise enough and stop kowtowing to a perceived master to avoid a one way ticket to hell.

There is no point to ever rely on the US military to defend us if ever our country will be confronted by an external force especially China on the issue of sovereignty over disputed areas.

According to a statement posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry website, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said, “The Chinese side strongly urges the American side to take China’s solemn representations seriously, put right the mistakes, refrain from any dangerous or provocative actions detrimental to China’s sovereignty and security interests, and honor its commitment of not taking sides on disputes over territorial sovereignty so as to avoid any further damage to China-US relations and regional peace and stability.”

It is very clear here that the US has committed to China  and  it will not take sides in the territorial disputes so 'WTF' that our leaders are still hallucinating that Uncle Sam will come to the rescue if ever China attacks us?

Pundits believe that this 'moro-moro' ( secret arrangement to justify a scenario) between US and China are all for a show and that the operation being done in the SCS is just a bait to drag us into a conflict with China. Of course we will not win, presto, a long time secret plan that China will take Luzon and parts of the south where minerals are in abundance as prelude in retaking Taiwan.

The mere fact that the so-called military modernization being pushed by the Aquino government only boils down to buying more vintage and museum grade military hardware from the US.

Such posturing lead to militarization and the threatened Chinese will retaliate but it is actually a proxy war. Will our defeat be the payment for all the US debt to China?  A scenario that is not farfetched if we know how the great Big Brother works.

We have to wake up and confront this sweet dream-turning into nightmare posturing of Uncle Sam or we will be doomed without us knowing what hit us.