Would Class-Based Admissions Be Better?

0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/would_class-based_admissions_be_better_20130625/

Posted on Jun 25, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

‘Daily Mail’ columnist: Rihanna ‘invites rape’

2

Real News Now

A female columnist for British newspaper the Dail Mail has suggested that if singer Rihanna becomes the victim of sexual violence then she deserves it because her fashion sense “surely invites rape.”

In a Monday column, Liz Jones argues that Rihanna – who experienced a violent beating at the hands of then-boyfriend Chris Brown in 2009 – is setting a bad example for younger fans by promoting a culture of drugs, sex and violence.

“Her collection – while undoubtedly racy enough to raise a few parental eyebrows, with hot pants and crop tops – just about erred on the side of decency,” Jones writes. “Yet those same parents will have been horrified by the pictures which emerged this week of the 25-year-old Barbadian-born star. Photographed with two giant, phallic spliffs in her red-lipsticked mouth, Rihanna posted the picture on Twitter for her 30 million followers to enjoy.”

“Most of these ‘followers’, of course, are young girls,” she continues. “They writhe and pout along to her suggestive lyrics in a disturbing mimicry of adult sexuality.”

Jones admits that Rihanna “has he voice of an angel and is self-made, feisty and confident,” but “these qualities pale to nothing when we know she went back to her abusive boyfriend, Chris Brown, who pleaded guilty to assaulting her in 2009; that she promotes drug-taking, drinking and the sort of fashion sense on stage that surely invites rape at worst, disrespect at least.”

Read more

Critics: Obama's Plan Fails Urgency Climate Crisis Demands

0

At a Tuesday George Washington University speech on climate change, President Obama is feeling the heat (Photo: Charles Dharapak/The Associated Press)Environmentalists warn that President Obama’s ‘climate plan‘–announced Tuesday in a speech at Georgetown University–does not contain the urgency required by the fast-spiraling crisis of global warming and climate change and that though some aspects were welcome, the overall approach falls well short of what’s needed.

The plan hinges on Obama’s claim that he plans to use his presidential powers to override a Congress under ‘partisan deadlock’ and order the Environmental Protection Agency to impose carbon emissions limits on current and new power plants.

Though many of the large green groups in the US praised the push for tighter regulation on coal plants by the EPA, critics say Obama’s plan is unclear about exactly how strict these regulations will be. As an example, the president’s plan says that the EPA must be “flexible” to states’ needs, a vague directive that critics charge provides rhetorical cover for further inaction.

Furthermore, critics charge that “new” power plant regulations are hardly groundbreaking or far-reaching enough to meet the demands of the crisis. The 2007 Clean Air Act already empowered the EPA to regulate emissions for new facilities, and yet this has done little to reign in power plant emissions, which account for approximately 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

The president’s only new step on this front is to propose regulations for existing plants, but critics worry that an administration that has dragged its feet so far will not make the necessary headway.

“He promised today to do something, but there is zero guarantee that he will follow through,” declared Bill Snape, senior counsel to the Center for Biological Diversity. “In reality there are so many industrial sources that need to be regulated, and the administration has been moving very slowly on all of them. It is wise to not fall prey to the flowery rhetoric. You have to really specifically look at concrete action.”

Friends of the Earth, though it welcomed aspects of the Obama approach but said it was not the “broad, ambitious plan that is needed to combat climate change and extreme weather,” but rather a more tepid “series of actions” joined by flowery rhetoric.

“A sensible climate plan,” said Damon Moglen, climate and energy program director of Friends of the Earth, “would include a renunciation of the president’s “all of the above” energy strategy, which promotes biofuels, so-called clean coal, natural gas and dirty and dangerous nuclear power.”

“In order to address climate change,” he continued, “the president needs to focus on the ambitious development of renewable energy, energy storage and efficiency technologies while setting us on a path which clearly leaves behind the fossil fuel-based energy economy of the 20th century.”

And Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen agreed, saying that though Obama’s speech contained laudable elements there was too much that in the plan that would be “counterproductive.”

The important critique, Weissman said, was this:

Catastrophic climate change poses a near-existential threat to humanity. We need a national mobilization — and indeed a worldwide mobilization — to transform rapidly from our fossil fuel-reliant past and present to a clean energy future. We need a sense of urgency — indeed, emergency — massive investments, tough and specific standards and binding rules. Those elements, sadly, are missing from the president’s plan.

A sensible climate plan would include a renunciation of the president’s “all of the above” energy strategy, which promotes biofuels, so-called clean coal, natural gas and dirty and dangerous nuclear power. In order to address climate change, the president needs to focus on the ambitious development of renewable energy, energy storage and efficiency technologies while setting us on a path which clearly leaves behind the fossil fuel-based energy economy of the 20th century. – See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan#sthash.kuzIgVkf.dpuf

he broad, ambitious plan that is needed to combat climate change and extreme weather. – See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan#sthash.kuzIgVkf.dpuf

he broad, ambitious plan that is needed to combat climate change and extreme weather. – See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan#sthash.kuzIgVkf.dpuf

he broad, ambitious plan that is needed to combat climate change and extreme weather. – See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan#sthash.kuzIgVkf.dpuf

he broad, ambitious plan that is needed to combat climate change and extreme weather. – See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan#sthash.kuzIgVkf.dpuf

On the issue of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Obame remained nearly silent. He declared that the Administration would only move forward if it determines the pipeline is ‘in our national interest’ but did not respond to widespread demands that the project immediately halt.

The president plans to vigorously pursue nuclear energy, he states in his official climate plan. Greenpeace activists have previously slammed an approach that they say embraces unsafe energy while escalating global nuclear buildup. Greenpeace USA’s Executive Director Phil Radford declared at a previous presidential speech:

President Obama’s energy policy has already been riddled with disasters, so it’s astounding that he would encourage even greater dependence on dangerous energy sources like oil drilling and nuclear power at a time when the risks have been made all too clear. For the millions of Americans put at risk by the inherent dangers of nuclear power, or those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the Gulf oil disaster, more of the same is hardly the path toward ‘Energy Security.’ True leadership in the face of these disasters would mean setting out an energy plan that would move us away from our dependence on fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power and instead harnessing abundant, safe and clean renewable energy.

President Obama declared that the United States must be a ‘global leader’ and work with the private industry to curb the carbon emissions of ‘developing’ nations. This is despite the fact that the Global North, with only 15 percent of the world’s population, accounts for 70 percent of greenhouse gases, and the U.S. is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the world.

The president announced that he will stop providing federal dollars to build foreign coal-powered plants, unless they are ‘clean’ coal plants, or unless that country has no other viable energy option.

Furthermore, he stated his intentions to expand natural gas use, including the controversial and highly polluting drilling practice known as fracking.

The president appeared to embrace the role of private industry in curbing environmental disaster, praising large multinationals including WalMart and General Motors for ‘voluntarily’ decreasing their carbon emissions.

While many environmental groups expressed skepticism that the president’s plan will bring about real change, they praised broad, global social movements for pushing the debate even this far.

“We’re happy to see the president finally addressing climate change but the plain truth is that what he’s proposing isn’t big enough, and doesn’t move fast enough, to match the terrifying magnitude of the climate crisis,” said Snape.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Nader's Hope for 2016: An "Enlightened" Billionaire with Progressive Vision

0

Ralph Nader has no plans to run himself in 2016, but he has very clear ideas about the kind of candidate he would–and who he definitely wouldn’t–like to see in the next US presidential contest.

Hillary Clinton “never saw a war she didn’t like” said Ralph Nader. (Image: Screenshot) The ideal candidate for Nader: A wealthy, progressive and courageous individual who can buck the traditional scramble for corporate dollars while running on a more visionary platform that puts the concerns of people and the planet above that of private wealth and elite interests.

“Nothing succeeds like failure, when you’re servicing the power structure,” said Nader in an interview with Politico’s Patrick Gavin published on Tuesday, explaining this as the powerful lesson he’s learned after more than nearly half a century as a consumer advocate and political activist.

The conservation centers around Nader’s new book, Told You So, which explores why those who defend the public interest have consistently been defeated by corporate power since before the Reagan era and how that trend has continued up and through the disappointment of the current Obama presidency.

“Nothing succeeds like failure, when you’re servicing the power structure.” -Ralph Nader

Following on this argument, says Nader, is that what the country needs now is not another pro-corporate Republican or the predictive Democrat Hillary Clinton to lead it out of this dark period, but “fresh energy” and a new, truly progressive vision for the future.

From the Iraq War to the financial collapse of 2008, says Nader, those who got it all wrong–including Clinton in many respects–have been rewarded with million-dollar book deals and high-level appointments as those progressives who consistently and accurately predicted disaster can barely get a spot on the public radio shows.

Watch the interview:

Asked about Clinton as the possible next president, Nader was firm and explicit in his opposition.

Hillary Clinton, Nader told Gavin, is not his idea of a progressive candidate. The former first lady and New York Senator who lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 election but then served as his Secretary of State, said Nader, “Never saw a war she didn’t like, never saw a weapons system she didn’t like, never challenged the Pentagon when she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

“Do we really need a dynasty now?” he asked. “We’ve had twelve years of the Bushes, what – do you want eight more years of the Clintons? Do we really want a redux here or do we want fresh energy and redirection?”

Progressives are almost always right (but ignored)

That’s the unsubtle thrust of the new book, Told You So: The Book of Weekly Columns.

The book, a collection of Nader articles dating from the early 1970s and running through late 2011, is designed to show that time and time again over the last several decades how Nader and those who agreed with him on numerous domestic and foreign policy issues were correct in their predictions and warnings as the nation lurched ever to the right as the corporate stranglehold on elected officials and the nation’s democratic safeguards tightened.

As fellow progressive columnist and activist Jim Hightower writes in the book’s introduction, Nader has been out in front on nearly every big issue since he began his work as a public advocate in the 1960s, including “product safety, environmental justice, workers rights, fair trade, Wall Street greed, money in politics, war crimes, healthcare for all, whistleblower protection, Pentagon bloat, government secrecy, green energy, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Food-–you name it.”

In the interview with Politco, Nader addresses the book’s central theme of progress “vindication” regarding past issues, but also looks forward with a special emphasis on what he believes needs to be done in the US politically before 2016.

Though Nader makes an (almost) assurance that he has no intention of running again for president, he says he is making active plans to encourage others to take on what he calls the “duopoly” of power represented by the dominant Democrat and Republican parties.

Nader told Politico that he doesn’t think it necessary for the right candidate to run as a third party candidate, but says money remains the key obstacle when it comes to election politics for progressives.

He says he wants a progressive-minded, “enlightened” billionaire to take up the charge to “break up this insipid, dull trist where the two parties are dialing for the same dollars.”

“I’m going to find at least ten enlightened billionaires or multi-billionaires,” Nader said, “and I’m going to have a criteria. Have they spoken out about where they think the country is going? And are they worried about it? And have they done things reflecting some sort of civic enlightenment and courage? And are they able to communicate? Obviously, they have the money. And I’m going to encourage them to run.”

_____________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Survey Shows Americans on the Financial Brink

0

Photo: Chris Devers/cc/flickrResults of a new survey show just how close to the financial edge the majority of Americans are.

76% of respondents don’t have enough savings to cover six months of expenses in case of an emergency, financial news site Bankrate.com reported Monday its monthly survey which forms its Financial Security Index.

27% of the respondents reported having no emergency savings at all.

In terms of comfort level of savings, the findings show that those who feel less comfortable outnumber those who feel more comfortable two to one.

With millions of Americans lacking healthcare, the chance that a health emergency could wipe out any possible savings and bring financial catastrophe may seem all too real. Even with some level of healthcare coverage, exorbitant costs can crush any savings, or force people to add to credit card debt.

Also, a report this month from the Economic Policy Institute highlighting the devastation cuts to Social Security and Medicare would bring found that “Many of America’s 41 million seniors are just one bad economic shock away from significant material hardship.”

______________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Jagger jabs Obama over NSA scandal

0

President Barack Obama didn’t attend The Rolling Stones concert in Washington, DC Monday night, but lead singer Mick Jagger said that wasn’t likely to keep the commander-in-chief from checking out the show.

During the course of a two-hour-long show in the nation’s
capital on Monday, the legendary singer stopped to briefly
address the National Security Agency scandal that has plagued the
presidency in recent weeks.

According to the Washington Post and other eyewitnesses at
the sold-out show, Jagger stopped at one point to say to the
crowd, “I don’t think President Obama is here tonight. . . .
But I’m sure he’s listening in
.”

Other attendees tweeted during the show that Jagger’s
mention of the president’s name prompted audible booing from the
audience, and a message from Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
regarding the NSA quip accumulated nearly 1,000 retweets on
Twitter.

Monday’s show was the last American date of the Stones’ 50
and Counting tour and came in the midst of the Obama
administration’s manhunt for Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former
intelligence contractor that began leaking classified NSA secrets
to The Guardian newspaper earlier this month. Snowden is reported
to currently be in Russia and could be seeking asylum from the
likes of Ecuador, Iceland or elsewhere, although the White House
has demanded he be extradited back to the US where he faces
charges of espionage.

Shortly after The Guardian’s first NSA disclosure, Snowden
identified himself as the source of the documents. Articles in
the British newspaper and others have since detailed classified
materials released by Snowden that regard the US government’s en
masse surveillance of people around the world, American or
non.

In the first document attributed to Snowden, the
government was shown to be accumulating the phone records of
millions of subscribers to telecom company Verizon each and every
day. In another, he linked the NSA with accessing the personal
correspondence conducted over private Internet services, such as
Google and Facebook. Monday’s show in DC took place at the
Verizon Center, an 18,000-person arena that’s been named for the
telecom company since they absorbed the venue’s original owner,
MCI Inc., in 2006.

This article originally appeared on: RT

Facebook Now Collecting Photo IDs

0

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
June 24, 2013

An Infowars.com listener has had their Facebook account suspended for asking Facebook how to change their primary email address. Coincidentally, the listener who uses Facebook as a tool to promote truth about the U.S. government, 9/11, the banking cartels, and the falsehood of the “War on Terror,” says she merely contacted Facebook requesting information on how to change the primary email address on her account.

Facebook responded by suspending her account and accusing her of using a fake name. The Facebook employee with the title “Marissa of User Operations,” told her “If you would like to use this profile again, just get back to us with your real name, and we will reactivate the account for you.”

The listener explained that she hadn’t been using a fake name, but regardless provided her real first and last name.

Facebook replied stating that they could not verify ownership of the account, and if she would like to continue using Facebook, she would need to prove her identity.

Marissa from User Operations advised her to email a scanned or digital image of a government-issued photo ID providing her first and last name, date of birth and a photograph.

Facebook employee Marissa assured her that the photo-ID would be permanently deleted from Facebook’s servers once authenticity of the account has been confirmed. The social media giant went on to say that once the information has been received, they will reevaluate the status of the account, but will not do so without the proper proof of identification.

While Facebook seems to update their policies frequently, it’s difficult to keep up with the new rules and regulations that change daily. According to Facebook’s website, fake names and fake information is a very big concern. The social media network claims they need your ID in order to protect you from misinformation and misleading profiles.

Infowars itself has a lengthy history of being censored by Facebook, most notably during the Boston Bombing incident. Facebook disabled users ability to “share” Infowars’ posts and photographs by citing this dialog box:

In a separate incident, Facebook censored another photograph posted by Infowars of Osama Bin Laden with the words “Al-CIA-da” spelled across his chest. This time Facebook cited “We removed content you posted because you violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.”

Clearly, Facebook has become the watchdog for dissidents in social media, censoring and deactivating accounts as they see fit.

The harsh reality is that Facebook doesn’t like you bashing the government that funds and controls their operation. If they catch you doing it, you could be the next target of their proof of identification request; but don’t worry because they apologize in advance for any inconvenience.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

‘Obama Overtly supports Al-Qaeda, Provides Terrorists with Chemical Weapons’: Michel Chossudovsky

0

Барак Обама g8 саммит северная ирландия

In one of your recent articles you suggested that the chemical weapons accusations in Syria are fabricated. You said that “in a bitter irony, the evidence amply confirms that the chemical weapons are being used not by Syrian government forces but by the US supported Al Qaeda rebels.” Can you elaborate on this issue?

If we look at various media reports, including CNN but it is also acknowledged in Israeli media, the rebels namely Al-Nusra are in possession of chemical weapons but moreover it is acknowledged that western forces are actually training Al-Nusra rebels in Jordan and Turkey and this is confirmed by December 9th CNN report.

We had subsequently the report of the United Nations independent mission which confirms that rebel forces are in possession of sarin nerve gas and the United Nations human rights investigators actually made a statement of that effect and refuted the accusations that government forces were in possession of chemical weapons.

In fact what they said is that the rebels were in possession of chemical weapons.

Then we also had a Turkish police report, which essentially confirmed these previous reports, the fact the Al-Nusra terrorists who are supported by the Western military alliance, they were ceased with sarin gas in their possession.

Regarding the issue of chemical weapons in Syria you have also said that “Obama has not only “Crossed the Red Line”, he is supporting Al Qaeda. He is a Liar and a Terrorist.” Other than the provision of chemical weapons to Syrian opposition, is there any other evidence to support the claim that Obama might be supporting Al-Qaeda?

I think that we are beyond the issue as to whether Obama is supporting Al-Qaeda. John Kerry is directly in contact with commanders, which are in link with Al-Qaeda rebels. We’ve got a fairly large documentation to the fact that weapons and money are being channeled to the rebels and that these rebels actually are on the US state department list of terrorist organizations.

So, what I am saying essentially is that these Al-Qaeda affiliated organizations are not longer supported covertly by the CIA, they are supported overtly by the US president and the Secretary of State is in touch with commanders of that terrorist force, in particular the main intermediary is a general Idris who is with the Free Syrian Army and which is in constant contact with the rebels.

But what I think we should understand is that Obama administration and its allies are harboring the terrorist organization which is on the state department list and that means that president Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could under the US law be held responsible for, and I quote the document of the state department “knowingly providing or attempting or conspiring to provide material support or resources to or engaging in transactions with Al-Nusra front” so that essentially what I am contending is that Obama is in violation of the Patriot Act, he is in violation of US anti-terrorist legislation and in fact the US government is in latent violation of its own counter-terrorism legislation while waging so-called war on terrorism.

You can’t wage a war on terrorism and then provide support to the terrorists.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Snowden hid copies of secret NSA documents in case something happens to him

0

A trove of classified documents supplied to The Guardian newspaper by NSA leaker Edward Snowden has been copied and shared with several people around the globe, journalist Glenn Greenwald told The Daily Beast on Tuesday.

Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who first began publishing
National Security Agency documents earlier this month after
meeting with the former intelligence contractor, told journalist
Eli Lake that Snowden made arrangements to ensure others around
the world have encrypted copies of that information should any
circumstances allow the data or its source to be compromised.

Snowden “has taken extreme precautions to make sure many
different people around the world have these archives to insure
the stories will inevitably be published
,” Greenwald said. He
added that the files are “highly encrypted” and
corresponding passwords to render them readable have not yet been
distributed.

According to Lake, Greenwald said, “if anything happens at all
to Edward Snowden, he told me he has arranged for them to get
access to the full archives
.” Greenwald previously claimed
that Snowden provided him with the archives of “thousands”
of documents, dozens of which he considered to be newsworthy.
Revelations published thus far by The Guardian and attributed to
Snowden have generated international headlines and responses from
presidential administrations worldwide.

The latest news from Greenwald comes in the midst of an
international manhunt for Snowden that has made awkward the
relations between the United States and other nations around the
globe. The US unsealed an indictment against Snowden on Friday,
but has been unable to extradite him to the country where he
faces charges of espionage.

Snowden was reportedly in Hong Kong at the time his indictment
went public and was alleged to be in Moscow hours later.
Representatives for US President Barack Obama and Russian
President Vladimir Putin both say Snowden is in Moscow, and the
anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks says the leaker has sought asylum
from Ecuador, Iceland and perhaps elsewhere.

“We are aware of where Mr. Snowden is,” WikiLeaks editor
Julian Assange said in a conference call on Monday. “He is in
a safe place and his spirits are high. Due to the bellicose
threats coming from the US administration we cannot go into
further detail at this time
.”

The US has lambasted Hong Kong with failing to comply with what
America considers a lawful arrest, and Russia will not cooperate
with attempts for extradition. White House press secretary Jay
Carney said earlier this week that Hong Kong’s failure to act has
already strained the relationship between the US and China.

Another relationship – the one between Snowden and Greenwald –
has begun to emerge as a contested topic within the conversation
as well in recent days. The possibility of charging Greenwald
with publishing the classified documents has been discussed by
politicians, pundits and the press, and the he told The Daily
Beast that he’s likely having his every move watched by
Washington.

“I would be shocked if the US government were not trying to
access the information on my computer
,” Greenwald said. “I
carry my computers and data with me everywhere I go
.”

Elsewhere in his interview with Lake, Greenwald explained that
one potential lapse almost led to the loss of the intelligence.

“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via
Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of
the documents
,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing
it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and
nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I
am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the
possibility exists
.”

This article originally appeared on: RT

Richard Falk: Speaking Truth to Power

0

Richard Falk: Speaking Truth to Power
by Stephen Lendman
Falk is Princeton University Professor Emeritus. For 40 years, he taught international law and relations. In 2008, he was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
He’s outspoken about longstanding Israeli human rights abuses. They’re too horrendous to ignore. On June 6, he addressed them. More on that below.
May 15 is Nakba Day. It’s the “day of the catastrophe.” In 1948, Israel stole 78% of historic Palestine.
In 1967, it took the rest. June 5 is Naksa Day. It commemorates the “day of the setback.” It’s when Israel occupied Palestinian-populated West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
It remains illegally occupied. It’s militarized for control. It’s dominated ruthlessly and repressively. For 46 years, Palestinians been criminally oppressed. Millions have been terrorized. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, injured, and/or displaced. 
Around one-third have permanent injuries. About 20% of Palestinians have been imprisoned. Around 40% of Palestinian males endured incarceration. 
So have many thousands of women and children. Some are aged 10 or younger. Israel terrorizes them for political advantage. It does so with impunity.
Many Palestinians are held uncharged for years. Prison conditions are deplorable. They’re nightmarish. Militarized ruthlessness reflect official Israeli policy. Palestinian rights are systematically denied.
Besieged Gaza’s the world’s largest open-air prison. Life in occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem is little better. State terror reflects official Israeli policy. 
Dozens of Palestinian community and neighborhood incursions occur weekly. Farmers are attacked in their fields. Children are assaulted to and from school or at play. 
Families are terrorized. Lawless arrests follow. So do beatings, detentions, interrogations and torture. Confessions are forced for offenses Israel invents. Guilt by accusation is policy.
Israel’s rogue terror state. It remains unaccountable. It’s complicit in global state terror. It’s history is blood-drenched. 
It threatens regional peace and security. It menaces humanity. Palestinians live in the eye of the storm. They’re not sure each day if they’ll see another.
On June 6, Richard Falk addressed what’s too important to ignore. He did so forthrightly. His candor was unequivocal, explicit and damning. “In Occupied Palestine, there’s no distorting the facts on the ground,” he said.
“Neither Israel nor its proxies can justify” what’s ongoing. “So they distract, distort and defame to allow violation to go on.”
“It’s a shame that there are lobbying organizations whose sole purpose is to distract the world’s attention from Israel’s unacceptable human rights record, but irresponsible and dishonest smear campaigns to discredit those who document these realities do not change the facts on the ground forty-six years after Israel launched the war that began its occupation of Palestine.”
Facts on the ground are indisputable. Israeli policy is ruthless. Police state rules apply. Fundamental international laws are violated with impunity. Palestinians are terrorized into submission. 
“Israel continues to annex Palestinian territory. Israel persists in demolishing Palestinians’ homes and populating Palestine with Israeli citizens.” 
“Israel routinely detains Palestinians without charges. Israel maintains a policy of collectively punishing 1.75 million Palestinians through its imposition of a blockade on the Gaza Strip.” 
“Israel prosecutes its occupation with impunity, refusing to accept the world’s calls to respect international law.”
“The Israeli population registry confirms that around 650,000 Israelis had settled in the occupied Palestinian territory by the end of 2012.” 
“Just last week, Israel took another step toward building the 3,000 additional settlements authorized by Prime Minister Netanyahu in November, even as Israeli leaders pay lip service to peace negotiations.”
So-called peace process overtures are pretense. Israel deplores peace and stability. It prioritizes violence, belligerence, confrontation, intimidation and dominance.
It wants Palestinians occupied, exploited, abused and denied. Netanyahu heads Israel’s most extremist government ever. It mocks democratic values. It spurns rule of law principles. 
Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon spoke for others saying Israel won’t permit Palestinian self-determination. Preventing it means no peace.
“Look at the government: there was never a government discussion, resolution or vote about the two-state solution,” he said
“If you will bring it to a vote in the government – nobody will bring it to a vote, it’s not smart to do it – but if you bring it to a vote, you will see the majority of Likud ministers, along with the Jewish Home (party), will be against it.”
“If there’s a move to promote a two-state solution, forces will block it within the party and the government.” He added that Netanyahu called for peace talks because he knows resolution won’t be reached.
“The International community can say whatever they want, and we can do whatever we want.”
Falk understands what Palestinians face. He addressed the UN Human Rights Council. He raised longstanding concerns. “Israel remains committed to ignoring international law and pursuing its own set of facts on the ground,” he said.
Conditions in Gaza are especially deplorable, he stressed. Seven years of lawless, oppressive siege continues. It’s “suffocating Palestinians in Gaza, with an incredible 70% of the population dependent on international aid for survival and 90% of the water unfit for human consumption.”
“These violations deprive Palestinians of hope and make a mockery of revived peace negotiations.” 
“While Israel and its proxies may wish to ignore the world’s efforts to induce compliance with international law, it’s contrary to the aims and purposes of the United Nations to distract attention from or distort the facts on the ground.”
In his report, Falk accused Israel of refusing him entry to Palestine. Doing so is required to gain firsthand information. Israel’s obligated to comply. UN Charter Article 104 states:
“The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.” 
Article 105 says UN representatives have “privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.”
Falk raised another concern. He addressed UN Watch. It’s a pro-Israeli front group. It demeans Falk maliciously. 
Its “smear campaign has been carried out in numerous settings,” said Falk, “including at the Human Rights Council, as well as university venues” where he lectures.
Its “smears (were) sent to diplomats and United Nations officials, including the Secretary-General, who apparently accepted the allegations at face value….”
It’s no surprise, Ban Ki-moon is a longtime imperial stooge. His credibility is sorely lacking. His legitimacy’s very much in question. He bows to the will of powerful interests. They control him. He spurns Palestinian rights.
Falk’s full report is detailed and damning. He issues them annually. They fall on deaf ears. World leaders able to act ignore his findings. They let Israel get away with murder.
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) submitted its own statement to the Human Rights Council (HRC). It did so jointly with the Arab Organization for Human Rights and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
It’s titled “No justice or remedy for Palestinian victims in the Israeli legal system.” Throughout 46 years of occupation, Israel systematically violates international law, it said.
Long denied redress is unconscionable. “Israel disregards its State duty, under international law, to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of international law, and to make reparations for breaching or violating international legal principles.” 
“Palestinian victims are systematically denied the right to an effective judicial remedy. This has led to the development of a culture of impunity, in which Israel is permitted to consistently violate the rule of law without repercussion.” 
“While victims of past crimes wait for justice, the lack of accountability continues to give way to future violations.”
US HRC representative Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe assailed Falk. It didn’t surprise. Washington and Israel are longstanding imperial partners. America’s complicit in occupation harshness.
Donahoe denounced Falk’s report. She called for his resignation. “His views and behavior, both official and unofficial, are offensive and provocative and do nothing to advance peace in the Middle East or to further the protection and promotion of human rights,” she said. “We again call for his resignation.”
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) disseminates pro-Israeli propaganda. It conducts smear campaigns against Israeli critics like Falk. 
It does so on the pretext of fighting anti-Semitism. It claims to support human rights. Its long history suggests otherwise. It reflects demagogic duplicity. It supports Israel’s worst crimes.
National director Abraham Foxman welcomed Donahoe’s condemnation. He urged member states to “denounce Falk and his outrageous abuse of the position he hold.”
“We fully agree with Ambassador Donahoe’s conclusion that Mr. Falk ‘is unfit to serve in his role as a UN special rapporteur.’ ”  
“His continued affiliation with the UN makes a mockery out of the Human Rights Council’s founding purpose, and undermines the important work of the UN.”  
“If he does not leave voluntarily, the Human Rights Council should remove him.”
On May 28, Netanyahu addressed the “Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism.” The issue’s exploited for political advantage. It’s been so for decades. The notion of unique Jewish suffering doesn’t wash.
Netanyahu called it anti-Semitic to accuse Israel of war crimes or violating human rights. “(T)hree arguments are put forward by the anti-Semites all the time, and they are false all the time,” he claimed.
“The first is that Israel is guilty of war crimes. We, who fight war criminals with measured means, whose cities are attacked by terrorists who fire from built-up areas and try to pinpoint the rocketeers – we are accused of war crimes by the war criminals.” 
“That is one facet of the vilification that we experience.”
“The second is that we are expansionists, we don’t want peace, we never agree to compromise. That’s patently false.” 
“The State of Israel repeatedly has offered concessions, has made concessions for peace that no other people, no other state has made in history.” 
“I don’t know of any other case in which the victor made concessions in order to achieve peace, but we’ve done it again and again.”
“We are prepared to compromise for peace – for a genuine peace. This is our most reverent hope, to live in peace with our neighbors. It is not reciprocated as much as we want, and recently it is not reciprocated at all. We can only hope that it will change.”
“The third argument is that we are violators of human rights. Did you hear that? Israel, the one country in the vast expanse that recognizes the rights of everyone – women, minorities, every individual – who have access to the best court system in the world.” 
“Israel has a free press and a vibrant democracy, and Israel is accused of violating human rights. This is when in our neighborhood hundreds of people are killed daily, massacred daily in neighboring regimes.”
“These three vilifications – that Israel is guilty of war crimes, that it doesn’t want peace, it wants to continue expansionist policies, and that we are guilty of violating human rights – are part and parcel of the anti-Semitic campaign that is leveled against the Jewish people and their state.”
Netanyahu’s a serial liar. He’s a war criminal. He’s unfit to serve. He’s a world class thug. Only a flagrant human rights violator/Islamophobe could make these type statements with a straight face.
He and likeminded ideologues reflect the enormous cross Palestinians must bear. Falk and other human rights supporters courageously challenge him. It’s high time everyone did.
A Final Comment
On June 12, Falk responded to critics. He did so forthrightly, saying:
“I don’t intend to resign, and there doesn’t seem to be any formal initiative that is seeking my dismissal.”
He rejected accusations calling him anti-Semitic. He called them “hurtful” and “completely malicious.”
Falk is Jewish. He’s not self-hating. The term is oxymoronic. It’s slanderous. It’s unprincipled. It doesn’t wash. 
Falk said these type attacks “make it appear as if criticizing Israel is tantamount to what everybody agrees to be objectionable, which is anti-Semitism.” 
“I’m not willing to be intimidated in this way. The attack on the messenger is a way of diverting attention from the message.”
“Why do I keep getting into trouble? It’s because of my role in trying to speak honestly about the situation that Palestinians are facing under this condition of prolonged occupation,” he added.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 

This article originally appeared on: Stephen Lendman

Shooting off Gibraltar sparks spat

0

The UK government has described as Å“illegal incursion” the entrance by a Spanish Guardia Civil vessel into British territorial waters around Gibraltar, local media reported.

The incident is said to have happened on Sunday when the Guardia Civil vessel strayed into the territorial waters and an officer onboard the vessel fired a weapon.

In a statement, Europe Minister David Lidington, strongly condemned the incident, saying that he had sought assurance from his Spanish counterpart that action would be taken to ensure there was no repeat of the incident.

“I spoke today with Spanish minister for the European Union, Inigo Mendez de Vigo, in order to protest in the strongest terms following an incident on June 23 in British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW). During an illegal incursion by a Guardia Civil vessel, a Guardia Civil officer fired a weapon,” he said.

“I made clear that the discharge of a weapon in or near Gibraltar is completely unacceptable. I urged Senor Mendez de Vigo to investigate urgently and to take action to ensure that this will not happen again.”

Britain and Spain are at loggerheads over which country has sovereignty over the island that has been occupied and claimed by the UK government. Britain considers Gibraltar and the Malvinas Islands, off Argentina as its territory, but the claims are not recognized by both Spanish and Argentines.

Lidington said he also instructed the British charge d’affaires in Madrid to protest in person to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to demand a full explanation.

The incident is understood to have involved a chase by the Guardia Civil vessel which pursed a Gibraltarian jet ski into British Gibraltar territorial waters.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

McCain: US will have 'the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall'

0

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that an amendment to a US immigration bill would cause the US to have the “most militarized border” since the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.

A bipartisan amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill
would double the number of Border Patrol agents from 20,000 to
40,000, fund construction of 700 miles of fencing along the
US-Mexico border, and provide billions of dollars for advanced
surveillance equipment.

Many Republican lawmakers have refused to support the immigration
reform bill as it currently stands, arguing that it does little
to enforce the border. The Senate advanced an amendment to the
legislation with a 67-27 vote last Monday, winning significant
support from Republican lawmakers and instilling hope that the
immigration reform bill could make it through the upper chamber.
But although the amendment would strengthen the border, it would
also rival the security at the former Berlin Wall, McCain said in
a CNN interview.

“The legislation concerning beefed up border security removes
any validity to the argument that border security is not
sufficient,”
McCain said of the amendment, which was authored
by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).

“I mean this is not only sufficient, it is well
over-sufficient,
” he added. “We’ll be the most militarized
border since the fall of the Berlin Wall. That’s why I think this
amendment was very important.”

The most secure version of the Berlin Wall, which formerly served
to prevent emigration from East Germany, was reinforced with a
smooth pipe to make it difficult to scale. It was surrounded by
mesh fencing, trenches, barbed wire, attack dogs, and beds of
nails under balconies that were hanging over the border. Border
security guards were stationed at 116 watchtowers and 20 bunkers,
and received “shoot to kill” orders if anyone tried to illegally
cross it.

According to the Centre for Contemporary History, 136 deaths have
been attributed to border crossing attempts at the Berlin Wall.
And although the US-Mexico border would use different security
methods than East Germany, it would be the most secure since the
fall of the Berlin Wall — a comparison that McCain believes would
garner support for the amendment.  

“This is a border security measure which I think should
suffice to satisfy any critic and it is a tough way forward and
it is a way forward, a tough way forward so that we can resolve
this and bring 11 million people out of the shadows,”
McCain
said.

If the amendment is passed and the reform bill implemented, the
US border fence would be seven times as long as the Berlin Wall
and have four times as many agents to guard it.  

This article originally appeared on: RT

Consumer Confidence Not Matched by Reality

0

The consumer confidence numbers announced on Tuesday by the Conference Board surprised the economists who had expected a decline rather than the nearly 10-point increase that the board reported. The index came in at 81.4 compared to economists’ expectations of 74. 

The board said that both the “present situation” index and the future “expectations index” had increased as well, along with consumers’ assessment of business conditions and the job market. Lynn Franco, a director at the Conference Board, summarized the findings:

Consumer confidence increased for the third consecutive month and is now at its highest level since January 2008. Consumers are considerably more positive about current business and labor market conditions than they were at the beginning of the year.

Expectations have also improved considerably over the past several months, suggesting that the pace of growth is unlikely to slow in the short-term, and may even moderately pick up.

In all, it was a positive, albeit surprising, report. When MarketWatch asked for opinions, they found Stephen Stanley of Pierpont Securities to give his take:

With the unemployment rate creeping lower, home prices surging and, until recently, stock prices moving higher, household finances have gotten better.

Stanley may have gotten a little ahead of himself, or else didn’t see the report from Bankrate.com that showed that most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. After polling 1,004 adults, Bankrate.com noted that more than one in four Americans have no savings whatsoever, while nearly 44 percent have just three months’ savings or less. Only one in four stated they had enough in savings to last for six months or more if they had to.

This is deterioration from an AllState study done back in December, which reported that about one in four Americans were living paycheck-to-paycheck. In fact, among those households making $50,000 or less annually, only one quarter of them said they had any money left over at the end of the month, according to AllState. 

Such difficult household finances are causing a record number of people with 401(k) plans to take loans or early withdrawals just to pay the bills. The latest data show that nearly one-quarter of the $300 billion being deposited into such plans every year is being withdrawn during the year through loans, withdrawals, or liquidations. That number is closer to a third among those workers in their 40s, according to financial advisory firm HelloWallet.

This is reflected by a sharp decline in Americans’ saving rate since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. At the time, Americans saved about 2.6 percent of their income. Initially, the Great Recession pushed that rate to 6 percent, at least for a while. During the last two years, the savings rate has steadily declined, dropping in March to 3.7 percent and, is now approaching 2 percent.

In 1989, the average debt-to-income ratio for an American family was about 58 percent while the latest data from the Federal Reserve shows it to be nearly 160 percent. In the 1970s, only about one American in 50 was on food stamps. Today that number has grown to more than seven out of 50.

Looking past the Conference Board’s rosy report shows that, in fact, the underlying economic strength at the individual family level hardly merits such confidence. One wonders who the board quizzed for their survey.

 

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Scientists: Obama 'Climate Plan' Will Not Make a Dent

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

At a Tuesday George Washington University speech on climate change, President Obama is feeling the heat (Photo: Charles Dharapak/The Associated Press)Environmentalists warn that President Obama's 'climate plan'—announced Tuesday in a Georgetown University speech—will not make a dent in the spiraling global warming crisis.

[field_image_caption-raw]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Nader's Hope for 2016: An "Enlightened" Billionaire with Progressive Vision

0

Ralph Nader has no plans to run himself in 2016, but he has very clear ideas about the kind of candidate he would–and who he definitely wouldn’t–like to see in the next US presidential contest.

Hillary Clinton “never saw a war she didn’t like” said Ralph Nader. (Image: Screenshot) The ideal candidate for Nader: A wealthy, progressive and courageous individual who can buck the traditional scramble for corporate dollars while running on a more visionary platform that puts the concerns of people and the planet above that of private wealth and elite interests.

“Nothing succeeds like failure, when you’re servicing the power structure,” said Nader in an interview with Politico’s Patrick Gavin published on Tuesday, explaining this as the powerful lesson he’s learned after more than nearly half a century as a consumer advocate and political activist.

The conservation centers around Nader’s new book, Told You So, which explores why those who defend the public interest have consistently been defeated by corporate power since before the Reagan era and how that trend has continued up and through the disappointment of the current Obama presidency.

“Nothing succeeds like failure, when you’re servicing the power structure.” -Ralph Nader

Following on this argument, says Nader, is that what the country needs now is not another pro-corporate Republican or the predictive Democrat Hillary Clinton to lead it out of this dark period, but “fresh energy” and a new, truly progressive vision for the future.

From the Iraq War to the financial collapse of 2008, says Nader, those who got it all wrong–including Clinton in many respects–have been rewarded with million-dollar book deals and high-level appointments as those progressives who consistently and accurately predicted disaster can barely get a spot on the public radio shows.

Watch the interview:

Asked about Clinton as the possible next president, Nader was firm and explicit in his opposition.

Hillary Clinton, Nader told Gavin, is not his idea of a progressive candidate. The former first lady and New York Senator who lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 election but then served as his Secretary of State, said Nader, “Never saw a war she didn’t like, never saw a weapons system she didn’t like, never challenged the Pentagon when she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

“Do we really need a dynasty now?” he asked. “We’ve had twelve years of the Bushes, what – do you want eight more years of the Clintons? Do we really want a redux here or do we want fresh energy and redirection?”

Progressives are almost always right (but ignored)

That’s the unsubtle thrust of the new book, Told You So: The Book of Weekly Columns.

The book, a collection of Nader articles dating from the early 1970s and running through late 2011, is designed to show that time and time again over the last several decades how Nader and those who agreed with him on numerous domestic and foreign policy issues were correct in their predictions and warnings as the nation lurched ever to the right as the corporate stranglehold on elected officials and the nation’s democratic safeguards tightened.

As fellow progressive columnist and activist Jim Hightower writes in the book’s introduction, Nader has been out in front on nearly every big issue since he began his work as a public advocate in the 1960s, including “product safety, environmental justice, workers rights, fair trade, Wall Street greed, money in politics, war crimes, healthcare for all, whistleblower protection, Pentagon bloat, government secrecy, green energy, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Food-–you name it.”

In the interview with Politco, Nader addresses the book’s central theme of progress “vindication” regarding past issues, but also looks forward with a special emphasis on what he believes needs to be done in the US politically before 2016.

Though Nader makes an (almost) assurance that he has no intention of running again for president, he says he is making active plans to encourage others to take on what he calls the “duopoly” of power represented by the dominant Democrat and Republican parties.

Nader told Politico that he doesn’t think it necessary for the right candidate to run as a third party candidate, but says money remains the key obstacle when it comes to election politics for progressives.

He says he wants a progressive-minded, “enlightened” billionaire to take up the charge to “break up this insipid, dull trist where the two parties are dialing for the same dollars.”

“I’m going to find at least ten enlightened billionaires or multi-billionaires,” Nader said, “and I’m going to have a criteria. Have they spoken out about where they think the country is going? And are they worried about it? And have they done things reflecting some sort of civic enlightenment and courage? And are they able to communicate? Obviously, they have the money. And I’m going to encourage them to run.”

_____________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

'The Fight is Just Beginning': Group Shuts Down Enbridge Line 9 Construction

0

A barricade at the back gate of the North Westover pump station (Photo via Swamp Line 9)For the sixth day, protesters have barricaded an Enbridge tar sands pump station in an effort to halt the “endless resource extraction” and stop construction meant to reverse the flow of Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline, which soon will carry toxic diluted bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands through communities and watersheds to eventual export on the East Coast of the United States.

Police from the rural town of Hamilton, Ontario have reportedly delivered an injunction Tuesday morning by the oil company to the protesters, who have been occupying the site since June 20. At the time of this reporting, despite the injunction, four of the protesters have formed a blockade inside the gates of the North Westover pump station located in the Beverly swamp.

“Three of them have encased themselves in a makeshift structure that is heavily chained to the facility fence. One other person is sitting on top of the structure,” according to a statement released by the group Swamp Line 9, which added that the protesters “will stay in place for as long as they can with the intention of further disrupting construction on the Line 9 pipeline.”

According to CBC, the injunction gives protesters two hours to leave the site.

Protesters chained to the fence North Westover pump station despite the injunction. (Photo via Swamp Line 9)

Line 9 is an existing pipeline that currently runs east to west from Montreal to Sarnia; however Enbridge has applied to reverse the direction of the pipeline in order to ship tar sands oil from the tar sands fields of Alberta to an export terminal in South Portland, Maine.

In what the group is calling a “rigged game,” Canada’s National Energy Board has already approved the first leg of the project without the “usual environmental oversights.”

“The Line 9 reversal is, from the perspective of the powerful, a foregone conclusion and they have insultingly offered only the most meaningless opportunities for public engagement,” the group continues, referring to the public hearings for the project’s second leg, which are scheduled for the fall. Anticipating a ‘green light,’ Enbridge has already begun construction on the route.

“First Enbridge tried getting the Line 9 reversal done by stealth, then by trickery, and now, finally, they will do it by force,” added protester Trish Mills.

The Swamp Line 9 statement continues:

Since taking this site last Thursday, we have seen Enbridge spill 750 barrels of oil into a fresh water stream in Northern Alberta. To the East we have seen a brutal police crackdown on anti-fracking protestors in New Brunswick. Our struggle here in Westover is part of a broader picture. We stand in solidarity with all communities who are resisting against endless resource extraction and the destruction that these companies cause.

[…]

To Enbridge, we have this to say: this Line 9 pipeline expansion project will not happen. […] You are going to be swamped with resistance at every step of the way. This fight is just beginning.

Tuesday’s confrontation comes as protesters across Canada rallied around Swamp Line Nine in roughly a dozen planned actions. It is the first day of Sovereignty Summer called for by the Canadian environmental movement groups Idle No More and Defenders of the Land.

Among the actions, the Sierra Club Prairie Chapter will be hosting a local solidarity action in Edmonton and in Toronto activists are marching on the Provincial Court Office to declare that “when governments, courts, and industry fail, the people will stand in solidarity and defend the land!”

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Iran censures deadly bombings in Iraq

0

Iraqis inspect the damage outside shops in Baghdad following an explosion that rocked the capital on June 24, 2013.

Iran has condemned twin bombings that killed at least 11 people in a Turkmen-majority region in Iraq’s Salahuddin province as a “targeted” crime aimed to sow divisions among the Iraqi nation.

The persistent bombings in Iraq and the killing of innocent people on the account of their religious beliefs is a crime against humanity and aimed at sowing sectarian violence in the Muslim country, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyyed Abbas Araqchi stated on Tuesday.

The Iraqi nation managed to pass through the Å“dark age of [US] occupation and sectarian sedition,” Araqchi noted, calling on the Iraqis to unite against their Å“real” enemies and foil the plots they have drawn to target the countryâ„¢s stability and political process.

The Iranian official also called on the international community to respond to the developments in the region, and help restore calm and stability and fight terrorism and extremism through adopting a constructive approach.

At least 11 people, among them a former deputy provincial governor, were killed and 55 others injured on June 25 after two bomb blasts hit Tuz Khormato, which is located some 210 kilometers (130 miles) north of the capital Baghdad.

Separately, a bomb explosion targeting Shia pilgrims south of Baghdad killed three and wounded 15 others.

Iraq is experiencing an upsurge in car bombings and other terrorist attacks, mostly targeting Shia Muslims.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has blamed the latest wave of violence in the country on militant groups and remnants of the former Baâ„¢athist regime.

The United Nations says a total of 1,045 people were killed and nearly 2,400 were injured in violent incidents across Iraq in May.

MRS/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Scientists: Obama 'Climate Plan' Will Not Make a Dent

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

At a Tuesday George Washington University speech on climate change, President Obama is feeling the heat (Photo: Charles Dharapak/The Associated Press)Environmentalists warn that President Obama's 'climate plan'—announced Tuesday in a Georgetown University speech—will not make a dent in the spiraling global warming crisis.

[field_image_caption-raw]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Nader's Hope for 2016: An "Enlightened" Billionaire with Progressive Vision

0

Ralph Nader has no plans to run himself in 2016, but he has very clear ideas about the kind of candidate he would–and who he definitely wouldn’t–like to see in the next US presidential contest.

Hillary Clinton “never saw a war she didn’t like” said Ralph Nader. (Image: Screenshot) The ideal candidate for Nader: A wealthy, progressive and courageous individual who can buck the traditional scramble for corporate dollars while running on a more visionary platform that puts the concerns of people and the planet above that of private wealth and elite interests.

“Nothing succeeds like failure, when you’re servicing the power structure,” said Nader in an interview with Politico’s Patrick Gavin published on Tuesday, explaining this as the powerful lesson he’s learned after more than nearly half a century as a consumer advocate and political activist.

The conservation centers around Nader’s new book, Told You So, which explores why those who defend the public interest have consistently been defeated by corporate power since before the Reagan era and how that trend has continued up and through the disappointment of the current Obama presidency.

“Nothing succeeds like failure, when you’re servicing the power structure.” -Ralph Nader

Following on this argument, says Nader, is that what the country needs now is not another pro-corporate Republican or the predictive Democrat Hillary Clinton to lead it out of this dark period, but “fresh energy” and a new, truly progressive vision for the future.

From the Iraq War to the financial collapse of 2008, says Nader, those who got it all wrong–including Clinton in many respects–have been rewarded with million-dollar book deals and high-level appointments as those progressives who consistently and accurately predicted disaster can barely get a spot on the public radio shows.

Watch the interview:

Asked about Clinton as the possible next president, Nader was firm and explicit in his opposition.

Hillary Clinton, Nader told Gavin, is not his idea of a progressive candidate. The former first lady and New York Senator who lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 election but then served as his Secretary of State, said Nader, “Never saw a war she didn’t like, never saw a weapons system she didn’t like, never challenged the Pentagon when she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

“Do we really need a dynasty now?” he asked. “We’ve had twelve years of the Bushes, what – do you want eight more years of the Clintons? Do we really want a redux here or do we want fresh energy and redirection?”

Progressives are almost always right (but ignored)

That’s the unsubtle thrust of the new book, Told You So: The Book of Weekly Columns.

The book, a collection of Nader articles dating from the early 1970s and running through late 2011, is designed to show that time and time again over the last several decades how Nader and those who agreed with him on numerous domestic and foreign policy issues were correct in their predictions and warnings as the nation lurched ever to the right as the corporate stranglehold on elected officials and the nation’s democratic safeguards tightened.

As fellow progressive columnist and activist Jim Hightower writes in the book’s introduction, Nader has been out in front on nearly every big issue since he began his work as a public advocate in the 1960s, including “product safety, environmental justice, workers rights, fair trade, Wall Street greed, money in politics, war crimes, healthcare for all, whistleblower protection, Pentagon bloat, government secrecy, green energy, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Food-–you name it.”

In the interview with Politco, Nader addresses the book’s central theme of progress “vindication” regarding past issues, but also looks forward with a special emphasis on what he believes needs to be done in the US politically before 2016.

Though Nader makes an (almost) assurance that he has no intention of running again for president, he says he is making active plans to encourage others to take on what he calls the “duopoly” of power represented by the dominant Democrat and Republican parties.

Nader told Politico that he doesn’t think it necessary for the right candidate to run as a third party candidate, but says money remains the key obstacle when it comes to election politics for progressives.

He says he wants a progressive-minded, “enlightened” billionaire to take up the charge to “break up this insipid, dull trist where the two parties are dialing for the same dollars.”

“I’m going to find at least ten enlightened billionaires or multi-billionaires,” Nader said, “and I’m going to have a criteria. Have they spoken out about where they think the country is going? And are they worried about it? And have they done things reflecting some sort of civic enlightenment and courage? And are they able to communicate? Obviously, they have the money. And I’m going to encourage them to run.”

_____________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

'The Fight is Just Beginning': Group Shuts Down Enbridge Line 9 Construction

0

A barricade at the back gate of the North Westover pump station (Photo via Swamp Line 9)For the sixth day, protesters have barricaded an Enbridge tar sands pump station in an effort to halt the “endless resource extraction” and stop construction meant to reverse the flow of Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline, which soon will carry toxic diluted bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands through communities and watersheds to eventual export on the East Coast of the United States.

Police from the rural town of Hamilton, Ontario have reportedly delivered an injunction Tuesday morning by the oil company to the protesters, who have been occupying the site since June 20. At the time of this reporting, despite the injunction, four of the protesters have formed a blockade inside the gates of the North Westover pump station located in the Beverly swamp.

“Three of them have encased themselves in a makeshift structure that is heavily chained to the facility fence. One other person is sitting on top of the structure,” according to a statement released by the group Swamp Line 9, which added that the protesters “will stay in place for as long as they can with the intention of further disrupting construction on the Line 9 pipeline.”

According to CBC, the injunction gives protesters two hours to leave the site.

Protesters chained to the fence North Westover pump station despite the injunction. (Photo via Swamp Line 9)

Line 9 is an existing pipeline that currently runs east to west from Montreal to Sarnia; however Enbridge has applied to reverse the direction of the pipeline in order to ship tar sands oil from the tar sands fields of Alberta to an export terminal in South Portland, Maine.

In what the group is calling a “rigged game,” Canada’s National Energy Board has already approved the first leg of the project without the “usual environmental oversights.”

“The Line 9 reversal is, from the perspective of the powerful, a foregone conclusion and they have insultingly offered only the most meaningless opportunities for public engagement,” the group continues, referring to the public hearings for the project’s second leg, which are scheduled for the fall. Anticipating a ‘green light,’ Enbridge has already begun construction on the route.

“First Enbridge tried getting the Line 9 reversal done by stealth, then by trickery, and now, finally, they will do it by force,” added protester Trish Mills.

The Swamp Line 9 statement continues:

Since taking this site last Thursday, we have seen Enbridge spill 750 barrels of oil into a fresh water stream in Northern Alberta. To the East we have seen a brutal police crackdown on anti-fracking protestors in New Brunswick. Our struggle here in Westover is part of a broader picture. We stand in solidarity with all communities who are resisting against endless resource extraction and the destruction that these companies cause.

[…]

To Enbridge, we have this to say: this Line 9 pipeline expansion project will not happen. […] You are going to be swamped with resistance at every step of the way. This fight is just beginning.

Tuesday’s confrontation comes as protesters across Canada rallied around Swamp Line Nine in roughly a dozen planned actions. It is the first day of Sovereignty Summer called for by the Canadian environmental movement groups Idle No More and Defenders of the Land.

Among the actions, the Sierra Club Prairie Chapter will be hosting a local solidarity action in Edmonton and in Toronto activists are marching on the Provincial Court Office to declare that “when governments, courts, and industry fail, the people will stand in solidarity and defend the land!”

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Iran censures deadly bombings in Iraq

0

Iraqis inspect the damage outside shops in Baghdad following an explosion that rocked the capital on June 24, 2013.

Iran has condemned twin bombings that killed at least 11 people in a Turkmen-majority region in Iraq’s Salahuddin province as a “targeted” crime aimed to sow divisions among the Iraqi nation.

The persistent bombings in Iraq and the killing of innocent people on the account of their religious beliefs is a crime against humanity and aimed at sowing sectarian violence in the Muslim country, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyyed Abbas Araqchi stated on Tuesday.

The Iraqi nation managed to pass through the Å“dark age of [US] occupation and sectarian sedition,” Araqchi noted, calling on the Iraqis to unite against their Å“real” enemies and foil the plots they have drawn to target the countryâ„¢s stability and political process.

The Iranian official also called on the international community to respond to the developments in the region, and help restore calm and stability and fight terrorism and extremism through adopting a constructive approach.

At least 11 people, among them a former deputy provincial governor, were killed and 55 others injured on June 25 after two bomb blasts hit Tuz Khormato, which is located some 210 kilometers (130 miles) north of the capital Baghdad.

Separately, a bomb explosion targeting Shia pilgrims south of Baghdad killed three and wounded 15 others.

Iraq is experiencing an upsurge in car bombings and other terrorist attacks, mostly targeting Shia Muslims.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has blamed the latest wave of violence in the country on militant groups and remnants of the former Baâ„¢athist regime.

The United Nations says a total of 1,045 people were killed and nearly 2,400 were injured in violent incidents across Iraq in May.

MRS/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Friend of MLK, Jr.: Government Conspiracy Killed Dr. King

0

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

In this edition of the Infowars Nightly News, host David Knight interviewed Dr. William Francis Pepper, a friend to the late Dr. Martin Luther King and the attorney who represented King’s accused murderer, James Earl Ray, in an April 1993 televised mock trial on HBO.

After being arrested for King’s 1968 murder, Ray was advised by his attorney, Percy Foreman, to plead guilty in a pre-trial hearing.

Ray followed Foreman’s advice but three days later, Ray recanted the plea and fired Foreman. He then asked his judge for a trial but the judge refused, sentencing Ray to 99 years in prison.

The HBO special was the closest Ray ever got to defending himself in court. The mock jury found Ray not guilty of King’s murder.

This verdict, along with further revelations later that year by a Memphis restaurant owner, Loyd Jowers, helped vindicate Ray in the eyes of King’s family.

Jowers appeared on ABC’s Primetime Live show and revealed a high-level conspiracy behind King’s assassination which used Ray as the scapegoat. Five years later, the King family pursued a wrongful death lawsuit against Jowers and the other unknown co-conspirators.

“I brought a civil action on behalf of the King family against Loyd Jowers and others who were involved in the assassination of Martin King,” Pepper said.

According to Pepper, this civil trial in Memphis lasted 30 days and involved over 70 witnesses. Pepper laid out all of the available evidence to show not only how King was killed, but also why he was killed.

Pepper argued before the jury that, true to Jowers’ earlier revelations, a wide range of individuals, including government officials, conspired against King, resulting in King’s death from a single shot by a sniper in the bushes outside Jowers’ restaurant.

“There was a military team there, an Alpha 184 team there, and they were backups. They did not kill Martin King,” Pepper said. “Martin was killed by a lone, contract gunman who got off that shot.”

“Now if he had not been successful, the military unit was there to make sure that Martin was killed.”

During the interview, Pepper explained that King died right before his planned march to lead a half-million people to Washington, D.C. in order to pressure congressmen on legislation.

“The military knew they didn’t have the forces to contain a mob of that size,” he said.

It only took the jury just shy of an hour to decide that Jowers and the other unknown co-conspirators were legally liable for King’s death.

Unfortunately this trial concluded a year after Ray’s death in prison, but the King family ultimately concluded Ray’s innocence.

“It enabled the King family to finally have closure,” Pepper said.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Los Angeles Students Trained to Sell Obamacare to Their Families

1

Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

Schools in Los Angeles are preparing to train students on the finer points of ObamaCare so they can better promote the health care reform initiative to their families, a report out of the Heartland Institute states.

“’Teens are part of a “pilot” program to test whether young people can be trained as messengers to deliver outreach and limited education to family and friends in and around their homes,’ said Gayle Pollard-Terry, a LAUSD spokesman, in an email,” reported research programmer Loren Heal of the Heartland Institute. “Teens will be educating adults that they already know (e.g., family or friends) and not other adults,” Pollard-Terry’s email states.

According to Covered California, California’s new health insurance exchange, teens will be “trained to be messengers to family members” in the Los Angeles county area.

The new initiative allots nearly $1 million worth of state grant funding to LAUSD outreach programs, including meetings with part-time and contract employees eligible to receive Obamacare, and adult-student class presentations on the new healthcare law.

“Teens will be trained to be messengers not to those groups, but to their own families, to get more people enrolled in taxpayer-subsidized healthcare,” Heal states.

According to Heal, Covered California spokeswoman Sarah Soto-Taylor says staff see no problem with students propagandizing federal laws.

“We have confidence that the model LA Unified brought to the table will be successful in reaching our target population, which includes family members of students,” she said.

“If the project is successful,” Heal speculates, “Los Angeles families can expect more use of students to push government-preferred messaging.”

Recruiting young people to do government footwork is not only a crucial model in getting people, both young and old, acclimated to the new health care mandate — as recent promotion of the law through the National Football League seems to indicate — but could be vital to keeping insurance premiums low once the law goes into effect.

“Attracting young, healthy people will help keep premiums from rising dramatically once the law begins offering new protections for more expensive patients – namely, banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions,” reported The Hill’s Sam Baker.

Marketplace enrollment starts on Oct. 1. “New insurance exchanges in each state must be open on Oct. 1 to begin enrolling people in coverage that would begin Jan. 1,” Baker writes.

Pollard-Terry says this grant, like others, will be “paid in the rear” based on how well it performs.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 1:41 pm






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

'The Fight is Just Beginning': Group Shuts Down Enbridge Line 9 Construction

0

A barricade at the back gate of the North Westover pump station (Photo via Swamp Line 9)For the sixth day, protesters have barricaded an Enbridge tar sands pump station in an effort to halt the “endless resource extraction” and stop construction meant to reverse the flow of Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline, which soon will carry toxic diluted bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands through communities and watersheds to eventual export on the East Coast of the United States.

Police from the rural town of Hamilton, Ontario have reportedly delivered an injunction Tuesday morning by the oil company to the protesters, who have been occupying the site since June 20. At the time of this reporting, despite the injunction, four of the protesters have formed a blockade inside the gates of the North Westover pump station located in the Beverly swamp.

“Three of them have encased themselves in a makeshift structure that is heavily chained to the facility fence. One other person is sitting on top of the structure,” according to a statement released by the group Swamp Line 9, which added that the protesters “will stay in place for as long as they can with the intention of further disrupting construction on the Line 9 pipeline.”

According to CBC, the injunction gives protesters two hours to leave the site.

Protesters chained to the fence North Westover pump station despite the injunction. (Photo via Swamp Line 9)

Line 9 is an existing pipeline that currently runs east to west from Montreal to Sarnia; however Enbridge has applied to reverse the direction of the pipeline in order to ship tar sands oil from the tar sands fields of Alberta to an export terminal in South Portland, Maine.

In what the group is calling a “rigged game,” Canada’s National Energy Board has already approved the first leg of the project without the “usual environmental oversights.”

“The Line 9 reversal is, from the perspective of the powerful, a foregone conclusion and they have insultingly offered only the most meaningless opportunities for public engagement,” the group continues, referring to the public hearings for the project’s second leg, which are scheduled for the fall. Anticipating a ‘green light,’ Enbridge has already begun construction on the route.

“First Enbridge tried getting the Line 9 reversal done by stealth, then by trickery, and now, finally, they will do it by force,” added protester Trish Mills.

The Swamp Line 9 statement continues:

Since taking this site last Thursday, we have seen Enbridge spill 750 barrels of oil into a fresh water stream in Northern Alberta. To the East we have seen a brutal police crackdown on anti-fracking protestors in New Brunswick. Our struggle here in Westover is part of a broader picture. We stand in solidarity with all communities who are resisting against endless resource extraction and the destruction that these companies cause.

[…]

To Enbridge, we have this to say: this Line 9 pipeline expansion project will not happen. […] You are going to be swamped with resistance at every step of the way. This fight is just beginning.

Tuesday’s confrontation comes as protesters across Canada rallied around Swamp Line Nine in roughly a dozen planned actions. It is the first day of Sovereignty Summer called for by the Canadian environmental movement groups Idle No More and Defenders of the Land.

Among the actions, the Sierra Club Prairie Chapter will be hosting a local solidarity action in Edmonton and in Toronto activists are marching on the Provincial Court Office to declare that “when governments, courts, and industry fail, the people will stand in solidarity and defend the land!”

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Home Birth Safer Than Hospital Birth: Nation-Wide Study

0

by Heidi Stevenson, first published on Gaia Health

In The Netherlands, the majority of births occur at home, not in hospitals. A study reported in the BMJ found that women whose pregnancies were low-risk suffered far fewer severe negative outcomes from home than hospital births, especially after the first pregnancy.

The study, published 13 June 2013, focused on two serious adverse events: postpartum hemorrhage and manual removal of the placenta, both of which are life-threatening, and also included admission to intensive care, eclampsia, and more than four packed cells in a blood transfusion.

They focused on the birth results of virtually all the women whose pregnancies were classed as low risk from 1 August 2004 to 1 August 2006: a total of 146,752. In The Netherlands, the majority of babies are born at home, so there were 92,333 (62.9%) planned home births and 54,419 (37.1%) planned hospital births. The authors concluded:

Low risk women in primary care at the onset of labour with planned home birth had lower rates of severe acute maternal morbidity, postpartum haemorrhage, and manual removal of placenta than those with planned hospital birth. For parous [at least one prior birth] women these differences were statistically significant. Absolute risks were small in both groups. There was no evidence that planned home birth among low risk women leads to an increased risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes in a maternity care system with well trained midwives and a good referral and transportation system.

Below is a summary of the study results. In comparison to women who opted for home births, those who opted for hospital births were:

  • 1.8 times more likely to suffer severe morbid events.
  • 2.3 times more likely to end up in intensive care.
  • 2 times more likely to suffer eclampsia.
  • 1.47 times more likely to suffer multiple blood transfusions.
  • 1.37 times more likely to suffer from postpartum hemorrhage.
  • 1.44 times more likely to require manual removal of the placenta.

The results for women who gave birth for the first time were close, but there may have been a slight benefit in home delivery. In no area was it proven safer to plan a home delivery for first babies. Women who were delivering subsequent babies experienced even better results than the above for home deliveries. These women who chose hospital over home deliveries were:

  • 2.3 times more likely to suffer severe morbid events.
  • 2.1 times more likely to suffer multiple blood transfusions.
  • 1.92 times more likely to suffer from postpartum hemorrhage.
  • 2.31 times more likely to require manual removal of the placenta.

The fact is that modern medicine’s push to medicalize all births has never been based on what’s best for either mother or child. This Netherlands study included all births for a span of two years. How much more is required to prove that natural is generally better?

One of the Cochrane Collaboration’s celebrated reviews found that birth is less safe in hospitals. Modern medicine’s most routine intervention, early cord clamping, steals a third of a baby’s own blood–and it’s done in nearly every birth. Yet, the push is to move every single birth to a hospital, to destroy this most sacred of experiences and cause an amount of harm that is nearly inconceivable.

Certainly, there’s a place for modern medicine. In rare cases, it can save lives. So, as the authors of this study suggest, as long as there’s a qualified midwife, along with medical backup and transportation to it if needed, both newborns and their mothers are better off by avoiding the intrusions and dehumanization of medicine’s approach to birth.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

This article originally appeared on: Green Med Info

British youths fail to find job at 30

0

A new study has found that the youth in Britain are left without a job for more than two years before they reach the age of 30.

The study called ËœEducation at a Glanceâ„¢ commissioned by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) compares education across the world.

It shows that twenty-somethings in the UK can expect to be out of work for longer than those in Australia, Canada and much of Europe.

According to the study people who leave school with few qualifications and do not go on to further education are worst hit and many young people giving up on ever finding a job.

It comes after latest government figures showed there are more than one million young people in the UK classed as Å“NEET” – not in education, employment or training.

Å“Our one million NEETs are a shaming testimony to our collective failure to get vocational education right and the OECD is right to highlight how poorly we compare with many other countries. We canâ„¢t afford the economic and social cost of such shocking dropout levels. If young people donâ„¢t develop their skills in work or education, they lose what they have learnt and become unemployable”, said Sir Peter Lampl, head of the Education Endowment Foundation.

Andreas Schleicher, the OECDâ„¢s deputy director for education and skills, said many young people have Å“given up” on finding work. He warned that the biggest challenge to the UK is helping youngsters who do not have decent qualifications and struggle to find a job.

The report also shows the UK now spends less on higher education than in 2005, although increasing tuition fees has not caused a dramatic drop in student numbers.

But universitiesâ„¢ spokesman Wendy Piatt warned: Å“While we are experiencing cuts in public funding, other nations are pumping billions more into their universities to gain a competitive edge.”

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

War On The Free Press: Another Establishment Hack Calls For Greenwald’s Arrest

0

Journalist who broke Snowden story calls mainstream attackers “royal courtiers”, “servants to political power”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

A second establishment media mouthpiece has called for the US government to arrest Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who broke the revelations concerning Edward Snowden’s leaks revealing the NSA’s domestic surveillance program.

New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin, who usually works as a business reporter, has stated unequivocally that he’d “arrest Snowden and now I’d almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who seems to be out there, he wants to help him get to Ecuador or whatever.”

Sorkin made the comments despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Greenwald is aiding Snowden in any way. The London Guardian reporter merely facilitated Snowden’s going public by interviewing the former NSA employee.

Sorkin, a supposed journalist himself, is ludicrously suggesting that another reporter should be arrested for empathizing with a source.

When he was criticized on Twitter regarding the comments, Sorkin attempted to back track, claiming that he was just “raising other questions.”

Sorkin’s comments are even more ironic given that he has routinely been accused of buddying up with Wall Street executives to make sure their side of the story on the economic crisis is given the time of day.

Greenwald later slammed  Sorkin in a tweeted response:

This latest call for Greenwald to be arrested comes in the wake of NBC’s Meet the Press anchor David Gregory’s comments that Greenwald had “aided and abetted” Edward Snowden, asking him why he should not be charged with a crime.

In a scathing rebuke, Greenwald has stated that he believes mainstream establishment reporters are after him because they are bitter about not being able to be real journalists:

“Some of what is driving this hostility from some media figures is personal bitterness. Some of it is resentment over my having been able to break these big stories not despite, but because of, my deliberate breaching of the conventions that rule their world.

But most of it is what I have long criticized them for most: they are far more servants to political power than adversarial watchdogs over it, and what provokes their rage most is not corruption on the part of those in power (they don’t care about that) but rather those who expose that corruption, especially when the ones bringing transparency are outside of, even hostile to, their incestuous media circles.

They’re just courtiers doing what courtiers have always done: defending the royal court and attacking anyone who challenges or dissents from it. That’s how they maintain their status and access within it. That’s what courtiers to power, by definition, do.”

–––––––––––––––––––––-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Tags: , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Concentration Camps Revisited: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act 2013

0

Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

On Tuesday, a caller to the Alex Jones Show brought up H.R.390, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 23 of this year by Florida Democrat Alcee L. Hastings. The bill — submitted to the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats & Capabilities — is a reformulation of an earlier bill going by the same name, H.R. 645, introduced in 2009. That bill was referred to committee and subsequently died there.

If it had made it out of committee, the earlier legislation would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to do the following:

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

H.R. 390 proposes to accomplish the same objectives. It will “designate closed military installations as sites whenever possible and to designate portions of existing military installations as centers otherwise.”

Responding to the earlier bill, then Congressman Ron Paul said the legislation would be used to incarcerate Americans following the establishment of martial law. “Yeah, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it,” Paul responded to a question about the House bill. “They’re putting their back up against the wall and saying, if need be we’re going to have martial law,” Paul added.

In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a terror attack.

H.R. 645 followed up on a number of significant events, including the stationing of active duty military personnel inside the U.S. under Northcom, in part for the purpose of “crowd control.”

Prior to the introduction of the bill, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were assigned to conduct “homeland patrols” and part of that assignment was to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control.”

In the years leading up to FEMA concentration camp legislation, the government prepared for the eventuality of civil and political unrest. Rex 84, Operation Garden Plot, Operation Cable Splicer, and a flurry of executive orders issued over the years have established the framework for concentration camps.

Add to this the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, provided by Army Regulation 210-35, that establishes labor programs and prison camps on Army installations. It was issued in 2005, well before the current legislation of its predecessor. Signaling that the effort was not sidelined or mothballed, in January 2006, Kellogg, Brown and Root reported that they had received a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to expand these internment camps.

The government is determined to keep information about its FEMA concentration camps as secret as possible. This was demonstrated in December, 2010, when TruTV inexplicably pulled an episode of Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory dealing with FEMA camps and fusion centers.

It is not certain H.R.390 will make it out of committee and become law. But its reintroduction earlier this year reveals a sincere desire on the part of the establishment to put a martial law detention infrastructure in place, especially now as the economy continues is danse macabre and the prospect of revolution grows within the United States.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Tags: , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Top Ten American Steps Toward a Police State

0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/top_ten_american_steps_toward_a_police_state_20130625/

Posted on Jun 25, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

Study: Drinking Water Contamination Linked to Fracking, Horizontal Drilling

0

Photo: William Avery Hudson/cc/flickrA new study is shedding more light on the environmental costs of shale gas extraction.

Led by Robert B. Jackson of Duke University, the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that drinking water wells in close proximity to natural gas wells that use horizontal drilling or fracking were contaminated with stray gases including methane, ethane and propane, with methane concentrations an average of six times higher than those wells farther away.

“The methane, ethane and propane data, and new evidence from hydrocarbon and helium content, all suggest that drilling has affected some homeowners’ water,” lead author Robert B. Jackson, a professor of environmental sciences at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, said in a statement. “In a minority of cases the gas even looks Marcellus-like, probably caused by poor well construction.”

The researchers, who studied 141 drinking water wells primarily in northeastern Pennsylvania, found methane in the drinking water of 82% of the houses sampled, and the methane concentrations in wells of homes less than one kilometer from a gas well were six times higher on average than those located farther away.

A similar pattern emerged for ethane, with concentrations of the gas found 23 times higher on average for homes less than one kilometer from a gas well.  The researchers found propane in 10 of the 133 homes they studied for this gas, all close to a gas well.

“The ethane and propane are signatures of fracking,” USA Today reports Jackson as saying.

The Associated Press notes that the new study “is an expansion of a 2011 study that attracted widespread attention for its finding that drilling was polluting some water wells with methane.”

“The new data reinforces our earlier observations that stray gases contaminate drinking water wells in some areas of the Marcellus shale,” added Avner Vengosh, study co-author and professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School.

As DeSmogBlog‘s Steve Horn points out, “The Duke study offers food-for-thought in the hours leading up to President Obama’s forthcoming announcement of a climate change legislative plan at Georgetown University, just a month after his Bureau of Land Management adopted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model bill for fracking chemical fluid disclosure on public lands.”

_______________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Iranian vocalist Ahmad Ebrahimi dies

0

Veteran classical Iranian vocalist and music teacher Ahmad Ebrahimi has passed away at a hospital in the capital city of Tehran at the age of 87.

The artist, Ebrahimi, who was suffering from a heart disease during recent years, met his death on Tuesday, June 25, 2013.

Born in 1926 in Kordestan Province, Ebrahimi grew up in a family whose members were music lovers and artists.

His training in music was under the supervision of Iranian maestros such as Abolhassan Saba, Hossein Tehrani and Gholam Hossein Banan.

Ebrahimiâ„¢s many performances were presented on Radio Tehran when he was very young.

His funeral ceremony is scheduled to be held on June 27, 2013.

FGP/FGP

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Britain braces for fresh general strike

3

British rail workers have warned the coalition government that they will stage a nationwide general strike to stop the Conservative-led coalition condemning the next generation to poverty.

Trade Union Congress (TUC) was urged by rail union RMT’s AGM in a unanimous vote to to organise a Britain-wide walkout.

“We are going to hand over worse conditions to our children and grandchildren”, said London Underground delegate John Reid.

“The working class are being made to pay for the bankers’ crisis. Our social wage, won by our forefathers and mothers, is being stripped from us”, he added.

General secretary Bob Crow agreed that government austerity policies “are not about paying back the debt but changing society.”

“This government never wanted the NHS, council housing or education for all and now they want to destroy it”, he said.

“We’ve had massive marches but the government hasn’t listened and is still cutting everything we’ve worked for since World War II”, added Crow.

Crow said the TUC’s austerity bus won’t put the brakes on Chancellor George Osbourne’s cuts and praised the mass demonstrations taking place in Brazil as an example for Britain’s workers.

But he was also clear delegates must be prepared to build support for a general strike in their workplaces.

“We need to go out of this meeting and say to every worker, enough is enough, we’ve been on marches, we’ve been on buses – now is the time to call a general strike”, he said.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Officials to make morning visits to 400,000 most disruptive families

0

Around 400,00 of the UK’s most disruptive families can expect to get a morning visit from officials in a bid to make sure their children go to school.

Melanie Hall
The Telegraph
June 24, 2013

Some of the country’s most troubled families will get a wake-up visit to get them out of bed for job interviews as part of the Government’s plan to extend a project that already targets 120,000 families.

Money to widen the scheme, which will also help make sure alcoholics and drug addicts go to rehab, has been allocated in the Government’s spending review for 2015-16, which is due to be announced on Wednesday.

Chancellor George Osborne is expected to say that £4,500 will be spent targeting each of the 400,000 high-risk families who cost taxpayers billions of pounds because of antisocial behaviour, truancy and lack of employment.

Read More

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 12:39 pm

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Goodbye Criminals, Hello ‘Domestic Terrorists’

1

Donna Anderson
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

Not too long ago if someone burned down a farmer’s wheat field they were charged with destruction of property or insurance fraud or arson. If they hijacked an airplane they were charged with hijacking or theft or kidnapping. And if they murdered someone, or even a group of someones they were charged with…murder. Now, nearly every crime report you read contains the word “terrorist.” What happened to ordinary criminals?

On Monday’s Infowars Nightly News, Jakari Jackson reported on the recent destruction of two crops of genetically engineered sugar beets. The FBI is calling the crime an act of “economic sabotage” and says the perpetrator may find himself facing charges of “domestic terrorism.”

Yet, on March 30, 2012, Dale Duaine Binger of Atwater, Minn., was charged with first degree property damage when he burned down a crop of corn and soy beans and no FBI agents were brought in at all.

On May 28, a 16-year-old Detroit boy was charged with domestic terrorism after investigators said a “credible threat was made against the Orchard Lake St. Mary’s Festival.” The boy allegedly posted several photos on Twitter showing a handgun, an assault rifle and several fully loaded high-capacity magazines. No crime was committed but because the boy has gang affiliations the FBI is involved and charges have been entered.

Yet, a Bronx principal, Neifi Juan Acosta, who threatened to blow up a school seven months ago is still working at the school, no charges have been filed, and investigators say it may be months before their investigation is completed. And this isn’t Acosta’s first run-in with the law. According to NYDailyNews.com, Acosta spent “more than a year in a rubber room and was fined $20,000” for demoting five eighth-graders to the seventh grade as a punishment.

Terrorism, in the past, generally referred to violent acts which were intended to create fear, perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and deliberately targeting civilians. Domestic terrorism is a terrorist action perpetrated by an American resident that takes place on American soil in protest of a domestic issue.

But, what makes one crime an act of “domestic terrorism” and another an ordinary, every day criminal offense that may or may not involve the FBI and may or may not even be investigated? It depends on who the victim is, who’s being charged, and how much mileage the Feds can get out of it.

In the case of Bronx principal, Neifi Juan Acosta, there’s no need to charge him with anything at this point because he hasn’t committed a crime. But if and when he does, he will simply be charged as a mass murderer because of the media coverage his case has already received. The public already knows the guy is just a wack-job and he’s allegedly threatening the school not national security, so unless they came up with some pretty incriminating evidence it would be difficult for the FBI to make us believe this guy is a terrorist.

The Feds are charging the 16-year-old Detroit boy as a domestic terrorist because they can — we, the public, had no prior knowledge of this case, so the Feds can spin it any way they want.

As for the destruction of the genetically engineered sugar beet crops, well, those crops were owned by Swiss-based biotech company Sygenta. Again, we, the people, had no prior knowledge that this crime had been planned so it’s easy enough for the Feds to tack on the words “domestic terrorism.” The crops were owned by a company in a foreign country and we’ve already been taught to be suspicious of anything “foreign.”

More important though is the idea that the American people have been trained to react to the words “terror” or “terrorism” or “terrorist.” The list of federal laws is so long and convoluted we hardly bat an eye when we see someone is facing criminal charges for something. It happens every day now.

But add the word “terror” and we’ve been conditioned to sit up and take notice. We demand immediate action. In fact, we jump so high at the mention of the word “terror” that we overlook the fact that no federal crime has actually been committed, we just want someone to “pay.”

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Donald Trump Says Snowden Should Be Assassinated

5

Extradition process and justice system are too slow for would-be presidential candidate

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
June 24, 2013

Donald Trump, a man who has previously and may once again tout himself as a presidential candidate, believes that the American justice system is too slow and cumbersome to deal with whistleblowers like former NSA analyst Edward Snowden.

Labeling Snowden a “spy”, Trump went on Fox News to advocate his immediate “execution”.

In a vomit inducing interview with Fox and Friends, Trump, in his infinite wisdom, stated:

“You know, spies in the old days used to be executed.”

“This guy is becoming a hero in some circles. Now, I will say, with the passage of time, even people that were sort of liking him and were trying to go on his side are maybe dropping out…”

“We have to get him back and we have to get him back fast. It could take months or it could take years, and that would be pathetic.” The Donald noted.

Blatantly advocating that Snowden be assassinated, Trump suggested that the US would somehow cease to exist, should he be allowed to live and divulge secret information on government surveillance and other unconstitutional practices.

“This guy’s a bad guy and, you know, there’s still a thing called execution,” he said.

“You really have to take a strong… You have thousands of people with access to material like this. We’re not going to have a country any longer.” Trump continued.

Ironically, that reasoning was EXACTLY why Snowden went public with the material on the NSA in the first place — because he could not face living in a country that treats it’s own citizens like suspects and actively spies on all their communications.

Trump also labelled journalists who covered the story “disgraceful”, saying that newspapers should not have printed the details of the revelations.

Trump’s lack of understanding of the Bill Of Rights and the Fourth Amendment will not come as a surprise to regular readers, given his attacks on former Congressman Ron Paul last year.

Despite him being the most constitutionally sound presidential candidate in decades, Trump called Paul a “joke” candidate, and belittled his Libertarian outlook on foreign policy, saying Paul did not care about foreign affairs such as “if Iran has a nuclear weapon that can wipe out Israel.”

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

GeoEngineering, Global Climate Disruptions, Chemtrails: “Our Atmosphere is a Massive Physics Lab”

0

In this video, Dane Wigington gives a presentation in Northern California on the harmful effects of Geoengineering, declaring that this is among the most important issues affecting humanity.

The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs.

This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness.

http://GeoEngineeringWatch.org

The debate over whether geoengineering programs are going on is now a moot point.

We have more than enough data to confirm it. We have actual footage showing tankers spraying. The materials showing up on the ground are exactly the same materials mentioned in the numerous geoengineering patents and documents. Visit our website for a list of these government patents and documents.

Our skies today are simply not normal. Upon examination this cannot be denied. They are filled with nanoparticulates of heavy metals. But the skies have been filled with grid patterns for so long now that we are used to them and do not see them anymore. Sadly, the fact is that people do not look up.

To be clear, what we are seeing is not cloud seeding to increase rainfall. These particulates are designed to block the sun and move the jet stream. Dane explains how this is causing the drought and deluge being experienced around the globe.

Our atmosphere is nothing but a massive physics lab to geoengineering scientists who have no concern whatsoever about the consequences to humanity or any living thing, including themselves. The experiments are literally tearing the planet apart and destroying life on earth.

Dane reports, among other things, on:

– Geoengineering related climate disruptions, extreme drought and deluge
– Ozone depletion
– Methane release
– Drastic reduction in arctic sea ice
– Global oxygen content reductions
– Oceans on the brink of collapse
– Massive fish die offs
– 200 species becoming extinct every single day
– A drastic rise in Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Dementia
– Crisis level forest reductions
– The sterilization of soils making it impossible for plants to grow without Monsanto’s aluminum resistant seeds

Dane Wigington presents hard data which reveals what these catastrophic programs have done to our planet to date and what they will do if they are allowed to continue.

Please take the time to watch this video, follow up with some investigation of your own on our site: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org, and share this information far and wide.

Dane Wigington

“I began study and research on meteorology and atmospheric change in the late 90′s. After moving to Shasta County Cal. in 2001 and building one of the largest “off grid” solar homes in Northern California, I took notice of the of the sporadic aircraft “trails” and “grid patterns” that were blocking ever increasing amounts of my homes solar charging capacity (sometimes up to 80%).

Subsequent research led me straight to the subjects of SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) and SRM (solar radiation management). I began lab testing of rain samples on a consistent basis. The skyrocketing toxicity of once pristine rainfall over the Pacific Northwest was shocking. Massive and ever escalating quantities of the exact heavy metals called for in numerous geoengineering patents were present in all samples tested at Northern California’s state certified lab. I witnessed a stark and accelerating tree mortality along with insect and amphibian decline. Years of continuing research have left me with the following conclusion, the threat posed by geoengineering, both immediate and long term, cannot be overstated. I have spent the last decade dedicated to researching and exposing the long list of dire consequences related to the ongoing atmospheric spraying programs.”

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Snowden’s Case for Asylum

0

Despite U.S. government pressure, Russian President Vladimir Putin is balking at demands that he extradite Edward Snowden from Moscow to face espionage charges for leaking secrets about America’s global surveillance operations. Still, Snowden’s status remains dicey.

The U.S. government is putting on a full-court press to track down, arrest and prosecute Edward Snowden for blowing the whistle on the National Security Agency’s massive collection of data on phone calls by Americans and Internet use by foreigners.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged Russia to “do the right thing,” block Snowden from leaving Moscow, and instead turn him over to the United States for prosecution. Talking to reporters in New Delhi, India, Kerry said, “We think it is very important in terms of our relationship. We think it is very important in terms of rule of law. There are important standards.”

But Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said there is another rule of law, international law, that may give the 30-year-old systems analyst a path to political asylum. Cohn said Snowden could cite “a well-founded fear of persecution” based on the mistreatment of fellow whistleblower Bradley Manning. Professor Cohn spoke about the Snowden case to Dennis J Bernstein on Monday on the Flashpoints show on Pacifica Radio:

DB: Why don’t you begin with an overview of the case, and how you see it.

MC: Edward Snowden revealed a secret program of massive spying on Americans and people all around the world and turned them [documents] over to the Guardian and Washington Post. Then he went to Hong Kong, which is where he was until he left [on Sunday]. The U.S. government is going to charge him under the Espionage Act with crimes that could garner him 30 years, or even life in prison if they decide to add extra charges.

The Obama administration has gone after whistleblowers in an unprecedented manner, filing charges against eight people under the Espionage Act, more than twice all prior presidents combined. Most recently, the firestorm around Mr. Snowden is about whether he will be extradited back to the U.S. to stand trial on these charges. He was in Hong Kong, left and stopped in Moscow. There have been reports that he might go to Ecuador where he applied for political asylum and he did confer with officials from the Ecuadoran government when he was in Russia.

He could be extradited, sent back to the U.S. for trial, either by Russia or any country he passes through on the way to Ecuador. Or Ecuador could extradite him back to the U.S. Russia and the U.S. do not have an extradition treaty, but the U.S. has extradited seven Russian prisoners in the last two years. A country can refuse extradition when the offense is political in nature. He would be charged under the Espionage Act and espionage is a classic political act that gives rise to a refusal of extradition, so they could refuse extradition on those grounds.

There’s also a provision in the Convention against Torture called non-refoulement that forbids extradition of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be in danger of being tortured. Since Bradley Manning, another prominent whistleblower, was tortured by being held in solitary confinement for nine months, a country could conclude Edward Snowden might be subjected to the same fate, and deny extradition on that ground.

Also a country has an obligation to refuse extradition when it would violate fundamental rights. The right to be free from torture and cruel treatment is a fundamental right. Under the refugee convention, Ecuador or Iceland, where he’s applied for asylum as well, or any country, could grant Snowden political asylum if he can show he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion in the U.S. He probably could make that showing in one of those countries. At this point it’s very fluid.

The Johannesburg Principles of national security, freedom of expression and access to information, which were issued in 1996 provide, “No person may be punished on national security grounds for disclosure of information if the public interest in knowing the information outweighs the harm from the disclosure.” It’s important to be talking about that. What did Edward Snowden do? Did he harm the national security?

There have been claims that terrorist attacks were thwarted by the massive dragnet surveillance Snowden exposed, but Senators [Mark] Udall and [Ron] Wyden, who have been on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and looking at this classified information for years, say that’s not true. The intelligence that is the most useful for foiling these plots is traditional intelligence and not a dragnet surveillance where they listen in to people’s phone calls and track what kinds of places they visit on the internet.

Even if they are not listening in on the content of the phone calls or reading the content of the messages, the fact that they are profiling, coming up with so-called patterns based upon the websites people visit or the people they call could be a tremendous invasion of privacy and lead to a lot of false intelligence.

DB: The scuttlebutt in the press today talks about how Snowden’s lack of character is reflected by his choice of going to one of the U.S. enemies, Ecuador, Cuba or Russia.

MC: Quite frankly, if the U.S. didn’t have such an antagonistic and ill-advised policy against countries like Venezuela and Cuba, even Ecuador, then these countries would probably be extraditing him back to the United States. But when the United States pursues the kinds of policies it does in Latin America, it alienates progressive governments, like Ecuador, which has a democratic, not tyrannical government.

Let’s keep in mind that In the 70s and 80s, the U.S. was supporting all the tyrannical countries in Latin America that were kidnapping, disappearing, torturing and murdering people. But it’s hard to blame these governments for not being willing to jump to whatever the U.S. says. According to Michael Ratner, a lawyer for Julian Assange, the Obama administration is bullying countries all over the world so they can get Ed Snowden rendered to the U.S. where he can be prosecuted.

Certainly the U.S. government is known for its bullying. It has bullied countries that signed the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court [ICC] — bullied them into not turning Americans over to the court if Americans are found in those countries. The Bush administration certainly bullied countries about the ICC. Even the Obama administration has, if not by bullying, influenced Spain to drop charges under universal jurisdiction against the six Bush torture lawyers. That could be a form of bullying.

The U.S. has been notorious for bullying countries, especially smaller countries, for years — they are blackmailed into believing they will lose foreign assistance from the U.S. if they don’t do what the U.S. wants. When Americans are asked in the polls about what Edward Snowden did, and they think about it personally — do we want the government monitoring our personal communications — they are very much against these massive spying programs and not so critical of Edward Snowden.

It’s important that the independent media bring what is happening to the people so they are not just left with sound bites from the corporate media that will paint Snowden as a traitor because he violated national security that keeps us safe from terrorist attacks. We heard that all through the Bush administration and it certainly didn’t make us any safer than we would have been otherwise. It probably makes us less safe since there’s so much hatred for the U.S. since we invaded and killed so many people in Iraq and Afghanistan. The extensive torture, Guantanamo, the drone strikes, which have been stepped up during the Obama administration, have all created much more hatred against the United States.

DB: Is there any precedent, any case you could make that this man acted for the greater good of society?

MC: A precedent is Dan Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers, which revealed what was going on in the Vietnam War and helped ultimately end that war. You could say that was for the greater good. Also, Bradley Manning leaked evidence of war crimes, the collateral murder video, among other things, which showed commission of war crimes as defined by the Geneva Conventions, by people in the U.S. Army. Yes, there is precedent for this.

DB: Do you think the U.S. is going to figure out a way to get him? Would they be breaking international law if they sent a pick-up team to get him, wherever he was?

MC: Yes, they would. He needs very tight security wherever he is because it’s not beyond belief to think some thugs could kidnap him and render him to the U.S.

DB: Is there any legal justification for the U.S. to do that?

MC: No, but somebody could do it and say they weren’t working for the government. The government could say he’s a traitor and we need to bring him to justice in our country and he is being shielded.

DB: So he can be kidnapped and left somewhere the U.S. could get him? The U.S. could say, “We didn’t get him. We found him here.”

MC: That’s possible.

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

'Pakistan committed to IP gas pipeline'

0

Islamabad committed to finishing IP gas pipeline: Pakistan min.

File photo shows a construction site of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline.

Pakistani minister of petroleum and natural resources says Islamabad is firmly committed to completing a multi-billion-dollar pipeline projected to carry natural gas from Iran to its eastern neighbor.

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Tuesday that the new government will remove possible defects from the Iran-Pakistan gas agreement.

On June 20, Pakistanâ„¢s Foreign Office Spokesman Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said the gas pipeline is the key option to relieve energy shortages in Pakistan, adding that the Pakistani government will implement the project within the set timeframe.

The final construction phase of the pipeline was inaugurated by Iranâ„¢s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, on March 11.

Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline will enable the export of 21.5 million cubic meters per day of Iranian natural gas to Pakistan.

Iran has already built 900 kilometers of the pipeline on its soil and is helping to build the 700-kilometer side of the pipeline on the Pakistani side.

The IP pipeline is designed to help Pakistan to overcome its growing energy needs at a time when the country of over 180 million people is grappling with serious energy shortages.

Earlier this month, Pakistani Federal Minister for Planning Ahsan Iqbal said the new Pakistani government will continue the joint gas pipeline project with Iran, saying the issue of energy is Islamabadâ„¢s top priority.

MP/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Making of a Monster: How the U.S. Helped Build Iraq's War Machine

0

Exactly two years after the August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the state-run radio and newspaper in Baghdad were blaring that Kuwait would fall again to Iraq’s claims. This summer, even as one emergency seemed to be averted involving a standoff over alleged weapons data in Baghdad’s agriculture building, the spectre of yet another crisis loomed, with Iraq again thumbing its nose at international inspectors.

Aid to Hussein

Ironically, the intersection of “agriculture” and Iraqi weapons is apt, since Washington has become embroiled in a stew of its own making – involving, in part, Iraq’s use of U.S. taxpayer-subsidized agricultural loan guarantees to buy military equipment. Investigating these and other developments, the House Banking Committee has voted to issue new subpoenas concerning administration support for Iraq before the Gulf War. The extent of Bush administration aid to Baghdad is growing more evident with the passage of time, with one of the latest revelations being that even the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff had gotten into the acts of appeasement. The Pentagon, for example, proposed a plan to train and exchange forces with Saddam’s military, and even sought to protect the dictator’s personal aircraft from missile attack. These particular plans, which were being pushed in late May 1990, less than three months before the invasion, were not implemented – but many others were.

Bush administration apologists have called their efforts a misguided attempt to moderate Saddam Hussein’s behavior. In truth, they constructed a monster that was then used to justify the war for a new world order.

Keep in mind that mollification was the order of the day even after years of Iraqi support of terrorism, after Saddam had utilized deadly chemicals on the Kurds within Iraq’s borders, after nuclear-triggering devices had been intercepted on the way to Iraq (March 1990), and after Hussein had boasted that his chemical-warfare capability would “burn half of Israel” if it attacked Iraq (April 1990).

Green Light for Saddam

The fact that these recently exposed plans for direct military aid were not approved did not mean that the administration was suddenly getting tough with Baghdad. By no means: Even as thousands of American troops and tanks were massing on the Iraq-Kuwait border one week before the invasion, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, 1990 signaled what had to be the most blatant go-ahead since Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s 1950 war-prompting remark to Congress that South Korea was outside the “defensive perimeter” of the United States. Face-to-face with Saddam, Glaspie assured him that the United States “has no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” Such a comment amounted to a green light for Saddam to move on Kuwait.

Surprise! Or was it? As Glaspie remarked that September: “I didn’t think … that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.” Presumably taking just a little bit would have made it a matter for negotiation. Had Saddam listened to Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly on July 31, 1990, on Capitol Hill, he would have heard the invitation to strike reissued, with Kelly opposing congressional sanctions against Baghdad and noting that the United States had no formal commitment to defend Kuwait from an invasion by Iraq.

Nowadays, you understand, the White House can’t seem to wait for sufficient provocation to strike again. As a Bush administration official, quoted in the Washington Post for July 29, 1992, put it about Saddam: “We all want to pop him.” Of course, Saddam has already been more than mildly provocative by ignoring most of the cease-fire provisions, as well as bombing Shiites in the southern part of the country, carrying out summary executions of those suspected of collaborating with rebels, and executing businessmen accused of “profiteering.” Will there be another “misunderstanding” and more fighting as a dismal political season grows short for the administration? As it happens, a senior UN official said the July dispute over the agriculture ministry began over just such a misunderstanding and could have been avoided.

Tilting Toward Baghdad

The generally used excuse for Washington’s policy vis-à-vis Baghdad is that Iraq needed to be built up as a counterweight to Iran. This explanation, however, ignores the fact that the Iranian revolution itself came about as a result of the Carter administration’s sellout of the Shah. For every action, in diplomacy and physics, one should expect a reaction. Moreover, while the United States did “tilt” to Iraq after Baghdad invaded Iran in 1980 and began an eight-year war, Washington also sold weapons to both sides in the conflict.

Saddam Hussein, even two decades ago, had no compunctions about being a beneficiary of U.S. policy. As quoted in a compendium by Robert Hennelly in the Village Voice for August 11, 1992, Hussein noted in 1974: “There is no contradiction between our decision to sever diplomatic relations with America and to deal commercially with some American companies…. The presence of these American companies will never open the door to a change in our programme.” Despite being put on the American list of terrorist nations in 1979, Iraq received gas turbine engines for its frigates. They came from Italy, but with the 1980 approval of the U.S. Commerce Department.

It was a pattern that would be repeated for years, and which would be made easier after the March 1982 removal of Iraq from the official list of nations supporting terrorism. Yet in the fall of 1982, Iraq scoffed at such placation by offering safe haven to notorious terrorist Abu Nidal. If a country was on the terrorist list, it was supposedly restricted in obtaining technology that could be used for both civilian and military functions. This is why the change occurred – the better to “tilt” to Baghdad. This leaning would be aided by guaranteed loans, a large percentage of which were defaulted upon and some $2 billion of which have been covered by the U.S. taxpayers. Never mind that at least three major terrorist outfits operated from Iraq, and that Iraq also offered refuge and a passport to Abul Abbas, who was responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985.

Iraq’s nuclear potential at Osiraq was the target of an Israeli air strike in June 1981, a move that George Bush publicly deplored. Israeli Defense Minister Sharon was charging by the fall of 1981 that the United States was providing covert military aid to Baghdad, but by the next year the aid was overt, with the announcement of sales of transports and jets. By 1984, when Iraq was spending some $14 billion annually on foreign military purchases, George Bush was back at the hawker’s table. In June 1984, after initial reluctance on the part of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Vice President Bush personally called his college buddy William Draper, the Ex-Im chairman, successfully urging a $484 million loan guarantee to Iraq for a pipeline to be constructed by Bechtel. Secretary of State George Shultz, it will be recalled, was Bechtel’s president before taking over at the State Department.

“We Created This Monster”

In November 1984, after the American elections, Washington and Baghdad established diplomatic relations for the first time since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The recognition came many months after the United States had become aware that Iraq was using mustard gas in its war with Iran, and was widely suspected of using nerve gas as well. Meanwhile, the head of the Atlanta branch of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) – the second-largest bank in Italy and almost completely owned by the Italian government – offered Iraq a $100 million credit line for the purchase of U.S. grain.

The U.S. government was by this time doing its utmost to share military intelligence with Iraq. Adding impetus, a U.S.-Iraq Business Forum was established, eventually bringing in some of the largest U.S. firms (including Westinghouse and Caterpillar) to aid Saddam. Ex-Im loan guarantees backed by the U.S. taxpayers grew from $35 million in 1985 to $267 million by 1990.

It now develops that the United States knew even in 1985 that Iraq had designs for American nuclear technology. A March 1985 document, written by Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle to Secretary Caspar Weinberger, cited a CIA report “indicating that Iraq continues to actively pursue an interest in nuclear weapons, that the large number of Warsaw Pact nations in Iraq makes diversion in place a real possibility and that in the past Iraq has been somewhat less than honest in regard to the intended end-use of high technology equipment.”

In 1986 Stephen Bryen, the Reagan administration’s deputy under secretary of defense for international economic trade and security policy, discovered that the final destination for an advanced computer similar to one being used at White Sands missile base in New Mexico was a research facility in Mosul, Iraq. The complex, known as Saad 16, was working on a ballistic missile, and Bryen warned against approval “because of the high likelihood of military end-use and the association for the involved companies in sensitive military applications.” But the State and Commerce Departments had no problems in approving the sale without conditions. By 1991 American servicemen and other allies were risking their lives on bombing raids against the very same Saad 16 complex, which was dubbed a key target. As Bryen told Time magazine: “We created this monster. If you want to know who’s to blame for all this, we are, because we let all this stuff go to Iraq.” Yet George Bush, in the summer of 1992, has asserted repeatedly that the United States did not help Saddam’s chemical, nuclear, or missile capability at all.

By 1986, the Iraqis had bought up to $600 million annually in U.S. grain with the loans guaranteed by the Agriculture Department’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This back-door foreign aid scheme resulted in the taxpayers being stuck with some $2 billion in bad loans. The scheme hooked in American farmers as well, with Baghdad borrowing the money to pay for American goods based on artificially inflated prices. There was also fraud and diversion of grain. Moreover, there were excess profits that reportedly were used for weapons procurement. There were well over $5 billion dollars in loan guarantees that went this way to Baghdad between 1983 and 1990. In addition, congressional investigations have discovered that foreign commodities were even substituted for U.S. commodities, and kickbacks were demanded if middlemen wanted in on the scheme.

More Aid and Comfort

Saddam Hussein even used the Iran-Contra arrangement for leverage, complaining he was being betrayed by the Tehran dealings. In response, Richard Murphy of the State Department pushed for easier Ex-Im terms and faster approval of exports for Baghdad. In a letter to Secretary of State Shultz, Murphy’s flaccidity was underscored as he offered self-congratulations that U.S. policy had brought Saddam to the point of paying his American Express bill. Murphy also wrote: “In the judgment of the intelligence community as a whole, DOD concerns are exaggerated. In practice they have meant lost sales for U.S. companies and a constant irritant in U.S.Iraqi relations.” One surely wouldn’t want to irritate the man George Bush was to call a modern Hitler.

The U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an Iraqi fighter in May 1987, with 37 Americans killed – at a time, it was reported earlier this year, when the United States was secretly fighting with Iraq against Iran. The State Department made much of the fact that Baghdad promised to pay compensation; three years later, after Kuwait had been invaded, State was obliged to admit Iraq had never paid. The same month, after another call from Vice President Bush, the Export-Import Bank approved another $200 million in revolving loan guarantees to Iraq, a country whose dwindling currency reserves had forced renegotiation of loans with Western banks in March 1987, two months earlier.

By March 1988, Baghdad was bold enough to use poison gas on the Kurdish village of Halabjah, killing as many as 5,000 people. In response, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani came to Washington to request assistance, and several U.S. senators called for sanctions against Iraq. This measure, called “premature” by the Reagan administration, stalled in the House. Though both chambers eventually passed sanctions, they were not imposed by the administration. In May 1988, there were accounts of Iraq’s new surface-to-surface missile with a range of nearly 600 miles. “Western military specialists,” reported the New York Times, “have been repeatedly surprised by Iraq’s ability to improvise and modify the weapons it receives from outside suppliers to fit its own needs.” Moreover, Baghdad was given the capability to produce its own poison gas when, in July 1988, the British branch of Bechtel got a $2.5 billion contract for a petrochemical plant. The same month, the Iran-Iraq war ended with the signing of a cease-fire in August 1988.

If a pro-Baghdad tilt in order to maintain a balance of power against Iran could have been justified before, it no longer could. Nevertheless, in an alleged attempt to moderate Saddam, greater economic ties were urged by the new Bush administration. How temperate and pleasant a fellow did he become? In January 1989, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) reported that the United States was sending bacteria to Iraq – ten times as lethal as anthrax – which could be used for biological weapons. The next month, CIA Director William Webster testified about the thousands of tons of chemical agents being produced by Baghdad. Meanwhile, an FBI raid in August 1989 of the Atlanta branch of BNL found massive fraud involving the CCC (Iraq had become one of its biggest “customers”) and billions of dollars’ worth of secret loans to Baghdad. “Some of the loans,” reported Rachel Flick in the January 1991 Reader’s Digest, “went to British, American, and West German companies exporting militarily useful technology to Iraq, some to Iraq’s central bank.”

Bush’s NSD 26

An Iraqi-American business connection had meanwhile been greatly facilitated by Kissinger Associates, according to The BNL Blunder, by Kenneth Timmerman. In addition, despite incriminating information in the hands of the FBI, President Bush in October 1989 signed National Security Decision Directive 26, mandating more economic and political incentives supposedly to change the behavior of Iraq. NSD 26, which became the basis for administration action until the 1990 invasion, essentially called for plying Saddam with assistance, though stipulating (in its declassified mode) punishment if Baghdad used chemical or biological weapons or sought nuclear weapons.

Yet, even in the State Department at that very time, there was knowledge about malfeasance with government loans and Saddam’s military boosting. Frank Lemay of the Bureau of Legislative Affairs sent a now-famous memo to his boss in the office of the under secretary for economic affairs – a memo that was relayed to Secretary Baker, then given the unusual secretive designation “Not for the System.” The October 13, 1989 memo warned that nuclear-related equipment was being bought by Iraq with government-backed farm loans. Speaking about the federal investigation in Atlanta, Lemay wrote: “If smoke indicates fire, we may be facing a four-alarm blaze in the near future.”

After Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz went to James Baker to claim that the BNL scandal did not involve Iraq, Baker personally lobbied Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter on October 13 for more loan guarantees, according to documents made public by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas). Customs believed that missile- and chemical-weapons technology was bought with the money, but after Justice Department intervention, no indictments came until after Operation Desert Storm. The cause of that delay is now a matter of contention. Though some in the Bush administration advised against it, the president followed the advice of State Department officials Lawrence Eagleburger and Robert Kimmitt, approving another $1 billion in loan guarantees for lraq in 1990.

Where Was Congress?

Congress, concerned about the reports of poison gas, ended Saddam’s sweetheart deal with Ex-Im, only to be overruled by President Bush in January 1990. Bush said it was in the “national interest” of the United States to continue aiding Iraq. In like fashion, after the Voice of America called Iraq a police state, James Baker directed Ambassador Glaspie to apologize to the dictator. In March 1990, it was noted that Iraqi missiles had been moved near the Jordanian border where they were capable of reaching Israel. The same month, triggering devices for nuclear weapons – apparently purchased with funds from the BNL – were seized on their way to Iraq by the British.

By April of the year of the invasion, the violations of the CCC program were blatant enough to call a halt, but State prevailed upon Agriculture not to announce the suspension. Agriculture balked until, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft intervened and the last $500 million guarantee was put on hold without being announced – a suspension that Ambassador Glaspie was attempting to have lifted as late as the end of July.

Congress should not feel too proud of itself either. As Bruce Fein reviewed in the Washington Times, some of today’s more critical Democrats, such as Representatives Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut, Jack Brooks of Texas, and Charles Rose of North Carolina, respectively, pushed for more “dual-use” technology, shilled for more rice credit guarantees, and backed construction of a subsidized heavy truck plant in Iraq. The ever-radical Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) visited Saddam in April 1990 to inform the dictator that “I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man, and that you want peace.” Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wy.) on the same trip was little better: “I believe that your problems lie with the Western media and not with the U.S. government.”

Republican Senator Robert Dole of Kansas not long ago accused Democratic Senator Al Gore of Tennessee of having tried to barter which way his vote would go on the Iraq war resolution. Dole, one remembers, when he spoke with Saddam in April 1990, apologized for criticism of Hussein on the Voice of America, then returned to tell George Bush that the dictator was “a leader to whom the United States can talk.”

VIP Involvement

Not everything has yet come out. Consider some of BNL’s friends, such as Henry Kissinger (who got $10,000 per BNL board meeting) and his associates – now on the inside – Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft. BNL was the largest participant in the CCC program, used by Iraq for more than $5 billion, and BNL (a client of Kissinger Associates until just before the scandal broke) had patrons in the above-named men. Representative Gonzalez notes, “Several Kissinger Associates clients had extensive dealing with Iraq including Volvo, Midland Bank, Fiat, and Asea Braun Bovert, and those same companies were also the beneficiaries of BNL loans to Iraq or were involved in some way with BNL-Atlanta.”

Other members of the BNL board were David Rockefeller, former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and former British Defense Minister Lord Thornycroft. Kissinger told the Financial Times he bailed out of BNL a week before the BNL indictment in February 1991 because “he did not want to answer questions about such incidents” – yet subsequent reporting indicates that Kissinger did not resign until four months later, when his contract expired.

Cover-up seems to be a polite way to refer to the problem of finding out what went on before the war. For example, when the Commerce Department sent Congress an export-license record about sensitive electronic equipment to be shipped to Iraq, according to the Los Angeles Times for June 21, 1992, it first removed the following sentence: “According to our information, the end-user is involved in military matters.” Even Congress might have picked up that clue. As it happens, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, headed by Representative Doug Barnard (D-Ga.), got a list from the Commerce Department of those high-tech items it approved for shipment to Iraq between 1985 and 1990, and found no less than 68 instances where Commerce had deleted references to the military uses of those exports. Responsibility for the tampering is now under investigation.

Representative Henry Gonzalez – no conservative, mind you, but a dogged investigator nonetheless – contends that about two of seven export licenses approved between 1985 and 1990 “went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology” to weapons of mass destruction. He cites particulars involving chemical, missile, nuclear, and germ warfare.

In a letter to this reporter, Gonzalez indicated that he is now turning his investigation

toward a direct examination of how Iraq was able to abuse the U.S. financial system in its military industrialization effort. Throughout this investigation, I have also continued to outline the involvement of the Bush administration with the BNL, its role in helping Saddam Hussein build the Iraqi war machine, and its continued efforts to mislead the American public regarding the President’s policy of support and appeasement toward Iraq and to thwart my and other Congressional investigations into the conduct of this policy.

This shying from the facts involves more than embarrassment over being wrong about Saddam. Between March 1987 – when Vice President George Bush met with the Iraqi Ambassador to the United States to tell him that some military-related equipment, long-awaited, was now approved – until the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, there was $600 million worth of dual-use technology approved for licensing, according to Commerce Department records.

The president’s denials look weak in the face of, for example, a CIA document in October 1989 that warned: “Baghdad has created complex procurement networks of holding companies in Western Europe to acquire technology for its chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile development programs,” also citing companies linked to Atlanta’s BNL bank. This was less than a month after the president called for more economic and political incentives to Saddam. Just days after this warning, the administration approved $500 million in new loan guarantees to Saddam.

State Department Warning

No, these were not all accidental misreadings. In February 1990, Deputy Secretary of State Eagleburger cautioned U.S. embassies in nine countries that Iraq’s NASSR State Enterprise was seeking “glass-fiber related technology” which could be used for nuclear and missile systems. The United States had known about NASSR’s “bad end-use” programs since 1988. Despite all this, says Representative Gonzalez, “and in complete contradiction to the State Department’s warning, on May 30, 1990, the U.S. Commerce Department informed Matrix-Churchill [an Ohio firm owned by Iraq] that it did not even need a license to ship the equipment and the glass-fiber technology to Iraq.” Yet we now find out that the real boss of the Ohio firm was Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law in Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, who was in charge of all overseas weapons technology procurement.

Recall that two days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie reassured Saddam Hussein: “I have direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq…. President Bush … is not going to declare an economic war on Iraq.” Considering how much economic and military assistance Saddam had already gotten, the wonder is that he didn’t laugh out loud. It was not until September 1990, more than a month after the invasion of Kuwait, that Matrix-Churchill of Ohio – an Iraqi front company long known as the “eyes and ears” of Baghdad’s weapons procurement network in the United States – was padlocked by the U.S. Customs Service. However, the proverbial horse was long out the door.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles

0

President Obama’s White House website recently unveiled a one-and-a-half-minute video, “Addressing the threat of Climate Change,” (see video below) in which he underscores his commitment to enact energy policies that he says will help stem the damage to the planet that, supposedly, is being caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (GHGs).

A big problem for the president and others in the global warming choir is that even many of the most faithful voices in that choir are dropping out and starting to sing another tune. The British journal The Economist, one of the most revered opinion bellwethers of the chattering classes, has for years been a leading purveyor of the Al Gore-IPCC end-of-the-world fright peddling, when it comes to global warming. However, in a major about-face on June 20, “Climate change: A cooling consensus,” The Economist takes writers at the New Republic and the Washington Post to task for admitting that the global warming projections predicted by the computer models have failed, while at the same time trying to spin the results in such as way as to maintain the urgency for enacting drastic (and very costly) climate policies.

“… the public has been systematically deceived.” – The Economist

The Economist criticizes Nate Cohn at The New Republic and Brad Plumer at the Washington Post for clinging to support for policies that promise plenty of pain while offering no gain, especially since they acknowledge that time and reality have proven the predicted warming scenarios to have been false. The Economist piece notes:

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meager prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Of course, the media and its selected “scientific” voices have indeed been crying wolf. And, The Economist points out, the supposed “scientific consensus” that has been touted as dogma for the past decade-plus has been shown to be a hollow and systematically deceptive façade:

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that “In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word ‘uncertainty’ with striking regularity.”

The Economist article then drops a couple bombshells that echo charges that The New American has been making for nearly two decades concerning the global warming. The Economist states:

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which … now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. [Emphasis in original.]

The Economist sums it up:

The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. [Emphasis in original.]

Yes, the phony “consensus” is falling apart. In fact, as we have shown repeatedly (see links below) the claim of “scientific consensus” regarding global warming has been false from the start. Now this fraud is being acknowledged by some of the very news organs and opinionators that have previously propagated the “consensus” line. And we agree, in this case, with The Economist, that this is “a very big deal.” Perhaps someone in the White House brain trust should apprise the president of this development before he channels Al Gore at Georgetown.

Photo of President Obama at top: screen-grab from the “Addressing the threat of Climate Change” video

Related articles:

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked

Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books

Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again – and Again, and Again

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Random Thoughts

0

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Edmund Burke said, “There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men.” Evil men do not always snarl. Some smile charmingly. Those are the most dangerous. If you don’t think the mainstream media slants the news, keep track of how often they tell you that the Arctic ice pack is shrinking and how seldom they tell you that the Antarctic ice pack is expanding. The latter news would not fit the “global warming” scenario that so many in the media are promoting.

Someone has referred to Vice President Biden as President Obama’s “impeachment insurance.” Even critics who are totally opposed to Barack Obama’s policies do not want anything to cut short his presidency, with Joe Biden as his successor.

People who refuse to accept unpleasant truths have no right to complain about politicians who lie to them. What other kind of candidates would such people elect?

Given the shortage of articulate Republican leaders, it will be a real loss – to the country, not just to the Republicans – if Senator Marco Rubio discredits himself, early in his career, by supporting “comprehensive” immigration reform that amounts to just another amnesty, with false promises to secure the border.

Ever since I learned, as a teenager, that the “Saturday Evening Post” magazine was actually published on Wednesday mornings, I have been very skeptical about words. “Gun control” laws do not control guns, “rent control” laws do not control rent and government “stimulus” spending does not stimulate the economy.

It is hard to think of two people with more different personalities than New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama. But they are soul mates when it comes to thinking that they ought to take a whole spectrum of decisions out of citizens’ hands, and impose the government’s decisions on them.

Maybe the reason for the New York Yankees’ low batting averages has something to do with the fact that so many of their batters seem to be swinging for the fences, even when a single would score the winning run.

President Obama’s denial of knowledge about the various scandals in his administration that are starting to come to light suggests that his titles should now include Innocent-Bystander-in-Chief.

It has long been my belief that the sight of a good-looking woman lowers a man’s IQ by at least 20 points. A man who doesn’t happen to have 20 points he can spare can be in big trouble.

When Attorney General Eric Holder argued that a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants was a “civil right” and a “human right,” that epitomized the contempt for the public’s intelligence which has characterized so much of what has been said and done by the Obama administration.

You know you are old when waitresses call you “dear.”

Although many people have been surprised and disappointed by Barack Obama, it is hard to think of a president whose policies were more predictable from his history, however radically different those policies are from his rhetoric.

When any two groups have different behavior or performance, that plain fact can be turned upside down and twisted to say that whatever criterion revealed those differences has had a “disparate impact” on one of the groups. In other words, the criterion is blamed for an injustice to those who failed to meet the standard.

Have you heard any gun control advocate even try to produce hard evidence that tighter gun control laws reduce murder rates? Does anyone seriously believe that people who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are going to obey laws against owning guns or large capacity magazines?

I may be among the few people who want Attorney General Eric Holder to keep his job – at least until the 2014 elections. Holder epitomizes what is wrong with the Obama administration. He is essentially Barack Obama without the charm, so it should be easier for the voters to see through his lies and corruption.

Despite political differences, it is hard not to feel sorry for White House press secretary Jay Carney, for all the absurdities his job requires him to say with a straight face. What is he going to do when this administration is over? Wear a disguise, change his name or be put into a witness protection program?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Republicans, Big Government, and Daniel Somers

0

“War is hell.” 

Daniel Somers and his family didn’t need Sherman to tell them this.

Somers was a distinguished Iraq War veteran who killed himself on June 10. The hundreds of combat missions and other action of which he partook left Somers with a legacy of post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries, and an assortment of war-induced injuries that rendered every moment of daily existence intolerable.   

Shortly before taking his life, he wrote a letter bidding farewell to his loved ones. The latter has since given Gawker permission to publish it.

Upon informing his family that it was his love for them that managed to keep him alive this long, Somers goes on to describe his body as “a cage, a source of pain and constant problems,” and his mind as “a wasteland, filled with visions of incredible horror, unceasing depression, and crippling anxiety.” Somers writes that he is incapable of laughing and crying, incapable of deriving pleasure from any activity, save sleep. Thus, “to sleep forever seems to be the most merciful thing.”

He assures his loved ones that it is not they who brought him to this point, but the government that forced him “to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe.” During his first deployment in Iraq, Somers states, he and his comrades-in-arms were made to perpetrate “war crimes, crimes against humanity.”

Though he insists that he made his “best effort to stop these events,” he is equally insistent that they were too horrible in nature from which to bounce back. Only “a sociopath” could achieve this feat, Somers asserts. 

Yet for as unspeakable as these “crimes against humanity” were, it was covering them up that further fueled Somers’ despondency. “To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup [sic] is more than any government has the right to demand.” 

While taking shots at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, Somers accuses his government of abandoning not just himself, but those veterans who it consigned to the hell of war, including and especially the approximately two dozen veterans who commit suicide each and every day. 

Somers’ plight, like that of far too many veterans of the post-9/11 era, is, at best, tragic. At worst, it is scandalous, an outrage. In any event, though, its significance lies in the light that it sheds on our politics, particularly the politics of the Republican Party.

War is the one circumstance under which the government conducting it becomes an activist government, i.e., a Big Government. It is the one time, more so than any other, when it is expected that the government will enlist the daily activities of civil society in the service of fulfilling its purposes. That war is the emblem of Big Government explains why those who wish to see America’s federal government assume this activist role on the domestic scene not infrequently invoke the imagery of war (“The War on Drugs” and “The War on Poverty” are just two examples that come to mind).

But as real conservatives have always known, individual liberty and Big Government are mutually incompatible. Real conservatives have also known that it is not uncommon for the best laid plans of men – particularly when they are men holding political office – to go awry. And under no conditions is this more likely to occur than the unconditioned chaos of war.

In spite of this, most of today’s Republicans who insist upon calling themselves “conservatives” maintain that we are at war with an enemy that, because it has none of the distinctness of those governments that we’ve gone to war with in the past, promises to be intractable. Our war is a war without end.

However, a war without end requires a big military without end.

And a big military without end is Big Government without end.

To put it directly, the Republican Party is either self-delusional or deceptive, for its rhetoric of “limited government” and “individual liberty” is radically at odds with its enthusiasm for growing the military ad infinitum. A smaller, decentralized, truly federal government most definitely is compatible with liberty. In fact, the latter can’t exist without the former. Calls for Big Government, though, are nothing less than calls for a drastic diminution of liberty and, as in the case of Somers, ever greater individual suffering. 

These Republican “conservatives” should bear in mind what no true conservative would ever need to be told: As long as they get their wish, the Daniel Somers of the world will only multiply.   

This article originally appeared on: The New American

New Campaign in China Forcing IUDs, Sterilization on Women, Report Charges

0

Forced “family planning” is in full swing in China, with a recent report by the Texas-based watchdog group ChinaAid revealing that the city of Huizhou in the southern China Guangdong Province has launched a campaign aimed at reducing the number of births in the city of four and one-half million residents.

According to ChinaAid, the new initiative requires “women who already had a child to be fitted with an IUD, while those with two children had to undergo a tubal ligation [sterilization].” Women who comply “within a certain time frame would receive a financial reward,” ChinaAid reported, citing a government announcement posted throughout the city and online. “Meanwhile, those who did not comply would not be issued certificates by the family planning departments when their children are to enroll in school, social security departments will not process applications for social security services, hospitals will not issue relevant certifications, and the local government will refuse to handle all related services for them.”

According to some local residents monitoring the campaign, “Huizhou’s performance record in family planning is poor (birth rate is too high and the number of abortions and sterilizations too low), hence this wave of family planning measures,” reported ChinaAid. Further, Huizhou is apparently not unique in imposing the policy. “Information from other sources indicate that similar birth control requirements are being imposed on women in other provinces as well,” reported ChinaAid. “On the government website for Fuzhou, Fujian province, a commenter suggested the same measure [was] already in place in Huizhou: that documents showing the mother’s use of IUD be presented at the time of applying for household registration for a newborn.”

Similarly, a local newspaper in Hainan, a small island province south of Guangdong, “reported on June 4 that good family planning work had resulted in dropping birth rates in reclaimed land areas,” noted ChinaAid, “and so the Health Bureau under the Agriculture and Land Reclamation Administration had been honored by the provincial Office of the Leading Group for Family Planning with the designation of an ‘advanced unit’ for ‘comprehensive management of population and family planning.’”

Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute (PRI), a pro-life network that monitors the effects of China’s notorious one-child policy, noted that decades of forced abortion and sterilization have placed China in a serious situation. As a result of its self-destructive population policies, China “faces a below replacement birth rate, an aging workforce, and weakened political legitimacy,” he wrote in a recent commentary.

Mosher noted that the latest census data suggests China is in the midst of a “demographic crisis.” Fertility in China is at an all-time low, and the children who are being born are disproportionately male. He noted that for a population to replace itself, each woman needs to have one daughter who lives to childbearing age. “But on average, Chinese women bear only 0.69 daughters, which is well below replacement,” Mosher wrote.

“Decades of sex-selective abortion have produced an enormous ‘gender gap’ in China,” Mosher continued. “There are now tens of millions more men than women in that country, a ticking time bomb that will either explode inward into internal unrest, or outward into external aggression in the years to come.”

Mosher and PRI have joined with ChinaAid and Chinese pro-life dissident Chen Guangcheng to publicize the seriousness of China’s policy. “Morality aside, China’s policy no longer makes demographic, economic or political sense,” he wrote, adding that “400 million forced abortions and sterilizations is enough. Chinese women, children, and families have suffered enough over the past 33 years. It is time to end the misguided one-child policy.”

In related news, the Beijing government recently banned individuals and groups from privately adopting any of the tens of thousands of infants who are abandoned each year by Chinese parents horrified of being discovered with more than the one child allotted by the communist government. According to the Associated Press, China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs announced June 18 that people who find an abandoned child must immediately inform government authorities.

“China’s adoption law forbids baby trafficking and trafficking abandoned babies in the name of adoption, but doesn’t mention whether individuals are allowed to keep abandoned babies,” reported AP. The new rule forbids keeping such babies, stipulating that “people wanting to adopt must go through official channels and meet requirements, which under Chinese law include being healthy, over 30, and childless,” reported AP.

The AP report cited a Chinese population expert who said that some 200,000 babies – mostly girls – are abandoned each year in the country, by parents who want the one child they are allowed to have be a boy.

Photo of an X-ray of an IUD implanted in a woman

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Taxpayers, Rockefellers Fund “Sustainable” Plot to Undermine Market

0

The Rockefeller Foundation, mega-banks, and even taxpayers via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have provided millions of dollars toward pushing a new type of “socially responsible” corporate structure known as the “benefit corporation.” More than 15 states have already signed on. Critics, however, say the scheme will further undermine what remains of the market system while promoting deeply controversial United Nations Agenda 21-linked notions of “sustainable development.”

Under the “benefit-corporation” agenda, companies would no longer be just responsible for producing shareholder profits. Instead, a firm that becomes a benefit corporation would also have to pursue other goals that appear noble at first glance – sustainability, social justice, environmentalism, social responsibility, and other alleged “public benefits.” Apparently, creating jobs for workers and profits for shareholders, as well as goods and services that consumers want to purchase, is no longer enough.

If and when companies decide to become benefit corporations, they would obtain significant advantages over traditional firms dedicated to maximizing value. After receiving certification from a Rockefeller-funded outfit known as “B-Labs,” which is at the heart of the nationwide push, B-Corps could become eligible to receive everything from major tax breaks to preferential access to lucrative government contracts.

State governments across America are under heavy pressure by powerful lobbyists to adopt legislation creating “benefit-corporations” within their jurisdictions. Along with Washington, D.C., at least 17 states have already passed the necessary laws – Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia. Another dozen states, meanwhile, have bills introduced in the legislature.

Because the vast majority of Americans know nothing about the benefit-corporation agenda, legislation to lay the foundations of the scheme has met with little resistance so far. In North Carolina, however, liberty-minded activists succeeded in stopping the effort in May – if only temporarily – by explaining the more sinister side of the plot to lawmakers.

One of the citizen activists responsible for defeating the bill, Wynne Coleman, told The New American that the real agenda behind the whole benefit-corporation concept was socialism and more power for the global establishment. After hearing about the scheme, Coleman began researching. What she found was deeply troubling. 

“The main problem with benefit corporations is that they disrupt the free market system of the United States,” she explained. “They set socialistic precedents in economy, society, and environment that are incompatible with our free enterprise system.”

More specifically, Coleman pointed to a series of major issues she sees with the plan. For one, she said, benefit corporations would fundamentally transform the way business is done in the United States by shifting the focus away from shareholder profits – the single bottom line. Instead, resources would be diverted toward nebulous “social” and “environmental” causes – “economy, environment, society” or “People, Planet, Profits” – known as the so-called “triple bottom line.”

Benefit corporations also blur the lines between public, private, and non-profit sectors that should remain separate, Coleman continued. Meanwhile, she said, the scheme would establish a “certification” process by third-party rating agencies that, while voluntary for now, could eventually become mandatory.

Other problems include the imposition of “hazy moral social standards” that would force companies to pursue expensive environmental schemes based on “unproven scientific theory,” she added. Finally, benefit corporations would “normalize a socialist philosophy,” Coleman concluded, pointing to the highly controversial UN Sustainable Development agenda – a planetary plot backed by Big Business, Big Banks, Big Government, dictators, and more.

“Ultimately, the benefit corporation system’s design is to consolidate power for the global elites,” Coleman told The New American, citing a series of hard-hitting reports and presentations she prepared for lawmakers about the scheme. “The global elite in politics and finance use an unconstitutional arrangement of public-private partnerships, by which the force of government combines with the power of business to plunder the resources of society and dictate how people must live.”

While the words United Nations, Agenda 21, and sustainable development do not appear in the benefit-corporation legislation being promoted across America, Coleman and other critics said the link is unmistakable. According to the definition of benefit corporations, they must “create a material positive impact on society and the environment.” Taken together, those nice-sounding terms, along with the fact that corporations are involved in business and the economy, should be cause for alarm.

After summarizing the key points of UN Agenda 21 – environment, economy, and equity, the so-called 3 E’s – Coleman explained that the goals of benefit corporations are virtually identical: promoting government, “sustainability,” pseudo-environmentalism, the merger of state and corporate power, and more, all under the bogus guise of helping people. Reviewing information found throughout the websites of front-groups promoting benefit corporations, the link becomes even more clear.

“One must ask: If the genuine motive for creating a benefit corporation is to enable a corporation to use profits to accomplish charitable and good acts, why must these good acts be defined by the specific 3E terminology of sustainable development, so often used in United Nations documents and websites?” Coleman asked, saying businesses should be free to run themselves but government should not provide special favors to so-called “benefit corporations.”

Of course, looking at what organizations and individuals are financing the push for benefit corporations and legislation to create them reveals a great deal as well. One of the groups at the center of the entire agenda, known as B Lab, lists its major funders online. The top donor: The Rockefeller Foundation, which gave between $2.5 million and $5 million.

The Rockefeller family has a long history of pushing causes at odds with the free market system, national sovereignty, and more. Indeed, billionaire banker David Rockefeller – a top player in key groups associated with the global establishment such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, and others – has openly revealed where his sympathies are.

In a 1973 piece for the New York Times, for example, he praised the communist “social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership,” which killed tens of millions of people and enslaved over a billion, as “one of the most important and successful in history.”

More recently, David Rockefeller offered some insight into his views in his 2002 autobiography. “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will,” he wrote. “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Rockefellers are not alone in pushing benefit corporations, though. Donating between $1 million and $2.5 million were several entities. Among the most noteworthy, perhaps, is USAID, a taxpayer-funded federal agency mired in controversy that is supposedly charged with handing out foreign aid. The New American reached out to USAID to find out why tax dollars were funding such a scheme, but the outfit did not respond to requests for comment. It was not immediately clear what constitutional or statutory authority purportedly authorizes spending public funds on the push for benefit corporations. 

With the notable exception of some segments of the alternative media, very little scrutiny has been offered about the agenda so far – partly because so few Americans are even aware of the plot. However, for critics, it is crucial that citizens get informed about benefit corporations and get to work stopping the enabling legislation at the state level.

Coleman, who played a central role in stopping the bill in North Carolina, said Americans in states without benefit-corporation laws must stay on high alert. Citizens in states that already have such laws on the books, she added, should work with their elected officials to get the bills repealed. Coleman believes legislators and even governors might not have understood what they were doing, so educating them could help.  

Analysts and critics of benefit corporations, pointing to some recent developments such as the formation of the billionaire-dominated “B Team,” say the effort to foist the scheme on America is about to be ramped up – big time. However, opposition to the so-called “sustainability” agenda is exploding nationwide, with some states even banning UN Agenda 21 entirely. Whether the establishment will succeed in imposing even more centralized government control over Americans will almost certainly depend on the strength of grassroots efforts to stop it.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

Related articles:

Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21     

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21

Powerful New Video Explores How Agenda 21 Will Affect You

UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs

GOP Platform Rejects UN Agenda 21 as Threat to Sovereignty

Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21

Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development”

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

State Ban on UN Agenda 21 Clears Arizona Senate

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21

Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Over a Million Brazilians Protest; Analysts Question Real Agenda

0

Estimates suggest over a million Brazilians – outraged about everything from high taxes and government corruption to the wasting of taxpayer money on sports tournaments – participated in massive nationwide protests over the last week. The wave of demonstrations, some of which became violent, were supposedly triggered by a small fare increase for public transportation that boiled over into general unrest about a wide range of other issues related to government. Some well-informed analysts, however, say there is more to the apparent uprising than meets the eye.

News reports said a series of protests on Thursday involving over a million people total, reportedly the largest so far, had taken place in over 100 cities. The efforts have broad support among Brazilians who are not participating, too. According to a recent poll cited by the Associated Press, 75 percent of citizens said they supported the demonstrations. While there are countless grievances being aired in the streets, the common denominator appears to be disillusionment with government.

Most of the protests have reportedly been peaceful so far, though more than a few violent incidents were documented across the country. In Rio de Janeiro, for example, where hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets, police reportedly used pepper spray and tear gas to keep unruly protesters in check amid violent clashes. Dozens were injured, according to news reports. Some sporadic looting has also been reported, and protesters reportedly attacked multiple government buildings. At least four people have been killed.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a former communist terrorist who rose to power with the backing of her predecessor through the statist “Workers’ Party” (PT), praised what she claimed was the “democratic spirit” of the protests. She added, however, that authorities planned to crackdown on the violent minority. Following more than a week of demonstrations, the president also proposed a series of reforms supposedly aimed at satisfying public demands.

Speaking in a meeting of state governors and mayors, Rousseff – a key figure in the shadowy socialist Foro de São Paulo (FSP), or São Paulo Forum, founded by communist dictator Fidel Castro and former Brazilian President Luiz “Lula” da Silva (PT) – even suggested changing the Constitution. “The streets are telling us that the country wants quality public services, more effective measures to combat corruption … and responsive political representation,” she said.

The Brazilian president also made a television appearance, taking the opportunity to express support for the protesters. Rousseff has been meeting with purported leaders of the demonstrations as well in a supposed effort to understand and address their concerns. Already, authorities agreed to scrap the proposed fare increase for public transportation. 

Establishment media reports in Brazil and around the world have tried to portray the massive outcry across Brazil as some sort of spontaneous, leaderless uprising. Well-informed analysts, however, see something much more sinister behind the protests. Among the powerful forces that experts say are directing much of the unrest from the shadows: the FSP, an alliance of socialist and communist political movements in Latin America that now rules over most of the nations in the region – including Brazil.

In essence, then, conservative and liberty-minded analysts say the well-funded FSP is organizing protests and unrest against its own crimes. The purpose: to change the Brazilian Constitution in a bid to solidify and extend socialist domination in the nation and the broader region, according to critics. Prof. Olavo de Carvalho, a conservative-leaning author and philosopher who has played a key role in exposing the machinations of the FSP, outlined what he views as the real agenda.    

“The rioting movement was launched by the São Paulo Forum, as [senior PT leader] Valter Pomar confessed, to force an ‘upgrade’ in the revolutionary process, moving from the ‘transition’ phase to the ‘breaking point,’” de Carvalho explained on Facebook. “Like always on these occasions, some leaders of the first phase would need to be sacrificed, in case they do not quickly adapt to the rhythm of the changes. President Dilma and even the PT as a whole appeared on the menu as strong candidates for losing their heads.”

According to Carvalho’s analysis, Rousseff is trying desperately to save her own neck by slavish devotion to the FSP in an effort to prove that she can help the socialist cabal achieve its objectives. To succeed, however, will require extending the “transitional” phase of the revolution – and delaying the breaking point – to ensure the political survival of at least part of the first generation of Brazil’s revolutionary leadership.

“The reaction of ‘the right’ that was seen in the streets showed that the ‘breaking point’ was a little too premature, and that, in a certain way, returned the initiative of the process to the government ‘of transition’,” Carvalho concluded. “In any case, the decisive factor is – now, like before – the São Paulo Forum. Dilma is the tail that will never wag the dog.”       

Over the years, The New American magazine has spent considerable space exposing the FSP and its machinations as well. The controversial organization brings together more than 100 statist political parties, social movements, narco-terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia, and other forces dedicated to, as Castro is widely reported to have said, “recovering in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe.” Already, FSP members rule more than two thirds of national governments in the region.

Beyond simple domination of national politics, the FSP and its allies are also working toward regional so-called “integration” – an effort to smash national sovereignty while erecting numerous regional, unaccountable governments. There are already multiple “integration” schemes in existence, with the Union of South American Nations (UNASUL or UNASUR), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Mercosur, ALBA, and others among the most prominent.

While Brazil’s current crop of rulers and their allies in the establishment press consistently seek to portray the Brazilian government as a left-leaning “moderate” force, experts say the reality is that Brasilia is at the heart of the so-called “pink tide” sweeping across the region. Of course, the rhetoric of self-styled communists and socialists like Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers may make Rousseff and Lula appear moderate, but behind the scenes in the FSP, the movement is largely unified. The goal: continue spreading socialism throughout the region.

Outside of Latin America, socialist and communist forces are also working with the Brazilian government and the FSP. The so-called BRICS alliance – a bloc uniting the statist regimes ruling Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa – is at the forefront of the effort, recently proposing a global currency and a more powerful global authority to re-distribute wealth and erode national sovereignty under various guises.

For now, protest leaders have vowed to continue organizing demonstrations in Brazil, though the numbers appear to have declined from the peak late last week. A group on Facebook of about 6,000 Brazilians so far, meanwhile, is planning its own protest for July 31 against the FSP. The plan, according to event organizers, is to educate the population about the shadowy group, its role in the unrest, and its broader agenda of seizing complete power in Latin America.

While the supposed “reforms” and constitutional changes being proposed by Rousseff remain vague, the goal will almost certainly be to expand the size and scope of government while ensuring the dominance of statist forces in politics. Among the “five pacts” outlined so far: more federal spending on government “education,” transportation, and healthcare; creating a “Constituent Assembly” to amend the Constitution; and working to “guarantee” economic stability.

The concerns of well-meaning protesters over wild taxes, rampant corruption, and lawless government are without a doubt justified. The question now, however, is: Will the people of Brazil allow themselves to be taken for another ride by their supposed leaders in a bogus bid to address the very real issues? Time will tell, but at this point, liberty-minded forces see little reason for optimism amid the escalating turmoil.

Photo of protestors in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 24: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe after growing up in Latin America, including four years in Brazil. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

Related articles:

Resurgent Communism in Latin America

Amid Federal Land Grab in Brazil, Whole Towns Evicted at Gunpoint

Olavo de Carvalho on Communism in Latin America

Communist Cuban Tyrant Raul Castro to Lead Latin American Bloc

Obama Commits American Support to Brazilian Oil

New Americas Group Includes Cuba, Not U.S; China Cheers    

BRICS Regimes Forge New World Bank, Call for Global Currency

Google Brazil Chief Arrested Over Political YouTube Video

Corruption: Brazil Sheltering Wanted Marxist Terrorist

South American Union Selects Socialist Leaders

Communism’s Resurgence

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Two senators say the NSA is still lying to Congress

0

Two Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence say the National Security Agency provided “inaccurate” and “misleading” information to the American public about the government’s vast surveillance operations.

Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall sent a letter to NSA Director
Gen. Keith Alexander on Monday asking him to make revisions to a
set of fact sheets that were released by his agency to quell
concerns about domestic surveillance in the wake of leaked
documents attributed to former intelligence contractor Edward
Snowden earlier this month.

The Guardian newspaper has been publishing top-secret documents
provided by Snowden that he says proves the NSA operates
secretive spying programs that retain information on United
States citizens under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) and Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
Snowden claims those two statutes are abused in order to surveil
American citizens, an argument Gen. Alexander’s office recently
attempted to counter by releasing a four-page set of bullet
points outlining what the US government can and can’t do under
federal law.

According to Sens. Wyden and Udall, the NSA’s response isn’t
in-tune with what they’ve been told of the programs. “We were
disappointed to see that this fact sheet contains an inaccurate
statement about how the Section 702 authority has been
interpreted by the US government
,” they write Gen. Alexander.
“In our judgment this inaccuracy is significant, as it
portrays protections for Americans’ privacy as being
significantly stronger than they actually are
.”

But while the fact sheets have been made available online, Wyden
and Udall can’t explain in their public letter what their
allegations are in reference to since the lawmakers’ own
knowledge of the clandestine operations are not allowed to be
discussed, even among the constituents who elected them to the
Senate. Instead, they wrote that they’ve “identified this
inaccurate statement in the classified attachment
” sent to
Alexander.

Elsewhere, the lawmakers rejected the NSA’s claim that, “Any
inadvertently acquired communication of or concerning a US person
must be promptly destroyed if it is neither relevant to the
authorized purpose nor evidence of a crime
.”

“We believe that this statement is somewhat misleading,”
replied the senators, “in that it implies that the NSA has the
ability to determine how many American communications it has
collected under Section 702, or that the law does not allow the
NSA to deliberately search for the records of particular
Americans. In fact, the intelligence community has told us
repeatedly that it is ‘not reasonably possible to identify the
number of people located in the United States whose
communications may have been reviewed under the authority’ of the
FISA Amendments Act
.”

In a tweet sent out Monday evening, Sen. Wyden again said the
FISA fact sheet included a “significant inaccuracy.”

Nowhere does the senators’ response include allegations of any
discrepancies in the Section 215 fact sheet, but both Wyden and
Udall have raised questions about how the government interprets
that provision previously. “We believe most Americans would be
stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions
have interpreted Section 215
,” they wrote in a joint letter
to Attorney General Eric Holder last year. “As we see it,
there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think
the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law
allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an
informed public debate about what the law should say when they
public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says
.”

In their letter to Gen. Alexander this week, both Udall and Wyden
wrote that they believe the US government should have “broad
authorities to investigate terrorism and espionage
,” and that
it’s possible to “aggressively pursue terrorists without
compromising the constitutional rights of ordinary
Americans
.”

“Achieving this goal depends not just on secret courts and
secret congressional hearings, but on informed public debate as
well
,” they wrote.

But while Sens. Udall and Wyden have been long critical of
surveillance powers provided through FISA and the PATRIOT Act,
their take on the revelations exposed by Mr. Snowden differs
drastically with that of President Barack Obama and many leading
figures of his administration. Mr. Obama, Gen. Alexander and Mr.
Holder have all defended the practices used by the NSA and say
that no constitutional violations occur due to privacy safeguards
in place, as have Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.).

“I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100
percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero
inconvenience
,” President Obama said earlier this month.

With respect to Section 702 and Section 215, Obama said,
“These are programs that have been authorized by broad
bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. And so I think at
the onset it is important to understand that your duly elected
representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what
we’re doin
g.”

Edward Snowden revealed himself as the contractor responsible for
the leaks published by The Guardian less than one week after the
paper first began releasing information on the programs. He gave
several interviews in Hong Kong before flying to Moscow where he
remains today, according to both the US and Russian presidents.
The anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks announced Monday that Snowden
has asked for asylum from several countries, including Iceland
and Ecuador.

This article originally appeared on: RT

Power struggle under way in S. Arabia

0

A power struggle is under way in Saudi Arabia since the countryâ„¢s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is in very frail health.

According to an article entitled The Struggle for Power in Saudi Arabia published in Foreign Policy on June 19, Å“With the reign of King Abdullah in its twilight, Saudi Arabia has become consumed with speculation about the future of the ruling al-Saud brotherhood.”

The article also said that in recent months, King Abdullah did his best to pave the way for his son Miteb, 61, to become the king of the oil-rich country.

Å“King Abdullah’s remaining energies have been focused on remaking the House of Saud’s own leadership. ..Abdullah decreed that the Saudi Royal National Guard, a powerful military force that he commanded for decades, was to become a full-fledged ministry — and that his son, Miteb, 61, would be the new minister. These moves give Miteb more political clout to compete with other rivals for the throne from the younger generation of al-Sauds,” it said.

The article noted that the leadership turnover in the Arab country is taking place in a critical time and Å“Saudi leaders have been deeply anxious about the waning of American leadership in the Middle East.”

The 89-year-old kingâ„¢s health has declined over the past few years, during which he has been hospitalized several times.

Failing health, old age as well as the death of the kingâ„¢s half-brothers have raised concerns about the future of the oil-rich country in the face of anti-government demonstrations.

MAM/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Scalia: Judges Should Not Be "Mullahs of the West."

0

Only days before the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings on two controversial cases involving same-sex marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia told a state bar association that judges are not fit arbiters of moral standards, the Charlotte Observer reported. Speaking in Asheville Friday at an annual meeting of the North Carolina Bar Association, the veteran jurist argued against what he described as a growing belief in the role of the “judge moralist” in deciding a wide array of moral and ethical questions, including abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage. Judges are not experts on moral issues and many of the questions brought to the court have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer,” Scalia said in a speech titled, “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters.”

The Supreme Court is expected this week to announce decisions on two much-watched and highly publicized cases concerning same-sex marriage. One is a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage in federal law as a union between one man and one woman. The other is a suit alleging that California’s Proposition 8, adopted by referendum in 2008, violates the constitutional guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” by denying marriage to same-sex couples. While not addressing either case in his remarks to the bar association, Scalia has, both in prior speeches and in his court opinions, often expressed a willingness to leave moral issues with the states and to prevailing community standards, rather than having them decided by the national judiciary. Known for his belief in interpreting provisions of the Constitution according to the “original intent” of its authors, Scalia acknowledged during the question-and-answer segment of his presentation that many judges and legal scholars favor interpretations of a ‘living Constitution” that embodies “evolving standards of decency.” The courts are often confronted with new issues and arguments, he conceded, but he said they should rule according to constitutional principles as understood and ratified in the adoption of the original Constitution and subsequent amendments. Most moral issues, he said, are not new, though popular opinion concerning them may change. He questioned “the propriety, the sanity” of having such “value-laden” decisions “made for the entire society by unelected judges,” warning: “We have become addicted to abstract moralizing.”

Scalia, 77, is the longest serving and, arguably, the most conservative justice among current members of the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1986. He is noted for frequently issuing sharply worded dissents when a majority of his colleagues embrace a new and more expansive interpretation of a constitutional provision than his jurisprudence of original intent would allow. In dissenting from a 2003 ruling that overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law, Scalia wrote that people are entitled to protect themselves and their communities form “a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.” He is often skeptical of new claims to rights nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and has been openly scornful of a claim made by Justice Anthony Kennedy in defense of the Roe v. Wade ruling that abortion is a constitutional right. “At the heart of liberty,” Kennedy wrote in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Scalia has derided that as the “famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage.”

“Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” Scalia said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute last October. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years it was criminal in every state.” In March, during oral arguments on same-sex marriage, Scalia raised the question: “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?”

While the jurist’s 35-minute speech in Asheville elicited applause and laughter, not all the lawyers present agreed with his “originalist” approach to interpreting the Constitution. Raleigh attorney John Sarrat asked Scalia for his view of the unanimous Supreme Court decision ruling segregated public schools unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Scalia said he would have supported that decision, but said the states would have eventually removed the racial barriers even without the court mandate. A good result does not necessarily make good law, he said. Sarrat disagreed.

“I tend to be outcome-based,” he told the Observer. “And if the outcome is equality for all people, then I’m for the courts moving in that direction, before the people are ready.”

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Food Network Fires Paula Deen Over Racism Scandal

0

Food Network star Paula Deen (shown) has been dumped by her network following a racism scandal which began with a lawsuit filed by Lisa Jackson, a Caucasian woman in her 40s, against Deen and Deen’s brother, Bubba Hiers. Jackson’s lawsuit alleged that Deen had been guilty of using the “n-word,” sexual harassment, and infliction of emotional distress on Jackson while working at Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House in Savannah, Georgia from 2005 to 2010 as the General Manager.

The lawsuit took Deen and Hiers by surprise as they had a good relationship with Jackson before this all began. Prior to filing the lawsuit, Jackson had written a letter to Deen, praising both her and Hiers, which stated:

When I came to work for this company, as a person, I felt hopeless. I needed something, some opportunity that could provide me hope as an individual, as a woman, to make it on my own. At 15, homeless, without parents and with a young child, my life was headed in a direction no one could ever assume positive. As you know, I did what I had to do to survive, but it clearly was not the freedom or happiness I ever hoped for…. When I started working for Bubba, he gave me an opportunity that allowed me, over time, a freedom I have never experienced. He allowed me, for once in my life to take care of myself and for once, have faith in myself as a person and as a woman to know that I could do it on my own; y’all were my Aunt Peggy…. I have been given opportunities that I never thought possible, all because of you and Bubba.

Months later, however, Jackson left Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House without notice. Later, Deen and Hiers received a letter from Jackson’s attorney asking for $1.25 million in settlement for the accusations asserted by Jackson, or else she would go public about the accusations. Deen refused, and accused Jackson of extortion. Jackson moved forward with the lawsuit.

In response, attorneys for Paula Deen Enterprises and Bubba Hiers filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the threatening letters submitted by Jackson.

“Prior to the filing of this suit, Jackson repeatedly threatened to assert scurrilous claims publicly in the press unless huge sums of money were paid to Jackson and her counsel, which demand was refused. Jackson’s suit should be dismissed, for among other reasons, on equitable grounds on the basis of clean hands,” the attorneys asserted.

The court rejected the motion, however, prompting Deen’s attorneys to pursue a gag order, declaring “a protective order is necessary because Ms. Jackson and her counsel have made abundantly clear that they intend to engage in a path of personal and financial destruction because Paula Deen would not pay their pretrial settlement demand…. Through her cooking and television exposure, Mrs. Deen has arguably become the face of Southern cuisine and living…. For a public figure such as Mrs. Deen, even if Ms. Jackson’s allegations are proven untrue, the harm resulting from the continuing mass dissemination of the allegations may never be undone.”

According to Judge Louisa Abbot, who denied the gag order, “concerns about potentially adverse pretrial publicity and the potential effects of damage to their reputations do not outweigh any of the constitutional principles invoked by this motion.”

The controversy has intensified after Deen told an attorney questioning her under oath last month that she has used the “n-word.” “Yes, of course,” she responded, adding, “It’s been a very long time.”

On Friday, the Food Network announced it would not be renewing Deen’s contract when it expires.

“Food Network will not renew Paula Deen’s contract when it expires at the end of this month,” the statement said.

Meanwhile Deen has posted two videotaped apologies online wherein she begs her fans to forgive her.

“Inappropriate, hurtful language is totally, totally unacceptable,” Deen said in the first 45-second video posted on YouTube. “I’ve made plenty of mistakes along the way but I beg you, my children, my team, my fans, my partners – I beg for your forgiveness.”

Because the video had contained edits, however, Deen posted a second one, in which she speaks for two unedited minutes.

“I want people to understand that my family and I are not the kind of people that the press is wanting to say we are,” Deen says in the later video. “The pain has been tremendous that I have caused to myself and to others.”

The scandal has compelled a number of supporters to defend Deen.

Author Anne Rice has virtually called the entire ordeal a misguided witch hunt.

“What’s happening with Paula Dean? Is it fair? I never heard of her until today, and wow, this looks like a crucifixion,” Rice wrote on Friday on her Facebook page. “I may be wrong but aren’t we becoming something of a lynch mob culture? Is this a good example of that?”

In response to several fans who commented on her post, she wrote “Her brother sounds like a piece of work, but her remarks were made informally and in private, and clearly not intended to hurt anyone. Now they’ve been elevated to billboard status where they can hurt many as the result of a law suit [sic],” Rice wrote.

Rice, who is originally from New Orleans, Louisiana, also wrote on her FB page that she believes much of the controversy to be driven by a hatred for the South.

“Why does this country still hate the American South so much? You think there isn’t deep hateful racism in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles? I can tell you, that you are wrong. It’s easy to hate Southerners, isn’t it?”

There is evidence of a double standard when it comes to the use of the “n-word.” When Jesse Jackson used it in controversial remarks about Barack Obama in 2008, there was no scandal and certainly no widespread media reporting on the subject.

And media attention for the New Black Panthers that threatened and intimidated voters and used racially charged language at Philadelphia polling stations in both 2008 and 2012 was virtually non-existent, with the exception of Fox News.

Deen fans have also taken to the Food Network’s Facebook page to voice their anger at what they view as a rushed decision.

“So good-bye Food Network,” one viewer wrote. “I hope you fold like an accordion!!!”

Another added, “Your dismissal of Paula Deen reflects not on her use of a commonly used word of years ago but on your own narrow-mindedness. The repercussions for your declining viewership will be great.”

John McWhorter, an associate English professor at Columbia University, wrote an opinionated piece for Time magazine, wherein he described what is happening to Deen as a “witch hunt.”

A transcript of Deen’s testimony at her deposition reveals that she faced a barrage of questions regarding her use of the “n-word,” as well as her comfort in using it, even amongst her friends and family. She also had to answer questions regarding the kind of jokes she liked to tell. The entire thing appears to be arguably intrusive.

“People of Deen’s generation can neither change the past nor completely escape their roots in it, anymore than the rest of us. They can apologize and mean it, as Deen seems to…. Deen is old and she’s sorry. She should get her job back,” McWhorter opined.

Photo of Paula Deen: AP Images

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Violent tribal clashes kill 11 in Darfur

0

A file photo shows a camp for internally displaced people in Nyala, capital of South Darfur.

A Fresh wave of violent clashes between rival tribes have claimed lives of at least 11 people in Sudanâ„¢s western region of Darfur, residents and eyewitnesses say.

The fierce fighting broke out around Edd al-Fursan, some 100 kilometers southwest of the South Darfur state capital Nyala on Monday.

The causalities come after the members of the rival Beni Halba tribe raided three Gimir villages across the volatile region.

“They came on vehicles, motorcycles, horses and camels, with heavy weapons…We lost five martyrs,” AFP quoted Abaker al-Toum, a leader of the Gimir tribe, as saying on Tuesday.

Eyewitnesses say several houses and properties were set on fire during the ongoing clashes in the violence-wracked region.

Meanwhile, a leader of the Beni Halba tribe, who requested anonymity, noted that the clashes have left six members of his tribe dead, saying Å“We are fighting to protect our land.”

In early May, at least 80 people died in battles between the Beni Halba and Gimir tribes over land ownership.

The African Union and UN peacekeeping mission (UNAMID) said last week that a surge in inter-tribal clashes “has been the major source of violence, fatalities and displacement of civilian population” in Darfur region this year.

Thousands of people across Darfur have been forced to flee their homes in the wake of tribal clashes and fighting between government and rebel forces this year.

Competition for resources, such as water, is the main reason for the conflicts in Darfur region.

MT/JR/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Stop U.S. bloggers from entering UK’

0

British govt. urged to stop anti-Islam U.S. bloggers from entering UK

British authorities have raised deep concerns over a scheduled visit by two American bloggers notorious for attacks against Muslims and Islam to the United Kingdom.

U.S. bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who are notorious for attacks against Muslims and Islam, are scheduled to visit Britain to speak at a planned march by the English Defence League (EDL).

Geller has led many campaigns against Muslims since plans to build a mosque near the 9/11 site in New York.

She also runs “Stop Islamization of America”, a group referred to as an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Law Poverty Center.

The anti-Islam bloggers plan to join Danish activist Anders Gravers, of “Stop Islamisation of Europe”, and EDL chieftains Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll.

The march, planned by EDL to mark Armed Forces Day on June 29, will end in Woolwich, south east London, where an off-duty British soldier was murdered by two assailants.

“I am alarmed that the EDL [English Defence League] is planning this type of march in Woolwich,” said Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vaz.

“It is clear that the location, motivation and attendees at this march will incite hatred”, he added.

According to Tell Mama project, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks in Britain, 212 Å“anti-Muslim incidents” have been reported after the Woolwich attack.

The figure included 11 attacks on mosques, in a series of manifestation of anti-Muslim sentiments.

Last week, three Muslim worshippers were stabbed after the night prayers in Birmingham.

Fearing troubles, British officials have called for banning the incendiary bloggers from entering the country.

“Adding incendiary speakers such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer just fuels the fire,” Vaz said.

“Before we have to pay the costs for the extra policing required for this demonstration, the Home Secretary should consider using her discretion to ban these two speakers from entering the country.

“A ban should be enforced properly and physically stop people entering our borders.”

Anti-fascist campaign Hope Not Hate also started a petition calling on Home Secretary to deny the two bloggers a visa on the grounds that “their very presence in the UK will give encouragement to racists and extremists”.

The EDL, a far-right group that emerged in 2009, has held numerous protests against what it calls Å“Islamic extremism” in Britain.

Far-right groups like the EDL and the British National Party (BNP) are playing the card of immigration to stoke sentiment against Muslims and immigrants.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Supreme Court Puts 'Dagger in the Heart' of Voting Rights Act

0

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has “sounded the death knell” for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a blow to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.

In an earlier demonstration, protesters pleaded with the high court to ‘protect their vote’ and preserve the important oversight provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP) “What the Supreme Court did was to put a dagger in the heart of the Voting Rights Act,” said Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis, following the news of the vote, which gutted the Act from protective provisions that had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

This ruling “threatens to make second-class citizens out of millions of Americans,” added watchdog group, Common Cause.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. 

“Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the Voting Rights Act,” wrote Ginsburg, adding, “When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’ power to act is at its height.” 

The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.

Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, “is without significance,” writes the New York Times.

By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data–according to the ruling–for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this “will be exceptionally difficult politically.”

And according to analysts, “the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small,” the New York Times reports.

“In practice, in reality, it’s probably the death knell of this provision,” noted SCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.

The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had “outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states,” after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.

“The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective,” lamented the dissenting justices.

“Discrimination at the ballot box is a real problem and causes real harm to our democracy,” added Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a statement blasting the ruling. “This ruling is a major step backwards in the ongoing fight for a truly free and fair democracy and democratic system.”

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

'It is an Assault': Bipartisan Support for Surge of Militarization at U.S.-Mexico Border

0

A border patrol vehicle is parked near a U.S.-Mexico border fence (Photo: Don Bartletti/Los Angelos Times)The Senate signaled bipartisan support for the heightened militarization of the United States-Mexico border Monday, passing an immigration overhaul bill that, if implemented, will double border police to 40,000, fill the skies within 100 miles of the border with drones and helicopters, and erect a stunning 700 miles of new border walls.

The price tag of this military buildup? An estimated 46 billion dollars.

Colorlines reports concern among those who must live in the shadow of the escalated military presence:

“Border communities, and the DREAMers and families who live in the Southwest, have already been subjected to criminalization and militarization,” Evelyn Rivera of the group United We Dream said in a statement. “This amendment is based on the false notion that our border is not secure or there hasn’t been adequate enforcement up to this point.”

Border militarization was thrown into the bill by republican senators as a condition of including a track to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people already living in the United States.

Yet, it ultimately passed with the muscle of democrats, who threw their weight behind it with 67 votes and 27 from republicans.

The bill makes small improvements to due process to immigrants incarcerated in U.S. criminal justice and immigration courts and slightly extends oversight of infamous Homeland Security jails. However, it will also require employers to cross-check potential hires with federal databases to check their citizenship status.

Furthermore, it will continue incarceration prosecutions for ‘immigration offenses.’ As the ACLU reports, today there are a stunning 100,000 immigration prosecutions as year as undocumented people are shuttled into overcrowded prisons with dismal human rights records.

While the bill is being touted by democrats as a bipartisan compromise that allows a fast-track for citizenship, many immigrant justice groups are saying the bill is so compromised with the border militarization amendment that it will ultimately hurt immigrant communities.

The New York Times reports:

A coalition of groups representing border communities urged senators to reject the amendment, which they called “an example of excessive and wasteful government spending” and a “poorly thought-out policy.”

“It is an assault on our system of checks and balances and seriously threatens the quality of life of border residents,” wrote the border groups, in a statement.

The ACLU issued a searing condemnation of the bill’s end result:

Changes were made to the bill at the eleventh hour that meddled with what was already an unprecedented expansion of border enforcement in the base bill and increased it to obscene levels. These expenditures are wasteful, unnecessary and lack government oversight or accountability, and they put everyone who lives, travels, and works near the border at risk.

…The so-called surge will inevitably exacerbate civil liberties violations that the ACLU and other organizations have for years identified as characteristic of Customs and Border Protection operations, including excessive uses of force and racial profiling.

Immigrant advocates say the bill capitulates to the most far-right demands of congress.

Colorlines reports:

“It makes little sense for Democrats to capitulate to irrational Republican demands, particularly at this stage in the legislative process,” Chris Newman of the group National Day Laborers Network said in a statement, “Our focus should be on passing the best possible legislation in the Senate to maximize our ability to beat back the xenophobic and racist views that seem to have held the House of Representatives hostage.”

Having passed through the Senate, the bill is next headed for the House.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Seven killed during shootout in Brazil

0

Officers stand guard next to the covered corpse of a man fatally shot during gunbattles that erupted in a slum complex in Rio de Janeiro, on June 25, 2013.

At least seven people including a police officer have been killed during a shootout in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, officials say.

A Special Forces officer and a local resident were fatally shot Monday night after a gunfight broke out in a slum complex near the Rio International Airport, police said on Tuesday.

Five suspects were also killed early Tuesday as officers intervened against suspected criminals who were accused of attacking motorists during a demonstration.

Authorities deployed about 1,000 additional security personnel to the area, which is known for frequent gang battles, drug trafficking and clashes with police.

This is while, Brazil is currently facing unprecedented social unrest with President Dilma Rousseff recently proposing a referendum on a broad “political reform” in a bid to put an end to days of anti-government protests across the country.

Protests erupted on June 11, when people in Sao Paulo took to the streets to condemn a price hike in public transport.

The unrest spread quickly around the country and by June 22 some 1.5 million people participated in demonstrations.

At several protests, Brazilian police resorted to using tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters.

Protest organizers have vowed to continue demonstrations until concrete steps are taken to reform the political system as numerous social media call for a general strike on July 1, stating, Å“On July 1, 2013, Brazil will grind to a halt.”

GMA/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Yemen nabs drunk Saudi diplomat

0

Yemeni security forces have arrested a drunk employee of Saudi Arabia Embassy in the capital Sana’a while driving.

According to a report published by Adasat al-Yemen website, the drunk Saudi employee was nabbed after he refused to stop at a checkpoint in the city.

Following the arrest, the drunk employee was transferred to the main security headquarters in the same region.

According to local sources, the diplomat was released after Saudi Ambassador to Yemen called Major General Fadhel Bin Yahiya al-Qusi, the Commander of Central Security Forces, and ordered him to send the soldiers, who had arrested the Saudi diplomat, to jail.

MAM/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Duke Study Links Fracking to Water Contamination as EPA Drops Study on Fracking Water Contamination

0

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) kicked the can down the road on a key study designated to examine the connection between hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming.

A study originally scheduled for release in 2014 and featured in Josh Fox’s “Gasland 2,” it will not be complete until 2016 in a move that appears to be purely politically calculated by the Obama Administration, akin to the EPA’s dropped and censored groundwater contamination study in Weatherford, TX.

Now, just days later, a damning study conducted by Duke University researchers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences again links shale gas fracking to groundwater contamination. The Duke researchers did so by testing samples of 141 drinking water samples of Pennsylvania’s portion of the Marcellus Shale basin.

This is the Duke professor’s third study linking fracking to groundwater contamination, the source of drinking water for hundreds of thousands of citizens in the Keystone State. The industry is likely to come out with the familiar chorus that the contaminated water is “naturally occuring,” but the latest Duke study shows otherwise.

“They found that, on average, methane concentrations were six times higher and ethane concentrations were 23 times higher at homes within a kilometer of a shale gas well,” a Duke University press release explains. “Propane was detected in 10 samples, all of them from homes within a kilometer of drilling.”

Robert Jackson, a professor of environmental sciences at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and one of the study’s co-authors, pointed to the the fact that some of the contaminated water samples exhibited the chemical signature of Marcellus Shale gas.

“The methane, ethane and propane data, and new evidence from hydrocarbon and helium content, all suggest that drilling has affected some homeowners’ water,” said Jackson. “In a minority of cases the gas even looks Marcellus-like, probably caused by poor well construction.”

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Obama as a Third World Strongman

0

President Barack Obama entered office as a «hope and change» candidate who promised to be far different from his predecessor George W. Bush. However, in his fifth year in office, Obama has taken on the trappings of a «strongman», a leader found more often in Africa, the land of Obama’s paternal lineage, and in Asia, from where his step-father hailed. 

Obama has not only maintained unprecedented «unitary executive» powers amassed up by Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, but in the area of surveillance and press restrictions, Obama has gone far beyond the preceding administration…

Many Obama supporters believed that the first African-American president and a former constitutional law professor would ring to the presidency an appreciation for not only the rule of law and America’s traditions of free speech, a free press, and a belief on privacy but also an understanding that the United States is but one of some two hundred nations, many in Africa and Asia, that Washington must learn to live with in peace.

But after five years in office, an ominous shadow has emerged over the United States. Obama has instituted an unprecedented system of surveillance of the phone calls, e-mails, and Internet transactions of Americans, including eavesdropping operations directed against journalists and their sources. Associated Press president Gary Pruitt recently told the National Press Club in Washington that the wire service’s «longtime trusted sources» have stopped speaking to AP reporters as a result of the Obama administration’s wiretapping of journalists and their sources, as well as unprecedented criminal charges pursuant to the 1917 Espionage Act being brought to bear on government whistleblowers.

Obama’s dalliance with fascism is part and parcel of a troubling trend among first generation American politicians who have a parent or parents that came to America from nations lacking a strong tradition and history of democratic rule. This appears particularly true among first generation Hispanics, individuals like Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, whose parents come from nations like Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, and other nations that have suffered from military junta after junta and who adhere to the right-wing line of bolstering U.S. national security at all costs, the Bill of Rights be damned. These Latino and Latina leaders also support with U.S. aid and military advice right-wing regimes in Honduras, Colombia, Paraguay, and Guatemala, and right-wing opposition groups in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, and other countries. Moreover, the goals of America’s political «caudillo class» in Latin America and elsewhere are supported wholeheartedly by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Moreover, Bush-era Justice Department officials like John Yoo and Viet Dinh, champions of the Patriot Act, hail from South Korea and South Vietnam, respectively. These nations have hardly had strong democratic traditions and values.

Obama, who is a biological native son of Kenya and an adoptive native son of Indonesia, serves as a stark example of someone who has no appreciation for America’s democratic ideals and traditions. As a boy, Obama saw himself as becoming a potential future prime minister of Indonesia. This was at a time when the brutal and genocidal CIA-installed dictator, General Suharto, ruled Indonesia with an iron fist. Obama’s desire to serve as prime minister of a nation ruled by a dictatorial regime is all the more troubling when one examines the Kenya of Obama’s father. Kenya’s first president Jomo Kenyatta immediately, after independence, created a unitary executive by abolishing the post of prime minister and merging the only substantial opposition party into Kenyatta’s rubber stamp cult of personality political party, the Kenya African National Union (KANU). In short order Kenyatta turned Kenya into a brutal dictatorship, a totalitarian state that continued long after his death.

Obama promised the «most transparent» administration in American history. As with any strongman, Obama’s rhetoric is not matched by the facts. Obama, in instituting a virtual «Stasi network» of snitches and informants within government ranks, a program known as the «Insider Threat Program», has introduced to America the type of personal surveillance network instituted by other strongmen, for example, Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti and their «Tonton Macoute» secret police thugs, Idi Amin’s feared Public Safety Unit and State Research Center, and Grenada Prime Minister Eric Gairy’s infamous «Mongoose Gang». Today, Obama has instituted a network of informants that not only spot potential leakers in the military and intelligence communities but also in the US Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Education.

Obama’s massive intelligence infrastructure is trying to create yet another intelligence agency, the ‘Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC),” which sounds ominously like Amin’s dreaded State Research Center. If Congress passes and Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014, the CRRC, which will be part of the Defense Department and likely under either NSA or its affiliated U.S. Cyber Command, will maintain a “digital research database” that can “translate” and examine “records captured from countries, organizations and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Records are defined as documents, audio files, video files, or «other materials».

With Obama extending military combat operations to the United States with the NDAA of 2012 and granting the military the right, under «dangerous detention» provisions , to detain and indefinitely imprison people, including Americans, captured anywhere in the world, including the United States, it is matter of time before the possession of files regarding Yugoslavia, Cuba, the USSR, China, North Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Britain, Iran, Iraq, North Vietnam, and the Confederate State of America, or, in fact, the African National Congress, Palestine Liberation Organization, the Apache Nation, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Emperor Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, or Adolf Hitler, i.e., «countries, organizations and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States», could be deemed a crime against the state.

Obama was recently met with protesters in Berlin during his speech to mark the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s famous «Ich bin ein Berliner» speech. But, unlike the beloved JFK, Obama could only muster a few thousand pre-selected German and American sycophants at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, which was complete with a wall built for security purposes. Yes, an 8-inch thick American provided plexiglass security wall at the site of the former Berlin Wall. Obama is definitely no Kennedy. Only a president who emulates Erich Honecker and Augusto Pinochet would be met by protesting Germans carrying placards reading «Yes We Scan» and «Privacy Ends Here — PRISM / NSA».

To look over Obama’s America is to view a nation governed by a Third World-like strongman. Unlike the caudillos, «El Jefes», tin pot dictators, generalissimos, «presidents for life», and despotic and patronizing «bwanas» of the Third World, Obama has at his disposal the largest and fiercest surveillance structure of all time. Obama’s America is not known for «life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness» but of systems like the voice capturing NUCLEON database, meta-data computer systems called PRISM, MAINWAY, MARINA, PINWALE, OILSTOCK, and ANCHORY, a Skype surveillance system known as Project CHESS. Utah is now home to a massive computer center, the size of 17 football fields, containing the most intimate details of the lives of American and non-Americans alike. NSA Utah is complemented by a network of computer mega-surveillance nodes around the nation: NSA Headquarters in Maryland, NSA Georgia, NSA Hawaii, NSA Texas, the Aerospace Data Facility in Colorado, the Multi-program Research Facility in Tennessee, and overseas listening stations from Menwith Hill, England to Misawa, Japan and Ayios Nikolaos, Cyprus to Waihopai, New Zealand.

Meanwhile, Obama has attempted to come across as an affable basketball-playing, high-fiving, and congenial «man of the people». However, this strongman has become the face the «Big Brother», even though he would laugh off such charge and be more comfortable with his being known to the kids and die-hard Obama loyalists of America as merely «Big Bro».

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Ireland: Financial Playground for the Global Elites

0

“So, so…[the €7 billion] is bridged until we can pay you back..which is never. [Loud laughter]” (Telephone conversation between Anglo Irish Bank executives in September 2008)

Current ongoing revelations in the form of recorded telephone conversations between top Anglo Irish Bank executives in September 2008, added to the revelations of Google’s use of Ireland’s corporate tax regulations to reduce its tax bill in Britain, and Apple’s 2 per cent tax rate in Ireland show clearly that global elites regard Ireland as a country where they can pretty much do as they like with scant regard for the Irish people.

The daily telephone revelations have caused shock and outrage in the Irish media as the contrast between the life of the laughing bank executives and the current distress of Irish people, weighed down with huge mortgages, wage cuts and the introduction of new taxes, adds fuel to the simmering anger being felt across the country.

While many Irish people, who have taken the cuts and new taxes on the chin, work hard to ‘get us out of austerity’ and exiting the bailout programme, the latest revelations show once again that the elites can abuse the system with impunity. The distress being felt can be heard on radio talk shows with people breaking down on air as they describe their personal financial situations.

Google this

The rot really seemed to set in when the “UK parliament’s Public Accounts Committee accused internet search engine Google of “devious” use of Ireland’s corporate tax regulations to reduce its tax bill in Britain” in May of this year. [1] Google “paid £6 million in corporation tax in 2011 though its sales in the UK, mostly processed through Dublin, are worth around £3.2 billion.” [2] It must be remembered that Google, who have 300 staff in Ireland, are on the low Irish 12.5% rate of corporation tax.

Apple and the Holy Grail of Taxation

Two weeks later, Apple was accused of using Ireland as a tax haven by a US Senate Subcommittee. According to Democrat Carl Levin and Republican John McCain, “Apple negotiated a special two per cent tax rate in Ireland — far less than the State’s 12.5 per cent rate for companies.” [3] This agreement reported allowed Apple to avoid “paying $44 (€34) billion in US taxes over the past four years by operating off-shore companies based in Hollyhill Industrial Estate in County Cork.” [4] Apple employs around 4,000 people in Ireland, and there is no doubt the Irish Government yielded to the power of large multinational corporations when it agreed to a special tax deal with the Irish Revenue Commissioner in the early nineties. [5]

According to McCain: “A company that found remarkable success by harnessing American ingenuity and the opportunities afforded by the US economy should not be shifting its profits overseas to avoid the payment of US tax, purposefully depriving the American people of revenue.” [6] It is important to note here that the low rates of corporation tax in Ireland similarly deprives the Irish people of revenue, the loss of which the Irish government is trying to replace with new taxes on Irish workers.

Laughing banksters

The effects of austerity on Irish society with a return to high levels of suicide, emigration, and unemployment have resulted in a quiet desperation as people try to make sense of the current articles in a prominent Irish newspaper where Paul Williams (generally known for his investigations into gangland goings-on) revealed how Anglo Irish Bank executives minimized their financial problems to drag the Central Bank (and the taxpayer ) into a continuous bailout [7] while Anglo Irish Bank boss David Drumm “laughed about “abusing” the bank guarantee.” [8] In one quoted transcript, John Bowe, who was Anglo’s head of capital markets in 2008 says:

“That number is seven [billion] but the reality is we need more than that. But you know, the strategy here is you pull them [the Central Bank] in, you get them to write a big cheque and they have to keep, they have to support their money, you know.” [9]

The difficult background scenario shows the seriousness of the crisis at the time:

“At the time, European leaders including Germany’s Angela Merkel and UK chancellor Alistair Darling were alarmed at how the guarantee could affect their banking systems. But Mr Bowe sang a “comedy” version of the anthem ‘Deutschland Uber Alles’ and talked about giving “two fingers” to British concern. Mr Drumm and Mr Bowe are heard laughing at the concerns that the movement of money was causing a rift between Ireland and its EU partners. Drumm declares to his colleague: “So f***in’ what. Just take it anyway . . . stick the fingers up.”” [10]

By 30 September 2010, the Irish Government announced a total estimate of the eventual cost of the Anglo Irish bailout as at least €29.3 billion and by 31 March 2011 Anglo Irish Bank announced a €17.7 billion loss for the year 2010, breaking its own record for the highest corporate loss in Irish history. [11]

National debt

The effect of government bailouts and borrowing can be seen clearly in the huge rise of the National Debt from 44.3 €bn in 2005 to 192.5 €bn in 2012. [12] According to one commentator:

 “There is no point having high nominal taxes which the wealthy and big multinationals can avoid paying. The reality is now that the major part of the deficit, the difference between what the government takes in and pays out, is made up of the interest payments on the national debt. €64 billion of the debt was incurred bailing out the banks.” [13]

The continuing situation of high levels of borrowing, interest repayments on the growing National Debt and government planning more cutbacks does not augur well for those struggling to survive and looking for some alleviation of their financial hardships in the near future.

Notes

[1] http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/google-exec-grilled-by-uk-politicians-over-devious-use-of-ireland-to-reduce-tax-bill-911503-May2013/
[2] http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/google-exec-grilled-by-uk-politicians-over-devious-use-of-ireland-to-reduce-tax-bill-911503-May2013/
[3] http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-is-apples-holy-grail-of-tax-avoidance-918345-May2013/
[4] http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-is-apples-holy-grail-of-tax-avoidance-918345-May2013/
[5] http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-is-apples-holy-grail-of-tax-avoidance-918345-May2013/
[6] http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-is-apples-holy-grail-of-tax-avoidance-918345-May2013/
[7] http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-before-the-bailout-964097-Jun2013/
[8] http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/abuse-the-bank-guarantee-dont-get-caught-david-drumm-29369275.html
[9] http://www.thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-before-the-bailout-964097-Jun2013/
[10] http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/abuse-the-bank-guarantee-dont-get-caught-david-drumm-29369275.html
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank
[12] http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/historical-information/
[13] http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/ireland-poster-child-austerity-joan-collins-899403-May2013/

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is a prominent Irish artist who has exhibited widely around Ireland. His work consists of paintings based on cityscapes of Dublin, Irish history and geopolitical themes (http://gaelart.net/). His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country at http://gaelart.blogspot.ie/.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Iran condemns deadly bombings in Iraq

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Iran has condemned twin bombings that killed at least 11 people in the Iraqi city of Tuz Khormato in Salahuddin Province.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Supreme Court Puts Knife in Voting Rights Act

0

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court Tuesday has “sounded the death knell” for a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laying a “devastating blow” to the millions of Americans who are dependent on Congressional oversight for fair elections.

In an earlier demonstration, protesters pleaded with the high court to ‘protect their vote’ and preserve the important oversight provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP) “This is a devastating blow to those of us that need that protection, especially given the voter suppression schemes that we saw in 2012,” said civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton following the ruling, which had previously allowed courts to block discriminatory attempts to pass voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. 

“Hubris is a fit word for today’s demolition of the Voting Rights Act,” wrote Ginsburg, adding, “When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’ power to act is at its height.” 

The abolished legislation, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, determines which states and localities are required to get federal approval before changing any voting laws based on those locations having a history of racial discrimination. Previous to the ruling, nine states and parts of seven others were required to obtain the approval.

Section 5 of the act, which sets the pre-clearance requirement, was not itself struck down though, without Section 4, “is without significance,” writes the New York Times.

By keeping Section 5, Congress is technically able to pass a new bill based on contemporary data–according to the ruling–for determining which states should be covered. However, according to SCOTUSblog, with the staunchly partisan gridlock in our current Congress, this “will be exceptionally difficult politically.”

And according to analysts, “the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small,” the New York Times reports.

“In practice, in reality, it’s probably the death knell of this provision,” noted SCOTUSblog publisher, Tom Goldstein.

The case was brought before the high court after Shelby County, Alabama filed a suit on the basis that Section 5 had “outlived its validity and unfairly targets certain states,” after the Justice Department vetoed a 2008 attempt by the county to redraw one of its electoral maps effectively reducing the number of black voters in that district from 70.9 percent to 29.5 percent.

“The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the Voting Rights Act has proven effective,” lamented the dissenting justices.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Senate Rubber Stamps Drones, Helicopters at US-Mexico Border

1

The Senate signaled bipartisan support for the heightened militarization of the United States-Mexico border Monday, passing an immigration overhaul bill that, if implemented, will double border police to 40,000, fill the skies within 100 miles of the border with drones and helicopters, and erect a stunning 700 miles of new border walls.

The price tag of this military buildup? An estimated 46 billion dollars.

Colorlines reports concern among those who must live in the shadow of the escalated military presence:

“Border communities, and the DREAMers and families who live in the Southwest, have already been subjected to criminalization and militarization,” Evelyn Rivera of the group United We Dream said in a statement. “This amendment is based on the false notion that our border is not secure or there hasn’t been adequate enforcement up to this point.”

Border militarization was thrown into the bill by republican senators as a condition of including a track to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people already living in the United States.

Yet, it ultimately passed with the muscle of democrats, who threw their weight behind it with67 votes and 27 from republicans.

The bill makes small improvements to due process to immigrants incarcerated in U.S. criminal justice and immigration courts and slightly extends oversight of infamous Homeland Security jails. However, it will also require employers to cross-check potential hires with federal databases to check their citizenship status.

Furthermore, it will continue incarceration prosecutions for ‘immigration offenses.’ As the ACLU reports, today there are a stunning 100,000 immigration prosecutions as year as undocumented people are shuttled into overcrowded prisons with dismal human rights records.

While the bill is being touted by democrats as a bipartisan compromise that allows a fast-track for citizenship, many immigrant justice groups are saying the bill is so compromised with the border militarization amendment that it will ultimately hurt immigrant communities.

The New York Times reports:

A coalition of groups representing border communities urged senators to reject the amendment, which they called “an example of excessive and wasteful government spending” and a “poorly thought-out policy.”

“It is an assault on our system of checks and balances and seriously threatens the quality of life of border residents,” wrote the border groups, in a statement.

The ACLU issued a searing condemnation of the bill’s end result:

Changes were made to the bill at the eleventh hour that meddled with what was already an unprecedented expansion of border enforcement in the base bill and increased it to obscene levels. These expenditures are wasteful, unnecessary and lack government oversight or accountability, and they put everyone who lives, travels, and works near the border at risk.

…The so-called surge will inevitably exacerbate civil liberties violations that the ACLU and other organizations have for years identified as characteristic of Customs and Border Protection operations, including excessive uses of force and racial profiling.

Immigrant advocates say the bill capitulates to the most far-right demands of congress.

Colorlines reports:

“It makes little sense for Democrats to capitulate to irrational Republican demands, particularly at this stage in the legislative process,” Chris Newman of the group National Day Laborers Network said in a statement, “Our focus should be on passing the best possible legislation in the Senate to maximize our ability to beat back the xenophobic and racist views that seem to have held the House of Representatives hostage.”

Having passed through the Senate, the bill is next headed for the House.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

US issues threats to China, Russia over Snowden

3

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who arrived in Moscow on Sunday from Hong Kong, appears to be still in Russia after reports that he failed to board a flight to Cuba on which he was booked on Monday.

Ecuadorian foreign minister Richard Patiño confirmed at a press conference in Vietnam on Monday that his government was considering an asylum request from Snowden and was in discussions with Russian authorities.

No details of Snowden’s whereabouts have been made public. Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, told the media that he had no information about the situation surrounding Snowden. The Russian Foreign Ministry has not responded to requests for comment.

The Obama administration is stepping up its threats and bullying in a bid to press the Russian government to hand Snowden over for trial on charges of espionage for exposing the NSA’s vast electronic surveillance operations inside the US and internationally.

Speaking from New Delhi, US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Moscow that there would be “without doubt … consequences” if Russian authorities did not give up Snowden. “They are on notice with respect to our desires. It would be deeply disappointing if he was wilfully allowed to board an aeroplane,” he declared.

Kerry’s appeal for Russia “to live by the standards of the law” was utterly hypocritical given that Snowden has revealed through his actions massive and illegal spying operations on the population of the United States and the world.

Responding to American demands, Alexei Pushkov, head of a Russian parliamentary foreign relations committee, told the media, “Ties are in a rather complicated phase, and when ties are in such a phase, when one country undertakes hostile action against another, why should the United States expect restraint and understanding from Russia?”

While Pushkov did not spell it out, Snowden’s revelations of the extent of American international electronic spying, including on rivals such as Russia and China, has undoubtedly further heightened tensions over the US-led regime change operation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which directly impacts on Russian interests.

While demanding Moscow hand over Snowden, the Obama administration reserved its full venom for China for permitting the NSA whistleblower to leave Hong Kong. The authorities in Hong Kong issued a statement on Sunday announcing Snowden’s departure, saying that the US extradition request had “failed to comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law.”

Speaking at a news conference yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney bluntly declared: “We are just not buying that this was a technical decision by a Hong Kong immigration official. This was a deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the US-China relationship.”

It is no doubt the case that the decision to allow Snowden to leave Hong Kong was taken at the top level in Beijing, but that reflects anger in China and Hong Kong over the US espionage operations. Snowden provided information to Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post showing that the NSA had hacked into hundreds of civilian computers in Hong Kong and China since 2009, including Hong Kong’s Internet Exchange.

While the Chinese government is yet to comment on the latest US threats, the state-owned press has hit back. The Chinese Communist Party newspaper People’s Daily declared that the decision to let Snowden leave Hong Kong was “consistent with the law and entirely defensible.” Referring to the NSA’s huge theft of data, it called on the US to stop the “hypocrisy of a thief shouting ‘stop thief!’” and to account for US intelligence agencies infiltrating Chinese computer networks.

The Wall Street Journal has also reported that Washington is exerting pressure on Latin American countries not to provide sanctuary to Snowden. “Diplomats and law enforcement officials from the United States warned countries in Latin America not to harbour Mr Snowden or allow him to pass through to other destinations,” it stated. In the case of Ecuador, the newspaper suggested that US lawmakers could retaliate by refusing to renew preferential trade arrangements, or that Washington might withdraw its ambassador to the country.

During his press conference in Vietnam, Ecuadorian foreign minister Patiño provided details of Snowden’s request for asylum. Snowden argued that he was at “risk of being persecuted by the government of the United States and its agents in relation to my decision to make public serious violations on the part of the government of the United States of its Constitution, specifically its Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and of various treaties of the United Nations that are binding on my country.”

Snowden noted that “prominent members of Congress and others in the media have accused me of being a traitor and have called for me to be jailed or executed.” He also pointed to the “cruel and inhumane” treatment of Bradley Manning for having revealed US war crimes and the secrecy surrounding his trial. Snowden concluded that “it is unlikely that I would receive a fair trial or proper treatment prior to that trial, and face the possibility of life in prison or even death.”

In defending Ecuador’s actions in considering asylum for Snowden, Patiño made the point: “The word treason has been batted around in recent days, [but] we need to ask who has betrayed who?… Is this [Snowden’s revelations] betraying the citizens of the world, or betraying some elites that are in power in a certain country?”

The simple truth is that what Snowden has exposed is a conspiracy by the Obama administration, the US intelligence agencies and other arms of the state apparatus against the democratic rights of the American people and humanity as a whole. That is the reason why a vast international legal, police and diplomatic operation is under way to track Snowden down and, in one way or another, silence him.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Turmoil on Financial Markets: Share Selloff Points to New Economic Crisis

1

The renewed turmoil on global financial markets, which saw major falls on Asian markets and a one percent downturn on Wall Street yesterday, underscores the fact that none of the problems that erupted in the 2008 meltdown have been overcome. On the contrary, the latest gyrations are a sure sign that a new crisis is in the making–one set in motion by the very policies put in place by central banks over the past five years.

The initial spark for the selloff was the announcement by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that if economic conditions in the US improved, the Fed would consider easing back on its purchases of bonds under its policy of “quantitative easing”. The panicky response on the markets to this statement has been since compounded by fears of a credit crunch in China due to the tightening of money policy by financial authorities.

Since the third round of quantitative easing (QE3) was announced last September, the Fed has been spending $85 billion per month on purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities, expanding its balance sheet at the rate of $1 trillion per year.

At his press conference last Wednesday, Bernanke issued repeated assurances to the financial markets that the Fed was not tightening monetary policy, but merely easing pressure on the accelerator, and that should economic conditions worsen, even more monetary easing would be carried out.

But such has become the extreme dependence of financial capital on continuous injections of ultra-cheap liquidity from the Fed that even the hint of a future cutback in the flow of funds brought an instant paroxysm on the markets. Bond prices fell, bringing a rise in bond yields (interest rates). On Wall Street, the Dow fell, losing some 200 points in the period immediately following Bernanke’s press conference and dropping a further 350 points the next day before recovering slightly on Friday.

The selloff has had a major impact around the world, especially in so-called emerging markets, where currencies that had been rising against the dollar have suffered significant falls. The Turkish lira and the Indian rupee hit record lows last week.

Fund managers reported major withdrawals from debt funds in response to fears that many of these countries have become too dependent on the outflow of money from the United States under the quantitative easing program, and that a reversal of the money flow could lead to serious economic problems. Turkey and India were both seen as vulnerable because they have deficits on their current accounts.

But the economic difficulties of these regions are only a graphic expression of the deepening crisis at the very centre of the global capitalist economy.

Since the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, central banks around the world, with the US Fed leading the way, are estimated to have shovelled at least $10 trillion into financial markets. The initial assistance took the form of bailouts. Now it is being delivered in the form of quantitative easing, in which hundreds of billions of dollars at ultra-cheap rates is made available to banks and finance houses through central bank purchases of bonds.

The official rationale for this policy is that purchasing bonds and driving down the yields on the safest financial assets will eventually lead to greater risk-taking by investors, including the injection of money into the real economy.

That has not taken place. Rather, quantitative easing has promoted unprecedented financial speculation, leading to a situation in which share markets have risen sharply while the real economy has either grown very slowly, stagnated or contracted.

Even before the latest selloff it was clear that a new phase of financial turbulence had begun, with growing signs of instability in the wake of Bernanke’s comments on May 22 that the Fed could consider a “taper” in quantitative easing, sparking fears of a fall in bond prices and a consequent rise interest rates.

Speaking to a group of British MPs earlier this month, the Bank of England’s director of financial stability, Andy Haldane, pointed to the potential for a new crisis. “Let’s be clear,” he said. “We’ve intentionally blown the biggest government bond bubble in history.” The biggest risk to the financial system, he added, was a “disorderly reversion”, that is, a rapid fall in the bond market.

There could hardly be a clearer admission of the utter bankruptcy of the present capitalist economic order.

The very policies enacted by governments and financial authorities on behalf of the ruling classes around the world have now created the conditions for the development of a new economic catastrophe on top of the social and economic devastation already resulting from the meltdown of 2008.

The form in which the latest round of turbulence has emerged indicates that the crisis is rooted in a malignancy at the very centre of the capitalist profit system itself.

Bernanke declared that the QE program would start to be pulled back only if there was an improvement in real economic conditions. But the reaction of the markets to this suggestion indicates that were it actually carried out there would be a full-scale collapse. In other words, financial markets can no longer survive under what were once considered “normal” conditions.

This is the expression of a profound disintegration in the very process of capitalist production itself. In so-called “normal” conditions, money is invested in the means of production and used to employ labour to produce commodities which are then sold to generate a profit. At least part of this profit is then used to finance further investment, generating further production and economic growth.

However, this process has broken down. Profits are being accumulated, but increasingly they do not result from an expansion of the economy as a whole, but rather from cost-cutting, wage reductions, such as in the US auto industry, or the development of new technologies that drive competitors out of the market.

Economic stagnation and contracting markets mean that profits are not reinvested, but lead to the accumulation of large cash balances on the books of corporations–estimated to be as much as $2 trillion in the US economy–which are then used for speculative operations in financial markets.

The violent reaction to the possibility that quantitative easing might be cut back shows the extreme dependence of the capitalist economy on this form of economic parasitism.

It is, of course, not possible to predict the exact form the next stage of the breakdown of the global capitalist economy will assume. But the perverse logic of the market gyrations is very revealing.

The panicked response to the suggestion of even a partial return to what were once were considered “normal” economic conditions signifies that the “health” of the financial markets depends on the continued impoverishment of the working class and the mass of the population.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

A New Beginning Without Washington’s Sanctimonious Mask – Paul Craig Roberts

A New Beginning Without Washington’s Sanctimonious Mask

Paul Craig Roberts

It is hard to understand the fuss that Washington and its media whores are making over Edward Snowden. We have known for a long time that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying for years without warrants on the communications of Americans and people throughout the world. Photographs of the massive NSA building in Utah built for the purpose of storing the intercepted communications of the world have been published many times.

It is not clear to an ordinary person what Snowden has revealed that William Binney and other whistleblowers have not already revealed. Perhaps the difference is that Snowden has provided documents that prove it, thereby negating Washington’s ability to deny the facts with its usual lies.

Whatever the reason for Washington’s blather, it certainly is not doing the US government any good. Far more interesting than Snowden’s revelations is the decision by governments of other countries to protect a truth-teller from the Stasi in Washington.

Hong Kong kept Snowden’s whereabouts secret so that an amerikan black-op strike or a drone could not be sent to murder him. Hong Kong told Washington that its extradition papers for Snowden were not in order and permitted Snowden to leave for Moscow.

The Chinese government did not interfere with Snowden’s departure.

The Russian government says it has no objection to Snowden having a connecting flight in Moscow.

Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino responded to Washington’s threats with a statement that the Ecuadorian government puts human rights above Washington’s interests. Foreign Minister Patino said that Snowden served humanity by revealing that the Washington Stasi was violating the rights of “every citizen in the world.” Snowden merely betrayed “some elites that are in power in a certain country,” whereas Washington betrayed the entire world.

With Hong Kong, China, Russia, Ecuador, and Cuba refusing to obey the Stasi’s orders, Washington is flailing around making a total fool of itself and its media prostitutes.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been issuing warnings hand over fist. He has threatened Russia, China, Ecuador, and every country that aids and abets Snowden’s escape from the Washington Stasi. Those who don’t do Washington’s bidding, Kerry declared, will suffer adverse impacts on their relationship with the US.

What a stupid thing for Kerry to say. Here is a guy who once was for peace but who has been turned by NSA spying on his personal affairs into an asset for the NSA. Try to realize the extraordinary arrogance and hubris in Kerry’s threat that China, Russia, and other countries will suffer bad relations with the US. Kerry is saying that amerika doesn’t have to care whether “the indispensable people” have bad relations with other countries, but those countries have to be concerned if they have bad relations with the “indispensable country.” What an arrogant posture for the US government to present to the world.

Here we have a US Secretary of State lost in delusion along with the rest of Washington. A country that is bankrupt, a country that has allowed its corporations to destroy its economy by moving the best jobs offshore, a country whose future is in the hands of the printing press, a country that after eleven years of combat has been unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban is now threatening Russia and China. God save us from the utter fools who comprise our government.

The world is enjoying Washington’s humiliation at the hands of Hong Kong. A mere city state gave Washington the bird. In its official statement, Hong Kong shifted the focus from Snowden to his message and asked the US government to explain its illegal hacking of Hong Kong’s information systems.

China’s state newspaper, The People’s Daily, wrote: “The United States has gone from a model of human rights to an eavesdropper on personal privacy, the manipulator of the centralized power over the international internet, and the mad invader of other countries’ networks. . . The world will remember Edward Snowden. It was his fearlessness that tore off Washington’s sanctimonious mask.”

China’s Global Times, a subsidiary of The People’s Daily, accused Washington of attacking “a young idealist who has exposed the sinister scandals of the US government.” Instead of apologizing “Washington is showing off its muscle by attempting to control the whole situation.”

China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Snowden’s revelations had placed “Washington in a really awkward situation. They demonstrate that the United States, which has long been trying to play innocent as a victim of cyber attacks, has turned out to be the biggest villain in our age.”

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that Russia’s sympathy is with Snowden, not with the amerikan Stasi state. Human rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin said that it was unrealistic to expect the Russian government to violate law to seize a transit passenger who had not entered Russia and was not on Russian soil. RT’s Gayane Chichakyan reported that Washington is doing everything it can to shift attention away from Snowden’s revelations that “show that the US has lied and has been doing the same as they accuse China of doing.”

Ecuador says the traitor is Washington, not Snowden.

The stuck pig squeals from the NSA director–”Edward Snowden has caused irreversible damage to US”–are matched by the obliging squeals from members of the House and Senate, themselves victims of the NSA spying, as was the Director of the CIA who was forced to resign because of a love affair. The NSA is in position to blackmail everyone in the House and Senate, in the White House itself, in all the corporations, the universities, the media, every organization at home and abroad, who has anything to hide. You can tell who is being blackmailed by the intensity of the squeals, such as those of Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Mike Rogers (R, MI). With any luck, a patriot will leak what the NSA has on Feinstein and Rogers, neither of whom could possibly scrape any lower before the NSA.

The gangster government in Washington that has everything to hide is now in NSA’s hands and will follow orders. The pretense that amerika is a democracy responsible to the people has been exposed. The US is run by and for the NSA. Congress and the White House are NSA puppets.

Let’s quit calling the NSA the National Security Agency. Clearly, NSA is a threat to the security of every person in the entire world. Let’s call the NSA what it really is–the National Stasi Agency, the largest collection of Gestapo in human history. You can take for granted that every media whore, every government prostitute, every ignorant flag-waver who declares Snowden to be a traitor is either brainwashed or blackmailed. They are the protectors of NSA tyranny. They are our enemies.

The world has been growing increasingly sick of Washington for a long time. The bullying, the constant stream of lies, the gratuitous wars and destruction have destroyed the image hyped by Washington of the US as a “light unto the world.” The world sees the US as a plague upon the world.

Following Snowden’s revelations, Germany’s most important magazine, Der Spiegal, had the headline: “Obama’s Soft Totalitarianism: Europe Must Protect Itself From America.” The first sentence of the article asks: “Is Barack Obama a friend? Revelations about his government’s vast spying program call that into doubt. The European Union must protect the Continent from America’s reach for omnipotence.”

Der Spiegal continues: “We are being watched. All the time and everywhere. And it is the Americans who are doing the watching. On Tuesday, the head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented is coming for a visit. If Barack Obama is our friend then we really don’t need to be terribly worried about our enemies.”

There is little doubt that German Interior Minister Hans Peter Friedrich has lost his secrets to NSA spies. Friedrich rushed to NSA’s defense, declaring: ”that’s not how you treat friends.” As Der Spiegal made clear, the minister was not referring “to the fact that our trans-Atlantic friends were spying on us. Rather, he meant the criticism of that spying. Friedrich’s reaction is only paradoxical on the surface and can be explained by looking at geopolitical realities. The US is, for the time being, the only global power–and as such it is the only truly sovereign state in existence. All others are dependent–either as enemies or allies. And because most prefer to be allies, politicians–Germany’s included–prefer to grin and bear it.”

It is extraordinary that the most important publication in Germany has acknowledged that the German government is Washington’s puppet state.

Der Spiegel says: “German citizens should be able to expect that their government will protect them from spying by foreign governments. But the German interior minister says instead: ‘We are grateful for the excellent cooperation with US secret services.’ Friedrich didn’t even try to cover up his own incompetence on the surveillance issue. ‘Everything we know about it, we have learned from the media,’ he said. The head of the country’s domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, was not any more enlightened. ‘I didn’t know anything about it,’ he said. And Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was also apparently in the dark. ‘These reports are extremely unsettling,’ she said. With all due respect: These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our rights? If it wasn’t so frightening, it would be absurd.”

For those moronic amerikans who say, “I’m not doing anything wrong, I don’t care if they spy,” Der Spiegal writes that a “monitored human being is not a free one.” We have reached the point where we “free americans” have to learn from our German puppets that we are not free.

Here, read it for yourself: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-must-stand-up-to-american-cyber-snooping-a-906250.html

Present day Germany is a new country, flushed of its past by war and defeat. Russia is also a new country that has emerged from the ashes of an unrealistic ideology. Hope always resides with those countries that have most experienced evil in government. If Germany were to throw off its amerikan overlord and depart NATO, amerikan power in Europe would collapse. If Germany and Russia were to unite in defense of truth and human rights, Europe and the world would have a new beginning.

A new beginning is desperately needed. Chris Floyd explains precisely what is going on, which is something you will never hear from the presstitutes. Read it while you still can: http://www.globalresearch.ca/follow-the-money-the-secret-heart-of-the-secret-state-the-deeper-implications-of-the-snowden-revelations/5340132

There would be hope if Americans could throw off their brainwashing, follow the lead of Debra Sweet and others, and stand up for Edward Snowden and against the Stasi State. http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=167695

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

The post A New Beginning Without Washington’s Sanctimonious Mask — Paul Craig Roberts appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

Networks demand more sex, cussing on air

0

Drew Zahn
WND
June 24, 2013

All four of the major broadcast TV networks — ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC — filed statements last week with the Federal Communication Commission seeking an end to government oversight of indecency standards on television, according to a Dateline New York report.

The broadcasters want to be able to show just as much sex, violence and obscenity as the cable networks, and they don’t want it limited to after 10 p.m. ET.

The networks argued that the regulations violate their First Amendment rights and that the rules are archaic because families don’t just sit down and watch broadcast television anymore.

Read More

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 11:14 am

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

IRS Refunded Tens of Millions of Dollars to Unauthorized Illegal Workers

0

The woes of the Internal Revenue Service continue as CNSNews.com reported June 21 that in 2011, the federal tax bureaucracy sent nearly 24,000 tax refunds totaling more than $46 million to “unauthorized” immigrant workers who all claimed the same Atlanta, Georgia, address. The revelation came in a July 16, 2012 audit report prepared by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) – a report titled tellingly, “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.”

According to the TIGTA report, the address was one of several in Atlanta used by unauthorized workers to receive millions of dollars in federal tax refunds in 2011. The top Atlanta address received 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined total of $46,378,040. A second Atlanta address received 11,284 refunds worth $2,164,976 in refunds to unauthorized immigrant workers; 3,608 refunds worth $2,691,448 went to a third; and a fourth garnered 2,386 refunds for $1,232,943.

Similar refunds went to bogus addresses around the country, with, among the top ten: 2,507 refunds worth $10,395,874 going to an address in Oxnard, California; 2,408 refunds worth $7,284,212 to Raleigh, North Carolina; 2,047 refunds worth $5,558,608 to a Phoenix, Arizona address; 1,972 refunds for a $2,256,302 to an address in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; 1,942 refunds for $5,091,027 to one address in San Jose, California; and 1,846 refunds worth $3,298,877 sent to and address in Arvin, California.

The apparent scam is nothing new for the IRS. CNSNews.com’s Terence Jeffrey reported that since 1996 “the IRS has issued what it calls Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to two classes of persons: 1) non-resident aliens who have a tax liability in the United States, and 2) aliens living in the United States who are ‘not authorized to work in the United States.’”

As long ago as 1999 the Treasury Inspector General drew attention to the problem, noting that the IRS was giving tax numbers to “undocumented aliens,” thus helping them to work illegally in the United States. “The IRS issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to undocumented aliens to improve nonresident alien compliance with tax laws,” the TIGTA’s 1999 report noted, adding that the IRS practice “seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) mission to identify undocumented aliens and prevent unlawful alien entry.”

According to Jeffrey, the 2012 audit report “was spurred by two IRS employees who went to members of Congress ‘alleging that IRS management was requiring employees to assign [ITINs] even when the applications were fraudulent.’” In a statement accompanying the audit report, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George confirmed that the audit “found that IRS management has not established adequate internal controls to detect and prevent the assignment of an ITIN to individuals submitting questionable applications. Even more troubling, TIGTA found an environment which discourages employees from detecting fraudulent applications.”

In addition to the over $46 million in refunds it gave to the 23,994 unauthorized workers who claimed the single Atlanta address, the IRS also assigned an additional 15,796 ITIN’s to illegals using one Atlanta address. Additionally, according to the TIGTA, the IRS assigned ITINs to 15,028 illegals who supposedly resided at one address in Dallas, and 10,356 tax IDs to 10,356 illegals supposedly crammed into a single dwelling in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

But perhaps the “most remarkable act” of the IRS, wrote Jeffrey, was assigning 6,411 ITINs to illegals assigned to a single address in Morganton, North Carolina. “According to the 2010 Census,” Jeffrey explained, “there were only 16,681 people in Morganton. So, for the IRS to have been correct in issuing 6,411 ITINS to unauthorized aliens at a single address in Morganton, it would have meant that 38 percent of the town’s total population were unauthorized alien workers using a single address.”

According to TIGTA, a total of 154 addresses across the United States appeared on a thousand or more ITIN applications submitted to the IRS.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

After Two Months, 'Moral Monday' Protests Swell to Largest Yet

0

Thousands of people rally outside the North Carolina State Legislative Building on Halifax Mall Monday, June 24, 2013, prior to an act of civil disobedience opposing the Republican legislature’s agenda. About 120 activists were arrested by General Assembly and Raleigh police. About 600 have been arrested over the course of 8 “Moral Monday” demonstrations. (Photo: Travis Long/Raleigh News & Observer)The popular movement in North Carolina led by the state’s NAACP chapter and marked each week with civil disobedience actions known as ‘Moral Monday’ protests swelled to their largest number yesterday, with organizers saying that as many as five thousand people marched outside the North Carolina State Legislative Building in Raleigh. Later, nearly 120 were arrested after refusing orders to disperse by police.

The latest arrests bring the total number to over 600 in the eight weeks since the protest movement began and occurred as those arrested in the first wave of protests faced trial at a nearby county courthouse.A woman is arrested outside the House and Senate chambers during “Moral Monday” protests at the General Assembly in Raleigh, N.C., Monday, June 24, 2013. Protesters are angry over the rightward direction of the state on economic, social, education and voting policy. They focused much of their demonstration on looming unemployment benefits cuts that will end extended benefits for about 70,000 people at the end of June. (Photo: Gerry Broome)

As the local Charlotte Observer describes, the latest ‘Moral Monday’ protest took “labor issues, women’s rights and economic justice as their themes for the week” and “demonstrators hoped to halt what many described as ‘arrogant’ and ‘vindictive’ policies that favored the very wealthy and caused great harm to the state’s poorest and weakest.”

The protest came just one week before a painful cut to the state’s unemployment benefit system kicks in, which will cut jobless aid to recipients by a third in some cases.

“Seven days from now, that’s when the pain starts,” said the NAACP’s Rev. William Barber, who has emerged as the movement’s spiritual voice and organizing leader.

Several media outlets also featured local resident Lee Creighton, who spoke powerfully at Monday’s rally.

“The unemployed people are not deadbeats,” Creighton said with a cracked voice as he referred to those in the state who will be so negatively impacted by the upcoming cuts. “We’re not losing our jobs because we don’t want to work. …If this is such a vacation, why is it that I cry to sleep every night.”

“We’re not losing our jobs because we don’t want to work. …If this is such a vacation, why is it that I cry to sleep every night.” -Lee Creighton, unemployed NC resident

As the protest movement grows in the state, Barber has seen his national profile rise and many on the left are looking to see if this brand of state-level organizing and activism can show the way to a new era of progressive vitality. Even as the basic tactics of the ‘Moral Monday’ movement is rooted in history, a profile of the movement’s leader in the Washington Post this week explores the force leading the charge against the regressive rightwing leadership in North Carolina:

With Barber steering the opposition to cuts in unemployment benefits, health care funding, voting rights and environment regulations, the movement has taken on the feel of a church revival. Each demonstration begins with a call to join hands and pray. Barber’s speech is inflected with biblical references to Pharaoh, Goliath, good and evil. Then there are the folksy civil rights refrains: “Woke up this morning with my mind set on justice,” and “Ain’t gonna let nobody turn me around.”
 […]

To outsiders, North Carolina is often indistinguishable from a host of Southern states with equally conservative social and fiscal agendas. But in fact, it has long been a moderate state in which Democrats controlled the governor’s office for 20 years, and until last year, controlled at least one body of the legislature since the 1800s.

No one knows this better than Barber, an avid student of the state’s history. Barber talks incessantly of his vision for “fusion politics” modeled after a period in the late 19th century when the state’s Populist and Republican parties, blacks and whites, joined forces to govern the state.

He points out he’s not wedded to the Democratic Party but rather to coalitions that are willing to fight for just causes.

“Narrow-minded, isolated agendas aren’t going to hold themselves up as meaningful in the changing demographics of our country,” he said. “A regressive agenda doesn’t fit.”

Earlier arrestees face trial

As thousands marched on the Assembly, seventeen of those arrested at the earlier demonstrations faced trial at the Wake County District Court nearby.

As the Raleigh News & Observer reports:

Irving Joyner, the N.C. Central University law professor representing the protesters, said he entered not guilty pleas on behalf of the 17 arrested on April 29. He also asked that their cases be dismissed, challenging the arrests as unconstitutional.

“The North Carolina Constitution says that every citizen has the right to go to the General Assembly and address their legislators and to issue any complaints that they have about the work that they’re doing,” Joyner told District Court Judge Dan Nagle, who was presiding over the hearing. The protesters, Joyner added, “were protesting against actions that we deem to be improper, untimely, spiteful and mean-spirited toward the poor.”

Nagle scheduled the trials for late September.

_______________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Obama's environmental speech indicates Keystone XL pipeline to be approved

0

President Barack Obama’s environmental speech will outline his second term plans to reduce carbon emissions and boost renewable fuels, but talk about the controversial Keystone XL pipeline may be left out, indicating that it may soon be approved.

The president’s address at Georgetown University will detail his
agenda to tackle global warming, but environmental activists may
be disappointed to hear little about the obscure pipeline project
that has triggered rallies and protests from environmentalists
across the nation.

A YouTube video preview of the president’s speech depicts an oil
refinery, not a coal-fired plant. Obama then announces his
upcoming “national plan to reduce carbon pollution.” Obama will
put the Environmental Protection Agency in charge of drafting a
plan to set carbon emission limits on US power plants by June
2014, senior administration officials told reporters before the
speech. The EPA would also be in charge of finalizing plans for
carbon limits on new power plants..

“We already set limits for arsenic, mercury and lead, but we
let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they
want,”
one official told Reuters.

The White House is expected to issue its final verdict regarding
the Keystone pipeline in September or October, and lack of
discussion about it has raised speculation that the president
will approve its construction. While environmentalists have
expressed their approval of the president’s plans to address
carbon pollution on Tuesday, Keystone critics may be
disappointed to hear nothing about the pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil sands bitumen from
Canada to the Gulf Coast, stretching through the entire United
States. Critics warn that constructing the pipeline would lead to
drilling in Canada’s oil sands, thereby releasing large
quantities of carbon dioxide that would further harm the
atmosphere. Former NASA researcher and climate scientist James
Hansen told the New York Times that the Keystone pipeline would
be “game over for the climate.”

There has been speculation that the president would sign off on
the project, despite the extensive opposition against it and his
plans for clean energy. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson allegedly
told
anonymous sources that the president would sign off on it in the
spring, but he has not publicly made a decision on it. Some
Republicans and businesses argue that the pipeline would create
jobs and help the economy, and a recent Pew Research survey found
that 66 percent of Americans who know about the pipeline support
its construction. 

But climate activists say it would make little sense for the
president to approve the pipeline, since it would counter his
plans for clean energy

“I do think that if they’re serious about carbon, and then
they let Keystone go, it’s pretty hard to figure out what’s going
on because the two are so in conflict,”
Sen. Sheldon
Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Politico.

Some environmentalists remain hopeful that the president will
disapprove of the pipeline, despite his recent lack of discussion
on it.

“The president is a logical man, and hence it would seem so
odd to take two steps forward and then two back,”

anti-Keystone activist Bill McKibben told Politico. “And I’m
certain he understands that KXL is the environmental fight of our
time, the place where he’ll be finally judged.”

A senior administration official told Reuters that a decision on
Keystone has not been made, but the president’s lack of comment
on it may indicate that his decision may go against the will of
environmentalists.

This article originally appeared on: RT

Strike shuts down Kashmir amid unrest

0

An Indian policeman stands guard behind concertina wire during a general strike in Srinagar June 25, 2013.

The people of Indian-administered Kashmir have held a complete shutdown strike in response to a visit by the Indian prime minister to the disputed Himalayan Valley.

On Tuesday, almost all institutions and businesses remained closed, and traffic stayed off the streets in Srinagar and some other major towns of the Kashmir Valley.

Reports further indicated that all schools and government offices remained closed in the Muslim-majority.

The strike comes ahead of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s controversial visit to the violence-wracked region. On Wednesday, Singh was expected to inaugurate part of an ambitious rail line that connects southern and northern Kashmir.

The developments also come a day after a daring attack by the separatists left at least eight Indian soldiers dead and injured several others in the troubled region.

Several separatist groups who oppose New Delhi rule over the Muslim-majority region called the strike. Separatist leaders say the Indian government should hold the security forces accountable for human rights violations in Kashmir.

Authorities have deployed large police and paramilitary troops in most parts of the capital of Srinagar to prevent fresh street demonstrations.

Indian troops are also in constant clashes with the militants seeking independence in the area.

The government forces have responded by imposing curfews and restrictions on the movement of people.

Kashmir lies at the heart of more than 60 years of hostility between India and Pakistan. Both neighbors claim the region in full but have partial control over it.

The neighbors agreed on a ceasefire in 2003 and launched a peace process the following year. Since then, there have been sporadic clashes, with both sides accusing the other of violating the ceasefire.

Thousands of people have been killed in Kashmir over the past 20 years.

JR/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iran crowned Asia weightlifting champion

0

Iranâ„¢s national weightlifting team has collected 564 points in the 2013 Asian Weightlifting Championships in Astana, Kazakhstan, to clinch the victory of the prestigious sports event.

Iran stood first with a total of twenty-one medals, including nine gold, seven silver and five bronze medals.

On Monday, Yasin Bagheri of Iran claimed a bronze medal for a total of 374 kilograms in the menâ„¢s 94-kilogram weight category.

Alexandr Zaichikov from Kazakhstan snatched the gold for a total lift of 385 kilograms. Zhang Shengguo of China took the silver with a total of 374 kilograms.

Rasoul Taghian and Sohrab Moradi earned two gold medals for Iran.

Moradi seized the gold in the menâ„¢s 85-kilogram category on Sunday. He lifted 158 kilograms in the snatch, 200 kilograms in clean and jerk and won the gold with a total lift of 358 kilograms.

Taghian received a gold medal in the menâ„¢s 77-kilogram weight category on Saturday night. The Iranian athlete lifted 163 kilograms in snatch and 203 kilograms in clean and jerk for a total lift of 366 kilograms.

Chinese Zhong Guoshun snatched the silver medal with 356 kilograms, and Kim Kwang-Song from North Korea won the bronze medal with a total lift of 355 kilogram.

Also on Saturday, Jaber Behrouzi claimed a gold medal in the menâ„¢s 69-kilogram weight category for Iran.

Behrouzi lifted 147 kilograms in snatch and 176 kilograms in clean and jerk for a total lift of 323 kilograms in the weight class.

Ketut Ariana from Indonesia finished in second place with a total lift of 310 kilograms, and bronze medal went to Pan Chien-hung of Chinese Taipei with 303 kilograms.

The 2013 Asian Weightlifting Championships, the 44th men’s and 25th women’s championships, started on June 21 in the Kazakh capital, and will wind up on June 26.

A total of 140 weightlifters from 19 countries took part in the championships.

MP/KA

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Bomb blast hits Afghan police compund

0

File photo shows Afghan security forces in Kabul.

A powerful explosion has rocked a police compound in Afghanistan’s central-eastern province of Logar, injuring several security personnel and damaging parts of the building, security sources say.

Local police officials say the personnel were injured after a car bomb explosion targeted a regional police headquarter in the troubled region on Tuesday.

A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the violent attack. Hundreds of people have been killed in attacks carried out by the Taliban in the volatile region.

Separately, gunmen attacked the Afghan presidential palace in central Kabul with multiple bombs and gunfire. Police say the attackers disguised in US military uniforms have all been killed.

The assailants blasted an explosives-laden car at the presidential palaceâ„¢s eastern gate near the ministry of defense.

The explosion was followed by several other blasts and gunfire lasting for 45 minutes. Three Afghan guards were killed in the gunfire.

The attacks took place as reporters were gathering for a joint press conference by President Hamid Karzai and US Special envoy for Afghanistan James Dobbins.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility, saying their main target was the CIA office, the palace and the defense ministry building. The militants also claim they’ve killed several American forces.

In addition to that, militant attacks also killed at least four Polish soldiers in the east of the country. Security forces say the four were killed in a bomb blast in Ghazni province.

Attacks on Afghan forces and foreign troops have increased recently as Taliban militants have announced the beginning of their spring offensive across Afghanistan.

The militant group said it would use “every possible tactic” to inflict casualties on Afghan and US-led forces, specifically mentioning insider and bomb attacks.

The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 as part of Washingtonâ„¢s so-called war on terror.

The offensive removed the Taliban from power, but insecurity continues to rise across the country, despite the presence of thousands of US-led troops.

JR/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Over a Million Brazilians Protest; Analysts Question Real Agenda

0

Estimates suggest over a million Brazilians – outraged about everything from high taxes and government corruption to the wasting of taxpayer money on sports tournaments – participated in massive nationwide protests over the last week. The wave of demonstrations, some of which became violent, were supposedly triggered by a small fare increase for public transportation that boiled over into general unrest about a wide range of other issues related to government. Some well-informed analysts, however, say there is more to the apparent uprising than meets the eye.

News reports said a series of protests on Thursday involving over a million people total, reportedly the largest so far, had taken place in over 100 cities. The efforts have broad support among Brazilians who are not participating, too. According to a recent poll cited by the Associated Press, 75 percent of citizens said they supported the demonstrations. While there are countless grievances being aired in the streets, the common denominator appears to be disillusionment with government.

Most of the protests have reportedly been peaceful so far, though more than a few violent incidents were documented across the country. In Rio de Janeiro, for example, where hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets, police reportedly used pepper spray and tear gas to keep unruly protesters in check amid violent clashes. Dozens were injured, according to news reports. Some sporadic looting has also been reported, and protesters reportedly attacked multiple government buildings. At least four people have been killed.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a former communist terrorist who rose to power with the backing of her predecessor through the statist “Workers’ Party” (PT), praised what she claimed was the “democratic spirit” of the protests. She added, however, that authorities planned to crackdown on the violent minority. Following more than a week of demonstrations, the president also proposed a series of reforms supposedly aimed at satisfying public demands.

Speaking in a meeting of state governors and mayors, Rousseff – a key figure in the shadowy socialist Foro de São Paulo (FSP), or São Paulo Forum, founded by communist dictator Fidel Castro and former Brazilian President Luiz “Lula” da Silva (PT) – even suggested changing the Constitution. “The streets are telling us that the country wants quality public services, more effective measures to combat corruption … and responsive political representation,” she said.

The Brazilian president also made a television appearance, taking the opportunity to express support for the protesters. Rousseff has been meeting with purported leaders of the demonstrations as well in a supposed effort to understand and address their concerns. Already, authorities agreed to scrap the proposed fare increase for public transportation. 

Establishment media reports in Brazil and around the world have tried to portray the massive outcry across Brazil as some sort of spontaneous, leaderless uprising. Well-informed analysts, however, see something much more sinister behind the protests. Among the powerful forces that experts say are directing much of the unrest from the shadows: the FSP, an alliance of socialist and communist political movements in Latin America that now rules over most of the nations in the region – including Brazil.

In essence, then, conservative and liberty-minded analysts say the well-funded FSP is organizing protests and unrest against its own crimes. The purpose: to change the Brazilian Constitution in a bid to solidify and extend socialist domination in the nation and the broader region, according to critics. Prof. Olavo de Carvalho, a conservative-leaning author and philosopher who has played a key role in exposing the machinations of the FSP, outlined what he views as the real agenda.    

“The rioting movement was launched by the São Paulo Forum, as [senior PT leader] Valter Pomar confessed, to force an ‘upgrade’ in the revolutionary process, moving from the ‘transition’ phase to the ‘breaking point,’” de Carvalho explained on Facebook. “Like always on these occasions, some leaders of the first phase would need to be sacrificed, in case they do not quickly adapt to the rhythm of the changes. President Dilma and even the PT as a whole appeared on the menu as strong candidates for losing their heads.”

According to Carvalho’s analysis, Rousseff is trying desperately to save her own neck by slavish devotion to the FSP in an effort to prove that she can help the socialist cabal achieve its objectives. To succeed, however, will require extending the “transitional” phase of the revolution – and delaying the breaking point – to ensure the political survival of at least part of the first generation of Brazil’s revolutionary leadership.

“The reaction of ‘the right’ that was seen in the streets showed that the ‘breaking point’ was a little too premature, and that, in a certain way, returned the initiative of the process to the government ‘of transition’,” Carvalho concluded. “In any case, the decisive factor is – now, like before – the São Paulo Forum. Dilma is the tail that will never wag the dog.”       

Over the years, The New American magazine has spent considerable space exposing the FSP and its machinations as well. The controversial organization brings together more than 100 statist political parties, social movements, narco-terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia, and other forces dedicated to, as Castro is widely reported to have said, “recovering in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe.” Already, FSP members rule more than two thirds of national governments in the region.

Beyond simple domination of national politics, the FSP and its allies are also working toward regional so-called “integration” – an effort to smash national sovereignty while erecting numerous regional, unaccountable governments. There are already multiple “integration” schemes in existence, with the Union of South American Nations (UNASUL or UNASUR), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Mercosur, ALBA, and others among the most prominent.

While Brazil’s current crop of rulers and their allies in the establishment press consistently seek to portray the Brazilian government as a left-leaning “moderate” force, experts say the reality is that Brasilia is at the heart of the so-called “pink tide” sweeping across the region. Of course, the rhetoric of self-styled communists and socialists like Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers may make Rousseff and Lula appear moderate, but behind the scenes in the FSP, the movement is largely unified. The goal: continue spreading socialism throughout the region.

Outside of Latin America, socialist and communist forces are also working with the Brazilian government and the FSP. The so-called BRICS alliance – a bloc uniting the statist regimes ruling Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa – is at the forefront of the effort, recently proposing a global currency and a more powerful global authority to re-distribute wealth and erode national sovereignty under various guises.

For now, protest leaders have vowed to continue organizing demonstrations in Brazil, though the numbers appear to have declined from the peak late last week. A group on Facebook of about 6,000 Brazilians so far, meanwhile, is planning its own protest for July 31 against the FSP. The plan, according to event organizers, is to educate the population about the shadowy group, its role in the unrest, and its broader agenda of seizing complete power in Latin America.

While the supposed “reforms” and constitutional changes being proposed by Rousseff remain vague, the goal will almost certainly be to expand the size and scope of government while ensuring the dominance of statist forces in politics. Among the “five pacts” outlined so far: more federal spending on government “education,” transportation, and healthcare; creating a “Constituent Assembly” to amend the Constitution; and working to “guarantee” economic stability.

The concerns of well-meaning protesters over wild taxes, rampant corruption, and lawless government are without a doubt justified. The question now, however, is: Will the people of Brazil allow themselves to be taken for another ride by their supposed leaders in a bogus bid to address the very real issues? Time will tell, but at this point, liberty-minded forces see little reason for optimism amid the escalating turmoil.

Photo of protestors in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 24: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe after growing up in Latin America, including four years in Brazil. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

Related articles:

Resurgent Communism in Latin America

Amid Federal Land Grab in Brazil, Whole Towns Evicted at Gunpoint

Olavo de Carvalho on Communism in Latin America

Communist Cuban Tyrant Raul Castro to Lead Latin American Bloc

Obama Commits American Support to Brazilian Oil

New Americas Group Includes Cuba, Not U.S; China Cheers    

BRICS Regimes Forge New World Bank, Call for Global Currency

Google Brazil Chief Arrested Over Political YouTube Video

Corruption: Brazil Sheltering Wanted Marxist Terrorist

South American Union Selects Socialist Leaders

Communism’s Resurgence

This article originally appeared on: The New American

DHS no longer conducts regular background checks of immigration applicants

0

Homeland Security News Wire
June 24, 2013

DHS is no longer conducting ordinary background checks because of the increase in the volume of amnesty applications which followed President Obama’s executive order, which took effect on 15 August last year. Skeptical lawmakers may wonder whether DHS can handle the millions of applications which will follow the immigration bill if it is passed, if the department cannot handle the hundreds of thousands which followed the executive order.

Last week Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group released a report showing that DHS is no longer conducting  ordinary background checks because of the increase in the volume of amnesty applications which followed President Obama’s executive order, which took effect on 15 August last year.

The Foundry notes this move by DHS may persuade undecided senators to oppose the immigration bill, because they would wonder how DHS will manage more than ten million amnesty applications if an immigration bill is passed.

Read More

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 10:58 am

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Farhadi ‘Past’ to go on German screen

0

Internationally renowned Iranian director Asghar Farhadiâ„¢s Paris-set drama is programmed to be screened at the 2013 Munich International Film Festival.

Farhadi™s latest drama The Past (Le Passé) is set to be presented at the Competition section of the festival.

The movie which is currently being screened in French and Iranian movie theaters has gained much praise.

Farhadiâ„¢s immigrant romantic drama depicts the story of an Iranian man who deserts his French wife and two children to return to his homeland. When he comes back to Paris upon his wife’s request for a divorce encounters with a complicated situation of the family there.

Premiered in the 2013 Cannes film festival, the film experienced its first international screening at Sidney International Film Festival few days ago.

The Past is Farhadiâ„¢s sixth directorial work and first one in a foreign country that was shot in the French capital, Paris.

The film scooped two prizes at the 66th Cannes film festival including the Best Actress award that went to Argentine-French actress Berenice Bejo, and the Prize of the Ecumenical Jury (prix du Jury “cuménique).

The Prize of the Ecumenical Jury was conferred on Farhadi for his filmâ„¢s moral values, according to the statement of the jury.

The film is also set to be screened at the 2013 Durban International Film Festival in South Africa.

Farhadi recently received the yearâ„¢s medal of Paris City Hall for The Past. The medal was dedicated by the cityâ„¢s mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, during a ceremony held in the capitalâ„¢s City Hall.

The 2013 Munich International Film Festival is scheduled to be held from June 28 to July 6.

FGP/FGP

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Bush advisor: Hastings crash ‘consistent with a car cyberattack’

1

A former cybersecurity advisor to President George W. Bush says a sophisticated computer hack could have been the cause of the automobile accident that claimed the life of journalist Michael Hastings last week in Los Angeles.

Richard Clarke, a State Department official-turned-special
advisor to several United States presidents, said the early
morning auto crash last Tuesday was “consistent with a car
cyberattack
,” raising new questions about the death of the
award-winning journalist.

Hastings died last week when his 2013 Mercedes C250 coupe
collided with a tree in Los Angeles, California on the morning of
June 18. He was reportedly traveling at a high rate of speed and
failed to stop at a red light moments before the single-car
crash. He was only 33.

Speaking to Huffington Post this week, Clarke said that a
cyberattack waged at the vehicle could have caused the fatal
collision.

“What has been revealed as a result of some research at
universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into
the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause
acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw
on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to
launch an air bag
,” Clarke told The Huffington Post. “You
can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking
a car, and it’s not that hard
.”

“So if there were a cyberattack on the car – and I’m not
saying there was
,” Clarke continued, “I think whoever did
it would probably get away with it
.”

The Los Angeles Police Department said they don’t expect foul
play was involved in the crash, but an investigation has been
opened nonetheless.

In an email reportedly sent by Hastings hours before the crash,
he told colleagues that he thought he was the target of a federal
investigation.

“Hey [redacted}, the Feds are interviewing my ‘close friends
and associates
,’” Hastings wrote 15 hours before the crash.

“Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the rada[r]
for a bit
,” he added. “All the best, and hope to see you
all soon
.”

The email was supplied to KTLA News in Los Angeles by Staff Sgt.
Joseph Biggs, who says he met Hastings while the journalist was
embedded in Afghanistan in 2008. It was reportedly send to a
handful of Hastings’ associates and was blind-copied to Biggs.

“I just said it doesn’t seem like him. I don’t know, I just
had this gut feeling and it just really bothered me
,” Biggs
told KTLA.

Reporters at Buzzfeed where Hastings worked say they received an
email from their colleague, but the Federal Bureau of
Investigation issued a statement two days after Hastings’ death
to quash rumors that they had been looking into the reporter.

“At no time was Michael Hastings under investigation by the
FBI
,” FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said.

According to the Associated Press, however, Hastings’
fingerprints were on file with the FBI and were used by the
bureau to identify his body after flames consumed much the auto
wreckage last week.

“I believe the FBI when they say they weren’t investigating
him
,” Clarke told the Huffington Post. “That was very
unusual, and I’m sure they checked very carefully before they
said that
.”

“I’m not a conspiracy guy. In fact, I’ve spent most of my life
knocking down conspiracy theories
,” he said. “But my rule
has always been you don’t knock down a conspiracy theory until
you can prove it [wrong]. And in the case of Michael Hastings,
what evidence is available publicly is consistent with a car
cyberattack. And the problem with that is you can’t prove
it
.”

Clarke, 62, spent nearly two decades at the Pentagon before
relocating to the White House where he served under President
Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush. He served as special
advisor to President George W. Bush on cybersecurity until
leaving the administration in 2003 and is currently the chairman
and CEO of Good Harbor Security Risk Management, LLC.

This article originally appeared on: RT

Iran envoy hails power shift in Qatar

0

Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (L) and his son, Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim (file photo)

Iranâ„¢s Ambassador to Qatar Mohammad Javad Asayesh says power transition in Qatar heralds a positive prospect in bilateral relations between Tehran and Doha.

Å“It seems that following this change, a new generation will take the helm in different positions and we hope that there will be some developments in the relations between Iran and Qatar and they will lead to promotion of ties,” Asayesh said on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani officially abdicated power in favor of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

The 61-year-old Emir, who had overthrown his father in a coup in 1995, handed over the power to his 33-year-old son after 18 years of ruling the country.

The Iranian diplomat hailed the power shift as beneficial to Tehran-Doha ties and noted that since Iranâ„¢s June 14 presidential election has also been widely welcomed in Qatar, both developments can be construed as highly positive factors for mutual ties.

Å“We closely monitor Qatarâ„¢s developments and wait for further details through announcements. Qatar is our close neighbor in the Persian Gulf and tranquility and stability in this country or in any other neighboring country is important to the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Asayesh said.

Tamim is currently the joint commander of Qatari armed forces and the head of the kingdomâ„¢s Olympic Committee.

Sources, meanwhile, have stated that the Qatari Emir further plans a major cabinet reshuffle in an effort to bring in a considerable number of younger ministers following the father-to-son power shift.

Qatarâ„¢s international standing has been greatly undermined, particularly across the Muslim world, because of its deep involvement in supporting the foreign-backed militancy against the Syrian government.

ASH/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Obama’s “Insider Threat Program” Views Whistleblowers as “Enemies of America”

1

The ‘Insider Threat Program’, is an anti-whistleblower protocol created by the Obama administration, a program that seeks to crackdown on those looking to expose unjust practices by government agencies. The program mandates that employee’s spy on each other or risk being charged for not detecting a leaker…

The Insider Threat Program was created in 2011, shortly after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning shared sensitive information to WikiLeaks, information that asserted the U.S. committed crimes while at war. The program as it is stated, can charge anyone with “espionage” that leaks to media operations. This will no doubt produce a chilling effect on whistleblowers everywhere.

Is the White House waging a war on reality, effectively keeping the truth on ice?

More “see something, say something” authoritarian rhetoric, quietly shutting down constitutional guarantees.

These security revelations come on heels of the NSA document drop by intelligence operative Edward Snowden. It remains to be seen how these leaks will affect national security:

Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.

President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of “insider threat” give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.

Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage… (See Marisa Taylor and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy News, June 23, 2013)

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

'Palestinians back Iran nuclear program’

0

Palestinians wave flags during a rally in the northern Israeli town of Sakhnin marking Land Day. (File photo)

A new opinion poll shows the majority of Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories support Iranâ„¢s nuclear energy program, despite Israeli accusations of military diversion in Tehranâ„¢s nuclear activities.

The survey conducted by Professor Sami Samoha of Haifa University indicates that 63 percent of Palestinians in Israel believe that Iran should push ahead with its nuclear development.

Israel and its traditional allay, the United States, accuse Tehran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program. The accusation has been used by Washington and the European Union as a pretext to impose illegal sanctions against Iran.

Iran, however, rejects the allegation and maintains that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The opinion poll also shows that 70 percent of respondents oppose Tel Avivâ„¢s attempt to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel.

According to the poll, 70 percent of Palestinians in Israel believe that Israeli authorities are treating them like second-class citizens or militants not deserving equal rights.

About 58 percent of the surveyed Palestinians voiced support for a third intifada (uprising) against Israel, if a diplomatic process does not make progress.

MRS/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Edward J. Snowden and the Exposure of Voyeuristic Fascism

0

One person can make a difference in the affairs of state. 21st century political civilization has become habituated to international relations as the province of mega-units in something akin to an uneasy, disturbed condition of equipoise, in which underlying structural-economic-ideological forces, prone to confrontation, have become artificially muted: a surface of politesse, seething beneath, intended to disguise national strivings for power. Not all the presumed hegemonic players are alike in composition, direction of their historical course (ascending or descending), or geopolitical strategies for their survival and/or expansion. Self-evidently, China is rising in global influence, Russia, an injured giant finding its way through a mixed political economy and withdrawal symptoms from its previous expansionist phase, and the US, though for a century seeking and frequently achieving unilateral world leadership, now seemingly a wild card, capable of anything in order to remain on top. In this setting, individuals, until very recently, did not appear to matter, at least those excluded from positions of power–the vast majority of humankind, for whom the role of passivity coincided with the rise of mass, centrally directed technologies and organization, foreordained in practice to dwarf individual identity and sense of actuation in shaping their lives.

It is, of course, too early to tell, but events of popular history in such a brief span of time, occurring nevertheless still somewhat at the periphery of power politics–i.e., Egypt, Turkey, now Brazil (which could not help but ride the momentum from these currents of change)–have reintroduced the possibility of human transcendence over reified institutions and their leadership. No, we have not entered, thus far, a New Revolutionary Age, but in the last two weeks–a sliver of time as wars and the violation of civil liberties go–America has suddenly lost face, stature, and the moral high ground it has always claimed, and stands exposed, more than in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, to the world’s and its own people’s understanding as the invader of human dignity and privacy, priceless attributes distinguishing democracy from totalitarianism. This did not begin Inauguration Day 2009, but Obama must be held responsible for the intensification of pressures whose consequence has been the attempted breakdown of the human personality.

Too strong a formulation? Everything points in support, notably the secrecy which attaches to government, a purposeful magnification of the powers of the State, as in the necromancy of unlimited reach and potency as a given, because its identity lies obscured behind layers of classified documents, and the skilled art of obfuscation. From that base of operations (one equates secrecy with “invisible,” “stealth,” the freedom to commit illegal acts, and here, the accumulation of Executive Power for its own sake, and specifically the conjunct of military, paramilitary, and intelligence dimensions reinforcing its expansion and aggrandizement), the absolutist bonds of dependence on, and belief in, the leadership is mandatory if the structural schema of monopoly capitalism in America, and its correlative needs for continued growth in order to stave off contraction and stagnation, are to succeed. Nothing can be left to chance, least of all public awareness and an acute political consciousness able to penetrate the wall of secrecy and perceive the deeds, such as targeted assassination, regime change, and the euphemistic” humanitarian interventionism,” for what they are: preliminaries for, or the actual commission of, WAR CRIMES, that which Obama and the National-Security State neither he, his advisers, the complicit Congress and judicial system, the military and intelligence communities, nor the political economy to which the foregoing are either beholden or emotionally and ideologically identify with, can countenance and still show their collective face to the world as other than hypocrites, cynics, opportunists, war-mongers and —breeders, in clinical terms, as I see it, psychopaths.

In this context, Snowden enters the picture, surprisingly aware of all that is at stake, as witness his eloquent statements about how the denial of civil liberties negates and repudiates a democratic society, and from there, recognizes the magnitude of crime associated with surveillance. An individual, alone, powerless at the outset, has spoken out, and doing so, has shaken the foundations of power. This, more than a high point in the record of whistle-blowers, though intimately related to it, marks an epochal moment in the history of American freedom–or the search for it! It mustn’t be allowed to slip by as a result of the chorus of denunciation, from POTUS on down through all the usual suspects, Democrats and Republicans alike. Snowden has raised privacy into the pantheon of constitutional rights it deserves to be, as the index of societal health and individual personhood–something all the nefarious interventions, drone strikes, CIA-JSOC missions of subversion, indefinite detentions, have sought to obliterate from the popular consciousness, and until now, partially succeeded in doing.

SURVEILLANCE is not accidental strategy, but rather the cutting edge of individuals’ self-pacification, a well-tested mechanism of social control. One hesitates to speak, then even to think; one chooses one’s associates warily, lest found on someone’s list, the all-pervasive fear of being watched, dissected, analyzed by the prying eyes of the State, now a government-empowered and —legitimated National Security Agency (and multiple other intelligence agencies, along with such legislative onslaughts as TALON, CIFA, TIAP, and don’t forget MATRIX, Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, some of which going even too far for Congress’s reactionary taste), fully capable of spying on and retrieving the most intimate conversations between people hitherto unsuspecting of eavesdropping. Hopefully, suspiciousness of government will ensue, even though practices of this nature continue, because, as political theory teaches us, democratic society and government are founded on trust, without which, there can be no social compact–and start expecting the worse.

Snowden put his finger in the dike holding back the sea of totalitarianism, itself not an inaccurate designation any longer, i.e., if one believes that civil liberties is the linchpin of its polar opposite, a social democracy based on the respect for and equal treatment of the individual under the rule of law, because what the US government has done is destroy the American constitutional-social fabric, in the process making a mockery of the law through trampling on traditional safeguards to freedom of thought and rights of association, protection from unwarranted searches and seizures, and down a slippery slope to everything from use of informers, planted evidence, “dirty tricks,” to encouragement of mutual suspicion, the breakup of radical organizations, whatever government deems central to its interests, safety, and continued lawlessness.

Snowden turned the spotlight on the forbidden territory of the dark world inhabited by the Obama administration, a reaching out of tentacles not only in America but on a world basis, as his revelations of PRIMUS and foreign communications intercepts, including wiretaps of diplomats and conferences shows. The details are familiar by now, from the Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times, to the Continental press and worldwide–a story that will not go away, given the enormity of the offense and the hypocrisy of Washington. For this reason, I believe Snowden is a marked man in Obama’s eyes, to him to be practically equated with Osama bin Laden, and therefore, being in Obama’s cross-hairs, if not through rendition (“accidents will happen”) then a direct target of paramilitary operations, Snowden is right to fear for his life and to seek asylum. At this writing, he has landed safely in Moscow, through, as reported, the cooperation of Chinese and Hong Kong authorities (creating diplomatic friction between them and the US) and will be in transit to a third country. The Damoclean sword of the Espionage Act will have to await other victims, sure to turn up in light of Obama’s obsession with secrecy and personal hostility toward being crossed. As I’ve said before, secrecy for him is insurance against being discovered for having committed war crimes.

Snowden cannot be allowed to go free, not because he divulged State Secrets, but because he symbolizes the power–may I say, sublimeness?–of truth, particularly against what he exposed as a pack of political criminals, and beyond that, exposed, through their workings, the inner springs of repression on which American society and its structure of power depend, namely, self-pacification as an overriding state of moral-political inaction of body and mind, a rejection of social protest in thought and deed, the individual subject to cues provided by acute patriotism, consumerism, and the heavy-handed militarization of Authority. That, we could see, and for some, speak out against. But this added factor, brought out by Snowden, of surveillance, gives self-pacification silent and powerful reinforcement: the fear of terrorism, itself contrived by government to justify security arrangements bordering on informal regimentation, has become transformed/extended into what psychologists would term–if only they examined consequential societal issues–the “introjection” of the entire power system in America, including its capitalist and military foundations, and the people’s own expected docility to its furtherance, goals, and ideology. That is a big burden to carry around, even if unnoticed (the test of repression’s value and successfulness to an authoritarian government), which leaves the individual naked and vulnerable to the extreme politicization of mindset designed to eschew critical thinking, and rather, glorify the State.

Domestic spying of the breadth and scope practiced by the NSA (which along with the CIA has become Obama’s Janus-faced look toward both internal and external acts of structural-political subversion) becomes the handmaid of counterterrorism, the latter, now self-legitimated through government edict thus spreading a cloak of legitimacy as well around the former. Surveillance is good! We hear ad nauseum that there must be a balance struck between security and privacy, with the former invariably taking precedence–a convenient debater’s trick because the former can be infinitely enlarged, and the latter, a straw man, toothless to boot. America’s fear of terrorism, itself a form of terrorism practiced on the people, paves the way for domestic spying on the part of Authority with impunity. Surveillance, as we are made aware by Snowden’s revelations, becomes so pervasive and institutionally entrenched (the recent exposure in the New York Times of the close relationship between the NSA and Silicon Valley confirms what he already has shown in the way the government has gained the cooperation of Google and others, our presumed agents, via the social media, of liberation) as to render one fearful, apathetic, in the face of Inevitable Technology and Big Government, that our turn may be next in the docket, the FISA Court applauding in the background, fearful, that is, that we may be suspected of ultimate subversion if we do not conform to every tenet, measure, operation, transmitted from On High.

Regrettably, America is not Brazil (assuming the mass protest has legs and, unlike the Occupy Movement, fashions programmatic remedies and develops alternative political-economic formations, not frightened away by charges of elitism because unanimity is not achieved). But perhaps I underestimate the degree of discontent in America, discontent not amorphous (of which there is an abundance), but chained to disciplined thinking and, given a deteriorating situation on all fronts, finding the courage once more to act, as was seen in the civil rights movement and segments of the antiwar movement. Authority remembers well, even when we, frequently as participants, forget, and for that reason I suggest the drastic steps of surveillance and wreaking havoc on the Constitution make perfect sense to America’s upper groups, just as using armed drones for targeted assassination makes perfect sense, because they perceive the dangers ahead, real or imagined, to the continuation of their power and privileges, the nation’s accustomed position of hegemony, and their own introjections of values skewed to their interests, including the exalted place for militarism in every aspect of American life.

Militarism and surveillance are kissing cousins, each depends on the acceptance of prescribed ORDER. That order, a supreme ideological value of an hierarchical class structure such as we have now more than ever, with wide disparities of wealth and power, has in different, though largely nonpolitical, ways been challenged for some time, yet still awaiting focus–which Brazilian ferment, still a straw in the wind, may (along with Greece and Turkey) inspire. In any event, conformity is wearing thin, given multiple sources of discontent in American culture and society, building from civil rights, protest over Vietnam, and the rebelliousness of the counterculture, to what could be but has not yet been fashioned into a recognizable adversarial force for structural-economic-social change through the brute facts and experience of unemployment, mortgage foreclosure, rape of the environment, and the endless march to war, intervention, military stockpiling, and the abridgement of working-class rights and civil liberties. There is a crack in the façade of order, as understood by ruling groups, which, despite earlier abilities to control (and even sublimate into the time-honored paths of consumerism), can no longer be tolerated, particularly because they themselves perceive America’s changing position, its relative decline, in a now-multipolar world system beyond their powers of unilateral hegemony–therefore making the demand for conformity all the more urgent and satisfying. Here counterterrorism, especially via surveillance, comes into its own, a context ideally suited to stopped ears and hushed mouths. Protection of the Homeland, above all!

Snowden blows to smithereens the pious claims of American Exceptionalism, a city on the hill made up of political demagogues, snoopers, voyeurs, mercenaries, and the scavengers in our midst, supercomputers to the ready, armed with preconceived notions of enemies lurking in the dark, a wholesale assemblage of vile operatives who are cloaked in the Flag, seemingly unassailable–until one person came along to reveal the public garbage masking itself as national security. This writer wishes him God’s speed to safety, long life, good health. The nation, whether it knows it or not, is indebted to Snowden’s bravery and moral conscience.

Norman Pollack is the author of “The Populist Response to Industrial America” (Harvard) and “The Just Polity” (Illinois), Guggenheim Fellow, and professor of history emeritus, Michigan State University. His new book, Eichmann on the Potomac, will be published by CounterPunch/AK Press in the fall of 2013.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Pepper sprayed and Tasered man dies in police custody in front of NE county courthouse

0

Betsy Swanback
NR Today
June 25, 2013

A 56-year-old Roseburg man hit with pepper spray and shocked with a Taser died in police custody Saturday in front of the Douglas County Courthouse, the sheriff’s office said today.

He was the second man to die in recent months in custody in Douglas County. Walter Ray McKelvey, 26, died in the custody of sheriff’s deputies March 3 in Canyonville.

The sheriff’s office said today it was withholding the name of the man who died Saturday until next of kin can be notified.

Roseburg police responded around 3:15 p.m. Saturday to a report of a man jumping on vehicles and causing damage near the corner of Kane Street and Douglas Avenue.

The man refused to obey police when officers attempted to arrest him, sheriff’s spokesman Dwes Hutson said.

The officers used pepper spray and a Taser to subdue the man. The man stopped breathing, and officers began CPR. Emergency medical workers responded, but efforts to revive the man were unsuccessful.

An autopsy is scheduled this week at the Oregon State Medical Examiner’s Office in Clackamas.

McKelvey’s death is still under investigation, District Attorney Rick Wesenberg said. The multi-agency Douglas County Major Crimes Team is investigating the incident.

Authorities believe McKelvey called 911 to report two men were harassing him in the 100 block of Main Street.

Deputies who responded said McKelvey became erratic and ran into traffic before deputies restrained him. McKelvey then collapsed.

Roseburg police, which headed the investigation into McKelvey’s death, declined to describe what methods deputies used to restrain McKelvey.

Wesenberg said his office is still waiting for the medical examiner’s report on McKelvey’s death.

He said the Saturday incident will likely follow a similar process.

El Dorado County Sheriff Strips Forest Service Of State-Law Enforcement Power

0

CBS Sacramento
June 24, 2013

The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.

Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”

In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.

Read More

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 10:40 am

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Trek West for the Big Picture

0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trek_west_for_the_big_picture_20130625/

Posted on Jun 25, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

Iran envoy hails power shift in Qatar

0

Qatar’s Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (L) and his son, Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim (file photo)

Iranâ„¢s Ambassador to Qatar Mohammad-Javad Asayesh says power transition in Qatar heralds a positive prospect in bilateral relations between Tehran and Doha.

Å“It seems that following this change, a new generation will take the helm in different positions and we hope that there will be some developments in the relations between Iran and Qatar and they will lead to promotion of ties,” Asayesh said on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani officially abdicated power in favor of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

The 61-year-old emir, who had overthrown his father in a coup in 1995, handed over the power to his 33-year-old son after 18 years of ruling the country.

The Iranian diplomat hailed the power shift as beneficial to Tehran-Doha ties and noted that since Iranâ„¢s June 14 presidential election has also been widely welcomed in Qatar, both developments can be construed as highly positive factors for mutual ties.

Å“We closely monitor Qatarâ„¢s developments and wait for further details through announcements. Qatar is our close neighbor in the Persian Gulf and any peace and stability in the country or in any other neighboring countries is important for the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Asayesh said.

Tamim is currently the joint commander of Qatari Armed Forces and the head of the kingdomâ„¢s Olympic Committee.

Sources, meanwhile, state that the Qatari emir further plans a major cabinet reshuffle in an effort to bring in a considerable number of younger ministers following the father-to-son power shift.

Qatarâ„¢s international standing has been greatly undermined, particularly across the Muslim world, because of its deep involvement in supporting the foreign-backed militancy against the Syrian government.

ASH/KA

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Gun buyback hoax exposed: Police departments actually sell the guns for profit

1

J.D. Heyes
Natural News
June 24, 2013

It has become trendy in the liberal/progressive world of anti-Second Amendment advocates to entice gun owners to voluntarily turn in their weapons via dubious “buyback” programs that ostensibly work to reduce the number of firearms on city streets.

Such programs are operated by police departments who, presumably, either keep the weapons that are purchased or destroy them so they don’t wind up in the wrong hands. Little did most Americans know that some departments are actually selling those buy-back guns to gun dealers so they can be resold to the general public. Huh?

According to UPI, the St. Charles Police Department, located in the suburbs of Chicago, has sold some of the guns it obtained in a buyback program to two licensed gun dealers in the area. The department’s chief of police, James Lamkin, justified the sales as a budget-friendly move.

“There’s value in these guns,” Lamkin said, telling the Chicago Tribune that about 20 guns have been sold so far. “They’re not illegal guns. Quite honestly, it’s a bottom line for us.”

What happens when guns sold by police wind up in the wrong hands?

Some of the guns sold were seized from criminals, the Tribune said, adding that the majority of area departments — including the Illinois State Police and the Chicago Police Department — destroy guns purchased through buyback programs.

“There are individuals who will say, why not simply destroy them?” St. Charles Mayor Raymond Rogina said. “But when that happens, there will be someone saying that’s taxpayer dollars [at stake] and you’re throwing it away.”

There is something basically wrong with having police in the firearms business, but apparently this ethical dilemma rings hollow in St. Charles.

Then again, this department won’t be the last one to become a gun broker. Arizona has just enacted legislation requiring local police departments to sell firearms that are either surrendered or that go unclaimed.

Other police officials won’t justify turning their department into a gun clearinghouse, in defiance of the true purpose of gun buyback programs, by using semantics and meaningless arguments. They say even the symbolism of taking one gun out of circulation makes buy-and-destroy a better policy.

“It’s another gun off the street to us,” Cmdr. Glenn Theriault of the Elgin (Illinois) police, told the Tribune. His is among the departments which destroy firearms seized as evidence and which are no longer required by law to be stored.

That’s because even if a police department sells buyback guns or firearms obtained through other methods to a reputable dealer, “anything can happen,” reasoned Theriault. “It can end up in a bad guy’s hands, even if it’s first in the good guy’s hands.”

Exactly. Guns are stolen all the time. But in the era of tighter budgets, some departments seem ready to waive the responsibility clause they have to the general public. Per the Tribune:

The choice for a public agency to sell or destroy seized weapons underscores the push in many suburbs to find new ways to generate revenue without raising taxes. The issue also places St. Charles in an unusual position among law enforcement agencies at a time when the gun control debate has been re-energized by the Sandy Hook school shooting and, in Illinois, by the current effort to enact a concealed carry law before a court-imposed June deadline.

What exactly was the original purpose of gun buyback programs again?

The department is unloading more than buyback guns. The paper reported that four firearms that had once been issued to city police officers were part of a batch sold to Streicher’s, a Minnesota-based dealer who regularly sells equipment to St. Charles. According to Lamkin, those guns will most likely be used as parts for firearms owned by other police agencies.

The City Council is expected to agree to the upcoming sale of the guns, according to the paper. When the sale is final, the department says it expects to receive about $6,400 in credit for future equipment purchases.

“If we took all of these guns and melted them into a pile of metal … except for scrap metal, we would have gotten nothing,” said Lamkin.

“I don’t have any problem with St. Charles police putting guns into the hands of a legitimate vendor,” Rogina said. “To me, the problem with guns is people breaking the law.”

Well, right. No reasonable person would disagree. But again, Mr. Rogina, what was point of gun buyback programs in the first place?

Sources for this article include:

http://www.breitbart.com

http://articles.chicagotribune.com

http://www.upi.com

‘Russia will not extradite NSA leaker’

0

Russian President Vladimir Putin says NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden has committed no crime in Russia and will not be extradited to the United States.

Putin added that Moscow has no extradition agreement with the US in Snowden case as the former intelligence contractor is still in transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport.

GMA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Brazil 2013: Mass Demonstrations, the World Cup, and 500 Years of Oppression

0

Brazil has a long history of top-down reforms that have inadequately addressed the profound inequality that divides the country. The mass demonstrations, provoked by public transportation fare increases and World Cup costs, are finally calling attention to issues that cannot be solved by minor changes, indicating things might be different this time.

In order to address the systemic inequality beneath Brazil’s idyllic image of samba and soccer, there must be a social and political rupture. The billions of dollars already being spent on the upcoming 2014 World Cup have rightly angered millions of Brazilians who live without social infrastructure and lack basic public goods.

People of all political inclinations have taken to the streets in major cities around the country. Police violence against demonstrators in São Paulo at the beginning of the protest triggered nation-wide mass demonstrations with a broad range of demands targeting all forms of social inequality. The state reaction to the movement has brought to the surface 500 years of repressed anger and frustration towards deep inequality.

Brazil has long been one of the most unequal places on the planet and is haunted by a history of slavery and oppression. Five centuries ago the Portuguese colonizers killed and enslaved millions of indigenous inhabitants to enrich themselves with minerals and sugar cane. Soon after, Brazil became the largest African country outside of Africa, receiving nearly 40% of all slaves brought to the entire American continent [1]. This economic system based upon the slavery and oppression of black, indigenous, and poor people lasted for almost four centuries. The legacy of slavery is present in our daily lives; for example, virtually all middle-class and upper-class housing is built with small attached rooms for the domestic servants, very much resembling the slave senzalas attached to masters’ mansions [2].

The first reform in Brazil came in 1822 with independence. Not a great change in practice, and certainly not a rupture. The Brazilian ruling class declared independence from Portugal while keeping the royal Portuguese family in power [3]. The son of the king of Portugal was immediately declared emperor of the newly “independent” empire of Brazil, and when he fled the country his royal son took charge.

The second reform came in 1888 when landlords officially ended the slave system. Again, change without rupture. Brazil was the last country in the world to end slavery, a top-down phenomena of bowing to English pressure to expand its trade empire. No problem at all for the rich, they were already exploiting cheap immigrant labor under harsh conditions similar to serfdom [3] [4].

The third reform came one year later in 1889 when the ruling class declared the Empire’s transformation into a modern capitalist republic. No popular movements, no popular participation; just a simple business deal among the rich [3] [4].

The fourth reform came in 1929 when Getulio Vargas put an end to the political deal between the elites of São Paulo and Minas Gerais states. Vargas came from the south of the counrty and used his political leadership and military command to orchestrate a coup d’état against the landlords that had been controlling the federal government since 1889 – but Vargas himself was a landlord. Again, change with no rupture. Under Vargas from 1930 to 1945 the economy was industrialized, and to a degree nationalized.  Vargas enacted the labor legislation that is still in place in Brazil today, while at the same time repressing communists and other challenges from below. The presidents that followed him also maintained the same order. ‘Order and progress’ was the motto. Industrialize and guarantee that the powerful remained powerful [3] [4].

This began to change slowly in the early 1960s when João Goulart came into office and modestly expanded workers’ rights. Goulart’s leftist inclinations and approximations with Castro and Mao were the last straw that the ruling class was waiting for. In 1964 he was removed from power in a military coup that established a dictatorship for the next 21 years. The army repressed popular demands by force and imprisonment, thus ensuring continuing profits for the rich.

The decades of military dictatorship destroyed any hopes of land reform and of a decent public education system for the masses. Brazil became even more unequal in both urban cities and rural areas. A single family could own more land in Brazil than the total area of a Western European country. Just try to imagine what it means for a single person to own as much land as Belgium while having control over the press media, TV channels, and voters [5] [6]. These capitalist landlords were the so-called coronéis.

One of these coronéis, José Sarney, became the first civilian president in 1985 after the end of direct military control. No popular votes, just a political arrangement among the rich to withdraw the army and install the rich and powerful in office. As with every other major episode in Brazilian history, the people were again under a system commanded from the top. Sarney still currently presides over the Senate.

It was also during the period of military dictatorship that the first wave of truly bottom-up social movements formed. Beginning with the general strikes in the state of São Paulo, Lula and the Workers’ Party (PT) led popular mass demonstrations against oppression and inequality. The developments from 1978 to 1989 were a major shift in the fight for social democracy [7] [8].  Interestingly, these movements arose at the same time as the neoliberal agendas of Reagan, Tatcher, and Mitterand were taking hold of developed countries. The Workers’ Party set the exact opposite agenda with its general strikes: it was time for social democracy in Brazil. Another reform without rupture.

The greatest victory of the Workers’ Party came in 1988 with the institution of a new Constitution. This was probably the first major victory truly organized from the bottom up [7] [8]. The Constitution institutionalized the rule of private property, markets, and capitalism. It also guaranteed the rights of workers and many other progressive reforms while these victories were being chipped away by the neoliberal agenda elsewhere in the world.

The partial victory was so significant that every government that followed in office systematically tried to undo it. Due to explicit media manipulation, Lula, the union leader who led the Workers’ Party, lost the 1989 presidential election. It was the end of the social-democrat dream in Brazil. Once more, the ruling class managed to keep their government in power. From 1990 to 2002, Brazilians faced subsequent waves of neoliberal reforms that aimed at destroying all the popular gains obtained from 1978 to 1989 [7] [8]. Beginning in the 1990s, the neoliberal era brought privatization, high unemployment rates, massive layoffs, world record-high interest rates, bailouts to banks, trade and financial liberalization, and de-industrialization [9]. Once again, the system of inequality preserved its five-century hold on Brazil.

The rich and powerful have maintained their dominance through five centuries of Brazil’s history, managing challenges with a mix of repression and reform. Half of the Brazilian population has insufficient access to clean water, sewers, and decent education. Even now in the twentieth-first Century most are functional illiterates. Some Brazilians are among the richest people in the world, and live a life as if they were in Switzerland; but among us there are also the poorest in the world–the majority that continues to live a life not substantially different from the times of open slavery [10].

The five-century history of Brazil is undoubtedly a history of oppression, of the very rich against the masses of the poor. We were systematically told that the government had no money to invest in education and healthcare. Paradoxically, from the same mouths that spoke those words there came the message that they would invest billions and billions to prepare the country for . . . soccer. The portrait of a Brazilian that loves sport above all else clashes with the chant “fuck the World Cup” now heard on the streets [11].

Now the streets are on fire all across the country. The original demand was to lower bus and subway fares; but against this history of inequality and exploitation, high bus fares and police violence triggered something much deeper. We all know that there is something fundamentally wrong in our country. So, what you see on your screen is the problem that the rich have created for themselves. It is the outcome of 500 years of unmet popular demands.

São Paulo is now the scene for daily riots ignited by the question of inefficient and expensive transportation. The city’s public transportation system has been in the hands of the state since 1946, operating efficiently with well-paid drivers and staff. In the early 1990s Luiza Erundina, the city’s first leftist mayor and member of the Workers’ Party, advocated a no-fare system. Her plan was to finance a free public transportation system for all by taxing business and wealthy households. This plan prompted rebellion by the rich. The bourgeoisie lobbied, campaigned, and undermined Erundina’s plan to redistribute the costs of transportation. She lost the battle. Even worse, Paulo Maluf, her corrupt right wing successor, privatized bus and subway lines all at once in 1995.

Following the familiar neoliberal script, Maluf shifted the ownership of the public transportation system in Brazil’s largest city to private mafias that formed a cartel to control fare prices [12]. The three enterprises that control the transportation system in São Paulo own the largest number of public buses in the whole world. The public transportation business in Sao Paulo is simultaneously one of the most inefficient and profitable enterprises in Brazil [13]. Ostensibly regulated by the city government, the bus companies’ books are black boxes that few have dared to open. Marta Suplicy, the last mayor that openly discussed the subject, had to start wearing a bulletproof jacket in public.

Residents of São Paulo typically spend hours going to and coming back from work. A poor person that lives in the sprawling outskirts of São Paulo spends an average of three hours commuting to work every day inside noisy, packed, and expensive buses, subways, and urban trains. Transportation costs in São Paulo are the highest in the world relative to wages. Residents of São Paulo must work ten times as many hours as residents of Buenos Aires to pay for transportation, and more than twice a worker in Paris [14]. With the privatization of the system, drivers lost their benefits, faced reduced compensations, and had their labor unions severely undermined.

The Free Fare Movement (Movimento Passe Livre, or simply MPL) arose as a response to this ongoing crisis. Some eight years ago the MPL began organizing workshops, collective discussions, and demonstrations all over the country. Its militants are mostly university students and other young people involved in various social movements. Working outside Brazil’s party system, free from electoral pressures, the MPL created a horizontal organization with the goal of fighting for a no fare policy in urban centers as part of a broader vision for social justice. The MPL was the spark behind these historic demonstrations.

What began as a targeted campaign for free public transportation in a city with chronic transportation issues soon became entangled in a much broader and diffuse outcry for social justice. The MPL and the violent police response have somehow led the masses to finally speak out about inequality. Mass demonstrations now pop up in stadiums hosting the Confederations Cup, highways, and streets of major Brazilian cities, and even around the National Congress and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Brasília. Protests are also occurring in business centers, middle class neighborhoods, and slums.

It is difficult to characterize the movement and the situation is changing quickly. This is not a communist takeover. The movement is not radical and not sufficiently politicized. So far, it has been a scream against the immense inequality and oppression that Brazilians have suffered. There is also the increasing threat that reactionary groups could hijack this political moment. After the backlash against police repression during the early marches, conservative forces shifted quickly from repression to co-optation. Subsequently, virtually all the media and the right-wing parties have been in favor of the demonstrators, and attempted to use them to their advantage against the Workers’ Party and the federal government, substituting a nebulous anti-corruption platform for other demands. A quick look at the newspapers Folha de São Paulo, Estado de São Paulo, and the broadcasting network Rede Globo is revealing. Conservatives are turning the protest on its head. Left-leaning protesters struggle for more radical reforms while right-wingers use reactionary campaigns against government corruption to weaken the center-left Workers’ Party. With a weak leftist vanguard and no clear political drive, the demonstrators have the potential to set the stage for a broader reactionary political response.

Despite these manipulations, the demands from the streets call for a rupture, and not reform of the old institutions. This is a rare outcry in Brazil’s 500 years of profound inequality. Brazilians finally appear to be tiring of minor changes that have brought no systemic rupture.

Workers’ Party governments have brought change since Lula assumed the presidency in 2003, but it was partial and compromised. Lula shifted the income distribution to help the miserable: more social programs, higher minimum wage, and higher employment rates. This was made possible by a favorable international scenario that allowed him to help the poor without confronting the interests of the rich. Brazil’s huge trade surpluses generated the funds to finance social programs without compromising the gains of the bourgeoisie. However, the world financial crisis beginning in 2008 undermined the conditions for this scenario. Dilma now faces a different challenge. To help the poor she will have to confront the rich. With recent cutbacks of government expenditures and low GDP growth rates the dispute between rich and poor becomes a zero-sum game. The poor want more social programs, more government investment, and more income redistribution. However, the Dilma administration has failed to deliver.

Recent events have crystalized the Workers’ Party separation from the mass movements from which it originated. No new political vanguard has emerged to represent the people’s concerns. The door remains open for right wing hijacking of popular unrest.

The situation is very fluid and the outcome remains uncertain.  The traditional political leaders are stunned, and have proven they don’t know how to react. The Workers’ Party is held down by the burden of the political compromises that it has made with the bourgeoisie during the past decade. Fernando Haddad, recently elected mayor of São Paulo, and Geraldo Alkmin governor of São Paulo, resisted rescinding the fare increase as demanded by the Free Fare Movement until over 100,000 flooded the streets. Unfortunately, the decision to cancel the fare increases will come at the cost of shifting even more public money through subsidies to the private transportation cartels. In the end the population is paying for the fare hike anyway through taxes.

The very rich are also unquiet. They are expecting to get billions in profits from the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016. Transnational capitalist corporations such as FIFA are aware that escalating demonstrations might affect their gains. Ironically, soccer might turn out to be not so profitable in the country known to be its most fervent supporter. Pharaonic stadium projects stand in sharp contrast to the lack of hospitals, decent public transportation, and schools for the masses–the same masses that will not have money to purchase the extremely expensive tickets. The bread and circuses policies have finally produced their own opposite, discontent. Who would have thought of that in Brazil?

Tomas Rotta is a PhD candidate in the economics program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I was raised in São Paulo, Brazil.

Notes:

[1] Ribeiro, Darcy. The Brazilian People: The Formation and Meaning of Brazil. University Press of Florida, 2000.

[2] Freyre, Gilberto. Casagrande e Senzala. Editora Global, 2005.

[3] Prado Jr, Caio. História Econômica do Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense, 2008.

[4] Furtado, Celso. Formação Econômica do Brasil. Editora Companhia Das Letras, 2006.

[5] Castilho, Alceu Luis. Partido da Terra: Como os Políticos Conquistam o Território Brasileiro. Editora Contexto, 2012.

[6] Giradi, Eduardo Paulon. Atlas da Questão Agrária Brasileira. Unesp. Retrieved from: http://www2.fct.unesp.br/nera/atlas/estrutura_fundiaria.htm

[7] Singer, André. Raízes sociais e ideológicas do lulismo. Novos Estudos (85), CEBRAP, 2009, pp. 83‑102

[8] Singer, André. A segunda alma do Partido dos Trabalhadores. Novos Estudos (88), CEBRAP, 2010, pp. 89‑111.

[9] Belluzzo, Luiz G. M. and Almeida, Júlio S. G. Depois da Queda: A Economia Brasileira da Crise da Dívida aos Impasses do Real. Editora Civilização Brasileira, 2002.

[10] IBGE. Estatísticas do Século XX. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.ibge.gov.br/seculoxx/seculoxx.pdf

[11] Here: http://brasildebrinquedo.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/foda-se-a-copa.jpg Here: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/485431_228726430585199_604983142_n.jpg And here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/—Q9X04hJXUQ/UOo-Drfw8YI/AAAAAAAANAY/BpT94lkx6yg/s1600/foda+se+a+copa.jpg

[12] Souto, Fernando. “Como as empresas de ônibus maquiam custos”. OutrasMídias. Retrieved on June 17th 2013, from: http://outraspalavras.net/outrasmidias/?p=12643

[13] Gusmão, Marcos and Edward, José. “Os barões do transporte urbano”. Revista Veja. Retrieved on June 17th 2013, from: http://veja.abril.com.br/280198/p_064.html

[14] Dana, Samy and Siqueira, Leonardo. “Análise: A tarifa de ônibus por aqui está entre as mais caras do mundo”. Folha de São Paulo. Retrieved on June 17th 2013, from: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2013/06/1296233-analise-a-tarifa-de-onibus-por-aqui-esta-entre-as-mais-caras-do-mundo.shtml

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Saudi sentences rights activist to jail

0

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a human rights activist known as Abdul-Karim al-Khader to eight years behind bars for alleged sedition.

On Monday, al-Khader, the co-founder of the Saudi Political and Civil Rights Association (ACPRA), was given three years in jail and another five if he continues his anti-governmental activities upon release.

Al-Khader has been also sentenced to a 10-year travel ban, which will prevent him from leaving Saudi Arabia for a decade after his release from prison.

In March, Riyadh criminal court dissolved the ACPRA and handed heavy jail sentences to two of the groupâ„¢s members.

The court ordered the seizure of the groupâ„¢s assets, and gave the two activists 30 days to appeal the verdict.

Following the imprisonment of Abdullah al-Hamed and Mohammed Gahtani, two members of the human rights group, al-Khader served as the head of the organization.

ACPRA says it has listed Å“hundreds of human rights violations over the past two years,” and helped people seek justice.

More than 40,000 political prisoners, mostly prisoners of conscience, are in jails across Saudi Arabia.

According to the activists, most of the detained political thinkers are being held by the government without trial or legitimate charges and have been arrested for merely looking suspicious.

Some of the detainees are reported to be held without trial for more than 16 years. Attempting to incite the public against the government and the allegiance to foreign entities are usually the ready-made charges against dissidents.

In Saudi Arabia, protests and political gatherings of any kind are prohibited.

Since February 2011, protesters have held demonstrations on an almost regular basis in Saudi Arabia, mainly in Qatif and Awamiyah, primarily calling for the release of all political prisoners, freedom of expression and assembly, and an end to widespread discrimination.

MAM/PR/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iran calls for national unity in Lebanon

0

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian (file photo)

An Iranian deputy foreign minister has condemned the killing of 16 Lebanese soldiers by supporters of Takfiri Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir in southern city of Sidon, stressing the need for unity among all Lebanese factions and political parties.

Å“Given the ongoing regional developments, Lebanon is in urgent need of tranquility, security and unity,” Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said on Tuesday.

He also stressed that the Zionist regime (of Israel) is the enemy of the entire Muslim world.

The Lebanese Army has been carrying out mop-up operations against Assirâ„¢s followers in Sidon, located some 40 kilometers (25 miles) south of Beirut.

Reports coming out of Lebanon suggest the Army is now in full control of Sidon.

Lebanon army has pledged to fight until it Ëœfinishes withâ„¢ the radical sheikh.

Assir was unknown just two years ago, but he gained prominence as the spillover into Lebanon from the conflict in neighboring Syria has escalated. The cleric is believed to have hundreds of armed supporters in Sidon involved in the fighting.

MP/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Mad invader, eavesdropper’: China slams US after Snowden accusations

0

RT
June 24, 2013

The US has gone from ‘model of human rights’ to manipulator of internet rights, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party wrote. China has struck back at the US over its allegations that Beijing allowed NSA leaker Edward Snowden to leave Hong Kong.

The damning article in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily, the party’s official newspaper, came in response to Washington’s accusations of the “deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant.”

Addressing Washington’s allegations, the People’s Daily wrote that China could not accept “this kind of dissatisfaction and opposition.”

“Not only did the US authorities not give us an explanation and apology, it instead expressed dissatisfaction at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for handling things in accordance with the law,” wrote Wang Xinjun, a researcher at the Academy of Military Science in the People’s Daily commentary.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying also denounced the US accusations as “groundless and unacceptable.”

“It is unreasonable for the US to question Hong Kong’s handling of affairs in accordance with law, and the accusation against the Chinese central government is groundless,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying.

The Hong Kong government released an official statement on Sunday, saying that US fugitive Edward Snowden had left the Chinese territory for Moscow legally and voluntarily. The statement also mentioned that the extradition documents submitted by the US on charges of espionage were not sufficient to warrant Snowden’s arrest under Chinese law.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The column praises the former CIA contractor for “his fearlessness that tore off Washington’s sanctimonious mask.”Snowden has been branded by the US as ‘traitor’ by US politicians for the leaking of classified documents to The Guardian newspaper that revealed the existence of the spy program PRISM.

“In a sense, the United States has gone from a model of human rights to an eavesdropper on personal privacy, the manipulator of the centralized power over the international internet, and the mad invader of other countries’ networks,” the People’s Daily said.

The case of Edward Snowden has captivated world media since he fled from the US in May. Although the fugitive’s whereabouts are unknown, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confirmed to RT that Snowden was en route to Ecuador via Moscow accompanied by WikiLeaks legal representative Sarah Harrison.

Russian journalists wait for the arrival of former US spy Edward Snowden at the Moscow Sheremetevo airport on June 23, 2013. (AFP Photo)Russian journalists wait for the arrival of former US spy Edward Snowden at the Moscow Sheremetevo airport on June 23, 2013. (AFP Photo)

Snowden was checked in for a flight from Moscow to Havana, Cuba, yesterday, but there was no sign of him on the plane, according to RT’s correspondent Egor Piskunov. As a consequence, it is now thought that he is still in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport.

The whistleblower has applied for asylum in Ecuador and the country’s government confirmed that it is processing the application.

The US has called on all countries in the northern hemisphere to surrender Snowden to US jurisdiction and has resolved to seek cooperation from his destination country. However human rights organization Amnesty International has launched an appeal, urging the US not to prosecute anyone who discloses data on US government human right violations.

“No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression,”
said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

In addition, the organization also stressed that an individual who has an asylum bid underway cannot legally be extradited.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:47 am

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

NJ couple facing fine over bird feeder

0

CBS New York
June 25, 2013

A Bergen County, N.J., couple has been ordered to appear in court — for the offense of feeding the birds in their own backyard.

As CBS 2’s John Slattery reported, the Borough of Ramsey told Annette and Alfred Rockefeller they are not just feeding the birds — they are illegally feeding wildlife.

Alfred Rockefeller, 77, comes from the famous bloodline.

Read full article

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:57 am

Tags:






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

‘Miami, As We Know It Today, Is Doomed. It’s Not A Question Of If — It’s A Question Of When’

0

June 25, 2013
 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Jeff Goodell has a must-read piece in Rolling Stone, “Goodbye, Miami: By century’s end, rising sea levels will turn the nation’s urban fantasyland into an American Atlantis. But long before the city is completely underwater, chaos will begin.”

Goodell has talked to many of the leading experts on Miami including Harold Wanless, chair of University of Miami’s geological sciences, department, source of the headline quote. The reason climate change dooms Miami is a combination of sea level rise, the inevitability of ever more severe storms and storm surges – and its fateful, fatal geology and topology, which puts “more than $416 billion in assets at risk to storm-related flooding and sea-level rise”:

South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won’t just come in from the east — because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. “Imagine Swiss cheese, and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like,” says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily — it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. “Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here,” says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas.

The latest research “suggests that sea level could rise more than six feet by the end of the century,” as Goodell notes, and “Wanless believes that it could continue rising a foot each decade after that.”

Prudence dictates we plan for the plausible worst case. Coastal studies experts told the NY Times back in 2010, “For coastal management purposes, a [sea level] rise of 7 feet (2 meters) should be utilized for planning major infrastructure.”

Unfortunately, sea level rise is already 60% faster than projected. Goodell reports:

“With six feet of sea-level rise, South Florida is toast,” says Tom Gustafson, a former Florida speaker of the House and a climate-change-policy advocate. Even if we cut carbon pollution overnight, it won’t save us. Ohio State glaciologist Jason Box has said he believes we already have 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the system.

Certainly without sharp cuts in CO2 starting ASAP, Jason Box is correct (see “ Manmade Carbon Pollution Has Already Put Us On Track For 69 Feet Of Sea Level Rise”).

So we need a combination of aggressive mitigation combined with massive spending to develop completely new adaptation solutions for Miami to have any serious chance of surviving this century intact.

Sadly, Florida is one of the last places in the country where such action and planning can be expected:

Those solutions are not likely to be forthcoming from the political realm. The statehouse in Tallahassee is a monument to climate-change denial. “You can’t even say the words ‘climate change’ on the House floor without being run out of the building,” says Gustafson. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, positioning himself for a run at the presidency in 2016, is another denier, still trotting out the tired old argument that “no matter how many job-killing­ laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather.” Gov. Rick Scott, a Tea Party Republican, says he’s “not convinced” that global warming is caused by human beings. Since taking office in 2011, Scott has targeted environmental protections of every sort and slashed the budget of the South Florida Water Management District, the agency in charge of managing water supply in the region, as well as restoration of the Everglades. “There is no serious thinking, no serious planning, about any of this going on at the state level,” says Chuck Watson, a disaster-­impact analyst with longtime experience in Florida. “The view is, ‘Well, if it gets real bad, the federal government will bail us out.’ It is beyond denial; it is flat-out delusional.”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Finally, Some Sanity in Congress About Castrating the NSA's Total Surveillance Powers

0

June 25, 2013
 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Both Democratic and Republican intelligence committee leaders have fallen over themselves to denounce National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden. But other members of Congress are using the opportunity of a renewed debate over surveillance to push for restrictions on the NSA’s ability to collect intelligence on Americans.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced a bill that would put an earlier end to provisions in the FISA Amendments Act that authorized the Internet surveillance program known as PRISM. His bill, called the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act, would sunset the authorization to June 2015, two years sooner than the current law. That would force an earlier examination of the law allowing the Internet surveillance program that authorized the U.S. government to request user data from technology companies.

Other parts of the Leahy bill include an amendment to the Patriot Act that would restrict the NSA’s ability to collect phone data. The Guardian revealed that the U.S. government was collecting millions of Americans’ phone metadata, the first scoop that sparked the debate over surveillance. Leahy’s bill stipulates that the phone data would only be collected if it was an authorized investigation and, most importantly, if there was a definite link to a foreign terrorist group or power.

“The recent public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the use of government surveillance powers, which deserve close scrutiny by Congress,” said Leahy in a statement, according to the Washington Post. “The comprehensive legislation that I am introducing today will not only improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, but also strengthen oversight and transparency provisions in other parts of the USA Patriot Act.”

Leahy’s legislation would also sunset the Patriot Act provisions that allow “national security letters”–letters that are sent to phone and Internet companies that request data about Americans’ activity but that cannot be disclosed. Leahy’s bill would end the current law authorizing “national security letters” in 2015 as well–and force the letters to be made public unless the government gets a court order keeping them secret.

Furthermore, Leahy’s legislation would require inspector general audits of on use of the laws that authorize the NSA’s surveillance programs.

The bill is co-sponsored by four Senate Democrats–Richard Blumenthal, Mark Udall, Ron Wyden and Jon Tester–and one Republican, Mike Lee.

A coalition of Democrats and Republicans introduced similar legislation in the House earlier this month.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Seven killed during shootout in Brazil

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]At least seven people including two police officers have been killed during a shootout in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, officials say.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iran short to vie in French Filmfest

0

French intl. festival to screen Iranian short film

Iranian short screen production This Road Is Beautiful is scheduled to contend for award at the ONE Country ONE Film, an international short film festival in France.

Directed by Ali Nazari, the film will compete with other movies submitted from 44 countries from across the world.

Only one film from the submissions of each country has been selected to be screened at the annual festival that will be held in the small village of Apchat in the heart of France.

Iranâ„¢s Jalal Saed-Panahâ„¢s short film The Sound of Rain was named the winner of last yearâ„¢s edition of the festival.

Established in 2009, ONE Country ONE Film (UN Pays UN Film) is international film festival annually held in France in different categories of fictions, documentaries, experimental and animations.

The festival does not have a jury panel and the movies are judged by the audience.

The fourth edition of ONE Country ONE Film Festival is to take place from July 26 to 28, 2013.

FGP/FGP

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Just Like That, Louisiana Has Criminalized Journalism

0

June 25, 2013
 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Major newspapers and cable and broadcast media have ignored Louisiana’s passage of a law that makes it a crime for journalists to publicly identify concealed handgun permit holders or applicants.

On June 19, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) signed a bill that sets penalties of up to six months in jail and $10,000 for those who publish “any information regarding the identity of any person who applied for or received a concealed handgun permit.” The law includes exceptions for cases in which the concealed handgun holder is charged with a felony offense involving the use of a handgun.

Supporters cited as their rationale for proposing the law a New York paper’s controversial Decemberpublication of a Google map that featured the names and addresses of local handgun permit holders, saying that the legislation was necessary to prevent local media outlets from publishing similar information. Most states, including Louisiana, have laws that make such information confidential, but Alabama is the only other state that currently makes publication of that information illegal subject to a penalty.

The law’s passage comes during a furious debate over whether the federal government infringed upon freedom of the press by naming a reporter as a co-conspirator in a leak case; the journalist was never charged with a crime.

Louisiana’s law, explicitly passed in order to chill and criminalize journalism, has not received national attention. According to a review of the Nexis and Factiva databases*, major newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today have not mentioned the law. Neither have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. The Associated Press produced several articles as the bill moved through the legislative process and became law, reporting on June 19:

Despite criticism it would violate the First Amendment, Gov. Bobby Jindal on Wednesday signed into law a bill that makes it a crime for journalists or anyone else to publicly identify concealed handgun permit holders or applicants.

Carl Redman, the executive editor of the Baton Rouge Advocate and chairman of the Louisiana Press Association’s Freedom of Information Committee, offered a stirring defense of freedom of the press in opposing the Louisiana law at a May 7 state Senate committee hearing. He called it  “very ironic that the very people who screamed the loudest about attempts to limit their Second Amendment rights are here eager to limit my First Amendment rights.”

Other advocates for freedom of the press joined him in opposing the bill.

*Media Matters reviewed the Nexis and Factiva databases since February 5, the day the bill was prefiled in the Louisiana House of Representatives, using the search terms: Louisiana and (handgun or gun) and (permit or concealed carry or house bill 8) and (journalist or reporter or media). Due to the limitations of the Nexis database, daytime programming on MSNBC and Fox News is excluded from this study.

Rebecca Solnit is just winding up several months as a research fellow at Stanford Libraries and Stanford’s Bill Lane Center for the American West. Her work there will lead to a book about California history, but her new book, out this month, is The Faraway Nearby .

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Seven killed during shootout in Brazil

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]At least seven people including two police officers have been killed during a shootout in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, officials say.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iran short to vie in French Filmfest

0

French intl. festival to screen Iranian short film

Iranian short screen production This Road Is Beautiful is scheduled to contend for award at the ONE Country ONE Film, an international short film festival in France.

Directed by Ali Nazari, the film will compete with other movies submitted from 44 countries from across the world.

Only one film from the submissions of each country has been selected to be screened at the annual festival that will be held in the small village of Apchat in the heart of France.

Iranâ„¢s Jalal Saed-Panahâ„¢s short film The Sound of Rain was named the winner of last yearâ„¢s edition of the festival.

Established in 2009, ONE Country ONE Film (UN Pays UN Film) is international film festival annually held in France in different categories of fictions, documentaries, experimental and animations.

The festival does not have a jury panel and the movies are judged by the audience.

The fourth edition of ONE Country ONE Film Festival is to take place from July 26 to 28, 2013.

FGP/FGP

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Lookout List’ Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports

0

Eliana Johnson
nationalreview.com
June 25, 2013

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous “Be On The Lookout” list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general’s report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel’s account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like “tea party,” but also “progressive,” “Occupy,” and “Israel.”

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” — 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities — they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:46 am

Tags:






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Two Thirds of Americans Support Drones for ‘Homeland Security’ Missions

0

Government documents show drones to be used for identifying gun owners

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

A new survey shows that two thirds of Americans support the use of unmanned spy drones for “homeland security missions,” despite the fact that such missions will include identifying gun owners and tracking the location of individuals via their cellphones, according to government documents.

Domestic Drones.

The poll, conducted by the Institute for Homeland Security Solutions (IHSS), a research consortium led by RTI International, shows that 67% of Americans support the use of unmanned spy drones for “homeland security missions,” and that 63% support their use in “fighting crime”.

The survey also canvassed law enforcement officers, 72% of whom supported the use of unmanned drones for surveillance purposes and 66% supported their use for “emergency response”.

Although some will question the poll’s outcome given RTI International’s close ties with US government agencies, its results are broadly in line with previous surveys which show that around two thirds of Americans are happy with domestic drone use under the justification of fighting crime.

“Within 10 years, sales of UAS are expected to grow to 160,000 units in the United States as the technology develops for public safety use and commercial purposes,” states the RTI report.

Indeed, over the last 12 months, the Department of Homeland Security has been advancing plans for “public safety drones” which are currently undergoing rigorous testing as part of the Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety” (RAPS) project.

Initial testing of robotic spy drones for “public safety” applications was conducted by the DHS’ Science and Technology directorate at Fort Sill, Oklahoma last year.

The DHS has also been giving grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to police departments across the country enabling them to purchase unmanned surveillance drones such as the Shadowhawk drone, a 50lb mini helicopter that can be fitted with an XREP taser with the ability to fire four barbed electrodes that can be shot to a distance of 100 feet.

As we reported in April, the DHS is testing a number of different drones at a scientific research facility in Oklahoma that have sensors capable of detecting whether a person is armed. A promotional video for the Shadowhawk drone depicts the UAV being used to spy on a private gun sale.

CNet’s Declan McCullagh also obtained government documents which show how the DHS is customizing Predator drones originally designated for overseas military operations “to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones.”

Experts predict that there will be 30,000 surveillance drones in American skies by 2020 following a bill passed last year by Congress that permits the use of unmanned aerial spy vehicles on domestic soil.

Last week, FBI director Robert Mueller told Congress that the agency was already using drones for surveillance on U.S. soil on a limited scale.

Recently released FAA documents show that the FBI has received clearance to conduct surveillance drone operations inside the U.S. on at least four occasions since 2010.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:39 am

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Not What Thomas Jefferson Had in Mind

0

How does one tell whether one is living in a dictatorship, or almost? The signs need not be so obvious as having a squat little man raving from balconies. Methinks the following indicators serve. In a dictatorship:

(1) Sweeping laws are made without reference to the will of the people. A few examples follow. Whether you think these laws desirable is not the point. Some will, others won’t. The point is that they were simply imposed from above. Many of them would never have survived a national vote.

Start with Roe vs. Wade, making abortion legal, and subsequent decisions allowing late-term abortion. Griggs versus Duke Power, forbidding employers from using tests of intelligence, since certain groups scored poorly. Brown versus the School Board and its offspring requiring forced integration, forced busing, racial quotas, and so on. The decision that Creationism cannot be mentioned in the schools. Decisions forbidding the public expression of Christianity. The decision that citizens can be stopped and searched without probable cause. The opening of the borders to mass immigration.

These are major, major laws grossly altering the social, legal, and constitutional fabric of the country. All were simply imposed, mostly by unelected judges against whom there is no recourse.

Note that there is no practical distinction between a decision by the Supreme Court, a regulation made by an executive bureaucracy, and a practice quietly adopted by the intelligence agencies and federal police. None of these requires public approval.

For that matter, consider the militarization of the police, the creation of Homeland Security’s Viper teams that randomly search cars, the vast and growing spying on Americans by government, and the genital gropings by TSA. Consider the endless undeclared wars that one finds out often only after the troops have been sent. All simply imposed from above.

In principle, elected officials represent the desires of their electorates. In practice Congress barely touches on most issues of concern to the public. Overturning any of the aforementioned types of laws is virtually impossible.

(2) Another measure of dictatorship is the extent to which the people fear the government. A time was when governmental official in general, and the police in particular, had to be cautious in pushing the citizenry around. A justified complaint to the chief of police brought consequences. Today the police can do as they please, and you have no recourse. The new aggressiveness applies especially to federal police. If you object to excessive intrusion by agents of TSA, they will make sure you miss your flight. In principle you can complain, but in practice the effect is zero.

(3) Dictatorships characteristically watch the citizenry very carefully, using the secret police and encouraging people to inform on each other. Both are now routine. Did you vote to have your email read, your telephone calls recorded, your browsing habits on the web turned over to the NSA or the FBI? No. And you have no recourse.

To one raised in a freer United
States, it is astonishing to hear on the subway of Washington, DC constant admonitions to watch one’s fellow passengers and report “suspicious behavior.”

Another source of deliberate intimidation is the IRS. This police agency is not dreaded because people are cheating on their taxes–few are, and those are usually smart enough not to get caught. People fear the IRS because it can arbitrarily wreck their lives, invade their premises, demand
endless documentation that few have, and run up penalties and interest for crimes which weren’t committed and which the IRS doesn’t have to prove.
You have no recourse. You may win in the end, but tax lawyers are expensive, as IRS well knows, and in any event the intent is not to collect taxes owed but to punish. As has been documented, Mr. Obama’s administration employs IRS for exactly this.

The IRS gains its punitive leverage from the fact that it is impossible to know what taxes you owe and simply pay them. Years back, Money magazine sent a “moderately complex” tax return to fifty tax preparers, from big-league to small potatoes. They produced widely varying results, with only two in Money’s opinion getting the right answer. If tax specialists can’t tell how much you owe, neither can you. This means that in practice you are always vulnerable.

(4) Lack of constitutional government. This is not the same as lack of a constitution. The Soviet Union had an admirable constitution. It just paid no attention to it.

The American constitution says that Congress must declare war in order for our forces to be deployed. This last happened in 1941. The president now sends American forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants.
The Fifth Amendment forbids self-incrimination, which means confessions obtained under torture. Obama’s administration openly tortures prisoners of war, a de facto withdrawal of the country from the Geneva Convention.

The Fourth Amendment provides ““The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….”   If you are a conservative strict constructionist, you can argue that the Constitution does not mention telephones, the internet, or computers, and that therefore the government has the right to monitor all of these. A liberal might argue that RAM, the internet, and computers are the equivalent of papers etc. It doesn’t matter who argues what. The government spies on all.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Again, the Obama administration uses the intelligence apparatus of the state to monitor the communications of reporters. This is highly intimidating, which is the intent. The fear of being monitored has a profoundly chilling effect on the willingness of sources to say anything to reporters that the government might not like. This is a major step toward the controlled press usual in dictatorships.

Officials in the current administration have said that if you are not doing anything wrong, the monitoring should not cause fear. Only criminals need worry.

This is dangerous for at least two reasons. First is the mindlessness of anonymous and unaccountable bureaucrats. For example, as a journalist I have run Google searches on explosives, on pathogens usable in biological warfare, on the concealability of nuclear weapons, and on the synthesis of nerve agents. Some computer program could kick this out as evidence of probable terroristic intent, and FBI agents would show up with their usual blend of pathological wholesomeness, arrogance, and love of power.

The other reason is that the government inevitably will abuse its knowledge. Knowing the peculiar sexual tastes or amorous strayings of political opponents, or their smoking of an occasional joint, provides great leverage over them. In some circles, this is known as “blackmail.”

If this isn’t quite dictatorship, we are rapidly getting there. Wait a few years.

Fred Smith is the author Killer Kink and Triple Tap. He lives in Mexico and can be reached through his website.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

The Prairie Fire That Swept Brazil

0

With a million people demonstrating in the streets of cities throughout Brazil, everyone’s scrambling to understand how a twenty-cent bus fare hike turned into a social revolt.

Government officials are the most surprised. President Dilma Rousseff hastily cancelled a long-planned trip to Japan and has called an emergency meeting of her cabinet. Her first response was to herald the protests as a sign of participatory democracy. Now that response seems to be evolving as she recognizes the significance of the unexpected grassroots movement.

Taking a harder line on Saturday she stated, “We will not live with a violence that shames Brazil; with balance and calmness–but also with firmness–we will guarantee rights and liberty.” At stake for the government are two things that they care deeply about: the millions in foreign revenue that will supposedly pour in during the mega-events and the image of Brazil as a modern, upcoming leader in a multipolar world.

No one expected the prairie-fire spread of the protests over the past few weeks. It’s been a wake-up call for leaders in federal government and for local governments in the major cities, some of the ruling Labor Party (PT), such as the capital Sao Paulo where it started, and others of opposition parties. But government officials are scratching their heads over what exactly it is they are waking up to.

The Free Fare Movement started the ball rolling on June 7, when it called the demonstrations to protests the fare hikes. This is nothing new–protesting fare hikes and demanding free and quality public transportation is what the movement does.

Even a leader of the movement, Caio Martins, is not quite sure why this year’s protest caught on like it did. In an interview with Brazil de Fato, he replied that something had changed in people’s aspirations. “First, because it caught the people’s imagination.”

He added, “To talk about the fare hikes is to talk about the situation in the cities, and transportation is an essential element.”

What’s the situation in the cities that led people into the streets? Brazil has among the most expensive public transportation systems in the world, as well as being aggravatingly inefficient. Privatized years ago, the buses get stuck in traffic and take up inordinate amounts of people’s time and money.

Demonstrations started in Sao Paulo, the usually staid capital and financial center of the country. There the contrast between the majority of the population and the elite shows in their way of getting around. The rich fly in private helicopters that buzz through the airways over the congested streets below.

That sense of being stuck below, with the wealthy few above, has played a huge role in igniting protests. The PT government beginning with President Lula da Silva initiated social programs that greatly reduced poverty and hunger throughout the nation. But the strict adherence to neoliberal growth places a priority on maintaining the privileges of the wealthy and some widely publicized corruption scandals have created an image of at least part of the political elite partaking of those privileges–all  at the expense of the majority. Inequality continues to plague Brazil and recent increases in the cost of living have gouged the middle class.

The second image that sparked indignation in the protests also reflects the pandering to a privileged few. Brazil’s preparations for the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 have syphoned away billions of dollars of public funds. The new mega-stadiums, airports and hotels will not be shared by the masses of the soccer-loving public. They will accommodate an international elite that can afford to pay the high ticket prices for far fewer but more luxury seats. Not only do the poor receive little benefits from this expenditure, but the infrastructure projects have led todisplacement of poor families, especially around the stadiums.

Signs at protests bear messages like, “As you watch the ball roll, we need schools and hospitals.” The arrogance of the FIFA—the international football federation—kindled popular anger. The in-your-face inequality represented by the corrupt and wealthy soccer federation landing like a ton of bricks in poor Brazilian slums provoked signs like, “We want schools and healthcare of the same quality that the FIFA bosses have” and, “The World Cup for whom?” In Rio, the organization Rio da Paz scattered the beaches with soccer balls marked with crosses.

FIFA head Joseph Blatter attempted to wash his hands of the conflict and instead inflamed it, stating to Brazil’s Globo TV, “Brazil asked to host the World Cup. We did not impose the World Cup on Brazil. They knew that to host a good World Cup they would naturally have to build stadiums.”

The promise that the massive public investment in infrastructure would serve the people is not working out, and instead the poor are paying a heavy price international sporting events for the elite. The FIFA has demanded the suspension of basic civil liberties for the games and imposed its own rules to monopolize sales and income related to the games.

The demonstrations feed not only on sympathy for the causes, but also on indignation caused by the military police’s heavy-handed response. Repression has been widespread. The military police are a sore point for many Brazilians, a remnant of the dictatorship, trained in putting down popular uprisings and other mechanisms of social control. Although small groups of demonstrators have turned violent, with acts of vandalism reported in some places, the police’s extensive use of tear gas, rubber bullets and beatings have enraged the public.

Watching the videos, perhaps the most impressive characteristic of the protests is the highly energized presence of youth. While this is relatively common in other Latin American nations, especially in the past few years, it’s new in Brazil. Brazilian youth now join other young people throughout the world who feel hemmed into a bleak future and are ready to do something about it.

As protests have progressed, more people from the favelas have joined the primarily middle class demonstrations. Overall, it’ has become a broad-based mix of interests and people, with polls showing that the majority of Brazilians support the protests.

The city governments rescinded the fare hikes in an attempt to quell protests, but the demonstrations continued over the weekend, especially in Salvador de Bahia and Belo Horizonte. Broader demands to remove public transportation from the private sector, to fund schools and hospitals, and against the FIFA and corruption in general, among others, keep people in the streets.

The movement originally under the umbrella of the Free Fare Movement is so broad and amorphous that there isn’t a formal petition. The protests now are the public space to express discontent with a society that has seen its economy and the aspirations of its population grow, while generating a sense that the majority is not seeing the benefits it’s entitled to. The movement’s lack of leadership and coordination is seem by some as a risk factor and by others as an encouraging sign of citizens acting for a better society.

Even as protesters launched offensives on government buildings in Brasilia, the demonstrations are not directed at specific parties or politicians, nor is it likely they will be appeased by solutions brokered by a political elite.

As one of the signs confiscated near the Fonte Nova Stadium as the Brazilian team faced off with the Italians –in normal times, a ritual of nationalist pride–said: “We’re in the street to change Brazil.” No more, no less.

 Laura Carlsen is an international relations analyst and director of the CIP Americas Program www.cipamericas.org

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Iran slams plan to arm Syria militants

0

Foreign-backed militants look at a multi-rocket launcher in a Syrian town close to the Turkish border. (File photo)

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has criticized the so-called Friends of Syriaâ„¢s decision to provide Takfiri militants in Syria with weapons.

Å“The most noticeable output of this conference was [agreement on] supplying arms to opposition groups in Syria,” the ministryâ„¢s spokesman, Seyyed Abbas Araqchi, said on Tuesday.

Å“What occurred in Doha is in contrast with the objectives of the [upcoming] Geneva conference [on Syria], and will only fuel tensions in Syria,” he warned.

He said the decision seriously questioned the real intentions of the United States and other participants at the Saturday meeting of the Friends of Syria group in the Qatari capital.

Araqchi also expressed concern over reports of a confidential agreement reached in the meeting for the assassination of Syrian and Lebanese figures.

Å“If what is said about assassinating Syrian figures or spreading terror to other countries is true, it is extremely worrisome…,” he stated.

Iran backs Geneva conference in principle

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesman stressed Tehranâ„¢s support for efforts aimed at persuading the belligerent sides in Syria to sit at the negotiation table in the long-awaited international conference on Syria in Geneva, which will serve as a follow-up to a June 2012 meeting in the Swiss city.

Å“Unfortunately, this conference faces various obstacles but the main idea of assembling the representatives of the [Syrian] government and [those of] the opposition in a meeting is correct,” he said.

Araqchi referred to the oppositionâ„¢s failure to reach a consensus on whether to attend the meeting as well as the absence of a concrete agenda for the Geneva conference as the main problems which may hinder peace talks.

The official also criticized attempts by those who claim to support a peaceful solution to the Syria crisis but paradoxically move toward arming the Takfiri militants in the violence-hit country.

He said Tehran will continue to support Russiaâ„¢s efforts to pave the way for the Geneva conference, reiterating Iranâ„¢s call for a political solution through to a broad-based inclusive national dialog.

The crisis in Syria began in March 2011 and many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security forces, have been killed in the foreign-sponsored militancy.

Last month, the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said militants from as many as 29 different countries are fighting against Syrian government.

The West and its regional allies – especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey – are reportedly supporting the militants.

MRS/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Morsi foreign policy ostracizing Egypt’

0

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsiâ„¢s Å“amateur” foreign policies are isolating his country in the region, a political analyst tells Press TV.

In a Monday interview, Abdullah al-Ashaal argued that Morsiâ„¢s current foreign policy Å“does not serve any Egyptian interest and at the same time it is making enmity with other allies or other alliances.”

Å“I think Egypt now is displacing itself out of the scene and it is in fact ostracizing itself in the region and this is very bad for any foreign policy,” he pointed out.

The analyst was reacting to Morsiâ„¢s U-turn on Middle East issues, particularly on the Syrian crisis and support for Palestinian nation.

While in August 2012, Morsi tabled a proposal to form a contact group comprising Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to resolve regional crises including the Syrian unrest, he announced in mid-June that he will break off all diplomatic relations with Syria.

Å“I think, that the foreign policy had to have a vision first and it has also to be conducted by experts not by amateurs,” Ashaal pointed out.

Meanwhile, Egypt has stepped up its crackdown on underground supply tunnels between the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Palestinians depend on the tunnels to bring in food, medicine, and other vital supplies.

The tunnel trade is vital to Gaza’s economy, which has suffered under a land, air, and sea blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt since June 2007.

ASH/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Rafael Correa, the Press, and Whistleblowers

0

Once again, we are witnessing a growing frustration with “tiny” Ecuador. The United States government is clearly not happy with what would be the latest diplomatic slap in the face coming from the South American country, i.e. the pending arrival of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in the coming days. Beyond the United States’ government though, the US press corps are also seemingly up in arms. Why are they so angry? Well, it appears that they are indignant over the perceived hypocrisy of President Rafael Correa.

Claims of Hypocrisy

According to an article from The Atlantic (and another similar one from NPR here), the Ecuadorian leader “has created a safe space for foreigners like Assange – and now possibly Snowden —[but] he doesn’t do the same for dissenters within his own country.” News agencies like NBC News and The Atlantic think this is “interesting” and want to know ‘Why Ecuador?’ Such inquiries naturally turn to the NGOs, who are also less than pleased with this unruly little country. Freedom House, the Committee to Protect Journalists and others are upset that this very week, the one-year anniversary of Assange being holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (and the same week that the Snowden asylum request is being reviewed), the Ecuadorian National Assembly has passed a Communications Bill that detractors claim is a major blow to a free press.

For several of the opposition figures and US-based observers, Ecuador’s new media legislation has sealed the deal on the stasi-like state that they imply or openly charge Correa has been dreaming about for years. In other words, transparency advocates like Assange and Snowden are compromising their credibility by associating with the Correa government. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the right-wing terrorist supporter/US Congresswoman representing Miami, has been busy tweeting as much. The Ecuadorian government, however, asserts that the bill is meant to place more media power in the hands of public groups and move away from privately owned media monopolies.

Meanwhile, the Council of Hemispheric Relations, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Heritage Foundation all say that Ecuador must be punished for this latest insult to the US government. James Roberts of Heritagelashed out at the South American leader on June 24, writing in the National Review Online:

“Rafael Correa has demonstrated a blatant disregard for international standards of justice. That kind of conduct may not be surprising from a man who seeks to don the mantle of Chávez, but it should not be rewarded with trade preferences.”

It doesn’t take much imagination to understand how a figure like Correa would have been dealt with a few decades back, but it appears that the more heavy-handed approach is not really possible at the moment, much to the dismay of the powerful and connected.

Returning to the issue of freedom, has the defiant president of Ecuador used the National Assembly to pass a law that NPR, The Atlantic and others tell us will be used to make the country less transparent and more hostile to journalists who only wish to be free to monitor the government and act as a check on state power? Well, let’s hold off on the most absurd elements of irony here for a moment and address the issue at hand.

About a Coup

It should certainly not be regarded as a good thing if the case was simply a cut-and-dry example of authoritarian overreach. Freedom of the press, as we are learning with the Snowden case, has seemingly never before been so important, or so contentious for that matter. However, the Ecuadorian issue is not so simple and it was certainly complicated after a day of crisis nearly three years earlier when factions of the National Police and armed forces attacked the president of Ecuador on September 30, 2010. The event was widely regarded as a coup attempt. What exactly went down is still somewhat unclear. There was a dramatic showdown between Correa himself and police officers that were angered by a supposed attempt to cut their pay. What is for certain, though, is that it was a countrywide, well-coordinated attempt to shut down the National Assembly, the two major airports in Guayaquil and Quito and eventually a hospital where the president was being treated for wounds. Furthermore, the plotters were also attacking journalists throughout the country, and most of these were pro-government reporters working for public media outlets.

The opposition press has taken an active role in attempts to discredit Correa since he first ran for president. He has elaborated on his views of the press and they are certainly not very congenial. In 2012, during a public TV interview in Spain, Correa said, “one of the main problems around the world is that there are private networks in the communication business, for-profit businesses providing public information, which is very important for society. It is a fundamental contradiction.”

One of the issues that NGOs and journalists have cited in their litany of complaints about Ecuador’s endangered freedom of the press actually stems from the 2010 police and military uprising. During the chaos that ensued during the alleged coup attempt, one reporter from the paper of record in Guayaquil took the opportunity to claim that Correa had ordered police to fire on a crowd of innocent onlookers caught up in the melee, presumably aiming to provoke anti-government sentiments. The claim turned out to be completely unsubstantiated. The government fined the journalist and his paper El Universo some $40 million for defamation but later withdrew the charges. Consider what might have happened in the US if the Los Angeles Times or Washington Post would have falsely claimed that Barack Obama had personally ordered military or police forces to fire on a crowd of protesters and innocent people were injured as a result somewhere in Washington, D.C It would be difficult to imagine a reporter and his editors ever committing such a stupid move, but if they had, there would have been some serious consequences. Alas, this is not really too shocking in the context of a sensationalist Latin American press.

Televised and Untelevised Revolutions

That dramatic Ecuadorian affair is reminiscent of the 2003 documentary film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,directed by the Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó Briai. The pair happened to be in Caracas, Venezuela during one of several 21st century Latin American coup attempts thus far. The film provided a key glimpse into the nature of media in the region, so often dominated by pro-US elites. It showed the efforts expended by private media outlets to incite anger and get people out in the streets in order to challenge the power of anti-Washington governments.

Right up until his death, it was a sort of requirement for US and European governments, journalists and NGOs to claim that Hugo Chávez Frías was a dictator for not renewing the license of RCTV. The outlet, owned by Marcel Granier, was one of the most virulent anti-government television stations operating on the state-owned airwaves and the Venezuelan government eventually forced them over to cable television. The criticism of the allegedly authoritarian leader served to cover up the very questionable coverage by corporate media. Indeed, one anti-Chávez commentator honestly noted six months ago that the idea that Chavez ever controlled the Venezuelan media was a myth. He pointed out that back in April 2002,

“Coup plotters collaborated with Venezuelan media figures before the coup. The media refused to show statements by officials condemning the coup d’état. When the coup d’état failed, the private Venezuelan networks refused to broadcast the news that Chávez had returned to power.”

“Correa is a Very Smart Guy”[1]

The Venezuelan experience did not escape the attention of the rather astute and confident Correa. Neither did the fact that, only 15 months prior to the attempted coup in Ecuador, there was a successful coup in Honduras, removing the president of that country, Manuel Zelaya, by gunpoint in the middle of the night. This was considered to be illegal by President Obama himself, although soon after the offending and illegitimate new government of Roberto Micheletti was accepted by his administration and is still backed to this day by Washington (under current President Porfirio Lobo). This support comes despite a terrible record of human rights abuses and, yes, a genuine threat to a the flow of crucial information. Journalists have been censored and intimidated since the 2009 coup in Tegucigalpa and, what’s worse, have frequently been murdered by the government and its allies. Honduras consistently ranks as one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist. The double standards are blatant and many would like to see the opinion-makers from the States take a closer look in the mirror.

Popular Support and Popular Media

Anyone who would have spent some time watching The Revolution Will Not Be Televised would have also learned what President Hugo Chávez, then only a mere three years into his presidency, meant to the millions of impoverished and the historically marginalized majority in Venezuela. This did not stop the State Department and its allies from focusing on how best to rid Venezuela of its president. (Incidentally, while doing an internship for the State Department in the fall of 2001, I was invited by the Public Diplomacy department to work on ideas on how to get the message out to Venezuelan people about the dangerous nature of President Chávez.) That coup attempt failed, as the one in Ecuador would eight and a half years later, mainly because the people staunchly backed the president of the Republic.

At the time of the 2002 coup attempt, Chávez was wildly popular and the same was true of Rafael Correa in September 2010; two weeks before the coup attempt, polls found that he had the support of 67% of respondents in the capital Quito and nearly 60% in his native Guayaquil, the second largest city. Correa actually got a nice bump in approval ratings after the whole affair and, more recently, he has just won a major reelection bid in February of this year precisely because he has brought political and economic stability to the country of 15 million people. Poverty has been reduced dramatically since Correa took office. Public works projects have resulted in huge improvements to the country’s infrastructure and, more importantly, there is a sense of independence from the yoke of neocolonialism so prevalent in years past.

It appears that Correa and the government may have some good reasons to increase the influence of publicly owned media companies and challenge private corporate media elites. This foray into press control is a dangerous game, however, especially since there appears to be some genuine concerns from indigenous and environmental activists who oppose the government’s expansive plans for an economy based primarily on extraction. Often, those who disagree with Correa are dismissed as childish Marxists, or more alarmingly, terrorists. There must be more attempts to reach a humane and considerate consensus on some of these crucial issues, especially as the Chinese enter the fray in search of resources to fuel their economic needs and a gateway into South America (and Ecuador recovers from two major oil spills so far this year). There are clearly opportunities, but also responsibilities to the environment and the people that live outside of the metropoles.

With such considerations in mind, is there a reason to agree with the opinion-makers in the US who would dub Correa as a dictator, increasingly revealing his dangerous nature?

One of Correa’s main antagonists is Martin Pallares, a senior political editor at one of the major national newspapers El Comercio. Pallares recently said, “I think freedom of press in Ecuador is gravely threatened by a system managed by the government. They have the objective to discredit the media, affect their credibility. And they also want to characterize the press like political adversaries and destabilization agents.” In a very important sense, the media should or even must by its nature act like political adversaries. Destabilization is a different story however. In the case of the coups in Latin America, there is typically interference by Western powers, especially the United States, and this often serves to destabilize governments Washington deems troublesome (through the funding of local civil society groups via the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID and, of course, the CIA). The message is often that these groups are just trying to further democratic causes, but this belies an obvious mission by colluding corporate and government powers that is evident throughout the many anti-democratic interventions and support of such leaders in postwar history (from Iran in 1953 to both the Maldives and Paraguay in 2012).

Felonious Journalists

Returning to the issue of irony, here you have several of the leading news outlets in the US reporting on the lack of media freedom in Ecuador, yet ignoring the major issues raised by leakers, journalists, and publishers such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden. In effect, these major corporate outlets are legitimizing or even themselves guilty of demonization of these individuals who have put everything on the line to get the public talking about some serious violations of human rights and privacy, and the dangerous encroachment of the corporate state. One has to wonder if the fact that many of these commentators themselves are getting paid major corporate money has anything to do with their take on the Snowden/Ecuador affair.

If you watched the Sunday morning talk show highlights, you should be able to draw your own conclusion. One jaw-dropping example of the corporate media’s lack of objectivity in this discussion was the meticulously staged interviewthat George Stephanopoulos did with General Keith Alexander, the man who has access to the personal data of nearly anyone he so chooses to target. There were several moments in which the responses to some of the host’s softball questions were so weak (lots of babbling about dots) that it was unbelievable that Stephanopoulos didn’t pounce. Yet, why he did not or would not do such a thing is evident considering the establishment’s treatment of the recently departed journalist Michael Hastings, loathed for his refusal to play footsie with the biggest fish in the game. That sort of behavior simply cannot be tolerated.

Also on the talk show rounds, there was David Gregory’s aggressive and ethically revealing accusation thrown at guest Glenn Greenwald in the form of a ‘tough question’. Gregory actually asked Greenwald why he shouldn’t be charged with a crime, and The Guardian columnist sharply replied that it was “pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies”, with no evidence of wrongdoing. But there you have the attitude that the establishment needs to maintain close ties; it mustn’t be overly adversarial and never threaten the stability of the government or a particular administration, even if that means sitting on stories such as the spying on US citizens, like The New York Times was guilty of in 2004 when it delayed publication of a story on government surveillance after being approached by the Bush Administration.

Indy (media) to the Rescue

Modern professional journalism often leaves us wanting for more. Thankfully, we have the independent media outlets that are often way ahead on exposing some of the more heinous crimes of the times. This helps millions around the world identify the mantras of the media elite in the United States: 1) the corporate bias is never to be exposed or acknowledged; 2) it should never be overly adversarial to the government; and 3) a “journalist” should always attempt to divert from important issues that arise from whistleblowing by attacking the whistleblower’s character.

Of course, all of these conventions go out the window when it comes to perceived enemies, in which case the media, NGOs, corporations and the US government always work together in delegitimization and destabilization efforts. Snowden has followed Assange’s lead and is headed to Ecuador not simply because, as The Atlantic has suggested, both parties feel persecuted or they want to ‘poke the US in the eye’. The reason why Ecuador has offered asylum and why Snowden was seeking it from them is because they believe that there is hope in the future, beyond the grossly excessive power of the United States and its presumed worldwide dominion. The whistleblowers and the Ecuadorian leaders, like countless others around the world, believe that the only hopeful way forward is to shatter the antiquated and dangerous notions inherent in establishment journalism, corporate supremacy, and US hegemony. I guess it is no surprise that the privileged classes vehemently disagree.

Adam Chimienti is a teacher and a doctoral student originally from New York. He can be reached at ajchimienti@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

‘Canadians slam government spy program’

0

Citizens and advocacy groups are demanding transparency of Canadaâ„¢s surveillance operations – which lack legislative oversight, Press TV reports.

Å“You can say that anybody today that does anything and just says, Ëœoh, itâ„¢s to protect the population, itâ„¢s to save lives against terrorismâ„¢, thatâ„¢s just a lot of baloney. These people know what the intent of these policies are. Theyâ„¢re going to use the terrorism argument to defend those policies,” said Jean-Philippe Lebleu, committee for the Republic of Canada, in an interview with Press TV.

Other advocacy groups like the Civil Liberties Association and the Council of Canadians criticized Ottawa for failing to explain the governmentâ„¢s practice of collecting information, which experts say has kept Canadians in the dark regarding the spy program.

Å“Weâ„¢re just being fed a lot of nonsense about celebrities, about hockey players, and then you forget reality and then it hits you: the economy is crashing, youâ„¢re being watched by your politicians, and everything in society is broken down,” said Lebleu.

Canadaâ„¢s Department of National Defense recently confirmed that the government uses metadata to track data trails of suspicious activity.

Under Canadaâ„¢s Anti-Terrorism Act, the super-secret Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), which is an arm of the Department of National Defense, is allowed to listen to or monitor online communications.

The Canadian Defense Minister Peter Mackay said the program spies on foreign threats, and is prohibited from targeting citizens.

Meanwhile, recent revelations showed that the USâ„¢ NSA and Canadaâ„¢s security agency spied on senior officials during Londonâ„¢s G20 summit in 2009.

This is while, documents recently disclosed to The Guardian and Washington Post revealed that the United States has a top-secret surveillance program known as PRISM, tracking the use of US-based web servers by Americans and other nationals.

The leaks also exposed Å“Boundless Informant,” a powerful tool developed by the NSA, which enables it to record and categorize intelligence it secretly collects from countries around the world.

GMA/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Remember WTC Building Seven: Did You Know that a Third Tower Fell on 9/11?

0

Dear Supporters,

The Remember Building 7 campaign is pleased to announce that we have contributed the remaining $50,000 of the funds raised during the 10th anniversary toward a larger joint effort with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth called “ReThink911.”

ReThink911 will include outdoor and transit advertising in 11 major cities around the world this September 2013, coupled with grassroots actions in dozens of cities worldwide.

 In furtherance of Remember Building 7’s mission, ReThink911 will be spearheaded by a massive 50-foot billboard in the heart of Times Square asking passers by if they know a third tower fell on 9/11. Towering over the surrounding blocks, this billboard will attract the attention of nearly one million pedestrians each day and set the stage for New York and the whole world to learn a large 47-story skyscraper also fell on 9/11.  

ReThink911 has put down half the money needed to purchase this billboard for the full month of September. Now we are counting on you to bring us the rest of the way. Donate now, and we will send you a free ReThink911 bumper sticker with your donation of at least $50.*

 Or, if you wish to donate to one of the other cities where ReThink911 is placing ads, click here to find your preferred city and donate generously. As with the billboard in Times Square, ReThink911 is covering half of the cost of each buy with funds raised prior to the launch of the campaign (including those contributed by Remember Building 7), and we are counting on you to bring us the rest of the way. Together we can make ReThink911 go viral this September.

Following the fundraising drive, which ends on August 1, ReThink911 will start gearing up for a month of grassroots actions to take place in dozens of cities across the world during the month of September. 

We thank you for your generous support, and we cannot wait to move forward in our collective goal of creating the ultimate breakthrough.

The View at Times Square this September… Let’s Make it Happen!

 *Valid only for U.S. and Canadian residents.

Donate Now to Make This Billboard a Reality in September

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the
copyright owner.

For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

When Education is a Business

0

To what extent is education corrupted when it becomes intertwined with profit-making businesses?

This question becomes increasingly relevant as corporations move into key roles at American universities. In late June of this year, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo steamrolled a bill through the state legislature to establish tax-free havens for businesses on the campuses of the State University of New York (the largest public university in the United States) and on those of some private colleges. This legislation, he promised, would “transform SUNY campuses and university communities.” Faculty, he said, should “get interested and participate in entrepreneurial activities.” Indeed, “you’d be a better academicif you were actually entrepreneurial.”

What can happen when education is run like a business is shown in a new, hilarious satireby Joel Shatzky: Option Three (Blue Thread Communications). Shatzky, a novelist and playwright who taught dramatic literature at SUNY/Cortland for 37 years, provides an unnerving, madcap, depiction of the corporatization of the university – in this case, a university very much like SUNY.

The story begins when the novel’s hero, Acting Visiting Assistant Professor L. Circassian, receives two letters from the administration: the first laying him off and the second taking him back on as an adjunct, with a 35 percent pay cut. Queried by a confused Circassian, Dean Lean explains that there are three options: “Option One is that you are an invaluable member of the faculty that has to be let go; Option Two is that you are a superfluous member of the faculty that can’t be let go. Is that clear so far?” When Circassian replies that it is not, the dean continues: “Option Three was devised several months ago by Central Administration and what it means is that we don’t have the funds to keep you but we can’t let you go because you are too valuable.” Circassian remonstrates that he can’t survive on the reduced salary, especially as he can barely exist on the one he already receives, whereupon the dean retorts: “Of course, we understand that. That’s why this is called `Option Three’; it’s a combination of two unacceptable solutions to a problem.”

This is only the beginning of the nightmarish, downward spiral of Circassian’s life and that of the other faculty at this fanciful institution of higher education. Governor Putski (a nice mixture of former New York State Governor George Pataki and Cuomo, with a name suggesting the Yiddish word for a portion of the male anatomy), egged on by Operation Change (a conspiracy of the wealthy much like Change New York), repeatedly slashes funding for the state university, thereby giving campus administrators the green light they desire to proceed with its evisceration.

Circassian, much like Yossarian in Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, looks on in amazement as irrationality proceeds unchecked by reason. Rival corporations buy up departments and compete for students, debasing teaching and knowledge. Finally, with the campus swept by chaos and madness, the administration announces that 95 percent of the teaching will be done by automated programs (holograms), with the 5 percent of the faculty remaining assigned to teach those students who have elected to have “live” instructors.

Circassian somehow survives all of this, although not before being kidnapped and brought, bound and hooded, to the office of Amber Slaughter, the head of Operation Change. In their ensuing conversation, Circassian seeks to defend the public university as a place of educational opportunity for all. But the wealthy Slaughter coolly rejects that notion, retorting that “democracy sucks.” He explains the he and other members of his class have no desire to educate what he calls “the rabble.”

And so Circassian and the reader ultimately learn what the privatization of public education is all about.

Despite this harsh premise, Option Three is a very funny book, enlivened by new and very creative words (“yibbled,” “blicking,” “charfled,” “traffled,” and many others) and ideas. Readers will certainly enjoy the novel’s playful tone. When the English Department’s corporate manager develops a course entitled “Shakespeare for People Who Hate Shakespeare,” he suggests a revised version of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy to “make the product more marketable.” It runs:

Should I live or should I die?
That’s the riddle: tell me why.
Must I live with aggravation,
Or die if that’s my inclination.
Yes, die and take an endless snooze,
That’s the nobler way to choose.
But in death could I have a dream,
Perhaps that way’s a bit extreme.
Still, who’d dare take all the crap,
That bitter life drops in your lap.
Live long enough, you’ll get the shaft,
`Til all that’s left to do is laugh;
But here’s Ophelia, nymph is she,
By her my sins remembered be.

Although the book focuses on the unraveling of university life, it even has a relatively happy ending.

But what is happening to higher education today, as it undergoes a corporate makeover, is considerably less amusing. The sharply reduced government funding for public universities, the replacement of full-time faculty with low-wage, rootless adjuncts, the rapid development of mass, online courses for academic credit, and the increasingly pervasive corporate presence on campus all indicate more concern for the business-defined bottom line than for intellectual growth. Future satirists of university life will be hard-pressed to stay ahead of the emerging reality.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner  is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university life, “What’s Going On at UAardvark?” (Solidarity Press).] He can be reached through his website.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Taxpayers, Rockefellers Fund “Sustainable” Plot to Undermine Market

0

The Rockefeller Foundation, mega-banks, and even taxpayers via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have provided millions of dollars toward pushing a new type of “socially responsible” corporate structure known as the “benefit corporation.” More than 15 states have already signed on. Critics, however, say the scheme will further undermine what remains of the market system while promoting deeply controversial United Nations Agenda 21-linked notions of “sustainable development.”

Under the “benefit-corporation” agenda, companies would no longer be just responsible for producing shareholder profits. Instead, a firm that becomes a benefit corporation would also have to pursue other goals that appear noble at first glance – sustainability, social justice, environmentalism, social responsibility, and other alleged “public benefits.” Apparently, creating jobs for workers and profits for shareholders, as well as goods and services that consumers want to purchase, is no longer enough.

If and when companies decide to become benefit corporations, they would obtain significant advantages over traditional firms dedicated to maximizing value. After receiving certification from a Rockefeller-funded outfit known as “B-Labs,” which is at the heart of the nationwide push, B-Corps could become eligible to receive everything from major tax breaks to preferential access to lucrative government contracts.

State governments across America are under heavy pressure by powerful lobbyists to adopt legislation creating “benefit-corporations” within their jurisdictions. Along with Washington, D.C., at least 17 states have already passed the necessary laws – Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia. Another dozen states, meanwhile, have bills introduced in the legislature.

Because the vast majority of Americans know nothing about the benefit-corporation agenda, legislation to lay the foundations of the scheme has met with little resistance so far. In North Carolina, however, liberty-minded activists succeeded in stopping the effort in May – if only temporarily – by explaining the more sinister side of the plot to lawmakers.

One of the citizen activists responsible for defeating the bill, Wynne Coleman, told The New American that the real agenda behind the whole benefit-corporation concept was socialism and more power for the global establishment. After hearing about the scheme, Coleman began researching. What she found was deeply troubling. 

“The main problem with benefit corporations is that they disrupt the free market system of the United States,” she explained. “They set socialistic precedents in economy, society, and environment that are incompatible with our free enterprise system.”

More specifically, Coleman pointed to a series of major issues she sees with the plan. For one, she said, benefit corporations would fundamentally transform the way business is done in the United States by shifting the focus away from shareholder profits – the single bottom line. Instead, resources would be diverted toward nebulous “social” and “environmental” causes – “economy, environment, society” or “People, Planet, Profits” – known as the so-called “triple bottom line.”

Benefit corporations also blur the lines between public, private, and non-profit sectors that should remain separate, Coleman continued. Meanwhile, she said, the scheme would establish a “certification” process by third-party rating agencies that, while voluntary for now, could eventually become mandatory.

Other problems include the imposition of “hazy moral social standards” that would force companies to pursue expensive environmental schemes based on “unproven scientific theory,” she added. Finally, benefit corporations would “normalize a socialist philosophy,” Coleman concluded, pointing to the highly controversial UN Sustainable Development agenda – a planetary plot backed by Big Business, Big Banks, Big Government, dictators, and more.

“Ultimately, the benefit corporation system’s design is to consolidate power for the global elites,” Coleman told The New American, citing a series of hard-hitting reports and presentations she prepared for lawmakers about the scheme. “The global elite in politics and finance use an unconstitutional arrangement of public-private partnerships, by which the force of government combines with the power of business to plunder the resources of society and dictate how people must live.”

While the words United Nations, Agenda 21, and sustainable development do not appear in the benefit-corporation legislation being promoted across America, Coleman and other critics said the link is unmistakable. According to the definition of benefit corporations, they must “create a material positive impact on society and the environment.” Taken together, those nice-sounding terms, along with the fact that corporations are involved in business and the economy, should be cause for alarm.

After summarizing the key points of UN Agenda 21 – environment, economy, and equity, the so-called 3 E’s – Coleman explained that the goals of benefit corporations are virtually identical: promoting government, “sustainability,” pseudo-environmentalism, the merger of state and corporate power, and more, all under the bogus guise of helping people. Reviewing information found throughout the websites of front-groups promoting benefit corporations, the link becomes even more clear.

“One must ask: If the genuine motive for creating a benefit corporation is to enable a corporation to use profits to accomplish charitable and good acts, why must these good acts be defined by the specific 3E terminology of sustainable development, so often used in United Nations documents and websites?” Coleman asked, saying businesses should be free to run themselves but government should not provide special favors to so-called “benefit corporations.”

Of course, looking at what organizations and individuals are financing the push for benefit corporations and legislation to create them reveals a great deal as well. One of the groups at the center of the entire agenda, known as B Lab, lists its major funders online. The top donor: The Rockefeller Foundation, which gave between $2.5 million and $5 million.

The Rockefeller family has a long history of pushing causes at odds with the free market system, national sovereignty, and more. Indeed, billionaire banker David Rockefeller – a top player in key groups associated with the global establishment such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, and others – has openly revealed where his sympathies are.

In a 1973 piece for the New York Times, for example, he praised the communist “social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership,” which killed tens of millions of people and enslaved over a billion, as “one of the most important and successful in history.”

More recently, David Rockefeller offered some insight into his views in his 2002 autobiography. “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will,” he wrote. “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Rockefellers are not alone in pushing benefit corporations, though. Donating between $1 million and $2.5 million were several entities. Among the most noteworthy, perhaps, is USAID, a taxpayer-funded federal agency mired in controversy that is supposedly charged with handing out foreign aid. The New American reached out to USAID to find out why tax dollars were funding such a scheme, but the outfit did not respond to requests for comment. It was not immediately clear what constitutional or statutory authority purportedly authorizes spending public funds on the push for benefit corporations. 

With the notable exception of some segments of the alternative media, very little scrutiny has been offered about the agenda so far – partly because so few Americans are even aware of the plot. However, for critics, it is crucial that citizens get informed about benefit corporations and get to work stopping the enabling legislation at the state level.

Coleman, who played a central role in stopping the bill in North Carolina, said Americans in states without benefit-corporation laws must stay on high alert. Citizens in states that already have such laws on the books, she added, should work with their elected officials to get the bills repealed. Coleman believes legislators and even governors might not have understood what they were doing, so educating them could help.  

Analysts and critics of benefit corporations, pointing to some recent developments such as the formation of the billionaire-dominated “B Team,” say the effort to foist the scheme on America is about to be ramped up – big time. However, opposition to the so-called “sustainability” agenda is exploding nationwide, with some states even banning UN Agenda 21 entirely. Whether the establishment will succeed in imposing even more centralized government control over Americans will almost certainly depend on the strength of grassroots efforts to stop it.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

Related articles:

Missouri Legislature Bans UN Agenda 21     

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21

Powerful New Video Explores How Agenda 21 Will Affect You

UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs

GOP Platform Rejects UN Agenda 21 as Threat to Sovereignty

Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21

Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development”

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

State Ban on UN Agenda 21 Clears Arizona Senate

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21

Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Iran to boost trade with Iraqi Kurdistan

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]An Iranian official says enhancement of border transactions with Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) through Parviz Khan border crossing is among Iran’s top economic priorities.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

4 Polish soldiers killed in Afghanistan

0

US-led soldiers stand guard by a road in Ghazni Province. (File photo)

Four US-led Polish soldiers have been killed and two others wounded in an attack in Afghanistan’s central-eastern province of Ghazni, security sources say.

Local Afghan officials say the four were killed after a roadside bomb blast targeted their vehicle in the country’s volatile east on Tuesday. Two more soldiers were also wounded seriously in the fatal explosion.

However, US-led foreign forces say they have not yet received any report on the incident.

Taliban militants have claimed responsibility for the deadly attack.

Roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices are by far the most lethal weapons Taliban militants use against Afghan forces and foreign troops.

Attacks on foreign troops have increased recently as Taliban militants have announced the beginning of their spring offensive across Afghanistan.

The militant group said it would use “every possible tactic” to inflict casualties on Afghan and US-led forces, specifically mentioning insider and bomb attacks.

At least 93 US-led foreign forces have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year. Most of the slain soldiers are American.

According to the website icasualties.org, 3,342 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the US-led war began in 2001.

The rising death toll of US-led foreign forces in Afghanistan has prompted growing opposition to the Afghan war in NATO member states and other countries that have contributed troops to the military occupation.

The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 as part of Washingtonâ„¢s so-called war on terror.

The offensive removed the Taliban from power, but insecurity continues to rise across the country, despite the presence of thousands of US-led troops.

JR/PR/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Why The Alarming Rise In Suicide Rates Among Vets?

2

Donna Anderson
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

Iraq war veteran Daniel Somers.

No one likes to talk about death or suicide, especially when it involves the brave men and women defending our country. But, in 2012, Pentagon officials announced that battle casualties are no longer the primary reason for soldiers’ deaths. Now, the primary cause of death is suicide.

The alarming rise in suicide rates among veterans simply can’t be ignored. In 2011 there were 283 suicides among military personnel. In 2012 that number jumped 15 percent to 303. And according to an article at Forbes, so far in 2013, every 65 minutes a military veteran commits suicide. That’s 22 suicides per day.

A suicide note left by Iraq war veteran Daniel Somers and released to the public by his family offers some insights:

“The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity,” wrote Somers. “Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.”

On Friday, David Knight interviewed Dr. William Francis Pepper during the Alex Jones show. Pepper is an English Barrister and an American attorney who’s currently working with Sirhan Sirhan, trying to reopen his case. Pepper believes there is overwhelming evidence that indicates Sirhan was mentally programmed by the CIA to assassinate Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

What does Sirhan Sirhan have to do with the rising suicide rate among veterans?

In the early 1950s the CIA’s Scientific Intelligence Division launched Project MKUltra, an experiment in behavioral engineering of humans, a.k.a. mind control or brainwashing. The project was officially abandoned in 1973 but there’s evidence that it still continues today under different names and agencies.

One of the most successful techniques used to gain control of the subject’s mind was to induce a psychotic break or split personality in the subject. To accomplish this, subjects were exposed to unspeakable atrocities — they were forced to witness and perform rapes and other sexual abuses, they were tortured and forced to torture others, they were drugged, and humiliated, and forced to experience or participate in highly-traumatic and shocking events, over and over again until their mind just shattered into pieces.

Once the subject suffered a psychotic break, it was easy to go in and reprogram each different “personality” to kill or place a bomb or follow whatever orders it was given.

Is the United States government practicing mind control techniques on our unwary service people?

The very fact that our combat vets are and were repeatedly exposed to atrocities like the slaughter of all military age men, the rape and torture of children, the torture of detainees, and massacre after massacre of entire groups of people makes them susceptible to psychotic breaks, just like the subjects of the MLK Mind Control Project. And it’s those psychotic breaks that make them more susceptible to suggestions — wherever or whoever they come from.

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Fired Walmart Workers Arrested in Protest at Yahoo Headquarters

0

Five activists were arrested at Yahoo! headquarters Monday afternoon in a protest over the firing of eleven Walmart employees who this month went on strike. The planned civil disobedience action followed an hour-long demonstration in the Yahoo! lobby; about thirty workers and supporters gathered to demand a meeting with Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer, who joined Walmart’s board last year.

As The Nation first reported, the union-backed group OUR Walmart is alleging a new wave of retaliation against Walmart worker-activists, with terminations or other discipline targeting at least twenty-six of the hundred-some employees who traveled to Arkansas to protest the retail giant’s June 7 shareholder meeting. Congressmen Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) and Alan Grayson both condemned the firings in Saturday comments to The Nation; Ellison, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Walmart’s actions “completely unjust and illegal.”

A Yahoo! spokesperson declined a request for comment regarding the protest and the alleged retaliation. Asked about the firings and disciplinary “coachings” this morning, Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg e-mailed that “our decision had everything to do with what was a violation of attendance policy and nothing to do with a specific protest.”

A few workers arrived in the Yahoo! lobby just after noon today, and told the receptionist they were there to meet Mayer. After being told they couldn’t see her without an appointment, an organizer announced that they planned to stay until Mayer became available. One OUR Walmart member told the receptionist that the firings were an emergency; another offered to meet Mayer on her lunch break. Then a larger group arrived and lined up on either side of the lobby. Standing under a purple pillar of Yahoo logos, workers held signs, locked arms and told stories about their own firings or their co-workers’. Some had their children with them; one woman declared the scene “cute” as she walked between the rows of protesters. A handful of Yahoo! employees watched from a balcony above. Then Yahoo! management declared the lobby shut down, and a staffer told the crowd that he would call the police if they didn’t leave.

“I was nervous at first when I walked in here, but I’m really calm now,” Placerville, California, Walmart employee Barbara Collins told The Nation before being arrested. Collins said she expects to be retaliated against by Walmart when she returns to work, but that “it’s amazing what happens when you’re over that fear.” Looking at her assembled co-workers from other cities, she added, “Walmart created that fear, and these amazing people that we have in our family now helped me get over it.” Collins took part in the civil disobedience along with two employees fired by Walmart, and two members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union who’ve taken leaves of absence from their jobs at Safeway to work on the OUR Walmart campaign. “You really find your backbone,” said Collins. “And it’s OK to stand for what’s right.”

After the police arrived, those activists not planning to be arrested moved their protest outdoors; the remaining five sat down on the floor. An organizer told fired worker Yvette Brown that Brown’s mother–also an OUR Walmart activist, and also fired over the weekend–had started crying outside when describing how proud she was of Brown for choosing to commit civil disobedience. At that point Brown began tearing up. “We’ve gone through many challenges in life,” she explained. “And just to have that moment where my mom definitely told me she was proud of me, that’s the first time.”

Soon after, several police officers entered, gave the five activists a final chance to leave and then had them stand up one at a time and put their hands behind their backs. One visibly winced as an officer put zip ties around his wrists; a police officer and a Yahoo! staffer both took photos of each arrest. Then the five were escorted into a police van as their co-workers on the sidewalk leafleted to passers-by, hoisted umbrellas that together read “MARISSA ACT NOW” and chanted “Whose Walmart? OUR Walmart!”

Over the two years since its founding, OUR Walmart has repeatedly alleged retaliation and intimidation against its members, as have allied groups organizing subcontracted Walmart warehouse workers. But the latest allegations–including nine firings and eighteen other disciplinary actions in the space of three days–are the most serious ones since 2005, when Walmart shut down a Quebec store months after workers there won collective bargaining rights.

Asked Saturday about OUR Walmart’s contention that this month’s work stoppage was an “Unfair Labor Practices Strike” protesting retaliation–a type of action that receives greater legal protection–Walmart’s Lundberg wrote, “We evaluate every situation individually, but as a general rule, the law does not protect hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”

Yahoo! holds its annual shareholder meeting tomorrow. As The Nation has reported, Mayer–arguably Walmart’s most prominent board member–has repeatedly been a target for labor protests. Organizers have sought to capitalize on the media debate over parental leave and work-life balance at Yahoo! in order to draw public attention to the conditions of lower-wage working mothers at Walmart. “I’m a single mother myself,” fired striker Marie Roberty told The Nation before today’s protest. “Working for Walmart, it barely pays anything…. So by going to her, if she’s a mother herself, she could relate to us…. We want her to at least hear us, if she could relate to us by chance.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

After Two Months, 'Moral Monday' Protests Swell to Largest Yet

0

Thousands of people rally outside the North Carolina State Legislative Building on Halifax Mall Monday, June 24, 2013, prior to an act of civil disobedience opposing the Republican legislature’s agenda. About 120 activists were arrested by General Assembly and Raleigh police. About 600 have been arrested over the course of 8 “Moral Monday” demonstrations. (Photo: Travis Long/Raleigh News & Observer)The popular movement in North Carolina led by the state’s NAACP chapter and marked each week with civil disobedience actions known as ‘Moral Monday’ protests swelled to their largest number yesterday, with organizers saying that as many as five thousand people marched outside the North Carolina State Legislative Building in Raleigh. Later, nearly 120 were arrested after refusing orders to disperse by police.

The latest arrests bring the total number to over 600 in the eight weeks since the protest movement began and occurred as those arrested in the first wave of protests faced trial at a nearby county courthouse.A woman is arrested outside the House and Senate chambers during “Moral Monday” protests at the General Assembly in Raleigh, N.C., Monday, June 24, 2013. Protesters are angry over the rightward direction of the state on economic, social, education and voting policy. They focused much of their demonstration on looming unemployment benefits cuts that will end extended benefits for about 70,000 people at the end of June. (Photo: Gerry Broome)

As the local Charlotte Observer describes, the latest ‘Moral Monday’ protest took “labor issues, women’s rights and economic justice as their themes for the week” and “demonstrators hoped to halt what many described as ‘arrogant’ and ‘vindictive’ policies that favored the very wealthy and caused great harm to the state’s poorest and weakest.”

The protest came just one week before a painful cut to the state’s unemployment benefit system kicks in, which will cut jobless aid to recipients by a third in some cases.

“Seven days from now, that’s when the pain starts,” said the NAACP’s Rev. William Barber, who has emerged as the movement’s spiritual voice and organizing leader.

Several media outlets also featured local resident Lee Creighton, who spoke powerfully at Monday’s rally.

“The unemployed people are not deadbeats,” Creighton said with a cracked voice as he referred to those in the state who will be so negatively impacted by the upcoming cuts. “We’re not losing our jobs because we don’t want to work. …If this is such a vacation, why is it that I cry to sleep every night.”

“We’re not losing our jobs because we don’t want to work. …If this is such a vacation, why is it that I cry to sleep every night.” -Lee Creighton, unemployed NC resident

As the protest movement grows in the state, Barber has seen his national profile rise and many on the left are looking to see if this brand of state-level organizing and activism can show the way to a new era of progressive vitality. Even as the basic tactics of the ‘Moral Monday’ movement is rooted in history, a profile of the movement’s leader in the Washington Post this week explores the force leading the charge against the regressive rightwing leadership in North Carolina:

With Barber steering the opposition to cuts in unemployment benefits, health care funding, voting rights and environment regulations, the movement has taken on the feel of a church revival. Each demonstration begins with a call to join hands and pray. Barber’s speech is inflected with biblical references to Pharaoh, Goliath, good and evil. Then there are the folksy civil rights refrains: “Woke up this morning with my mind set on justice,” and “Ain’t gonna let nobody turn me around.”
 […]

To outsiders, North Carolina is often indistinguishable from a host of Southern states with equally conservative social and fiscal agendas. But in fact, it has long been a moderate state in which Democrats controlled the governor’s office for 20 years, and until last year, controlled at least one body of the legislature since the 1800s.

No one knows this better than Barber, an avid student of the state’s history. Barber talks incessantly of his vision for “fusion politics” modeled after a period in the late 19th century when the state’s Populist and Republican parties, blacks and whites, joined forces to govern the state.

He points out he’s not wedded to the Democratic Party but rather to coalitions that are willing to fight for just causes.

“Narrow-minded, isolated agendas aren’t going to hold themselves up as meaningful in the changing demographics of our country,” he said. “A regressive agenda doesn’t fit.”

Earlier arrestees face trial

As thousands marched on the Assembly, seventeen of those arrested at the earliers demonstration faced trial at the Wake County District Court nearby.

As the Raleigh News & Observer reports:

Irving Joyner, the N.C. Central University law professor representing the protesters, said he entered not guilty pleas on behalf of the 17 arrested on April 29. He also asked that their cases be dismissed, challenging the arrests as unconstitutional.

“The North Carolina Constitution says that every citizen has the right to go to the General Assembly and address their legislators and to issue any complaints that they have about the work that they’re doing,” Joyner told District Court Judge Dan Nagle, who was presiding over the hearing. The protesters, Joyner added, “were protesting against actions that we deem to be improper, untimely, spiteful and mean-spirited toward the poor.”

Nagle scheduled the trials for late September.

_______________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Saudi sentences rights activist to jail

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a human rights activist to eight years in prison on charges that included sedition and damaging the country’s reputation.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Bombshell: Government’s ‘Insider Threat Program’ Obligates Federal Workers to Spy on Their Colleagues

0

Once again, the McClatchy company is doing mainstream media’s heavy lifting, exposing the secrets of an increasingly hidden government. In 2003, it was McClatchy alone among the major media groups that questioned the government’s certain claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

On Thursday, the same reporters involved in the Iraq truth-telling a decade ago exposed the existence of the Obama administration’s program that obligates government workers to spy on their colleagues or face punishment, dismissal, and possibly criminal charges. The Insider Threat Program targets not only national security departments and agencies but most federal bureacracies from the Peace Corps to the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture Departments.

And it’s clear that not only the disclosure of classified information constitutes an “internal threat” and act of espionage, but leaks to the media as well. “Leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States,” according to a June 1 Department of Defense planning document for the program, leaked to McClatchy.

The White House launched the Insider Threat Program’s in October 2011 as it still reeled from the Wikileaks disclosures of hundreds of thousands of documents thought to have been downloaded from classified networks by Private Bradley Manning the year before. The program is evolving, agency to agency, in response to the President’s broad guidelines. Documents provided by the McClatchy investigation show the varied approaches to the executive mandate. At the DoD, McClatchy reports, the policy is “zero tolerance”: “Employees must turn themselves and others in for failing to report breaches.” But it’s the suspicion of potential breaches that must be reported. requiring co-workers to monitor colleagues’ work and lives.  Profiling is encouraged: A co-worker facing a divorce or financial problems is to be watched carefully one training memo states, as these are “indicators” of an inclination toward espionage. An extensive Army training document offers hundreds of suspicious behaviors that federal workers must report including working hard and independently: ”repeatedly performing non required work outside of normal duty hours, especially if unaccompanied.”

At the Department of Agriculture, “Treason 101” offers an online tutorial in the basics of spying and the Inside Espionage Threat.

The two-year-old program is now expected to be revved up in the wake of  Edward Snowden’s explosive revelation of the National Security Agency’s telephone and internet data collection programs. But according to internal security experts and former government officials that the McClatchy team interviewed, the Insider Threat Program will have “grave consequences for the public’s right to know.” It could make it easier for the government to inhibit exposure of unclassified information and illegal programs and thwart legitimate whistleblowing. The program will be used to quell different perspectives, which in the end can hurt national security, they fear. Fearfulness and group think contributed to the prevailing and erroneous CIA judgment that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction, warranting invasion.

Again, it was the McClatchy group that distinguished itself among mainstream media for questioning the veracity of the claims used to justify the 2003 invasion and occupation. And, again, as the government takes aim at its own citizens as internal threats, it is McClatchy, among the large newspapers and newspaper groups, that keeps the facts coming.

Nora Eisenberg’s work has appeared in the Village Voice, Tikkun, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and the Guardian UK. Her most recent novel, “When You Come Home” (Curbstone, 2009), explores the legacy of the 1991 Gulf War.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Are the US Armed Forces a “Rape Culture”?

0

US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have produced quagmires of crime, corruption and abuse, beginning with the torture of prisoners, the creation of offshore penal colonies, and repeated airborne attacks on shepherd boys, wedding parties, TV crews and allied troops – and ending with atrocity-producing chauvinism, bigotry, night-time home invasions and indefinite detention without charges. We don’t so much spread democracy as shred a mockery.

This war system has produced epidemic suicide rates, boot camp fatalities, plane and copter crash losses, friendly fire deaths, “green-on-blue insider” attacks by Afghan trainees, combat wounds and amputations, PTSD and several unknown or undiagnosed syndromes many of which are permanently debilitating. The abuse and even murder of spouses are on the rise among returning vets while sexual battery, assault and rape have reached staggering rates.

The Department of Defense’s 2012 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military estimates there were 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year, up 35 percent from 19,000 in 2011. You know that sexual predators are rampaging through the services when the president calls the rape statistics “shameful” and “disgraceful,” when Pentagon Chief Chuck Hagel calls the chronic outrages a “betrayal” and a “scourge that must be stamped out,” and when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey says, “We’re losing the confidence of the women who serve.”

Why would Dempsey admit such a thing? Because, according to Kirby Dick, director of the film “The Invisible War,” less than one percent of the 26,000 cases resulted in a court-martial conviction. Kirby’s documentary reviews the scandal of military commanders – not prosecutors and judges – deciding whether to prosecute “embedded serial sexual predators.”  In a recent editorial, Dick writes, “500,000 uniformed men and women have been assaulted since 1991” (the year of the Navy’s Tailhook sexual assaults in Las Vegas), and fewer than 15 percent were ever reported. In 1996, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland was the site of infamous sexual assaults on female recruits. In 2003, it was the Air Force Academy in Colorado that represented the military’s rape scene.

The problem of unreported and unprosecuted sexual assaults in the military is notorious. Of the estimated 26,000 cases last year, the Department of Defense claims only 3,374 were reported. Tens of thousands of victims keep quiet out of fear of retribution by superior officers and a distrust of the military court system.

One such case came to light June 1, 2013 as the Naval Academy announced that three of its football players were under investigation for the serial rape of a female midshipman in 2012. The victim’s lawyer, Susan Burke, has said that after reporting her attack the sophomore was harassed and taunted by other midshipmen and ostracized and retaliated against by the Naval Academy community. While still under investigation, the three perpetrators were allowed to play football while the victim was disciplined for underage drinking. They were formally charged June 19, 2013. In a second case, on May 1, 2013, the Air Force said it disciplined five former commanders for not reporting sexual assault allegations at Joint Base San Antonio — Lackland in Texas – where 18 sexual assault trials have taken place and 32 basic training instructors are under investigation for assaulting recruits. In addition, on May 14, 2013 Sgt. Michael McClendon at West Point was charged with secretly videotaping a dozen women, sometimes in the shower. In December 2012, a Pentagon report warned that sexual assaults reported by students at its three prestigious military academies jumped 23 percent in one year.

Three more current cases – beyond being too ironic for words – telegraph just how pervasive the culture of male sexual violence is in the military and how unlikely it is to be abolished by committee. First, Army Lt. Col. Darin Haas, sexual assault prevention officer at Fort Campbell in Ky., was removed from his position after being charged with and arrested for stalking and violating a restraining order procured by his ex-wife. Second, an Army sergeant first class that served as a sexual assault prevention and response coordinator at Fort Hood, Texas, is now accused of abusive sexual contact, assault, pandering and maltreatment of subordinates. Third, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski – who until May 7, 2013 was in charge of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention and response branch – was arrested on a charge of sexual battery for allegedly groping a women after midnight in a parking lot.

The case of Virginia Messick, who was raped at basic training in Texas, is grimly representative, although her assailant, Staff Sgt. Luis Walker, went to prison last July for raping 10 trainees. Messick didn’t initially report being raped. She was staggered by the dilemma that the rapist was the same officer she was supposed to inform.

Under pressure from Pentagon brass, Congress rejected a bill by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of N.Y. that would have given military prosecutors, not commanding officers, the power to decide which sexual assault cases to try. Without fear of retaliation, the law would have increased the number of reported crimes, but the generals objected, saying it would negatively affect “good order and discipline.” Gillibrand didn’t buy the cliché. She told the generals at a senate hearing in March 2012, “I don’t know how you can say having 19,000 sexual assaults and rapes a year is discipline and order.”

John LaForge is a co-director of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, edits its Quarterly, and writes for PeaceVoice.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

‘Israel must reoccupy Gaza Strip’

0

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Tel-Aviv must reoccupy the Gaza Strip.

Å“Israel must consider reoccupying the entire Gaza Strip,” Lieberman, who is now the Chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said on Monday.

Lieberman made the remarks after Israeli warplanes launched aerial strikes in central and southern Gaza Strip.

The attacks against the blockaded Palestinian territory reportedly took place early Monday morning in what the Israeli regime claimed as a response to missiles fired from Gaza.

Press reports from the densely-populated sliver controlled by Hamas resistance movement indicate that the Israeli warplanes struck three areas in the impoverished Palestinian region.

Palestinian witnesses have reportedly said the air raids had struck uninhabited areas and left no injuries.

Tel Aviv officials, meanwhile, have blamed the members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement for Å“at least six rockets” that they claimed were fired from northern Gaza.

The Israeli regime has carried out a number of military incursions into Gaza in recent months, including an intrusion into Beit Hanoun in May and three airstrikes in late April on the southern town of Khan Younis and near the town of Rafah.

In November 2012, Israeli military forces launched the so-called Operation Pillar of Defense I against Gaza. Over 160 Palestinians, including women and children, were killed and about 1,200 others were injured across the Palestinian enclave during the eight-day war.

In retaliation, Palestinian resistance fighters fired rockets and missiles into Israeli cities, killing at least five Israelis. The offensive ended after Egypt brokered a truce between Hamas and Tel Aviv.

According to a Hamas spokesman, the eight-day Zionist aggression against the Gaza Strip inflicted over USD 1.2 billion worth of damages.

MAM/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Gunmen kill 6 govt. soldiers in Libya

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]At least six Libyan soldiers have been killed after unidentified gunmen attacked a military checkpoint near the coastal city of Sirte in the African country, military sources say.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Saudi Arabia props up deviant current’

0

Egyptians carry the coffin of a Shia Muslim who was killed by a mob near Cairo on June 23.

A senior Iranian lawmaker has slammed Saudi Arabia for supporting the extremist and deviant Salafist current in the Muslim world.

In a Tuesday interview, Chairman of Iran Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Alaeddin Boroujerdi condemned the recent killing of four Shia Muslims by Takfiri extremists in Egypt as a Å“barbaric crime.”

Boroujerdi attributed these crimes to a Å“deviant current” inside the Muslim world, saying, Å“The Islamic Ummah should take the necessary measures to counter and prevent these deviations in the Muslim world, as such a mentality has been disseminated in Saudi Arabia for years,” he added.

Å“Saudi Arabia is the cradle of people with such deviant attitudes; they also have some centers in other Muslim countries which serve as platforms for killing innocent people in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and other Muslim countries,” the Iranian legislator pointed out.

This is while Riyadh has never condemned the killing of Muslims and the Saudi clergy has never issued any fatwa against such Å“inhumane behaviors,” Boroujerdi added.

He stressed that Saudi Arabia must be held accountable before the public opinion in the Muslims world, noting, Å“Britain, as the origin of this deviant attitude, is now reaping the fruits.”

On Sunday, a group of Takfiri extremists attacked the house of Shia cleric Sheikh Hassan Shehata in a village near Cairo in Giza Province.

The cleric and three of his followers were murdered after the house was surrounded by hundreds of people vowing to kill them for being Shias.

Their bodies were then dragged into the street by Takfiri extremists.

Takfiris believe that only their interpretation of Islam is correct and all other Muslims are unbelievers.

The Shia community is being targeted by Salafists, with the support of various countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Shias, who form just one percent of Egyptâ„¢s population, are often attacked by extremist groups.

ASH/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Rohani optimistic about Iran-Cuba ties

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Iranian president-elect Hassan Rohani has expressed optimism about the prospect of bilateral relations between Iran and Cuba.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Republicans, Big Government, and Daniel Somers

0

“War is hell.” 

Daniel Somers and his family didn’t need Sherman to tell them this.

Somers was a distinguished Iraq War veteran who killed himself on June 10. The hundreds of combat missions and other action of which he partook left Somers with a legacy of post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries, and an assortment of war-induced injuries that rendered every moment of daily existence intolerable.   

Shortly before taking his life, he wrote a letter bidding farewell to his loved ones. The latter has since given Gawker permission to publish it.

Upon informing his family that it was his love for them that managed to keep him alive this long, Somers goes on to describe his body as “a cage, a source of pain and constant problems,” and his mind as “a wasteland, filled with visions of incredible horror, unceasing depression, and crippling anxiety.” Somers writes that he is incapable of laughing and crying, incapable of deriving pleasure from any activity, save sleep. Thus, “to sleep forever seems to be the most merciful thing.”

He assures his loved ones that it is not they who brought him to this point, but the government that forced him “to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe.” During his first deployment in Iraq, Somers states, he and his comrades-in-arms were made to perpetrate “war crimes, crimes against humanity.”

Though he insists that he made his “best effort to stop these events,” he is equally insistent that they were too horrible in nature from which to bounce back. Only “a sociopath” could achieve this feat, Somers asserts. 

Yet for as unspeakable as these “crimes against humanity” were, it was covering them up that further fueled Somers’ despondency. “To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup [sic] is more than any government has the right to demand.” 

While taking shots at Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, Somers accuses his government of abandoning not just himself, but those veterans who it consigned to the hell of war, including and especially the approximately two dozen veterans who commit suicide each and every day. 

Somers’ plight, like that of far too many veterans of the post-9/11 era, is, at best, tragic. At worst, it is scandalous, an outrage. In any event, though, its significance lies in the light that it sheds on our politics, particularly the politics of the Republican Party.

War is the one circumstance under which the government conducting it becomes an activist government, i.e., a Big Government. It is the one time, more so than any other, when it is expected that the government will enlist the daily activities of civil society in the service of fulfilling its purposes. That war is the emblem of Big Government explains why those who wish to see America’s federal government assume this activist role on the domestic scene not infrequently invoke the imagery of war (“The War on Drugs” and “The War on Poverty” are just two examples that come to mind).

But as real conservatives have always known, individual liberty and Big Government are mutually incompatible. Real conservatives have also known that it is not uncommon for the best laid plans of men – particularly when they are men holding political office – to go awry. And under no conditions is this more likely to occur than the unconditioned chaos of war.

In spite of this, most of today’s Republicans who insist upon calling themselves “conservatives” maintain that we are at war with an enemy that, because it has none of the distinctness of those governments that we’ve gone to war with in the past, promises to be intractable. Our war is a war without end.

However, a war without end requires a big military without end.

And a big military without end is Big Government without end.

To put it directly, the Republican Party is either self-delusional or deceptive, for its rhetoric of “limited government” and “individual liberty” is radically at odds with its enthusiasm for growing the military ad infinitum. A smaller, decentralized, truly federal government most definitely is compatible with liberty. In fact, the latter can’t exist without the former. Calls for Big Government, though, are nothing less than calls for a drastic diminution of liberty and, as in the case of Somers, ever greater individual suffering. 

These Republican “conservatives” should bear in mind what no true conservative would ever need to be told: As long as they get their wish, the Daniel Somers of the world will only multiply.   

This article originally appeared on: The New American

New Campaign in China Forcing IUDs, Sterilization on Women, Report Charges

0

Forced “family planning” is in full swing in China, with a recent report by the Texas-based watchdog group ChinaAid revealing that the city of Huizhou in the southern China Guangdong Province has launched a campaign aimed at reducing the number of births in the city of four and one-half million residents.

According to ChinaAid, the new initiative requires “women who already had a child to be fitted with an IUD, while those with two children had to undergo a tubal ligation [sterilization].” Women who comply “within a certain time frame would receive a financial reward,” ChinaAid reported, citing a government announcement posted throughout the city and online. “Meanwhile, those who did not comply would not be issued certificates by the family planning departments when their children are to enroll in school, social security departments will not process applications for social security services, hospitals will not issue relevant certifications, and the local government will refuse to handle all related services for them.”

According to some local residents monitoring the campaign, “Huizhou’s performance record in family planning is poor (birth rate is too high and the number of abortions and sterilizations too low), hence this wave of family planning measures,” reported ChinaAid. Further, Huizhou is apparently not unique in imposing the policy. “Information from other sources indicate that similar birth control requirements are being imposed on women in other provinces as well,” reported ChinaAid. “On the government website for Fuzhou, Fujian province, a commenter suggested the same measure [was] already in place in Huizhou: that documents showing the mother’s use of IUD be presented at the time of applying for household registration for a newborn.”

Similarly, a local newspaper in Hainan, a small island province south of Guangdong, “reported on June 4 that good family planning work had resulted in dropping birth rates in reclaimed land areas,” noted ChinaAid, “and so the Health Bureau under the Agriculture and Land Reclamation Administration had been honored by the provincial Office of the Leading Group for Family Planning with the designation of an ‘advanced unit’ for ‘comprehensive management of population and family planning.’”

Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute (PRI), a pro-life network that monitors the effects of China’s notorious one-child policy, noted that decades of forced abortion and sterilization have placed China in a serious situation. As a result of its self-destructive population policies, China “faces a below replacement birth rate, an aging workforce, and weakened political legitimacy,” he wrote in a recent commentary.

Mosher noted that the latest census data suggests China is in the midst of a “demographic crisis.” Fertility in China is at an all-time low, and the children who are being born are disproportionately male. He noted that for a population to replace itself, each woman needs to have one daughter who lives to childbearing age. “But on average, Chinese women bear only 0.69 daughters, which is well below replacement,” Mosher wrote.

“Decades of sex-selective abortion have produced an enormous ‘gender gap’ in China,” Mosher continued. “There are now tens of millions more men than women in that country, a ticking time bomb that will either explode inward into internal unrest, or outward into external aggression in the years to come.”

Mosher and PRI have joined with ChinaAid and Chinese pro-life dissident Chen Guangcheng to publicize the seriousness of China’s policy. “Morality aside, China’s policy no longer makes demographic, economic or political sense,” he wrote, adding that “400 million forced abortions and sterilizations is enough. Chinese women, children, and families have suffered enough over the past 33 years. It is time to end the misguided one-child policy.”

In related news, the Beijing government recently banned individuals and groups from privately adopting any of the tens of thousands of infants who are abandoned each year by Chinese parents horrified of being discovered with more than the one child allotted by the communist government. According to the Associated Press, China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs announced June 18 that people who find an abandoned child must immediately inform government authorities.

“China’s adoption law forbids baby trafficking and trafficking abandoned babies in the name of adoption, but doesn’t mention whether individuals are allowed to keep abandoned babies,” reported AP. The new rule forbids keeping such babies, stipulating that “people wanting to adopt must go through official channels and meet requirements, which under Chinese law include being healthy, over 30, and childless,” reported AP.

The AP report cited a Chinese population expert who said that some 200,000 babies – mostly girls – are abandoned each year in the country, by parents who want the one child they are allowed to have be a boy.

Photo of an X-ray of an IUD implanted in a woman

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Bomb blast hits Afghan police compund

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]A powerful explosion has rocked a police compound in Afghanistan’s central-eastern province of Logar, injuring several security personnel and damaging parts of the building, security sources say.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Zionism supporter to lead UK economy

0

Ian Livingston, 48, is publically recognized as a staunch supporter of Zionism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has appointed the most outspoken supporter of Zionist regime of Israel as trade and investment minister, local media reported.

Ian Livingston, 48, who heads telecom giant BT (formerly British Telecom) as chief executive, will take up the new job in December. He has called the Israeli entity as Å“the most amazing state in the world.”

He is replacing Lord Green, an ordained priest in the Church of England who is approaching retirement.

It is reported that Cameron personally handpicked Livingston for the trade minister job, saying that Livingston Å“will bring huge talent to a vital national effort.”

The Prime Minister once moaned that the UKâ„¢s Conservative Party should be called the Torah party rather than the Tory party because there are so many Israeli Jews at the top of it.

Other top Zionist figures in the Conservative party include co-chairs Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps MP, who has defined himself as Å“quite observant,” senior treasurer Howard Leigh, a member of the Jewish Leadership Council; and former party treasurers Richard Harrington MP and Lord Fink, another member of the JLC.

Livingston, himself, is a well-known supporter of Israeli regime, saying recently that he hoped to see the start of Å“a path to peace for Israel”.

During his time at BT Livingston dismissed calls by charity War on Want for the company to disassociate itself from the Israel telecom company Bezeq, according to reports.

Livingston was born in Glasgow in 1964.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Zionism supporter to lead UK economy

0

Ian Livingston, 48, is publically recognized as a staunch supporter of Zionism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has appointed the most outspoken supporter of Zionist regime of Israel as trade and investment minister, local media reported.

Ian Livingston, 48, who heads telecom giant BT (formerly British Telecom) as chief executive, will take up the new job in December. He has called the Israeli entity as Å“the most amazing state in the world.”

He is replacing Lord Green, an ordained priest in the Church of England who is approaching retirement.

It is reported that Cameron personally handpicked Livingston for the trade minister job, saying that Livingston Å“will bring huge talent to a vital national effort.”

The Prime Minister once moaned that the UKâ„¢s Conservative Party should be called the Torah party rather than the Tory party because there are so many Israeli Jews at the top of it.

Other top Zionist figures in the Conservative party include co-chairs Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps MP, who has defined himself as Å“quite observant,” senior treasurer Howard Leigh, a member of the Jewish Leadership Council; and former party treasurers Richard Harrington MP and Lord Fink, another member of the JLC.

Livingston, himself, is a well-known supporter of Israeli regime, saying recently that he hoped to see the start of Å“a path to peace for Israel”.

During his time at BT Livingston dismissed calls by charity War on Want for the company to disassociate itself from the Israel telecom company Bezeq, according to reports.

Livingston was born in Glasgow in 1964.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Zionism supporter to lead UK economy

0

Ian Livingston, 48, is publically recognized as a staunch supporter of Zionism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has appointed the most outspoken supporter of Zionist regime of Israel as trade and investment minister, local media reported.

Ian Livingston, 48, who heads telecom giant BT (formerly British Telecom) as chief executive, will take up the new job in December. He has called the Israeli entity as Å“the most amazing state in the world.”

He is replacing Lord Green, an ordained priest in the Church of England who is approaching retirement.

It is reported that Cameron personally handpicked Livingston for the trade minister job, saying that Livingston Å“will bring huge talent to a vital national effort.”

The Prime Minister once moaned that the UKâ„¢s Conservative Party should be called the Torah party rather than the Tory party because there are so many Israeli Jews at the top of it.

Other top Zionist figures in the Conservative party include co-chairs Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps MP, who has defined himself as Å“quite observant,” senior treasurer Howard Leigh, a member of the Jewish Leadership Council; and former party treasurers Richard Harrington MP and Lord Fink, another member of the JLC.

Livingston, himself, is a well-known supporter of Israeli regime, saying recently that he hoped to see the start of Å“a path to peace for Israel”.

During his time at BT Livingston dismissed calls by charity War on Want for the company to disassociate itself from the Israel telecom company Bezeq, according to reports.

Livingston was born in Glasgow in 1964.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Zionism supporter to lead UK economy

0

Ian Livingston, 48, is publically recognized as a staunch supporter of Zionism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has appointed the most outspoken supporter of Zionist regime of Israel as trade and investment minister, local media reported.

Ian Livingston, 48, who heads telecom giant BT (formerly British Telecom) as chief executive, will take up the new job in December. He has called the Israeli entity as Å“the most amazing state in the world.”

He is replacing Lord Green, an ordained priest in the Church of England who is approaching retirement.

It is reported that Cameron personally handpicked Livingston for the trade minister job, saying that Livingston Å“will bring huge talent to a vital national effort.”

The Prime Minister once moaned that the UKâ„¢s Conservative Party should be called the Torah party rather than the Tory party because there are so many Israeli Jews at the top of it.

Other top Zionist figures in the Conservative party include co-chairs Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps MP, who has defined himself as Å“quite observant,” senior treasurer Howard Leigh, a member of the Jewish Leadership Council; and former party treasurers Richard Harrington MP and Lord Fink, another member of the JLC.

Livingston, himself, is a well-known supporter of Israeli regime, saying recently that he hoped to see the start of Å“a path to peace for Israel”.

During his time at BT Livingston dismissed calls by charity War on Want for the company to disassociate itself from the Israel telecom company Bezeq, according to reports.

Livingston was born in Glasgow in 1964.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Zionism supporter to lead UK economy

0

Ian Livingston, 48, is publically recognized as a staunch supporter of Zionism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has appointed the most outspoken supporter of Zionist regime of Israel as trade and investment minister, local media reported.

Ian Livingston, 48, who heads telecom giant BT (formerly British Telecom) as chief executive, will take up the new job in December. He has called the Israeli entity as Å“the most amazing state in the world.”

He is replacing Lord Green, an ordained priest in the Church of England who is approaching retirement.

It is reported that Cameron personally handpicked Livingston for the trade minister job, saying that Livingston Å“will bring huge talent to a vital national effort.”

The Prime Minister once moaned that the UKâ„¢s Conservative Party should be called the Torah party rather than the Tory party because there are so many Israeli Jews at the top of it.

Other top Zionist figures in the Conservative party include co-chairs Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps MP, who has defined himself as Å“quite observant,” senior treasurer Howard Leigh, a member of the Jewish Leadership Council; and former party treasurers Richard Harrington MP and Lord Fink, another member of the JLC.

Livingston, himself, is a well-known supporter of Israeli regime, saying recently that he hoped to see the start of Å“a path to peace for Israel”.

During his time at BT Livingston dismissed calls by charity War on Want for the company to disassociate itself from the Israel telecom company Bezeq, according to reports.

Livingston was born in Glasgow in 1964.

MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Malaysia to host Iran music ensemble

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Iranian music ensemble Morvarid-e-Lian, led by Mohsen Sharifian is slated to present its programs in the Rainforest World Music Festival in Malaysia.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Fired Walmart Workers Arrested in Protest at Yahoo Headquarters

0

Five activists were arrested at Yahoo! headquarters Monday afternoon in a protest over the firing of eleven Walmart employees who this month went on strike. The planned civil disobedience action followed an hour-long demonstration in the Yahoo! lobby; about thirty workers and supporters gathered to demand a meeting with Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer, who joined Walmart’s board last year.

As The Nation first reported, the union-backed group OUR Walmart is alleging a new wave of retaliation against Walmart worker-activists, with terminations or other discipline targeting at least twenty-six of the hundred-some employees who traveled to Arkansas to protest the retail giant’s June 7 shareholder meeting. Congressmen Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) and Alan Grayson both condemned the firings in Saturday comments to The Nation; Ellison, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Walmart’s actions “completely unjust and illegal.”

A Yahoo! spokesperson declined a request for comment regarding the protest and the alleged retaliation. Asked about the firings and disciplinary “coachings” this morning, Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg e-mailed that “our decision had everything to do with what was a violation of attendance policy and nothing to do with a specific protest.”

A few workers arrived in the Yahoo! lobby just after noon today, and told the receptionist they were there to meet Mayer. After being told they couldn’t see her without an appointment, an organizer announced that they planned to stay until Mayer became available. One OUR Walmart member told the receptionist that the firings were an emergency; another offered to meet Mayer on her lunch break. Then a larger group arrived and lined up on either side of the lobby. Standing under a purple pillar of Yahoo logos, workers held signs, locked arms and told stories about their own firings or their co-workers’. Some had their children with them; one woman declared the scene “cute” as she walked between the rows of protesters. A handful of Yahoo! employees watched from a balcony above. Then Yahoo! management declared the lobby shut down, and a staffer told the crowd that he would call the police if they didn’t leave.

“I was nervous at first when I walked in here, but I’m really calm now,” Placerville, California, Walmart employee Barbara Collins told The Nation before being arrested. Collins said she expects to be retaliated against by Walmart when she returns to work, but that “it’s amazing what happens when you’re over that fear.” Looking at her assembled co-workers from other cities, she added, “Walmart created that fear, and these amazing people that we have in our family now helped me get over it.” Collins took part in the civil disobedience along with two employees fired by Walmart, and two members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union who’ve taken leaves of absence from their jobs at Safeway to work on the OUR Walmart campaign. “You really find your backbone,” said Collins. “And it’s OK to stand for what’s right.”

After the police arrived, those activists not planning to be arrested moved their protest outdoors; the remaining five sat down on the floor. An organizer told fired worker Yvette Brown that Brown’s mother–also an OUR Walmart activist, and also fired over the weekend–had started crying outside when describing how proud she was of Brown for choosing to commit civil disobedience. At that point Brown began tearing up. “We’ve gone through many challenges in life,” she explained. “And just to have that moment where my mom definitely told me she was proud of me, that’s the first time.”

Soon after, several police officers entered, gave the five activists a final chance to leave and then had them stand up one at a time and put their hands behind their backs. One visibly winced as an officer put zip ties around his wrists; a police officer and a Yahoo! staffer both took photos of each arrest. Then the five were escorted into a police van as their co-workers on the sidewalk leafleted to passers-by, hoisted umbrellas that together read “MARISSA ACT NOW” and chanted “Whose Walmart? OUR Walmart!”

Over the two years since its founding, OUR Walmart has repeatedly alleged retaliation and intimidation against its members, as have allied groups organizing subcontracted Walmart warehouse workers. But the latest allegations–including nine firings and eighteen other disciplinary actions in the space of three days–are the most serious ones since 2005, when Walmart shut down a Quebec store months after workers there won collective bargaining rights.

Asked Saturday about OUR Walmart’s contention that this month’s work stoppage was an “Unfair Labor Practices Strike” protesting retaliation–a type of action that receives greater legal protection–Walmart’s Lundberg wrote, “We evaluate every situation individually, but as a general rule, the law does not protect hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”

Yahoo! holds its annual shareholder meeting tomorrow. As The Nation has reported, Mayer–arguably Walmart’s most prominent board member–has repeatedly been a target for labor protests. Organizers have sought to capitalize on the media debate over parental leave and work-life balance at Yahoo! in order to draw public attention to the conditions of lower-wage working mothers at Walmart. “I’m a single mother myself,” fired striker Marie Roberty told The Nation before today’s protest. “Working for Walmart, it barely pays anything…. So by going to her, if she’s a mother herself, she could relate to us…. We want her to at least hear us, if she could relate to us by chance.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Fired Walmart Workers Arrested in Protest at Yahoo Headquarters

0

Five activists were arrested at Yahoo! headquarters Monday afternoon in a protest over the firing of eleven Walmart employees who this month went on strike. The planned civil disobedience action followed an hour-long demonstration in the Yahoo! lobby; about thirty workers and supporters gathered to demand a meeting with Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer, who joined Walmart’s board last year.

As The Nation first reported, the union-backed group OUR Walmart is alleging a new wave of retaliation against Walmart worker-activists, with terminations or other discipline targeting at least twenty-six of the hundred-some employees who traveled to Arkansas to protest the retail giant’s June 7 shareholder meeting. Congressmen Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) and Alan Grayson both condemned the firings in Saturday comments to The Nation; Ellison, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Walmart’s actions “completely unjust and illegal.”

A Yahoo! spokesperson declined a request for comment regarding the protest and the alleged retaliation. Asked about the firings and disciplinary “coachings” this morning, Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg e-mailed that “our decision had everything to do with what was a violation of attendance policy and nothing to do with a specific protest.”

A few workers arrived in the Yahoo! lobby just after noon today, and told the receptionist they were there to meet Mayer. After being told they couldn’t see her without an appointment, an organizer announced that they planned to stay until Mayer became available. One OUR Walmart member told the receptionist that the firings were an emergency; another offered to meet Mayer on her lunch break. Then a larger group arrived and lined up on either side of the lobby. Standing under a purple pillar of Yahoo logos, workers held signs, locked arms and told stories about their own firings or their co-workers’. Some had their children with them; one woman declared the scene “cute” as she walked between the rows of protesters. A handful of Yahoo! employees watched from a balcony above. Then Yahoo! management declared the lobby shut down, and a staffer told the crowd that he would call the police if they didn’t leave.

“I was nervous at first when I walked in here, but I’m really calm now,” Placerville, California, Walmart employee Barbara Collins told The Nation before being arrested. Collins said she expects to be retaliated against by Walmart when she returns to work, but that “it’s amazing what happens when you’re over that fear.” Looking at her assembled co-workers from other cities, she added, “Walmart created that fear, and these amazing people that we have in our family now helped me get over it.” Collins took part in the civil disobedience along with two employees fired by Walmart, and two members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union who’ve taken leaves of absence from their jobs at Safeway to work on the OUR Walmart campaign. “You really find your backbone,” said Collins. “And it’s OK to stand for what’s right.”

After the police arrived, those activists not planning to be arrested moved their protest outdoors; the remaining five sat down on the floor. An organizer told fired worker Yvette Brown that Brown’s mother–also an OUR Walmart activist, and also fired over the weekend–had started crying outside when describing how proud she was of Brown for choosing to commit civil disobedience. At that point Brown began tearing up. “We’ve gone through many challenges in life,” she explained. “And just to have that moment where my mom definitely told me she was proud of me, that’s the first time.”

Soon after, several police officers entered, gave the five activists a final chance to leave and then had them stand up one at a time and put their hands behind their backs. One visibly winced as an officer put zip ties around his wrists; a police officer and a Yahoo! staffer both took photos of each arrest. Then the five were escorted into a police van as their co-workers on the sidewalk leafleted to passers-by, hoisted umbrellas that together read “MARISSA ACT NOW” and chanted “Whose Walmart? OUR Walmart!”

Over the two years since its founding, OUR Walmart has repeatedly alleged retaliation and intimidation against its members, as have allied groups organizing subcontracted Walmart warehouse workers. But the latest allegations–including nine firings and eighteen other disciplinary actions in the space of three days–are the most serious ones since 2005, when Walmart shut down a Quebec store months after workers there won collective bargaining rights.

Asked Saturday about OUR Walmart’s contention that this month’s work stoppage was an “Unfair Labor Practices Strike” protesting retaliation–a type of action that receives greater legal protection–Walmart’s Lundberg wrote, “We evaluate every situation individually, but as a general rule, the law does not protect hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”

Yahoo! holds its annual shareholder meeting tomorrow. As The Nation has reported, Mayer–arguably Walmart’s most prominent board member–has repeatedly been a target for labor protests. Organizers have sought to capitalize on the media debate over parental leave and work-life balance at Yahoo! in order to draw public attention to the conditions of lower-wage working mothers at Walmart. “I’m a single mother myself,” fired striker Marie Roberty told The Nation before today’s protest. “Working for Walmart, it barely pays anything…. So by going to her, if she’s a mother herself, she could relate to us…. We want her to at least hear us, if she could relate to us by chance.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

G8 Debates: Views on War and “World Equilibrium”

0
JPEG - 27.2 kb
The 10 members of the G8 in discussion.

SyriaThe summit, which was held in Lough Erne (Northern Ireland), June 17 and 18, was all the more important in that it was the first meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin since the re-election of the latter nine months earlier. However, after the sabotage of the Geneva Conference (30 June 2012) by Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, it was agreed between the two heads of state that their first meeting would allow them to announce a solution to the Syrian crisis. Yet despite shift change in Washington, the summit was repeatedly delayed while the new secretary of state, John Kerry, drowned himself in contradictory statements.

During this long waiting period, the situation had changed. Lebanon no longer has a government since the appointment of Tammam Salam as Prime Minister, two and a half months ago. In Saudi Arabia, Prince Khaled bin Sultan, assistant defense minister, failed to overthrow King Abdullah. In Qatar, the United States has given Prince Hamad Al-Thani until August to give up his throne to his son Tamim and be forgotten along with his Prime Minister. In Turkey, a majority of the population has risen up against the policy of the Muslim Brotherhood led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In Iran, the people elected an economic Liberal, Hassan Rohani, to the Presidency of the Republic. And in Syria, the loyalist army has freed Al-Qusayr and embarked on a military operation in Aleppo.

On the communication front, as in 2003 in Iraq, France, the United Kingdom and the United States came out with the “weapons of mass destruction” bogeyman: the three capitals claim to have evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Damascus. “Bashar’s regime” would thus have “crossed the red line“. International intervention would have become indispensable both “to save the Syrians” and “to save world peace.” Alas! Communicated to Moscow, the “evidence” proves to fall far short of meeting the standards of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In any case, no one can fathom why an army in full reconquest would use sarin gas, and Syria (like Israel) is not a signatory to the Convention on Chemical Weapons.

In fact, France and the UK continue their recolonization project, as agreed between them at the signing of the Treaty of Lancaster House (November 2, 2010, before the “Arab Spring“). They rely on the Zionist Arab regimes, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

For their part, the United States “leads from behind” in the words of Mrs. Clinton. They support the initiative if it succeeds and oppose if it fails. After the chemical weapons farce, they are committed to formally provide weapons to the Free Syrian Army, but not to the al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda). The truth is, Washington is in disarray: six weeks ago, John Kerry was in perfect agreement with his Russian counterpart, while last week he wanted to bomb Syria and had to take a blistering “no” from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The situation was thus unfavorable to the colonial camp as the G8 opened. It was further complicated by the revelations of Edward Snowden, an employee of the U.S. contracting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, who leaked internal NSA documents after taking refuge in Hong Kong. The largest security agency in the world is spying on US and world internet and telephone communications. With the help of the British GCHQ, it had even wiretapped London G20 delegates in 2009. In short, the Anglo-Americans (USA, UK and Canada) were at a disadvantage in the discussion and guests avoided using their phones.

On Syria, the Franco-British position is therefore to isolate Russia to force her to give in. Masterful in this role, summit host David Cameron denounced the “dictator-who-killed-the-people-with-chemical-weapons.” He called for a Geneva 2 conference which would record the surrender of President al-Assad transferring power to the friends of the West. He confirms the imminent delivery of arms to the “revolutionaries“, offers an honorable exit to “Bashar” maintaining the Baathist government and distributing gas leases. For the flag, it is already known, it will be that of the French colonization.

This chatter breaks on Vladimir Putin. Questioned by the press upon his arrival, the Russian president declared before a stunned Cameron:

“I’m sure you agree that we should surely not help people who kill not only their enemies, but dismember their bodies and eat their intestines in public and in front of cameras.

Are these the people you want to support? Do you want to arm them? If this is the case, it seems that there is very little relationship here with humanitarian values that Europe has espoused and widely promoted for centuries. In any case, we in Russia, cannot conceive of such a situation. But casting emotions aside and adopting a purely working approach to the issue, let me stress that Russia supplies weapons to the legally recognized Syrian government, in full compliance with the rules of international law. I insist on the fact that we here violate no law and I ask our partners to act in the same fashion. “

To humanitarian babbling, Putin responds with his view of the facts and international law. No, there is no revolution in Syria, but foreign aggression. No, Syria will not use weapons of mass destruction against its own people. Yes, Russia delivers anti-aircraft weapons to Syria to protect it from foreign attack. Yes, the delivery of weapons to the contras by the West is a violation of international law punishable in international courts.

Finally, at no time, were the French and the British able to back the Russian into a corner. Each time, Vladimir Putin was supported by another participant — often Germany’s Angela Merkel — expressing doubts.

Faced with Russia’s firm stand, David Cameron tried to convince his Western partners that the fortunes of war could still change: MI6 and DGSE are ready to provoke a military coup in Damascus. An officer recruited in the palace, could kill the president, while a general, recruited at the top of the secret service, would liquidate loyalists and take power. The new authorities would form a military dictatorship that would give way gradually to a parliamentary democracy.

Besides the fact that everyone is wondering who are the traitors enrolled in the presidential entourage, the British proposal was not convincing. This is not the first time this hypothesis is brandished and it fails. There has already been an attempt to poison members of the National Security Council and the power takeover by one of them (but the traitor was playing double agent); then the bombing that claimed the lives of members of the National Security Council coupled with the attack on the capital by 40,000 jihadists (but the National Guard defended the city); there was the attack on the joint chiefs of staff by suicide bombers, coupled with the revolt of a regiment that never took place and so on. And plans that failed when the time was right are unlikely to succeed when the national army is reconquering the territory.

In the final communiqué (paragraphs 82 to 87), participants in the G8 reaffirmed their confidence in the Geneva process, without raising its ambiguities. We still do not know what is meant by a “political transition.” Is it a transition from civil war to peace, or from a Syria ruled by Assad to a Syria governed by pro-Westerners? However, two points have been clarified: firstly, the Al-Nusra Front shall not participate in Geneva 2 and must be expelled from Syria and, secondly, an ad hoc committee of the United Nations will investigate the use of chemical weapons, but it will be composed of experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of these weapons and the World Health Organization.

This is both little and a lot. It is little because the French and British have not abandoned the idea that Geneva 2 should be the conference of Syria’s capitulation to the demands of Western colonization. It is a lot because the G8 explicitly condemns the support by the Cooperation Council Gulf for the Al-Nusra Front and because it honorably buries the media controversy over chemical weapons. It remains to be seen whether all this is genuine.

It seems in any case that Russia is not certain. In a press conference after the summit, Putin said that other members of the G8 did not believe in the use of chemical weapons by the Damascus government, but by the armed groups. He recalled that the Turkish police seized sarin gas from fighters of the Syrian opposition and that, according to the Turkish documents, their gas was supplied from Iraq [by the former vice president of the Iraqi Baath Izzat al-Duri]. Above all, Putin reiterated several times his questions about the delivery of weapons by the United States and its allies. He stressed that the issue was not whether such deliveries were made or not, but whether this was done officially or unofficially, each being aware that for the past two years, the “commandos” have weapons that come from abroad.

Two days later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov challenged the consistency of the United States. He stressed that the unilateral condemnation of Syria at the UN and the statements on the possible establishment of a no-fly zone were signals which encouraged the “commandos“, including those of Al Qaeda.

The international economy

The second day of the summit was easier. The health of the “global economy“, an expression that the Anglo-Americans are trying to avoid in favor of pragmatic concepts such as “trade“, “tax systems” and “transparency of public finance” were discussed.

If there is a common interest among participants in the G8 to help each other to recover taxes, thus to fight against tax evasion of which they are victims, there is also an interest on the part of the Anglo-Americans to maintain their own tax havens while depriving the other participants of same.

The consensus has therefore focused on the transparency of ownership of offshore companies, so that it can determined who they benefit. Again, it is little and it’s a lot.

It is little because the British intend to maintain their advantage with regards to tax havens, but it’s a lot in terms of monitoring the activities of multinational companies.

Two other areas of consensus should be noted: the collective refusal to pay for hostage release (but will it actually be followed?) and incitement vis-à-vis the Euro zone to unify its banking system to prevent the reproduction of national financial crises.

The G8 is still alive

Ultimately, the G8 has demonstrated its usefulness. If it had lost its appeal during the period of global dominance by the United States (the “unipolar world“), it has now found it again on a more balanced basis. Lough Erne made it possible to measure U.S. hesitation in Syria and Russian determination. The summit will also have reduced the opacity of offshore companies. The G8 reflects on the one hand the geopolitical conflict between the United States (declining power), the United Kingdom and France (colonial powers), and Russia (emerging power), and on the other, the globalization of capitalism, which all participants embrace.

Original G8 Documents:
- «G8 Final Communiqué, Lough Erne 2013»
- «G8 : Lough Erne Declaration»
- «G8 action plan principles to prevent the misuse of companies and legal arrangements»
- «Communiqué on G8 Global Economy Working Session»

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

G8 Debates: Views on War and “World Equilibrium”

0
JPEG - 27.2 kb
The 10 members of the G8 in discussion.

SyriaThe summit, which was held in Lough Erne (Northern Ireland), June 17 and 18, was all the more important in that it was the first meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin since the re-election of the latter nine months earlier. However, after the sabotage of the Geneva Conference (30 June 2012) by Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, it was agreed between the two heads of state that their first meeting would allow them to announce a solution to the Syrian crisis. Yet despite shift change in Washington, the summit was repeatedly delayed while the new secretary of state, John Kerry, drowned himself in contradictory statements.

During this long waiting period, the situation had changed. Lebanon no longer has a government since the appointment of Tammam Salam as Prime Minister, two and a half months ago. In Saudi Arabia, Prince Khaled bin Sultan, assistant defense minister, failed to overthrow King Abdullah. In Qatar, the United States has given Prince Hamad Al-Thani until August to give up his throne to his son Tamim and be forgotten along with his Prime Minister. In Turkey, a majority of the population has risen up against the policy of the Muslim Brotherhood led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In Iran, the people elected an economic Liberal, Hassan Rohani, to the Presidency of the Republic. And in Syria, the loyalist army has freed Al-Qusayr and embarked on a military operation in Aleppo.

On the communication front, as in 2003 in Iraq, France, the United Kingdom and the United States came out with the “weapons of mass destruction” bogeyman: the three capitals claim to have evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Damascus. “Bashar’s regime” would thus have “crossed the red line“. International intervention would have become indispensable both “to save the Syrians” and “to save world peace.” Alas! Communicated to Moscow, the “evidence” proves to fall far short of meeting the standards of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In any case, no one can fathom why an army in full reconquest would use sarin gas, and Syria (like Israel) is not a signatory to the Convention on Chemical Weapons.

In fact, France and the UK continue their recolonization project, as agreed between them at the signing of the Treaty of Lancaster House (November 2, 2010, before the “Arab Spring“). They rely on the Zionist Arab regimes, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

For their part, the United States “leads from behind” in the words of Mrs. Clinton. They support the initiative if it succeeds and oppose if it fails. After the chemical weapons farce, they are committed to formally provide weapons to the Free Syrian Army, but not to the al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda). The truth is, Washington is in disarray: six weeks ago, John Kerry was in perfect agreement with his Russian counterpart, while last week he wanted to bomb Syria and had to take a blistering “no” from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The situation was thus unfavorable to the colonial camp as the G8 opened. It was further complicated by the revelations of Edward Snowden, an employee of the U.S. contracting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, who leaked internal NSA documents after taking refuge in Hong Kong. The largest security agency in the world is spying on US and world internet and telephone communications. With the help of the British GCHQ, it had even wiretapped London G20 delegates in 2009. In short, the Anglo-Americans (USA, UK and Canada) were at a disadvantage in the discussion and guests avoided using their phones.

On Syria, the Franco-British position is therefore to isolate Russia to force her to give in. Masterful in this role, summit host David Cameron denounced the “dictator-who-killed-the-people-with-chemical-weapons.” He called for a Geneva 2 conference which would record the surrender of President al-Assad transferring power to the friends of the West. He confirms the imminent delivery of arms to the “revolutionaries“, offers an honorable exit to “Bashar” maintaining the Baathist government and distributing gas leases. For the flag, it is already known, it will be that of the French colonization.

This chatter breaks on Vladimir Putin. Questioned by the press upon his arrival, the Russian president declared before a stunned Cameron:

“I’m sure you agree that we should surely not help people who kill not only their enemies, but dismember their bodies and eat their intestines in public and in front of cameras.

Are these the people you want to support? Do you want to arm them? If this is the case, it seems that there is very little relationship here with humanitarian values that Europe has espoused and widely promoted for centuries. In any case, we in Russia, cannot conceive of such a situation. But casting emotions aside and adopting a purely working approach to the issue, let me stress that Russia supplies weapons to the legally recognized Syrian government, in full compliance with the rules of international law. I insist on the fact that we here violate no law and I ask our partners to act in the same fashion. “

To humanitarian babbling, Putin responds with his view of the facts and international law. No, there is no revolution in Syria, but foreign aggression. No, Syria will not use weapons of mass destruction against its own people. Yes, Russia delivers anti-aircraft weapons to Syria to protect it from foreign attack. Yes, the delivery of weapons to the contras by the West is a violation of international law punishable in international courts.

Finally, at no time, were the French and the British able to back the Russian into a corner. Each time, Vladimir Putin was supported by another participant — often Germany’s Angela Merkel — expressing doubts.

Faced with Russia’s firm stand, David Cameron tried to convince his Western partners that the fortunes of war could still change: MI6 and DGSE are ready to provoke a military coup in Damascus. An officer recruited in the palace, could kill the president, while a general, recruited at the top of the secret service, would liquidate loyalists and take power. The new authorities would form a military dictatorship that would give way gradually to a parliamentary democracy.

Besides the fact that everyone is wondering who are the traitors enrolled in the presidential entourage, the British proposal was not convincing. This is not the first time this hypothesis is brandished and it fails. There has already been an attempt to poison members of the National Security Council and the power takeover by one of them (but the traitor was playing double agent); then the bombing that claimed the lives of members of the National Security Council coupled with the attack on the capital by 40,000 jihadists (but the National Guard defended the city); there was the attack on the joint chiefs of staff by suicide bombers, coupled with the revolt of a regiment that never took place and so on. And plans that failed when the time was right are unlikely to succeed when the national army is reconquering the territory.

In the final communiqué (paragraphs 82 to 87), participants in the G8 reaffirmed their confidence in the Geneva process, without raising its ambiguities. We still do not know what is meant by a “political transition.” Is it a transition from civil war to peace, or from a Syria ruled by Assad to a Syria governed by pro-Westerners? However, two points have been clarified: firstly, the Al-Nusra Front shall not participate in Geneva 2 and must be expelled from Syria and, secondly, an ad hoc committee of the United Nations will investigate the use of chemical weapons, but it will be composed of experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of these weapons and the World Health Organization.

This is both little and a lot. It is little because the French and British have not abandoned the idea that Geneva 2 should be the conference of Syria’s capitulation to the demands of Western colonization. It is a lot because the G8 explicitly condemns the support by the Cooperation Council Gulf for the Al-Nusra Front and because it honorably buries the media controversy over chemical weapons. It remains to be seen whether all this is genuine.

It seems in any case that Russia is not certain. In a press conference after the summit, Putin said that other members of the G8 did not believe in the use of chemical weapons by the Damascus government, but by the armed groups. He recalled that the Turkish police seized sarin gas from fighters of the Syrian opposition and that, according to the Turkish documents, their gas was supplied from Iraq [by the former vice president of the Iraqi Baath Izzat al-Duri]. Above all, Putin reiterated several times his questions about the delivery of weapons by the United States and its allies. He stressed that the issue was not whether such deliveries were made or not, but whether this was done officially or unofficially, each being aware that for the past two years, the “commandos” have weapons that come from abroad.

Two days later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov challenged the consistency of the United States. He stressed that the unilateral condemnation of Syria at the UN and the statements on the possible establishment of a no-fly zone were signals which encouraged the “commandos“, including those of Al Qaeda.

The international economy

The second day of the summit was easier. The health of the “global economy“, an expression that the Anglo-Americans are trying to avoid in favor of pragmatic concepts such as “trade“, “tax systems” and “transparency of public finance” were discussed.

If there is a common interest among participants in the G8 to help each other to recover taxes, thus to fight against tax evasion of which they are victims, there is also an interest on the part of the Anglo-Americans to maintain their own tax havens while depriving the other participants of same.

The consensus has therefore focused on the transparency of ownership of offshore companies, so that it can determined who they benefit. Again, it is little and it’s a lot.

It is little because the British intend to maintain their advantage with regards to tax havens, but it’s a lot in terms of monitoring the activities of multinational companies.

Two other areas of consensus should be noted: the collective refusal to pay for hostage release (but will it actually be followed?) and incitement vis-à-vis the Euro zone to unify its banking system to prevent the reproduction of national financial crises.

The G8 is still alive

Ultimately, the G8 has demonstrated its usefulness. If it had lost its appeal during the period of global dominance by the United States (the “unipolar world“), it has now found it again on a more balanced basis. Lough Erne made it possible to measure U.S. hesitation in Syria and Russian determination. The summit will also have reduced the opacity of offshore companies. The G8 reflects on the one hand the geopolitical conflict between the United States (declining power), the United Kingdom and France (colonial powers), and Russia (emerging power), and on the other, the globalization of capitalism, which all participants embrace.

Original G8 Documents:
- «G8 Final Communiqué, Lough Erne 2013»
- «G8 : Lough Erne Declaration»
- «G8 action plan principles to prevent the misuse of companies and legal arrangements»
- «Communiqué on G8 Global Economy Working Session»

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Iran capable of repairing own copters

0

Iran needless of foreign aid for repairing copters: Cmdr.

The commander of the Iranian Armyâ„¢s Ground Forces says the countryâ„¢s air force has achieved self-sufficiency in repairing helicopters.

Å“The [Islamic Republic of Iran] Army Aviation has reached a level of progress where it can repair its helicopters without any need for [assistance from] other countries,” Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan said on Tuesday.

Pourdastan, who was visiting the Army Aviationâ„¢s base in Abyek, Qazvin Province, also praised the Iranian aerospace experts for their accomplishments

Over the past years, Iran has made important breakthroughs in its defense sector and unveiled a variety of domestically produced military equipment and systems, including tanks, sophisticated destroyers, submarines, unmanned aerial vehicles and advanced missile and radar systems.

The country has also held several military exercises to enhance the defense capabilities of its armed forces and to test modern military tactics and equipment.

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly assured other nations, especially its neighbors, that its military might poses no threat to other countries, stating that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.

MRS/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Twin blasts kill 11 in north Iraq

0

An Iraqi police officer stands at the site of a bomb attack in Basra, June 16, 2013.

At least 11 people have been killed and 55 others injured after two bomb blasts rocked the Iraqi city of Tuz Khormato.

The explosions took place on Tuesday in Tuz Khormato, the city situated some 210 kilometers (130 miles) north of the capital Baghdad.

The fatalities included former deputy provincial governor, Ali Hashim.

This comes after dozens of people lost their lives in bomb attacks across the country on Monday.

There has recently been an upsurge in violence across Iraq, and the authorities say Qatar and Saudi Arabia have had a hand in some of the deadly incidents.

On Saturday, at least 24 people, mostly Shia Muslims, were killed and many others injured in Iraq.

The deadliest attack occurred in the town of Taji, north of Baghdad, when a bomb planted inside a mosque went off at about 8:00 p.m. (1700 GMT), killing 15 people and injuring more than 31 others.

On June 19, some 31 people were killed in two coordinated bomb attacks inside and near a Shia mosque in Baghdad.

On June 16, 51 people lost their lives and many others were injured in a spate of attacks across the country.

The United Nations says a total of 1,045 people were killed and nearly 2,400 were injured in violent incidents across Iraq in May.

Earlier this month, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonâ„¢s Special Representative for Iraq Martin Kobler called on the Iraqi leaders to Å“sit together” to address the countryâ„¢s problems, including car bomb attacks throughout Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that militant groups and the remnants of the former Baâ„¢athist regime are responsible for the latest wave of violence.

MAM/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

No exemptions in tax targeting: IRS eyed both sides of political spectrum

0

The Internal Revenue Service’s intensified scrutiny of groups seeking tax exempt status extended beyond Tea Party-affiliated groups, with those whose names included the terms ‘Progressive’, ‘Occupy’ and ‘Israel’ being more intensely vetted as well.

IRS documents released Monday counter initial claims that the tax
service had specifically tried to stamp out the nascent Tea Party
movement through the use of ‘Be On The Lookout’, or BOLO, lists.
Rather, the agency claims to have relied on keyword searches to
single out all overtly political groups.

Although the IRS discontinued the screening of overtly
conservative and Tea Party related groups in May 2012, other
organizations continued to find themselves under the microscope
until earlier this month, when the new IRS chief, Danny Werfel,
said he became aware of the practice and called a stop to it.

“There was a wide-ranging set of categories and cases that
spanned a broad spectrum”
on the lists, Werfel said. He added
that his aides found those lists contained “inappropriate
criteria that was in use.”

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee — the House of
Representatives’ chief tax writing body — released 15 lists of
terms employed by the IRS which were handed over to congressional
investigators.

The lists, ranging from 11 to 17 pages, were dated between August
2010 and April 2013 – just one month before the scandal
surrounding the IRS targeting of conservative groups broke.

One of the lists, dated November 2010, included the terms
‘Progressive’, ‘Medical Marijuana,’ ‘Occupied Territory
Advocacy,’ as well as ‘Tea Party’, ‘Healthcare legislation’ and
‘Paying National Debt’.

Under the section ‘Occupied Territory Advocacy’, the ‘Watch Issue
Description’ noted, “Applications deal with disputed
territories in the Middle East. Examples may include
organizations named or connected with [redacted]. Applications
may be inflammatory, advocate a one-sided point of view and
promotional materials may signify
propaganda.”
   


Chief among those groups apparently included groups advocating on
behalf of Israeli settlement expansion who were applying for
non-profit status.

The list further notes that a “Common thread is the word
‘progressive’.”

“Activities appear to lean toward a new political party.
Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican. You see
references to ‘blue’ as being ‘progressive’.”

‘Regional health information organizations’ seeking nonprofit tax
exemptions for their electronic healthcare data-collection
efforts were also flagged, while those involved in implementing
the Affordable Care Act were sent to the IRS for “secondary
screening.”

Acting IRS (Internal Revenue Service) Commissioner Daniel Werfel (AFP Photo)

Lists from April 2013 that
were released further included the terms ‘Paying National Debt’
and ‘Green Energy Organizations’. 

On Monday, Werfel released an 83-page report at the behest of
President Barack Obama containing his assessments of the agency
and areas which can be improved upon.

While the report noted that IRS managers exhibited a “lack of
critical thinking and judgment”
in screening non-profit
organizations, it found no evidence of wrongdoing. It further
said that the targeting had not been directed by anyone outside
of the agency.

The report also describes several new procedures which are
intended to prevent taxpayers from being unfairly singled out in
the future as well as streamline the non-profit application
process.

The top five employees in the IRS tasked with handling nonprofit
organizations were all replaced, starting with the former acting
IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, whom President Barack Obama
replaced with Werfel.

“The IRS is committed to correcting its mistakes, holding
individuals accountable as appropriate”
and establishing new
controls to reduce potential future problems, Werfel said.

The White House called Werfel’s actions “an important step in
ensuring accountability”
at the agency.

Monday’s revelations follow a report issued last month by the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration which found
that groups whose applications included words such as ‘tea party’
and ‘patriots’ were red flagged.

The report indicated that not all the groups selected for
additional screening used those terms, though no further
description was provided for such organizations.

House Democrats were quick to jump on the latest release,
questioning why the previous report failed to make any mention of
non-conservative groups who were met with increased scrutiny.

Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee have called for a
second hearing with the inspector general, J. Russell George, so
that he can “explain the glaring omission in his audit
report.”

“The audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of
Congressional investigations, and this new information shows that
the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental
way,”
said Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the
committee’s ranking Democrat.

Republicans, who accused the IRS of attempting to stifle the
party’s campaigning efforts in the run-up to the 2012 elections,
said critical distinctions still remained in how conservative and
progressive groups were targeted.

A statement by the GOP staff of House Ways and Means said: “It
is one thing to flag a group, it is quite another to repeatedly
target and abuse conservative groups.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, R-Calif., who has
selectively released portions of his own ongoing investigation
into IRS malfeasance, branded Werfel’s report “premature.”

Issa added that the review “fails to meaningfully answer the
largest outstanding questions about inappropriate inquiries and
indefensible delays.”

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., whose
panel is also investigating the agency, said the IRS “still
needs to provide clear answers to the most significant questions
– who started this practice, why was it allowed to continue for
so long, and how widespread was it? This culture of political
discrimination and intimidation goes far beyond basic management
failure and personnel changes alone won’t fix a broken IRS.”

This article originally appeared on: RT

Unidentified gunmen kill 6 Libyan soldiers

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]At least six Libyan soldiers have been killed after unidentified gunmen attacked a military checkpoint near the coastal Libyan city of Sirte, military sources say.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Gunmen kill 3 Afghan guards in Kabul

0

Afghan security force keep watch near the entrance gate of the Presidential palace in Kabul on June 25, 2013.

Gunmen have attacked the Afghan presidential palace in central Kabul with multiple bombs and gunfire, killing at least three security guards.

The assailants blasted an explosives-laden car at the presidential palaceâ„¢s eastern gate near the ministry of defense on Tuesday.

The explosion was followed by several other blasts and gunfire lasting for 45 minutes.

The attacks took place as reporters were gathering for a joint press conference by President Hamid Karzai and US Special envoy for Afghanistan James Dobbins.

According to police officials, the attackers disguised in US military uniforms have all been killed.

The Taliban militant group has claimed responsibility for the attack, saying their main target was the CIA office, the palace and the defense ministry building. The militants also claimed they have killed several American forces.

This comes after six Afghan policemen lost their lives in a roadside bomb attack in southern province of Uruzgan on Tuesday.

In southern Kandahar Province, another roadside bomb killed near a dozen people including eight women and two children on the same day.

In late April, the Taliban announced the start of their annual “spring offensive” against Afghan forces and US-led forces, vowing a new wave of attacks across the war-torn country.

The militant group said it would use “every possible tactic” to inflict casualties on Afghan and foreign forces. They specifically mentioned insider and bomb attacks.

Thousands of people have been killed in attacks carried out by the Taliban militant group and US-led foreign forces in Afghanistan over the past years.

Violence continues to plague the country despite the presence of thousands of foreign forces, more than a decade after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

MM/MAM/PR

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

4 Polish soldiers killed in Afghanistan

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Four US-led Polish soldiers have been killed and two others wounded in an attack in Afghanistan’s central-eastern province of Ghazni.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Transhumanism debunked: Why drinking the Kurzweil Kool-Aid will only make you dead, not immortal

0

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 25, 2013

In this article, I’m going to reveal how transhumanism is a dangerous, irrational death cult shrouded in the language of geeky cybernetics. In fact, the entire idea that you can “upload your mind to a computer” is complete junk science quackery, as you’ll soon see.

In case you’re new to the term, “transhumanism” means uploading your mind to a machine, discarding your body, then achieving immortality by living forever through machines and robots. Google’s director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, has been pushing this cult for many years, and just recently he promised that by 2045, humanity would achieve what he calls the “singularity,” where our minds can be uploaded to computers. (Click here for the source of this claim.) In less than a century, Kurzweil says, we could all discard our “fragile” human bodies and inhabit advanced robotic systems as our new immortal selves.

Kurzweil’s cult is so bizarre and dangerous that following it can only lead to a lunatrocity of mass death and deception. Kurzweil’s sci-fi cybernetic mind-meld theories are so outlandish that they make Scientology’s galactic narratives sound like Christian Sunday school.

Where to even begin the debunking of it all? Let’s start with its claims…

How would transhumanism even work?

Let’s examine the claims of the transhumanism cult leaders like Kurzweil. They are saying that by 2045, all the following technology will exist:

Technology #1) A way to “scan” your entire brain and record every neuron and holographic patterning that exists in your brain.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Technology #2) A way to build an equally complex computing system that has equivalent computational capabilities as your brain.

Technology #3) A way to COPY your brain scan into the computing system. This is called “uploading” your brain to the machine.

Once these three technologies exist, we are promised, we can all transfer our minds to computer systems and experience “digital immortality!”

But wait a second. Something’s already missing here, do you see it? In this plan there is no mechanism to transfer your consciousness to the machine. So even if all three of these technologies are adequately developed (which is possible, by the way), they still don’t provide a way to merge your mind with a machine.

Nothing more than a computer simulation of your brain

All you’ve really done, even if all three technologies are developed and working by 2045, is made a copy of your brain. This copy may, indeed, be able to run on the machine, but it’s nothing more than a simulation of your brain. It is not you.

Similarly, if someone takes a photo of you and posts a print of the photo on the wall, they can say they’ve made you “immortal” through photography, but your mind is obviously not living inside the photograph.

If you’re a star in a motion picture, you may be “immortalized” by your fans who see you as “living forever” in your famous films, but your consciousness does not live inside the movie. The real “you” is still inhabiting your human body.

No matter how complex the depicted simulation, a “scan” of you that is replicated in another medium (a photo, a movie, or a highly advanced computer) is not you. Thus, the promise of transhumanism is a fraudulent one, and “uploading” is the wrong metaphor. You aren’t uploading your consciousness to a machine; you’re simply creating a non-conscious computer simulation of your brain.

And how do we know that’s true? To answer that question, we have to dig deeper… into the definition of YOU.

What are YOU?

I’ll keep this short by beginning with the ending: You are not merely your body.

“You” are far more than your body. And the way we know this is because the instant you die, your body is still the same it was, but the “you” is no longer present.

“You” are actually a non-physical consciousness interfaced with a physical brain. “You” are a non-physical consciousness sometimes called a soul or spirit. This consciousness experiences the world through your physical sensory organs.

This discussion of consciousness is the part that drives the transhumanists bonkers because to be a member of their cult, you have to believe that there is no such thing as consciousness… or a soul… or free will. You have to believe that consciousness is an artifact of the brain itself — a kind of “ghost in the machine,” if you will, that somehow gives rise to the self-delusion of awareness.

This means you have to believe free will is an illusion and that if you copy the brain and paste it somewhere else, then somehow magically that other thing becomes “you.”

But this makes no sense. There is no mechanism for the transfer of the focal point of consciousness. If you copy and paste your brain (i.e. “upload” your brain) to another machine, but your human body is still alive and breathing, then you haven’t “uploaded” your consciousness anywhere. You have only made a complex facsimile of your neurology.

Transhumanism debunked

Such is the great gap in the theory of transhumanism: There is no mechanism to transfer your consciousness (your soul) from your body to the machine. How do you “transplant” your soul? The transhumanists have no answer for that. They simply pretend your soul doesn’t exist and therefore need not be considered at all.

There is nothing in their plan to transplant your soul. So what’s actually going to happen to all these transhumanism cult members – and here’s the hilarious part in all this – is that people like Ray Kurzweil will just DIE, and if they did manage to copy their brain to a machine, that machine will simply run as a simulation, carrying on the computational appearance of Ray Kurzweil, but doing so mindlessly, with no soul or consciousness.

What do you call fifty transhumanists who have uploaded their brains to machines and then killed off their physical bodies? A busy day at the morgue.

Transhumanism is a death cult, much like Heaven’s Gate

Ultimately, transhumanism is a death cult much like the infamous Heaven’s Gate cult led by Marshal Applewhite. Marshal promised his followers that their minds would merge with space aliens who were hiding in a mothership piggybacked on the Hale-Bopp comet. Just like Ray Kurzweil, Marshal Applewhite promised immortality and said that disconnecting from your body (via suicide, of course) was the path to enlightenment.

Believe it or not, Applewhite said that he was actually an alien spirit who hijacked a human body, taking it over for his own delusional purposes. (He never explains what he did with the previous soul that once occupied the body.) You can watch a video of him explaining this here:

Mirroring all this kookiness, Ray Kurzweil promises that you will live forever if you discard your body and merge your brain with machines that have yet to be invented. At some point, just like with Heaven’s Gate, you will need to “kill” your physical body in order to complete the “upload” to Kurzweil’s cybernetic computers. There’s probably some Kool-Aid involved in all this, no doubt. Kurzweil-Kool-Aid.

Both Applewhite and Kurzweil are obviously insane. Both are also extremely convincing and charismatic. Kurzweil’s shtick is that he’s very convincing to techno-geeks at Google… people who have now put him in charge of Google’s technology. This alone is frightening, realizing that Google has been suckered into the cult of transhumanism – a cult based on such bizarre sci-fi distortions that it makes Scientology look downright conservative by comparison.

Perhaps Google will soon announce its own cult: Googletology. Or Kurzweilianism.

But there’s something even more frightening in all this: The transhumanists may succeed in creating such convincing simulations that they fool huge numbers of other people into thinking the mind-meld with machines actually works! And they may then commit suicide to “merge with the machines” as Kurzweil describes.

Are you getting this yet?

A convincing simulation is still not you

See, if you do manage to scan a human brain and copy it over to a highly-complex computer system – and this very well may be possible by 2045 – it may create a strongly convincing simulation that appears to be alive. It may be able to talk with you, reason with you and even inhabit a humanoid robot that walks around the world much like a human. This illusion of consciousness may be so convincing that large numbers of individuals are convinced to kill themselves as part of some sort of “transference” to the machine. It will be given a friendly-sounding name, of course, such as “You 2.0.” Drink the Kool-Aid, kill off your physical body, and then your brain pattern gets copied to a digital simulation of you while the Kurzweil cultists stand back and say, “Shazam! You’ve been uploaded into a machine!” Ain’t it trendy?

Not really. You’re actually dead, and now the machine is running a “convincing simulation” of your personality. This simulation may manage to convince your friends that you’re still “alive” inside the machine, but your spirit is actually long gone, having departed the earthly realm when your physical body died (from drinking the Kool-Aid).

Realistically, the task of creating computer systems capable of fooling human beings into thinking they’re “real people” is not so astonishing given a timeframe of 30 years or so. But the Turing test never took into account the existence of a non-physical consciousness or soul. Turing’s theories were missing something vital to existence: consciousness!

So if you see a computer system running an on-screen personality that claims to be Ray Kurzweil, and it invites you to drink some Kool-Aid and merge with the machines, just hit delete and go back to playing Farmville.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040925_transhumanism_Ray_Kurzweil_cult.html#ixzz2XDm7cTsK

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 6:26 am

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Ron Paul on The Death of Daniel Somers

0

Ron Paul
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

I am reading the heartbreaking suicide note of Daniel Somers, a US combat veteran who spent several years fighting in Iraq. Mr. Somers was only 30 years old when he took his own life, after being tormented by the horrific memories of what he experienced in Iraq. He wrote:

“The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from.”

Many who shout the loudest that we must “support the troops” urge sending them off to unwinnable and undeclared wars in which there is no legitimate US interest. The US military has been abused by those who see military force as a first resort rather than the last resort and only in self-defense. This abuse has resulted in a generation of American veterans facing a life sentence in the prison of tortured and deeply damaged minds as well as broken bodies.

The numbers sadly tell the story: more military suicides than combat deaths in 2012, some 22 military veterans take their lives every day, nearly 30 percent of veterans treated by the VA have PTSD.

We should be saddened but not shocked when we see the broken men and women return from battles overseas. We should be angry with those who send them to suffer and die in unnecessary wars. We should be angry with those who send them to kill so many people overseas for no purpose whatsoever. We should be afraid of the consequences of such a foolish and dangerous foreign policy. We should demand an end to the abuse of military members and a return to a foreign policy that promotes peace and prosperity instead of war and poverty.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 6:24 am

Tags: , , , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Is the Government Spying On You Through Your Own Computer’s Webcam Or Microphone?

0

Washington’s Blog
June 25, 2013

We documented earlier today that – if you are near your smart phone — the NSA or private parties couldremotely activate your microphone and camera and spy on you.

This post shows that the same is true for our computer.

Initially, the NSA built backdoors into the world’s most popular software program — Microsoft Windows — by 1999.

And a government expert told the Washington Post that the government “quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type” (confirmed). Even that is just “the tip of the iceberg”, according to a congress member briefed on the NSA’s spying program.

The New York Times reported in 2011 that German police were using spyware to turn on the webcam and microphone on peoples’ computers:

A group that calls itself the Chaos Computer Club prompted a public outcry here recently when it discovered that German state investigators were using spying softwarecapable of turning a computer’s webcam and microphone into a sophisticated surveillance device.

The club …announced last Saturday it had analyzed the hard drives of people who had been investigated and discovered that they were infected with a Trojan horse program that gave the police the ability to log keystrokes, capture screenshots and activate cameras and microphones.

Reuters documented last year that the U.S. and Israeli governments can remotely turn on a computer’s microphone:

Evidence suggest that the virus, dubbed Flame, may have been built on behalf of the same nation or nations that commissioned the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran’s nuclear program in 2010 [i.e. the U.S. and Israel], according to Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cyber security software maker that took credit for discovering the infections.

Kaspersky researchers said they have yet to determine whether Flame had a specific mission like Stuxnet, and declined to say who they think built it.

Cyber security experts said the discovery publicly demonstrates what experts privy to classified information have long known: that nations have been using pieces of malicious computer code as weapons to promote their security interests for several years.

***

The virus contains about 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which caused centrifuges to fail at the Iranian enrichment facility it attacked. It has about 100 times as much code as a typical virus designed to steal financial information, said Kaspersky Lab senior researcher Roel Schouwenberg.

Flame can gather data files, remotely change settings on computers, turn on PC microphones to record conversations, take screen shots and log instant messaging chats.

Kaspersky Lab said Flame and Stuxnet appear to infect machines by exploiting the same flaw in the Windows operating system and that both viruses employ a similar way of spreading.

***

“The scary thing for me is: if this is what they were capable of five years ago, I can only think what they are developing now,” Mohan Koo, managing director of British-based Dtex Systems cyber security company.

PC Magazine tech columnist John Dvorak writes:

From what we know the NSA has back door access into Apple, Microsoft [background], and Google. What kind of access we don’t know, but let us assume it is similar to what they did about 7 years ago to AT&T. They had a secret room at Fulsom St. in San Francisco and the AT&T engineers had no control and no access to a room full of NSA equipment that had direct access to everything AT&T could do.

Microsoft is the source of the operating system for Windows and Windows cell phones. Apple controls the OS for Macs, iPhones, and iPads. Google controls the Chrome OS, Chrome Browser, and Android cell phones. The companies regularly push operating system upgrades and security updates to users on a regular basis.

Imagine however that the NSA has access to these updates at the source and has the ability to alter these update in order to install some sort of spyware on your phone, tablet, or computer. The software could turn on your camera or microphone remotely, read all your private data, or erase everything and brick your phone or computer.

Moreover — as documented by Microsoft, Ars Technica, cnet, the Register, Sydney Morning Herald, and many other sources — private parties can turn on your computer’s microphone and camera as well.

Cracked noted in 2010:

All sorts of programs are available to let you remotely commandeer a webcam, and many of them are free. Simple versions will just take photos or videos when they detect movement, but more complex software will send you an e-mail when the computer you’ve installed the program on is in use, so you can immediately login and control the webcam without the hassle of having to stare at an empty room until the person you’re stalking shows up.

The bottom line is that — as with your phone, OnStar type system or other car microphone, Xbox, and other digital recording devices — you shouldn’t say or do anything near your computer that you don’t want shared with the world.

Postscript: You could obviously try to cover your webcam and microphone when you don’t want to use them. 

But if you really want privacy, take a lesson from spy movies: Go swimming with the person you want to speak with … since electronics can’t operate in water.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 6:28 am

Tags: , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Illegal Immigration = More Identity Theft, More Murder, More Rape And More Drug Dealing

0

Michael Snyder
American Dream
June 25, 2013

Do we want to encourage drug dealers, violent gang members and serial rapists to come into this country? If not, why is that exactly what the Obama administration is doing? Thanks to very foolish U.S. government policies, it is incredibly difficult to immigrate to this country legally, but it is incredibly easy to immigrate to this country illegally. So we are keeping out large numbers of good, honest, hard working people at the same time that we have given a giant green light to criminals and lawbreakers. Does that make any sense at all? We need an immigration system that forces everyone to come in through the front door.

Instead, we have made the process of getting in through the front door a complete and total nightmare and yet we have left the back door totally wide open. And if the millions upon millions of lawbreakers that are coming in to this country illegally just took our jobs and drained our welfare system, perhaps it wouldn’t be that bad. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In fact, illegal immigration has greatly contributed to rising violent crime rates all over the nation. Gang membership is exploding, Mexican drug cartels are operating in more of our communities than ever before, and identity theft by illegal immigrants is at epidemic levels. Something desperately needs to be done.

But instead, the Obama administration is trying to ram amnesty for illegal immigrants through Congress as quickly as possible. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cause unemployment to go up and wages to go down for many years. And by rewarding illegal immigration, the federal government will just encourage much more of it. But our politicians don’t really seem concerned with the consequences. In fact, the Senate is going to vote on the immigration bill without even reading it.

Instead of focusing on what we “owe” to those that have broken our laws by entering this country illegally, perhaps we should be talking about some of the horrible crimes that they have been committing while they have been living here.

For example, it recently came out that illegal immigrants have been stealing massive amounts of money from the federal government by filing fraudulent tax returns.

According to one recent news report, the IRS sent “23,994 tax refunds worth a combined $46,378,040″ to a single address in Atlanta, Georgia. All of those fraudulent tax refunds were sent to illegal immigrants.

How in the world did the IRS not catch that?

Amazingly, that was not the only address in Atlanta where this kind of thing was going on…

The IRS sent 11,284 refunds worth a combined $2,164,976 to unauthorized alien workers at a second Atlanta address; 3,608 worth $2,691,448 to a third; and 2,386 worth $1,232,943 to a fourth.

And here are some more examples from around the country where huge numbers of fraudulent tax refunds were being sent to a single address…

Oxnard, California; 2,507 refunds worth $10,395,874.

Raleigh, North Carolina; 2,408 refunds worth $7,284,212.

Phoenix, Arizona; 2,047 refunds worth $5,558,608.

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; 1,972 refunds worth $2,256,302.

San Jose, California; 1,942 refunds worth $5,091,027.

Arvin, California; 1,846 refunds worth $3,298,877.

Overall, it has been estimated that 2 million illegal immigrants file fraudulent tax returns each year and that they are pulling in more than 4 billion dollars in tax refunds each year that they are not entitled to.

So why doesn’t the IRS do something about this?

Well, perhaps it is because they are too busy harassing conservatives. In fact, we have recently learned that the head of the IRS made dozens of trips to the White House during Obama’s first term, and his chief of staff actually madehundreds of visits to the White House during Obama’s first term.

Instead of spending all that time plotting how to hurt their political enemies, perhaps they should have been doing something about the 2 million fraudulent tax returns that illegal immigrants are flooding the system with.

And illegal immigrants are responsible for an increasing percentage of violent crime in this country. In fact, some of those that you see on the television marching for “immigration reform” are actually committing violent crimes during their free time. For example, it turns out that a top “immigration rights activist” down in Texas was really a serial bank robber…

Hispanic leaders in North Texas are stunned that an accused serial bank robber was once one of their own. Luis Delagarza was arrested for the April robbery of a Wells Fargo Bank, but an FBI Task Force also identified him as the ‘Mesh Mask Bandit’ whose hit 19 banks since New Year’s Eve. The ‘Mesh Mask Bandit’ robbed most of his banks in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch-North Dallas area. But they are also just a few blocks away from Delagarza’s home in Farmers Branch, in a community where he made a name for himself pushing for immigration rights. His arrest has left fellow activists, such as Carlos Quintanilla, in shock.

“Luis Delagarza robbed banks, I guess, to deal with his demons, and that’s a sad story,” Quintanilla told CBS 11. Latinos in North Texas may remember Delagarza as an organizer of protests and marches for immigration rights, like one in Irving in 2007. “So he did some amazing things as a community leader, as a businessman, and all of that was just poisoned by him becoming a serial bank robber,” according to Quintanilla.

But robbing a bank is one thing. Attacking innocent women is much worse.

Unfortunately, the national media doesn’t like to talk about all of the rapes that illegal immigrants are committing. The following is from a local news report about a serial rapist that turned out to be an illegal immigrant in the Dallas area…

As investigators continue to delve into the background of the man arrested in recent rapes in the Lake Highlands area, residents began to exhale Wednesday after more than a month of fear.

“I have felt terrorized,” said Erin Morgan, who lives less than a mile from two of the three houses where attacks occurred. “I have lost sleep. I have added on additional layers of security to my home and thought through scenarios that I didn’t want to spend any time thinking through.”

Police say Cesar Benitez confessed to three attacks on women within about a quarter-mile of each other between Feb. 22 and March 19.

And sometimes they don’t just attack adult women.

Just check out what one very sick illegal immigrant recently did over in California…

On Saturday, police in Barstow arrested Jose Luis Aguilar, 36, at a Greyhound bus station after he reportedly sexually assaulted and beat his girlfriend’s baby daughter to death.

A day earlier, the baby’s mother, Jennifer Reedy, 31, awoke to find her daughter lying dead in her crib.

Aguilar was gone, as was Reedy’s car and money from her purse.

Police were able to find Aguilar using the GPS in his cellphone.

So why is the federal government encouraging these people to come into this country?

We need an immigration policy that encourages productive, law abiding people to move here and that keeps violent criminals out.

Unfortunately, our current policy is allowing hordes of lawless young men to come flooding into this country, and as a result gang membership is absolutely exploding.

The FBI says that there are approximately 1.4 million gang members in the United States at this point, and that number has risen by an astounding 40 percent just since 2009.

Is that a good thing for our nation?

And these gangs are starting to gain a stranglehold on communities all over the nation. Just check out what is happening in Chicago…

Of the seven biggest Mexican drug trafficking organizations, the Sinaloa cartel has the biggest foothold in the U.S. Some estimates indicate that the group moves an average of one kilo of cocaine across the Nation’s border every 10 minutes. With the large amount of product coming into the United States, the cartels have set up hubs of operation here to manage distribution, and not just in border States.

In Chicago, where prolific violence makes headlines daily, Sinaloa has set up its American base of operations, tapping in to the heavily Mexican population of the city’s Little Village area.

“Chicago, with 100,000 gang members to put the dope on the street, is a logistical winner for the Sinaloa cartel,” Jack Riley, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s special agent in charge of the Chicago field division, told The Washington Post after a tour through Little Village. “We have to operate now as if we’re on the Mexican border.”

But this kind of thing is not just happening in major cities such as Chicago. It is spreading very, very rapidly.

According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.

Are you starting to understand why so many people are upset about our illegal immigration crisis?

But many of our politicians in Washington don’t care about these things. In particular, Democrats seem to be obsessed with the idea that legalizing illegal immigrants will gain them hordes of loyal new voters.

And some of these politicians are warning that if we don’t legalize the illegal immigrants that we could see massive street protests. The following is what Senator Chuck Schumer told CNN on Sunday…

I could see a million people on the mall in Washington – on the platform would not be the usual suspects but the leaders of business, the leaders of the Evangelical movement, the leaders of high tech as well as most Americans pressuring the House to act. I think they’re going to have to act whether they have a majority of Republicans [in the House] or not.

Unfortunately, no matter what happens to this bill the illegal immigration crisis is not going away. The Obama administration has already shown that it will continue to do everything that it can to promote even more illegal immigration.

But this is not what the American people want. In fact, one recent survey showed that even 68 percent of Hispanics in Texas support more border security.

We need to secure our border, and we need to make sure that all immigrants come in through the front door. Instead, the federal government seems to want to do everything that it can to make life easier for those that have broken our laws and that are taking advantage of us. One of my favorite columnists, Devvy Kidd, recently put it this way…

Do we reward bank robbers who steal what doesn’t belong to them? Do we reward thieves who rob a gas station? Illegal aliens are no different. They lie and cheat their way into this country. They steal people’s identities ruining their credit and lives. They steal the fruits of our labor to pay for their illegal babies, education and the massive cost of clogging our judicial system with their crimes. And now we’re going to reward them?

So what do you think about the immigration crisis in this country?

Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 6:27 am

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Henry Kissinger: Balkanized Syria Best Possible Outcome

2

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

Former secretary of state eyes breaking up of current-day Syria into “more or less autonomous regions”

In a very recent presentation at the Ford School, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger commented on the current Syrian situation, expressing his preference for a broken-up and balkanized Syria to emerge out of the current Assad-controlled unity (from 19 minutes and 30 seconds onward):

“There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they can’t oppress each other. That’s the outcome I would prefer to see. But that’s not the popular view.”

After being introduced by the chair as “the honorable Dr. Kissinger”, the 90-year old power-broker began an interesting history lesson. Kissinger detailed how the current state of Syria was designed by European powers, as is the case with the neighboring state of Iraq:

“First of all, Syria is not a historic state. It was created in its present shape in 1920, and it was given that shape in order to facilitate the control of the country by France, which happened to be after UN mandate. The neighboring country Iraq was also given an odd shape, that was to facilitate control by England. And the shape of both of the countries was designed to make it hard for either of them to dominate the region.”

As a result of Syria’s a-historical origins, Kissinger explained, the current Syria was conceived as a more or less artificial national unity consisting of different tribes and ethnic groups. As the recent “revolution” is further spiraling into chaos, Kissinger comments on the nature of the current situation:

“In the American press it’s described as a conflict between democracy and a dictator- and the dictator is killing his own people, and we’ve got to punish him. But that’s not what’s going on. It may have been started by a few democrats. But on the whole it’s an ethnic and sectarian conflict.”

“It is now a civil war between sectarian groups”, Kissinger went on to state. “And I have to say we have misunderstood it from the beginning. If you read our media they say: we’ve got to get rid of Assad. And if we get rid of Assad, then we form a coalition government. Inconceivable. I’m all in favour of getting rid of Assad, but the dispute between us and the Russians on that issue, was that the Russians say: you start with getting rid of not just Assad, that’s not the issue, but you break up the state administration and you’ll wind up like in Iraq- that there is nothing to hold it together. And then you’ll have an even worse civil war. This is how that mess has taken the present form.”

Kissinger has commented previously on the desirability of breaking up dissenting nations into smaller fragments, after which the emerging chaos may facilitate their introduction into a global order. This, in essence, is the rule of divide and conquer. These recent comments by Kissinger are in step with previous statements in which he promulgates the idea that social upheaval and mass civil unrest are to be used as a means of merging nations (including, by the way, the United States) into an “international system”.

“The United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically”, Kissinger told The Harvard Crimson in 2012. When asked what the most important problems are facing American society today, Kissinger then answered:

“Internationally, the problem is that there are upheavals going on in every part of the world, but these upheavals don’t follow the same basic causes, and so the United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically.”

The concept of seizing crises and upheavals, the causes of which may differ from nation to nation, in order to bring about an international order- is neatly following the elite’s golden rule, namely that a global order is best brought about by chaos. Furthermore, Kissinger provides us with a glimpse of the underlying intent he and his fellow-bilderbergers have in mind, stating in so many words that civil unrest- be it economically, politically or socially motivated- must be seized upon in order to merge nations into the desired “international system” .

In a December 2008 Prisonplanet.com article it was reported that Kissinger, in an interview with Bilderberg-darling Charlie Rose, “cited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order.”, Steve Watson wrote.

“I think that when the new administration assesses the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it”, Kissinger told Rose some years ago.

This talk of crises and upheavals as just another country-specific means to a centralized global end could specifically point to an underlying transnational plan- a sinister concept that follows the course of classic Hegelian dialectic, namely the problem (whether real or feigned) provokes the reaction which in turn allows the elite to provide the solution on a silver platter. It occurred to me that Kissinger’s words are ominously reminiscent of those written down by University of Chicago’s Alexander Wendt, who in 2003 in his treatise titled Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchy stated:

“Nationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- “more anarchy”- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (…) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.”

These words may shed some light on the words uttered by Kissinger and his fellow supranationalists, in essence revealing they are very much aware of the fact that the mere proposition of a world state will not make it so- may even backfire on them when proposed too directly- and that the same goal may be better achieved via the fragmentation and balcanization of nation-states, whether in the East or West, in order to then merge those fragments into a global construct, usually described as the new world order.

Jurriaan Maessen is the writer and editor at Explosive Reports

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Iran MPs slam Shia killing in Egypt

0

People look on as a mob attacks Shia Muslims in Egyptâ„¢s village of Abu Mussalam, June 23, 2013.

A group of 190 Iranian lawmakers have strongly condemned the recent beating to death of four Shia Muslims by radical Salafists in Egypt.

In the statement, which was read out during the open session of Majlis on Tuesday, the lawmakers described the Å“martyrdom of four innocent human beings in Egypt for following the school of the Household of Islamâ„¢s Prophet (PBUH)” as a Å“shameful stain” on the track records of the Salafist clerics Å“who are trying to protect the interests of the US and the Zionist regime with support from radical Takfiris.”

Takfiris are extremist Muslims that follow a deviated interpretation of Islam often promoted by the Saudi-based Wahhabi sect.

Å“Scholars in the Muslim world should not remain indifferent towards this violent act,” said the statement, reiterating that there is little doubt that depicting a violent picture of Islam is something desired by the US and other enemies of Islam.

The statement also called on the Egyptian government to launch a probe into the horrible crime in a bid to identify the perpetrators of the act and bring them to justice.

On June 23, several hundred Takfiri extremist killed the four Shias in the village of Abu Mussalam in Giza Province. The extremists then dragged the bodies of the dead on the streets.

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil has denounced the deadly incident, saying that he is closely following an investigation into the killing. He has also promised that the culprits would be punished.

The Shia community in Egypt is being targeted by Salafists with the support of a number of regional countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

MFB/KA/SS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Twin blasts kill 11 in north Iraq

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]At least 11 people have been killed and 55 others injured after two bomb blasts rocked the Iraqi city of Tuz Khormato, south of Kirkuk.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Dr. Doom: “A Lot Of Problems Are Coming… Revolution… Social Strife…”

0

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
June 25, 2013

Famed economist and investment guru Dr. Marc Faber of the Gloom, Boom and Doom Report weighs in on global happenings.

He predicted the collapse of global financial markets in 2008, and pegged their subsequent rise to the day back in 2009.

If there’s someone out there with his finger on the pulse of the financial crisis and where we’re headed next, it’s Doctor Doom.

If you have ten minutes today, and are looking for some realistic insights into financial markets, the monetary machinations behind the scene, and the non-traditional investments you should be focused on going forward, take the time to listen to the good Doctor.

Excerpts by Zero Hedge via The Daily Crux:

Just in case a new high would be achieved in the next two months or so, itwould not be confirmed by the majority of shares. In other words, very few stocks would lead the advance. In terms of bonds, they are also incredibly oversold. Where the sentiment about equities is actually still rather positive and all of these super bulls still predicting the market to continue to rise into 2014, 2015.

In bonds and gold, sentiment is by historical standards incredibly negative. As a contrarian, I would rather buy bonds and gold than equities.

…

I think the market is on the high side, corporate profits are inflated and we could easily, from the recent high, May 22 at 1687 on the S&P, drop by 20% to 30%, easily.”

…

He [Ben Bernanke] said if the economy does not meet the expectations of the fed in one years’ time, they will consider additional measures. In other words, if the economy has not fully recovered by mid-2014, more QE will be forthcoming. As I said already three years ago, we are going to go with the Fed to QE99.”

…

We have wage deflation in the world in real terms, for sure. In other words,real wages are going down and the cost of living everywhere are going up. That is why you have social unrest in North Africa, in the Middle East, in Turkey, in Brazil, and it will spread because the average person on the street hasn’t participated in the huge asset inflation that has been going on in high-end properties, Mayfair properties, Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue, the Hamptons and in equities and until recently in bonds and commodities.

…

The only thing that I know is that I want to own some physical gold because I don’t want all of my assets in financial assets.

…

I don’t know, I am not a prophet, I don’t know exactly where the price will be on a month by month basis, but I want to have some wealth, some of my assets in physical gold.

I can see a lot of problems coming into the world including expropriation through taxation or through regulation or even through revolution and social strife.

Like Ron Paul, Marc Faber understands that the price of gold can potentially go to infinity. So, too, can the price of other physical assets like food, energy and industrial metals.

As Faber notes, he can’t predict prices, but he does understand that stock market valuations are disconnected from the reality of the situation.

The Dow Jones may go to 30,000 points, but what good does that do for you if prices across all goods and services inflate to unimaginable levels?

This is what mainstream analysts and traders don’t talk about. They are focused on making money in stock markets, not how those valuations will affect the average person on the ground. As Doc Faber notes, wages are going down across the board. All the while prices are rising.

Sure, millions of dollars are being made on Wall Street, as has always been the case. But for the rest of us, well, we’re struggling to survive and most of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

If the stock market rises to 30,000 as some have predicted, chances are you will in no way benefit from that. In fact, it’ll hurt much more than it helps, because that rise can only be made possible through price inflation.

Whatever the case with stocks — up or down — it should be clear that wealth is being destroyed across the board.

This means things can only get worse for the majority of the population.

And, as we’ve seen throughout the world over the last five years, that kind of environment tends to lead to significant upheaval.

Expect the same here in due course.

Back in August of 2010 Marc Faber suggested that things around the world would get so bad, that you’d better own some of the following collapse-proof investments:

Buy a farm you can tend to yourself way out in the boondocks. And protect it with high voltage fences, barbed wire, booby traps, military weapons and Dobermans.

Invest in assets that will have real value – Assets you can use and trade, such asprecious metals, food, supplies, barterable labor skills, and of course, high voltage fences to protect you from the hordes when they come looking for what they failed to prepare.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 6:20 am

Tags: , , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Congress Insisted They Be Kept in the Dark on NSA Spying

0

Lawmakers refused to provide oversight of controversial program nine years ago

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 25, 2013

Congress insisted it be kept in the dark on the NSA surveillance programs recently revealed by Edward Snowden, according to Dick Cheney, who approached lawmakers with an invitation for them to provide more oversight back in 2004 but was told, “absolutely not”.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Speaking at a Washington think tank on U.S.-Korean affairs, the former Vice-President bragged about his involvement in setting up NSA programs shortly after 9/11 that snooped on email and phone records.

Cheney also revealed that when he approached Congressional leaders about whether they wished to provide oversight for the program three years after it began, they were “unanimous” that it should continue.

“I said, ‘Do you think we ought to come back to the Congress in order to get more formal authorization?’ and they said, ‘Absolutely not.’ Everybody, Republican and Democrat, said, ‘Don’t come back up here, it will leak’,” Cheney said.

Cheney’s claim that Snowden’s revelations have caused significant damage to US national security has been rejected by other top security experts, who assert that terrorists already assume their communications are under surveillance and are therefore unaffected by the information released by the whistleblower.

“The argument that this sweeping search must be kept secret from the terrorists is laughable. Terrorists already assume this sort of thing is being done. Only law-abiding American citizens were blissfully ignorant of what their government was doing,” said top counter-terrorism czar under Presidents Clinton and Bush — Richard Clarke.

The former head of the NSA’s global digital data gathering program, William Binney, also highlighted how mass NSA surveillance did nothing to prevent terrorism.

In addition, the claim that the program prevented terror attacks on targets such as Wall Street and the New York subway has also been debunked.

Cheney’s revelation that Congress was completely uninterested in learning about the PRISM program and other NSA snooping initiatives nine years before they caused a global scandal underscores how lawmakers are continually willing to give the federal government a blank check to abuse Constitutional rights.

Given the fact that Congress is not only failing to perform its duty of acting as a check and balance in providing oversight of federal government activity, but actually demanding its role be the opposite — a green light for unrestrained spying — is it any wonder that the Congressional job approval has been on a continual slide since 9/11?

A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that just one percent of Americans think Congress is doing an excellent job and 5 percent think it’s doing a good job, figures that are well deserved given that lawmakers, besides a notable few, have completely abrogated their responsibility to keep the executive branch under scrutiny.

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Big Brother Bank Tracks Customers Phones

3

Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

Millions of Barclays bank account holders will have their mobile devices tracked from October this year.  The banking giant also plans to sell customer’s purchasing information to third party companies or government departments, it has been revealed.

Barclays will make this level of big brother surveillance mandatory for all customers and have refused to let account holders ‘opt-out’ of the invasive scheme. If you don’t like it, your only option is to close your account.

The bank has written to customers informing them that ‘information about the transactions on your account’ will be used to compile reports about spending trends across Britain. They also claim that the Orwellian-style tracking of mobile devices will help them to combat fraud.

Speaking to ComputerworldUK, a Barclays spokesperson defended the bank:

“We only use information in a numerical, anonymised and aggregated way as is standard practice at many companies.

“It is not about providing information for sales or marketing use and does not include any personal data.

“This is all in accordance with industry guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the law.”

This is perhaps a result of massive EU lobbying by Barclays and other companies, according to Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group:

“Users need control of their data. Barclays should be asking people to opt in, rather than opt out, of data collection. Barclays’ privacy changes are just one more reason why new strong data protection needs to be implemented in Europe.

“As Barclays has been part of the massive lobby effort tabling 4,000 amendments to water the EU regulation down, MEPs should trust Barclays’ motives to change the law even less now they can see what the bank thinks meaningful consent and control really means for its customers.”

Iran inaugurates oil refinery projects

0

This file photo shows installations at Lavan Oil Refinery, southern Iran.

Iranâ„¢s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has inaugurated over a dozen fuel production projects at Lavan Oil Refinery in the Persian Gulf Island of Lavan.

With the presidential inauguration of 14 new fuel production lines in the Lavan facility on Tuesday, the capacity of Iranâ„¢s production of Euro-4 grade gasoline at the oil refinery will reach 2,800,000 barrels per day.

Additionally, the daily oil refinery capacity at the Lavan field will increase from 30,000 barrels to 60,000 with the launch of the new development projects.

Å“This commodity is so significant that ill-wishers of the Iranian nation once imposed a massive eight-year war and in other instances imposed sanctions on their gasoline sales [to Iran] to halt the [progress of] nation,” President Ahmadinejad stated, referring to major expansion of domestic gasoline production.

The president further emphasized that the Iranian oil industry used to be 100-percent dependent on foreign assistance and equipment imports, but the Å“oil industry has experienced major developments since the victory of the Islamic Revolution and particularly in recent years.”

According to executives at Lavan Refinery, with the launch of the new treatment facility, the production of liquefied gas will surpass 200 tons, jet fuel production will climb to one million liters, and the production of sulfur granule would soar to 30 tons per day.

Moreover, the new production lines will add 300,000 liters of diesel fuel to its daily production.

Iran attained self-sufficiency in fuel production after its international suppliers stopped selling gasoline to Tehran under US pressure.

With over 137 billion barrels of proven reserves, Iran has the worldâ„¢s fourth largest oil reserves. Its gas reserves are also estimated at more than 29 trillion cubic meters.

MFB/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Turkish officer freed pending trial

0

Anti-government protestors try to stop riot police before the clash between Riot police and protestors on Taksim square in Istanbul on June 22, 2013.

A Turkish police officer who allegedly shot to death a protester during anti-government demonstrations in the capital Ankara has been released pending trial.

Ankaraâ„¢s Criminal Court rejected lawyersâ„¢ demand on Monday to detain the officer named Ahmet S., ruling that the shooting was Å“within the limits of self-defense,” Turkeyâ„¢s Hurriyet Daily News said.

The 26-year-old protester, Ethem Sarisuluk, was shot in the head during a demonstration near Kizilay square on June 1. He died on June 14 after being declared brain dead.

Mustafa Sarisuluk, Ethemâ„¢s elder brother, slammed the court decision, describing it as “unlawful” and Å“injustice.”

“In this country, murderers are always freed. This is the last example. My brother was shot to death before the eyes of the world,” he said. Adding, “But we will continue our struggle and carry the matter to international platforms in the face of this unlawfulness and injustice.”

In the same day, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan praised the Å“legendary heroism” of police forces in quelling anti-government protests that have rocked the country for more than three weeks.

“Our police successfully passed a very important, very challenging democracy test,” Erdogan noted, adding, “Our police have responded to attacks, provocations without violating the law … and have written a saga of heroism.”

The unrest in Turkey began on May 31 after police broke up a sit-in at Istanbul’s Taksim Square to protest against a proposal to demolish Gezi Park.

The protesters said Gezi Park, which is a traditional gathering point for rallies and demonstrations as well as a popular tourist destination, is one of Istanbul’s last green public spaces.

The violence turned into nationwide demonstrations against the ruling Justice and Development Party, with police using water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators.

Five people, including a police officer, have died in the clashes and more than 5,000 protesters and 600 police officers have been injured.

SAB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

The Good Germans in Government

0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_good_germans_in_government_20130625/

Posted on Jun 25, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

UK Labour risks infighting over Syria

0

Senior Labour MPs have warned British Labour leader Ed Miliband against a decision to support intervention in Syria saying it will trigger “internal warfare” in the party.

The warning comes as Prime Minister David Cameron took a rare move to invite the opposition leader to the meeting of the National Security Council on Syria, raising speculations that Cameron is trying to talk the opposition into backing anti-Syria military action.

Cameronâ„¢s government has pledged to put any decision on sending arms to Syrian militants to the parliamentary vote.

Labour votes could be crucial for the PM to get a parliamentary approval as Cameron is already facing opposition from Conservative backbenchers as well as from his coalition partners in the Liberal Democrat camp.

Labour has sat on the fence over delivery arms to Syrian militants over concerns that the weapons end up in the hands of al-Qaeda rather than Syrian foreign-backed terrorists.

Miliband has also advised Cameron to “build the greatest possible consensus” across political parties on the matter.

This comes as a senior Labour MP has warned of Å“internal warfare” within Labour over arming Syrian militants saying it is staunchly opposed by nine in ten Labour MPs.

AMR/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Tunisia’s army chief of staff resigns

0

Tunisiaâ„¢s chief of staff of the armed forces has unexpectedly announced his resignation amid growing political criticism of the Tunisian army.

General Rachid Ammar announced his resignation on the state television late Monday, saying he had decided to quit due to his age.

Å“I decided to leave the service under the age limit… I asked the president [Moncef Marzouki] on Saturday (June 22) and he agreed to my departure,” the 65-year old Tunisian General stated.

Tunisian pro-democracy activists praised the key role of General Ammar in ousting former dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, after he ordered his troops not to open fire on anti-government protesters.

However, Ammar has been censured in recent months over what critics say is the armyâ„¢s failure to shatter a band of al-Qaeda-linked militants near the Algerian border.

Tunisians also accused him of extraditing Baghadi al-Mahmoudi, who was the Libyan prime minister under the rule of dictator Muammar Gaddafi, to Libya.

General Ammarâ„¢s retirement comes amid escalating tensions between moderate activists and Salafi extremists in Tunisia.

It is also feared that the presence of Tunisian militants, who are fighting the government in Syria, may intensify insecurity in Tunisia, as the militants are recruited by al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.

The Tunisia revolution started when 26-year-old street vendor Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire on December 17, 2010 in protest against the confiscation of his wares by a municipal official.

Bouaziziâ„¢s death sparked mass protests that lead to the ouster of the Western-backed dictator, Ben Ali, in early 2011.

MM/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Three Afghan guards killed in Kabul

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Three guards have been killed in an incident where Afghan security forces repelled an attack by militants against the presidential palace in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

6 police killed in attack in Afghanistan

0

Afghanistan security forces are seen in Kabul on June 25, 2013, after an attack by Taliban militants.

At least six Afghan policemen have lost their lives in a roadside bomb attack in southern province of Uruzgan, Press TV reports.

The incident took place overnight in Deh Rawud District of the province.

The police men were coming back from a mission when their vehicle ran over the bomb, said district governor Aminullah Khaleqi on Tuesday.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the bombing.

In southern Kandahar Province, another roadside bomb killed near a dozen people including eight women and two children on Tuesday.

The roadside bomb attacks came as a series of explosions and gunfire rocked the central part of Afghan capital Kabul.

Heavy gun firing and explosions occurred in early hours of Tuesday near the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Defense in an area of the city where there are many official buildings and diplomatic missions including the US embassy.

Thousands of people have been killed in attacks carried out by the Taliban militant group and the US-led foreign forces in Afghanistan over the past years.

Violence continues to plague the country despite the presence of thousands of foreign forces, more than a decade after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

AZA/DB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

20 nabbed by Turkish police

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Turkish police raid the houses of anti-government protesters in the capital Ankara, arresting at least 20 people.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Obama’s Informants

0

President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address more than 50 years ago is famous for its warning about the military-industrial complex, but he also warned that permanent war and a “permanent arms industry” would do great harm to American rights and liberties. Over the past decade, we have experienced a Bush administration that deputized the Pentagon to spy on law-abiding citizens, with military officers attending antiwar rallies and staff sergeants engaged in the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping. And now we have an Obama administration that has encouraged the creation of its own informant network among millions of federal employees and contractors to watch for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers.

The use of informant networks dates at least as far back as the Roman Empire. Delatores (informants) were recruited from all classes of society, including slaves, lawyers, and philosophers. Prior to the death of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union used pervasive informant networks in the Communist Party’s efforts to eradicate so-called “crimes” against state property.

Massive citizen informant networks were used throughout the Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe to destroy perceived opposition to dictatorial rule, particularly in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary. The best example of an informant network in the communist world, of course, was in East Germany where the Ministry of State Security (or Stasi) controlled one informant for every 60 citizens. These informants were told that they were their country’s first line of defense against threats to national security.

The informant network of the Obama administration is similarly insidious, with federal employees required to keep close tabs on co-workers, and managers facing penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report their suspicions. According to Marisa Taylor and Jonathan Landay, reporting in McClatchyDC.com on June 20, there are government documents that equate leaks with espionage. A Defense Department paper issued in 2012 exhorts its employees to “hammer this fact home…leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States.”

The Obama administration’s initiative is called the Insider Threat Program and it is not restricted to the national security bureaucracy. The Department of Education has informed its employees that co-workers going through “certain life experiences,” such as divorce or “frustrations with co-workers,” could turn a trusted employee into “an insider threat.” According to Taylor and Landay, the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have produced online tutorials titled “Treason 101” to teach employees to recognize the psychological profile of spies. They say that the Peace Corps is implementing such a program.

The Bush administration initiated similar programs to conduct surveillance against American citizens, not merely federal workers. Vice President Dick Cheney encouraged the Pentagon to create the Counter Intelligence Field Activity (CIFA) in 2003 to conduct surveillance against American citizens near U.S. military facilities, particularly against those Americans who attended antiwar meetings. In the summer of 2004, CIFA monitored a small protest in Houston, Texas against Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Cheney. At the same time, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz created a fact-gathering operation called TALON (Threat and Local Observation Notice) to collect “raw information” about “suspicious incidents.” The unauthorized spying of CIFA and the computer collection on innocent people and organizations for TALON were illegal; both organizations were eventually shut down.

In addition to instituting the Insider Threat Program, the Obama administration has expanded the domestic reach of the intelligence community, perpetuated the culture of secrecy, and instituted a pervasive lack of transparency. Although President Obama has stated that American citizens are not the targets of the NSA’s sweeping electronic collection system, it is possible that Britain’s G.C.H.Q., London’s counterpart to NSA, is collecting intelligence on Americans and sharing the information with Washington. Under a program called Tempora, the British communications intelligence agency has an unequalled capacity to tap high-capacity fiber cables. Britain, moreover, has a weak oversight regime, and G.C.H.Q. has a unique and storied collaboration with NSA and CIA.

Our congressional intelligence committees have failed in their primary task—providing oversight over this pervasive and secret surveillance system. Oversight and accountability must be part of government, particularly the secret agencies within government, and congressional oversight is needed to correct the collective harm that has been done to the United States and its reputation at home and abroad because of the zealous actions of the past decade.

Vice President Cheney defended the Iraq War in 2003 on the basis of the infamous “one percent doctrine,” which justified the invasion on the grounds that if there was a one percent chance that something is a threat, it requires that the United States responds as if the threat was 100 percent certain. This logic has been applied in many ways to the problem of terrorism with the Department of Homeland Security and the 16 agencies of the intelligence community assuming that “Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.” As a result, the War on Terror has become a permanent fixture in our national security architecture, and an economic cornucopia for private contractors.

Last month, President Obama told a high-ranking military audience at the National Defense University that our torture and detention policies “ran counter to the rule of law;” that our use of drones will “define the type of nation that we leave to our children;” that even legal military tactics are not necessarily “wise or moral in every instance;” and that we must repeal the mandate of the Authorization to Use Military Force to fight terrorism. Referring to Guantanamo, he argued that holding “people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country” is not “who we are.” And that “leak investigations [that] may chill investigative journalism that holds government accountable” is not “who we are.”

If so, then massive surveillance programs at home and abroad as well as massive informant networks within the entire federal bureaucracy should also not be who we are. It is long past time for President Obama to address these issues with operational policies and not mere rhetoric. The audacity of hope requires that he do so.

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. He is the author of the recently published National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism (City Lights Publishers)and the forthcoming “The Path to Dissent: The Story of a CIA Whistleblower” (City Lights Publisher). Goodman is a former CIA analyst and a professor of international relations at the National War College.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

EC accuses France of ‘scapegoating’ EU

0

Arnaud Montebourg, French Industrial Renewal Minister (L) and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (R)

The European Commission president has accused France of pointing finger at the EU and using it as Ëœa scapegoatâ„¢ for its domestic problems.

Jose Manuel Barroso gave the remarks on Monday in response to French Industrial Renewal Minister Arnaud Montebourgâ„¢s comments a day earlier.

“It would be good if some politicians understood that they will not get very far by attacking Europe and trying to turn it into a scapegoat for their problems,” said Barroso.

He also commented on socialist Montebourgâ„¢s allegation that EU is fuelling the far right in Europe.

“Some left-wing nationalists have exactly the same views as the far right,” said Barosso and added, “Some French politicians would be better to give up any ambiguity towards Europe and defend it more instead against nationalism, populism and chauvinism.”

On Monday, Montebourg also accused Europe for being Å“paralyzed.”

“It does not respond to any aspirations of the people on the industrial front, on the economic front, on the budget front, and in the end that plays into the hands of all the … anti-Europe parties in the EU,” said Montebourg.

The ongoing spat began when France insisted on protecting European film and television sector from Hollywood dominance during talks to determine the terms of negotiating an EU-US free trade deal.

After the talks were held Barosso accused Paris of being Å“culturally extremely reactionary.”

The negotiations on EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began on June 17 during the recent G8 meeting. If a deal is made it would create the worldâ„¢s largest Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

The European Union says an FTA would add some 119 billion euros every year to the EU economy, and 95 billion euros to the US economy.

CAH/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

One Death Among 93,000

0

Damascus.

The second of two mortar bombs killed Ghassan al-Khouly as he stood guard last Thursday at an ancient gate into the Christian quarter of the Old City of Damascus. It exploded right beside him killing him instantly, dark bloodstains and a small heap of stones today marking where he died.

Barakat al-Shamas who was standing guard with him, said: “I heard the sound of a shell coming in and I threw myself on the ground. When I got up I saw there was so much blood that I knew Ghassan must be dead.” Barakat was wounded with a piece of shrapnel penetrating his right hand as well as his neck and left leg.

Ghassan al-Khouly, an unemployed labourer who specialised in tiling floors, was one of the latest of an estimated 93,000 Syrians to have died since the start of the civil war in March 2011. Other than the fact he was a Greek Orthodox Christian, his experiences were not very different from those of many other Syrians caught up in the war.

His widow, Nour al-Sabek, says that until two years ago he was fully employed but when the rebels came all that was finished. They hold outer suburbs of Damascus where most of the new construction was, and as a Christian he did not dare go there. Everybody who is not a Sunni Muslim Arab assumes they are in danger of being killed, kidnapped or robbed in rebel-held areas. Forced to stay in the centre of the city he tried to eke out a living by doing odd jobs fixing electrical wiring, setting up satellite dishes and flooring. His family became poorer.

I started to learn about the life and death of Ghassan al-Khouly after I heard four rifle shots fired at regular intervals while I was walking to the great Umayyad Mosque in the Old City just before Friday prayers. It did not sound like a gunfight, and it turned out the shots had been fired by an honour guard bringing a body home for the funeral later in the afternoon. We learned the name of the dead man but were told that it was not a good moment to see his widow and her two sons. But if we wanted to know what had happened we should talk to Barakat al-Shamas, who had been wounded in the same incident but was just back from hospital.

I knew that Ghassan and Barakat had both been in the National Defence Force (NDF), a 60,000-strong militia organisation that has been publicised abroad as being a ferocious pro-government paramilitary organisation, freshly trained to turn the tide of war in Syria. The NDF may contain such units but in the Old City of Damascus its members are very much like the Home Guard in Britain in 1940. Everybody between the ages of 20 and 65 is meant to join, and many are quite elderly.

We met Barakat, not looking at all intimidated by his experiences, surrounded by friends sitting in the guest room of his house. He extended his right hand which was covered with a blood-stained bandage as if he had forgotten for a moment that he cannot shake hands with anybody.

I was surprised by the age of the two men who had been doing sentry duty: Barakat said he is 65 and Ghassan, the dead man, was 10 years younger. A photograph of Ghassan was on his death notice announcing funeral arrangements which had been pasted to walls in the Old City. The picture had the de-personalised look of head-and-shoulders ID photos, but showed a narrow-faced serious-looking man with a black moustache.

The rebels regularly fire mortars into districts of Damascus they do not control. This is difficult to stop because the rebels jump out of a car, take a mortar and a shell from the boot, fire it and are gone in a few minutes. This is their reply to government artillery which fires constantly at rebel-held districts. Ghassan and Barakat could not do much about the mortar attacks, but they were meant to stop rebels infiltrating through the Bab al-Sharqi, the Eastern Gate, into the Old City. “Old men are better at this because they know everybody who lives here and can pick out strangers,” said a local observer.

“Our shift was meant to end at 2pm,” recalled Barakat. He and Ghassan had moved to the north side of the gate to stay in the shade. It was then that the mortar bombs came down, one on either side of the gate. They did not leave much of a crater in the hard ground, but, aside from hitting the two guards, the shrapnel peppered an empty school bus and smashed its windscreen.

Nobody could be certain where the mortar was fired from but they thought it might have been Eastern Ghouta, a rebel stronghold to the east of Damascus under pressure from government forces. The mortar fire is the rebels’ way of showing they are still in business.

The outside world focuses on the Syrian refugees that have fled the country, but millions have also fled to the uncertain safety of Damascus where they are crammed into houses. Christians, once 6 per cent of Syria’s 23 million population, feel particularly vulnerable. Wael al-Shamas, the son of Barakat who works in a bank and speaks fluent English, described how the world he lived in was increasingly confined to a few Christian districts. He said: “I don’t have the courage to go outside these areas.” He said a problem for the Christians is that they do not have many places to flee to where they are safe. They are also often unemployed.

There are other less obvious difficulties. Wael said his father suffered from diabetes, and so far the government provided medicine free but he was worried what would happen if that stopped because buying it privately was very expensive. He added: “There is also a transport problem simply getting the medication from one side of the city to the other.”

All over Damascus day-to-day living is getting more difficult and expensive. There is still cheap government-subsidised bread, but there are long queues outside bakeries. Everything which is not subsidised is costing more and even people with jobs are paid in rapidly devaluing Syrian pounds. Last weekend, the pound’s value fell 30 per cent against the dollar before making a partial recovery. The streets of the Old City which would have been packed with pilgrims and tourists around the great monuments two years ago are empty. The restaurant of the Four Seasons Hotel still serves four different wines by the glass but had only a single customer.

I went to see Ghassan’s widow, Nour al-Sabek, in the family house where she was living with her two sons, Shadi and Sherbel. A friend had said he was worried that she would have nothing to live on, her close relatives and friends had also lost their jobs. As people came to pay their respects, the family sat near a large picture of the dead man. I asked Nour why her husband had joined the National Defence Force since it paid almost no money.

She replied that he loved his country and was frightened for his church, his children and his friends. Others said there were about 600 Christians in the neighbourhood who had joined the NDF and eight had been killed by mortars, snipers and bombs. Nour described how her husband had tried to scrape together a living by doing occasional jobs in the last two years. There was discussion among family members about the probability of Nour getting a lump sum from the government and a pension because her husband had been martyred. They thought this likely, going by past experience, but not absolutely certain.

While we spoke there was the booming of outgoing artillery in the background but nobody paid any attention to it since this has been typical background noise in Damascus for the past year. There was not much talk of general politics until Ebtisam, a thin, short, nervous-looking woman who was the sister of the dead man, asked me: “Why does your country send weapons to Syria? Without foreign support we would finish the rebels.” She said that in the past she could walk home in the middle of the night, but now I must ask my brother to pick me up.”

Everybody who had gathered to mourn Ghassan al-Khouly said how good relations between Muslims and Christians had been in Syria before the revolt. This has not always been true historically, since between 5,000 and 10,000 Christians were massacred in Damascus over eight days in 1860. But somebody remarked that there had been more Muslims than Christians in Ghasan’s funeral procession. His sons had remained silent while their older relatives talked about their dead father.

But just before I left, Shadi, aged 13 and looking grief-stricken, suddenly said in a loud voice: “The people and the world loved Ghassan al-Khouly.”

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Ahmadinejad to meet Putin in Moscow

0

The Kremlin has announced that Iranâ„¢s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in an upcoming summit of the leaders of Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) in Moscow.

Kremlinâ„¢s top foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters on Monday that President Putin is to meet with the Iranian president next month during the summit of GECF leaders, which is due to be held in Moscow on July 1-2, IRNA reported Tuesday.

Ushakov further announced that the Russian president also plans to meet with presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia as well as the prime minister of Libya on the sidelines of the GECF summit.

The Russian official noted that since the newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rohani has not yet begun his official duties, Putin intends to meet with President Ahmadinejad instead.

The Kremlin official also pointed out that the first day of the GECF summit would be devoted to leadersâ„¢ meeting and bilateral discussions will be held among experts of member states on the second day of the event.

The Gas Exporting Countries Forum was founded in 2001 in the Iranian capital, Tehran, and its member states control over 70 percent of the worldâ„¢s natural gas reserves and more than 80 percent of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) production.

The legal establishment of the forum took place on December 2008 in Moscow, where energy ministers of member countries adopted the forumâ„¢s charter and signed an intergovernmental agreement.

The GECF members are Algeria, Bolivia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. The Netherlands, Norway, Kazakhstan and Iraq have the status of observers.

MFB/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Wrecking the Welfare State in Secret

0

A golden staircase greets guests to De Warande, an exclusive club in central Brussels. Built in the late eighteenth century, this mansion was acquired in 1907 by François Empain, a banker who helped his royal chum Leopold II loot the Congo. With its historical association to imperial conquest, it is surely an apt venue for furtive talks on how to reorder Europe.

On 8 March 2010, Herman Van Rompuy, the EU’s “president”, dined here with 10 business leaders. The select grouping mulled over how they could exploit the ongoing economic crisis to the benefit of the ultra-rich. Among those invited were board members of Volvo, Nokia, Nestlé and Philips. Fittingly, Umicore — a firm set up to exploit Congo’s mines (which it still does) — was represented, too.

I have obtained Van Rompuy’s speaking notes for the occasion. He began by likening his role to that of a chairman of a holding company, who doesn’t have shares in the individual firms belonging to it. After that apparent witticism, he claimed that all EU governments agree on a “familiar” list of priorities for raising productivity: “innovation, higher quality of human capital through education, pension reform”.

To achieve these objectives, Van Rompuy briefly presented a vision for greater economic coordination. It would consist of reducing the number of targets set for EU governments and turning “peer pressure into genuine pressure”.

The dinner was hosted by the European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT), which brings together about 50 powerful entrepreneurs. It was one of several  such confabs between Van Rompuy and the ERT in his current role. Though he is supposed to be a public servant — not the chairman of a holding company — Van Rompuy and his team have not published any details of these meetings.

Fancying himself as a philosopher and a poet, Van Rompuy was not crude enough to say that he wanted the pursuit of profit to trump all other goals. But that is the effect of his argument — particularly on pension “reform”.

Van Rompuy conceded in his comments that politicians who propose raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 will have a tough job being re-elected. So he and others in the Brussels bureaucracy are discussing how this can be done without voters obstructing their plans.

And this isn’t purely a matter of addressing what policy wonks call the demographic “time-bomb” (surely an ageist phrase) caused by rising life expectancy.  Pensions are one of many advances won through workers’ relentless struggle that the ERT — one of the most influential lobby groups in Europe — wants to reverse.  The ERT’s push for pension reform didn’t begin with the current crisis: it first described the pension entitlements that are integral to the entire concept of the welfare state as an “economic threat” in 2000.

One month before the 2010 soirée in De Warande, Van Rompuy received a letter from the ERT stating that “urgent transformation is necessary”. It was signed by Leif Johansson, then of Volvo, and Gerard Kleisterlee, then of Philips.

The kind of “transformation” desired has been elaborated on in a series of ERT briefing papers. One key recommendation was that all legislation viewed as incompatible with the bosses’ agenda should be “reviewed” — a coded way of saying “gutted”. The impact of new laws on business would have to be “screened”. An impact assessment procedure “must send back” laws that hamper profit maximisation, the ERT argued.

The ERT’s repeated calls for greater investment in education should be treated sceptically. In 2011, Johansson — now representing Ericsson — sent a detailed list of demands to Van Rompuy. Johansson insisted that the EU “mainstream competitiveness” into all its policies. “Competiveness” is a synonym for corporate dominance.

Special emphasis was placed on opening up services to the private sector. Reading between the lines, it was clear that Johansson wished such services to include health, education, water and public transport. All of these are essential to social justice; Johansson is pushing for them to be handed over to corporations.

In a reply to Johansson, one of Van Rompuy’s advisers stated the president “agrees to a great extent with your recommendations”. Bolstered by that response, the ERT went even further last year by urging an “immediate halt” to new regulation “which has no proven immediate effect on economic growth”.

The call is not being made in a vacuum. Under the watchful eye of Edmund Stoiber, a bigwig in Bavarian politics, an EU group of “experts” is already preparing a bonfire of laws that the captains of industry don’t like. Everything from commitments on climate change to the rights of people with disabilities is being attacked by these “experts”.

The “competiveness” that the ERT espouses habitually should not be confused with competition. In its discussions with Van Rompuy and other “important” figures, the ERT has been urging that the EU become more relaxed about controlling mergers between large companies.  It is clear what the result of this hands-off approach would be: power would be concentrated in fewer corporate hands than is now the case. This is a recipe for oligopoly, not for dynamism.

What is going on here?  Democracy is being eroded by a dozen or so individuals who meet in private clubs. They are all rich, white and male. They have nothing in common with 99% of the world’s population. They are our enemies: so let’s start fighting them.

David Cronin’s book Corporate Europe: How Big Business Sets Policies on Food, Climate and War will be published in August. It can be pre-ordered from Pluto Press (www.plutobooks.com).

A version of this article was originally published by New Europe (www.neurope.eu).

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Iran, China share views on IT

0

Iranâ„¢s minister of communications and information technology plans to discuss areas of collaborations with China, including those on developing a Å“clean Internet.” (File photo)

Iranâ„¢s minister of communications and information technology says the Islamic Republic and China hold similar views in the field of IT, which can be used as a platform for bilateral cooperation.

Mohammad Hassan Nami made the remark after a Monday meeting with his Chinese counterpart Miao Wei in Beijing.

The Iranian minister is in the Chinese capital on an official visit to discuss areas of enhanced cooperation between Tehran and Beijing.

The Iranian minister reiterated that both Iran and China share concerns regarding a number of issues, including the Internet.

Underlining Iranâ„¢s belief that a Å“clean internet” should be established across the world to protect the institution of the family as the key nucleus of society, Nami said the Chinese have the same concern as well, Å“and the joint perspective [of Iran and China] can serve as a good basis for more collaboration in this field.”

Nami also emphasized that the Islamic Republic intends to further develop its ties with China in the fields of industry and information technology, adding that the Chinese side has expressed eagerness on the prospect as well.

The Chinese industry and communication minister, for his part, pointed to the considerable expansion of Iran-China ties in recent years in a variety of fields, including information technology, and described Iran as a nation with a long history in science.

Wei noted that the visit by the Iranian delegation serves as a good opportunity to further engage in discussions on issues of mutual interest.

The Iranian communications and information technology minister and his accompanying delegation arrived in Beijing on June 23 for a four-day visit at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart.

The delegation left Beijing late Monday for two provinces in southern China to participate in the executive meetings of several major Chinese communications companies.

MFB/HSN/HJL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Lebanon continues operations in Sidon

0

Lebanese army forces monitor a street in Abra, on the outskirts of the southern Lebanese city of Sidon on June 23, 2013.

The Lebanese army continues operations against the supporters of Takfiri Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir in the southern city of Sidon.

The army have been carrying out mop-up operations in Sidon following fierce clashes with the armed followers of Takfiri cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Assir.

Reports coming out of Lebanon suggest the army is now in full control of Sidon.

Lebanese troops have seized control of the headquarters of the radical cleric following two days of clashes with his loyalists.

The government has declared a day of national mourning to honor over a dozen soldiers killed in clashes with the militants.

The army found “dozens of bodies of armed men, wearing military fatigues with their weapons lying nearby,” according to a military source in the city.

The Lebanese troops also seized weapons, such as rocket launchers and machineguns inside the headquarters as well as military uniforms.

Government troops are now searching for Sheikh Assir, who’s a staunch supporter of Takfiri insurgents fighting the Syrian government. Takfiris dismiss most of Islamic sects as infidels.

More than 50 people were killed and scores of others injured in the deadly clashes in Sidon, Lebanon’s third-largest city some 40 kilometers (25 miles) south of Beirut.

The army said clashes erupted on Sunday after supporters of the Takfiri cleric opened fire without provocation on an army checkpoint in Abra, a neighborhood of the Sidon coastal city.

Lebanon army has pledged to fight until it Ëœfinishes withâ„¢ the radical sheikh.

Assir was unknown just two years ago, but he gained prominence as the spillover into Lebanon from the conflict in neighboring Syria has escalated. The cleric is believed to have hundreds of armed supporters in Sidon involved in the fighting.

MSH/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Egypt enemies fuel sectarian discord’

0

People look on as a mob attacked Shia Muslims in Egyptâ„¢s village of Abu Mussalam, June 23, 2013.

Iranâ„¢s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Araqchi says enemies who suffered losses through the Egyptian revolution seek to create religious and ethnic conflict in Egypt.

Araqchi said during his weekly press conference on Tuesday that Iran condemns any attempt to sow discord among Muslim nations as foreign plots to fuel tensions.

Stressing the importance of national unity in Egypt for Iran, Araqchi said, Å“At first the enemies were trying to create conflict between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, and now they are trying to sow discord among different Islamic sects.”

The Iranian official added that Takfiri groups also seek to create sectarian discord in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan.

On June 23, several hundred Takfiris surrounded and attacked the house of a prominent Shia cleric in the village of Abu Mussalam near Cairo in Giza Province, murdering Sheikh Hassan Shehata and three of his followers. Their bodies were then dragged into the streets by the extremist assailants.

Takfiri extremists claim that only their interpretation of Islam is correct and believe that all other Muslims are infidels.

Recently, the Shia community in Egypt is being targeted by Salafis with the support of a number of countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Recent Developments in Egypt

In response to a question about recent protests in Egypt against President Mohamed Morsi, Araqchi said, Å“We consider recent developments in Egypt a domestic issue just like developments in Turkey.”

Describing Egypt as an important country in the Muslim world, Araqchi stated, Å“Peace and stability in Egypt is of high importance, and we hope that Egyptian people, who brought about their revolution, can control future developments in this country.”

On June 30, President Morsi marks one year in power as Egyptâ„¢s first freely elected president.

Egypt has witnessed anti-government protests since Morsi took office in June 2012 in landmark elections, which were held following the ouster of former dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Egyptian opposition groups accuse the government of being dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadâ„¢s visit to Russia

When asked about President Ahmadinejadâ„¢s schedule for the coming weeks, Araqchi said the Iranian president will visit Russia to take part in the meeting of Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), which is to be held on July 1-2.

The GECF is an intergovernmental organization of the worldâ„¢s leading natural gas producers comprising Algeria, Bolivia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela.

Iran is making efforts to up its gas production by increasing foreign and domestic investments, especially in South Pars Gas Field.

Araqchi added that Ahmadinejad will meet with his Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the conference to discuss international and regional issues including the ongoing crisis in Syria.

MYA/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Iran media ban politically-motivated’

0

Press TV and other Iranian satellite channels have come under a wave of attacks by European governments and satellite companies since January 2012. (File photo)

Russian commentators believe that recent bans by European countries on Iranian satellite channels are politically-motivated and aim to mount more pressure on the Islamic Republic, Press TV reports.

Press TV and other Iranian satellite channels have come under a wave of attacks by European governments and satellite companies since January 2012. They were taken off air in several Western countries including the UK, France, Germany and Spain.

European satellite companies claim they are Å“complying with” anti-Iran sanctions. However, an EU spokesman, Michael Mann, has told Press TV that the anti-Iran sanctions do not apply to the countryâ„¢s media.

Rajab Safarov, with the Center for Modern Iranian Research in Moscow, told Press TV on Monday, Å“I believe the decision to take down Iranian channels is politically-motivated, it is aimed at limiting access to information, [and the] objective and informative broadcast by these channels.”

In the latest attack on Iranian channels, communications satellite services provider Intelsat said on June 19 that it would no longer provide services to Iranian channels, including the English-language news channel, Press TV.

Yuri Krupnov, a Russian political analyst, also told Press TV, Å“The move has nothing to do with democratic values. It is an attempt to isolate Iran. To block Iran from broadcasting is similar to silencing it. This policy is artificial and gives Iran and Russia platform to find alternative communication strategies.”

The Intelsat decision has been made under the pretext that the company should be Å“abiding by” the sanctions against the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).

The Israeli lobby in the United States has also publicly supported the European attempts to ban Press TV.

MYA/HSN/HJL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Kerry to travel to Saudi Arabia

0

US Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to travel to Saudi Arabia to coordinate further support for foreign-backed militants fighting in Syria.

Kerry will arrive in the western city of Jeddah later on Tuesday and is scheduled to spend several hours with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal and intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan over providing more military aid to militants in Syria.

“If the United States does nothing, and the rest of the world does nothing, then Syria is going to wind up in an even worse condition than it is today,” Kerry said in an interview ahead of his departure to Jeddah.

Kerry will also visit Kuwait later on Tuesday and will head to Jordan.

On Saturday, Kerry said in a speech in a meeting of the so-called ”Friends of Syria” in Doha, Qatar, that Syria militants need further support Å“to be able to address the imbalance on the ground.”

“The United States and other countries here — in their various ways, each choosing its own approach — will increase the scope and scale of assistance to the political and military opposition,” he said.

The foreign-backed Takfiri militants in Syria said on Sunday that the armed groups have been supplied with heavy weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles by Å“brotherly nations.”

The Los Angeles Times reported on the same day that CIA operatives have been secretly providing the militants with training on the use of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons for months.

SAB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Probe called into new UK police scandal

0

British Prime Minister David Cameron has called for an immediate investigation into reports that police have spied on the family of a murdered black teenager to smear their reputation.

A former undercover officer Pete Francis told The Guardian on Sunday that his superiors ordered him to “hunt for disinformation” on the family and friends of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death at a London bus stop on April 22, 1993, to undermine his familyâ„¢s campaign for a fair investigation into the crime.

The tireless campaigning, especially by Lawrenceâ„¢s mother, to persuade officials to lead a thorough public investigation into the teenagerâ„¢s murder, finally bore fruit in 2012 when his white murderers were given life sentences.

“I had to get any information on what was happening in the Stephen Lawrence campaign. They wanted the campaign to stop. It was felt it was going to turn into an elephant,” Francis told the paper.

“Throughout my deployment there was almost constant pressure on me personally to find out anything I could that would discredit these campaigns,” he added.

Cameron said in reaction that the “absolutely dreadful allegations” on police trying to undermine a family they were supposed to help should be investigated.

The Macpherson inquiry into the notorious murder found in 1999 that the Metropolitan Police was “institutionally racist” in its response to the killing.

It said the Lawrence family were deliberately abused by the police who withheld information and denied the murder.

Ex-Scotland Yard chief Paul Condon has denied giving any authorization or condoning any smear campaign against the Lawrence family.

AMR/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Turkey police nab 20 protesters

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Turkish police have raided the houses of anti-government protesters in the capital Ankara, arresting at least 20 people.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iranian Elections and American Enemies

0

To the surprise of the Western media, Hassan Rouhani, considered a reformer by the West, and not one of the slate of apparently identical Supreme Leader selected conservatives, has won the Iranian election. So now that Ahmadinejad is gone and a moderate is in office, what will that change for the West? What will Rouhani do?

Rouhani is a protégé of former moderate President Rafsanjani and served as the secretary-general of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator under reformist President Khatami. During their combined four terms as President of Iran, Rafsanjani and Khatami both advocated for improving relations with America by reaching out to the U.S. in a posture of cooperation. Both received no cooperation in return: a failure that led to a feeling of despair in Iran and an increasing skepticism on the part of Supreme Leader Khamenei that America is actually interested in improved relations or cooperation with Iran.

Hashemi Rafsanjani was first elected President of Iran in 1989. He wanted to recast Iran’s position in the world and break out of her international isolation. So, Rafsanjani set out to improve relations with the United States by demonstrating Iran’s friendship while demanding nothing in return except respect, equal treatment and no assumptions of American hegemony. President George H.W. Bush had promised Iran that if she used her leverage in Lebanon to help with the American hostages being held in that country, it would “be long remembered” and that “Goodwill begets goodwill”. Rafsanjani successfully intervened and won the release of the American hostages. Bush did nothing in return: Iran’s goodwill brought no reciprocal American goodwill. Instead, America informed Rafsanjani that he should expect no American reciprocation for the freeing of the American hostages. Iran had cooperated with America; America had betrayed Iran.

Rafsanjani tried again. And again his cooperation–this time helping Clinton to deliver arms to Bosnia–was returned with betrayal.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iran stayed neutral. But Iran made it clear that neutrality should be interpreted as siding with America. Mahmoud Baezi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister at the time, said that Iran spurned Iraq’s pleas for help on the grounds of that neutrality, meaning the neutrality was, in fact, against Iraq. Reinforcing his claim that Iranian neutrality was really Iran siding with America are the facts that Iran allowed the United States to use Iranian airspace and refused to return the jets that Iraq had flown into Iran. This latest effort changed nothing. When the U.S. convened the Israeli-Palestinian Madrid Conference, she invited nearly every affected nation while snubbing Iran, closing the door on her face, and once more isolating her internationally, putting an end to Rafsanjani’s efforts at Iranian-American cooperation.

After Rafsanjani completed his maximum two terms, elections brought the reformist President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami to power in 1997. Like his predecessor, Khatami wanted to improve Iran’s relations with the outside world and America. He began by condemning terrorism of any sort and by expressing a willingness to accept a two state solution if that’s what the Palestinians wanted, implicitly recognizing the State of Israel.

Then came 9/11. And, again, Iran sided with America, cooperating with the U.S. against Al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. The Northern Alliance, who provided many of the anti-Taliban fighters once the Americans and her allies invaded Afghanistan, was, at least in part, put together by Iran, who placed it in the hands of the Americans. Iran also offered her air bases to the U.S. and permitted the U.S to carry out search and rescue missions for downed U.S. planes. The Iranians also gave the U.S. intelligence on Taliban and Al-Qa’ida targets. Iran was also crucial in setting up Afghanistan’s post-Taliban government and offered her help in rebuilding Afghanistan’s army. President George W. Bush offered Iran nothing in return. Instead, in return for Iran’s goodwill and substantial assistance, in January 2002, President Bush included Iran in his Axis of Evil speech. Khatami was stunned. And the hardliners who opposed his efforts used this speech of Bush’s to argue that you can never offer the United States open ended cooperation without knowing what you will get in return and what the end goal is.

Rouhani enters office after serving in the administrations that learned these painful lessons. History’s lesson on cooperation for President Rouhani is that you can’t trust the Americans.

The lesson that Iran and her new President have learned from history is the same lesson that their ally, the embattled President of Syria, has learned from Syria’s history. For the past several years prior to the West’s clear desire to remove Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria, Syria, like Rafsanjani and Khatami, has been anxious to do what the West wants her to do in order to move closer to both America and Israel.

Efforts to move closer to America and Israel included coming very close to a peace agreement with Israel in 2000, according to Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. When Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father, he sought the resumption of those peace talks, but the Israelis and the Americans shut the door.

Later, in 2005, the Israelis and Syrians actually did begin drafting a peace treaty. Two years later, after the Israeli-Lebanese war, Israel asked America about resuming those talks only for America to say no. Syria continued to solicit cooperation with the United States. But, according to Zunes, as late as 2007, the Bush administration continued to spurn those solicitations by continuing to bar Israel from resuming peace negotiations with Syria. Syria, Zunes says, eager for international legitimacy, was willing to give security guarantees and full diplomatic relations to Israel in exchange for a peace agreement. But, as was the case for Iran, the Americans returned Syria’s advances with silence. Bush, Zunes says, was more interested in regime change in Syria than in dealing with the regime in Syria.

According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, prior to the war in Gaza, with the help of Turkey, Syria and Israel “had been engaged for almost a year in negotiations”. He says that many matters had been resolved and the two enemies had reached “agreements in principle on the normalization of diplomatic relations”. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the ruler of Qatar, told Hersh that “Syria is eager to engage with the West”. Hersh quotes then chair of the Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry, who met with Assad on several occasions, as saying that Assad “wants to engage with the West . . . . Assad is willing to do the things he needs to do in order to change his relationship with the United States.” Unlike Bush before him, Obama was willing to pursue this proposal. According to Hersh, informal exchanges between Washington and Syria did take place under the Obama administration. But the talks, as is now apparent, failed. When I asked Stephen Zunes why those talks failed, he did not blame the Syrians but “[t]he new hard-right Israeli government that consolidated power in 2009”. Nothing could happen, Zunes said, “without the return of the Golan, which Netanyahu refuses to do”.

So, like Iran, Syria was knocking on America’s door and courting her with promises of cooperation, but America refused to answer the door.

Other enemies of America have learned the same historical lesson: attempts at cooperation with America are returned with silence at best and betrayal at worst. North Korea, too, has had her attempts at cooperation returned with American perfidy. North Korea’s attempts at cooperation began in 1994, during the Clinton administration, when Jimmy Carter’s intervention opened the door to the Framework Agreement. In accordance with the agreement, North Korea had stopped testing long range missiles and was not making any more bombs. But then, in violation of the agreement, Bush threatened North Korea by naming it a member of the Axis of Evil and by listing it in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review as a country the US should be prepared to drop a nuclear bomb on. The States also only came through on 15% of the fuel she promised in the agreement. The US then cancelled the agreement, and North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2005, North Korea again agreed to completely eliminate its nuclear weapons program and allow inspectors in exchange for American assurance that she would stop threatening attacks, begin planning for a light water reactor–which can’t be used for weapons–and begin exploring normalizing relations with North Korea. But, according to Noam Chomsky, Bush promptly took up the threats again, cancelled the light water reactor and froze North Korean funds in foreign banks, isolating her instead of normalizing relations with her. With America returning cooperation with betrayal once more, the North Koreans returned to their weapons program and tested a weapon.

And if Hassan Rouhani needs any more history lessons on what cooperation with the U.S. gets you, he can just ask Muammar Qaddafi what he got in return for cooperating with the Americans on extraordinary renditions at least eight times, cooperating with the Americans extensively on intelligence, cooperating with the Americans and British on the elimination of her chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs (part of which were fabricated in order to cooperate further with the British in the entrapment of Pakistani nuclear arms merchant A.Q. Khan). Oh ya. No he can’t!

So, while America waits for Iran and her other enemies to bring in reformist regimes who are willing to cooperate with America, Iran and much of the world are awaiting a reformist American President who is truly willing to cooperate with them.

Ted Snider writes for Rabble.ca and Znet.

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Egypt al-Wasat Party slams Shia killing

0

People look on as a mob attacked Shia Muslims in Egyptâ„¢s village of Abu Mussalam, June 23, 2013.

Chairman of Egyptâ„¢s al-Wasat Party Abou Elela Mady has strongly condemned the killing of prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Hassan Shehata and three of his followers by Salafi extremists near Cairo.

Mady deplored the deadly incident as Å“unacceptable,” calling on Egyptian judicial officials to bring the culprits to justice.

He also stated that the Shia cleric and his followers were all Egyptian citizens and that it was not acceptable that they had fallen victim to such violence only because they were Shia Muslims.

On June 23, several hundred Takfiri extremist attacked and surrounded the house of the Shia cleric in the village of Abu Mussalam in Giza Province. The extremists killed the four Shias and dragged the bodies on the streets.

Dozens of other followers who were at the house for the commemoration of a Shia holy day were injured.

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil has also denounced the deadly incident, saying that he is closely following an investigation into the killing. He has also promised that the culprits would be punished.

The Shia community in Egypt is being targeted by Salafis, with the support of a number of countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

MM/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Bomb kills near a dozen in Afghanistan’

0

Afghan security force keep watch near the entrance gate of the Presidential palace in Kabul on June 25, 2013.

Police say a roadside bomb has killed near a dozen people including eight women and two children in Afghanistanâ„¢s southern Kandahar Province.

Provincial police spokesman Ghorzang Afridi said that the attack was carried out early on Tuesday when a civilian car carrying people travelling to celebrate a wedding engagement hit the bomb in Khakrez District.

“They were members of the same family and were going to mark their son’s engagement at the bride’s home,” he added.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, but Taliban militant group has been blamed for such attacks in the past.

The roadside bomb attack comes on the same day that a series of explosions and gunfire rocked the central part of Afghan capital Kabul.

Heavy gun firing and explosions occurred in early hours of Tuesday near the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Defense in an area of the city where there are many official buildings and diplomatic missions including the US embassy.

Thousands of people have been killed in attacks carried out by the Taliban militant group and the US-led foreign forces in Afghanistan over the past years.

Violence continues to plague the country despite the presence of thousands of foreign forces, more than a decade after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

DB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Can Wikileaks Save Snowden?

0

On Sunday, June 23 Edward Snowden left Hong Kong on a commercial flight to Moscow.  He was thought to be planning to leave Russia for Cuba on Monday, June 24, however Snowden never appeared for his flight. Snowden’s current whereabouts are unknown, but Julian Assange stated that Snowden is “safe and healthy”.

The U.S. government’s pouting over Hong Kong and Russia’s disobedience of Washington’s orders vividly demonstrates the U.S. government’s attitude that the U.S. owns the world. Somehow U.S. officials can’t understand why these nations wouldn’t respect “the rule of law”. This despite the fact that it’s Obama who should be tried at the International Criminal Court for the conduct of his “War on Terror”.

The U.S. government had increased their pressure on Hong Kong to arrest Snowden after formally charging him with espionage on June 14.  Yet in the end the Hong Kong authorities said the request the U.S. made for Snowden’s capture didn’t fully comply with legal requirements under the law and legally Hong Kong could not stop him from boarding the flight.

Snowden reportedly asked the Hong Kong government if he would be able to leave the city freely, if he wanted. An individual identifying himself as a representative of the Hong Kong government told Snowden that he was free to leave and he should leave.

Allowing Snowden to leave was the best choice for Hong Kong. Snowden’s extradition battle would have put Hong Kong authorities in a difficult position: Snowden’s disclosures that the NSA hacked Chinese computers, Chinese cell companies (gaining access to millions of text messages), Chinese Universities, and Chinese network“backbones” helped earn him the sympathy of some in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Popular support would have forced Hong Kong officials not to overtly bow to U.S. pressure for Snowden’s extradition. Yet the entanglement of the U.S. and Chinese economies would make it impossible for the Chinese government to risk seriously damaging their relations with the U.S. For this reason Hong Kong wouldn’t have been able to ignore the request to extradite Snowden indefinitely.

Had Snowden stayed in Hong Kong he would have faced a lengthy court battle and eventually a likely extradition back to the U.S. Remember that Snowden originally stated“My intention is to ask the court and people of Hong Kong to decide my fate.” So why did Snowden suddenly lose what he previously called his “faith in Hong Kong’s rule of law”?  He started talking with people from Wikileaks and realized he wouldn’t be safe in Hong Kong.

My colleague and I have been writing for weeks about how Snowden should have “not chosen Hong Kong”, that instead ‘Ecuador would have been a much better choice’, and that Snowden “should’ve worked with Wikileaks” rather than Glenn Greenwald.  It seems Snowden has finally figured out whom he can trust.

A perfect example of the difference between Wikileaks and other media outlets is a story which came out on June 21 about how an Icelandic businessman who formerly ran DataCell, which handles donations for Wikileaks, had chartered a private jet for Snowden at a cost of $240,000.

Well one question one might ask is why didn’t The Guardian offer to pay for the jet? How much money did the paper make off this story? How much did Glenn Greenwald personally benefit from this story of a lifetime falling into his lap despite his best efforts to fumble it?  His June 9th article, which names Snowden as the NSA leaker, was shared almost a quarter of a million times on Facebook.  One would think both he andThe Guardian owe Snowden something for this colossal story.

Sure, Greenwald goes on the T.V. news shows and acts like a vicious guard dog for Snowden, but he doesn’t actually do anything to protect him.  He didn’t persuade him not to go to Hong Kong, despite being a lawyer and it being relatively easy to look into Hong Kong’s extradition record to the U.S. He didn’t make sure his source was in a safe place before Snowden was named.

To people who say Snowden is a “big boy” and can make his own decisions, would you really allow someone to make a decision that has the very real possibility to unnecessarily destroy their lives without objecting?  I certainly don’t think it’s an ethical thing to do.  One must remember the isolation of someone who leaks government information.  Snowden literally had no one to count on and he reached out to Greenwald, who just treated him as a footstool to allow him to grab greater name recognition.

To those who state Greenwald could risk jail time for helping Snowden I simply point to Assange and the long line of activists that came before him. It should be obvious that doing the right thing sometimes means risking jail time.

The Guardian is as liberal as mainstream papers come, yet they hung Snowden out to dry. No one would put their ass on the line for Snowden who himself was willing to sacrifice everything for the people of the world for no personal gain. The traditional press should be dead to leakers.  Leaking has become too dangerous and traditional papers are too firmly embedded in the power structure.

In direct contrast to The Guardian, Baltazar Garzon, the legal director of Wikileaks, stated that “The WikiLeaks legal team and I are interested in preserving Mr. Snowden’s rights and protecting him as a person.” Kristinn Hrafnsson, Wikileaks spokesperson, stated, “[Snowden’s] revelations have been explosive and extremely important, and we’ve offered our full help and assistance.”

The people behind Wikileaks actually care about their sources and are concerned about them as human beings because they care about making the world a better place.  The organization is firmly committed to making the centers of power more transparent to ordinary people.

The Wikileaks team was composed of trustworthy and knowledgeable people who Snowden could count on for good advice. They have powerful legal resources and are able to work with governments hostile to the U.S. in an attempt to provide the possibility of safety for leakers. Wikileaks investigated possible places for Snowden to gain asylum, they helped Snowden apply for asylum in Ecuador, they are attempting to negotiate his safe passage through countries outside the U.S. sphere, and Sarah Harrison (Wikileaks legal advisor) met Snowden in Hong Kong and accompanied him to Moscow.

Another example of Greenwald’s failure is his admission “that we withheld the majority of the things [Snowden] gave us”.  What did Snowden risk his life for if The Guardian won’t even publish the leaks? It’s true that Snowden wanted some secrets withheld to prevent harming U.S. “national interests”, yet there is reason to believe Snowden wants more of the leak to get out. Julian Assange announced Wikileaks may release more of Snowden’s revelations.

There is a powerful lesson here that Wikileaks, a non-profit organization composed of almost all volunteers and run entirely on donations can do things that a mainstream paper with enormous resources can’t. (The company that owns The Guardian is worth£254 million.)  This is because Wikileaks is based on the values of justice and solidarity instead of simply making money for its owners.

One should have no doubt about what a serious threat Wikileaks poses for those who wish to control the world by preventing information from reaching the public. Simply look at the ruthless attacks against the organization.

There have been threats by high level members of the Obama administration,assassination threats directed at Wikileaks staffers, and very serious cyber attacks, which may have been undertaken by a large organization–possibly even the U.S. government.  There has also been defection of key service providers, a serious economic strangulation with Visa, Matercard, and Paypal all disallowing their services for donations to Wikileaks, and of course the prosecution of Assange and Snowden, as well as the torture of Bradley Manning.

If Snowden makes it to a safe country and is granted asylum it will be despite Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian. Wikileaks may save Snowden’s life. But Snowden’s asylum would also be a huge victory for international solidarity with Hong Kong, Russia, Wikileaks, and Latin American countries all possibly playing a role.  All these players would have taken some risk by standing up to American power.

And even more inspiring is the role that ordinary people would have played by donating to Wikileaks, by rallying for Snowden in Hong Kong, and through the powerful social movements of Latin America, which have driven numerous governments of the region leftward. These movements created an inspiring place where it’s possible for people like Snowden to escape the violence of the U.S. government.  Snowden’s asylum will also be one more bit of evidence that the U.S. doesn’t own the world, and that forces opposing U.S. power may be gathering strength.

Paul Gottinger is a writer from Madison, WI where he edits the left issues journal whiterosereader.org. He can be reached at paul.gottinger@gmail.com

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Why the U.S. Is Becoming Ground Zero For the Dirtiest Energy [With Slideshow]

0

June 15, 2013
 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Editor’s Note: Tara Lohan is traveling across North America documenting communities impacted by energy development for a new AlterNet project, Hitting Home. Follow her trip on Facebook or on Twitter.

A few years ago most Americans had never heard of tar sands. Now, thanks to mounting opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and a recent spill in Arkansas, vocabularies have grown, and so has a movement. Environmentalists have ignited a firestorm of protests over the pipeline, prompting rallies in DC and states across the country, resulting in high-profile arrests and media blitzes.

(click the image below to see the slideshow)

Keystone XL, which would allow more dirty oil from the environmentally ravished boreal forests of northern Alberta to flow through the U.S., has become a rallying call of sorts, a tangible way for environmentalists and other concerned residents to fight the elusive specter of climate change.

With all the focus on blocking the Obama administration’s approval of Keystone XL, the general public has mostly missed a project plugging along at 8,000 feet atop the Tavaputs Plateau in Eastern Utah (part of the ever-larger Colorado Plateau), and not far from beloved Arches and Canyonlands national parks. This fall a Canadian company named U.S Oil Sands (formerly Earth Energy Resources) leapt another legal hurdle on its multi-year journey to becoming the first large-scale tar sands mine in the U.S. Local and regional activists have been fighting the development for years, but it has somehow missed the national conversation, which is odd because the potential for tar sands and oil shale development in Utah could be massive.

“We don’t want the unconventional fuel industry to gain a foothold on the Colorado Plateau,” said Taylor McKinnon of Grand Canyon Trust. “The U.S. unconventional fuel carbon bomb is bigger than Alberta’s.”

What’s at Stake

Tar sands (also known as oil sands) are rocks that have bitumen (a form of oil) mixed in with sand, clay and water. Tar sands are usually extracted by strip mining an area to remove the rock, then crushing it and using heat, water and chemicals to separate the oil, which is then diluted with other hydrocarbons in order to make it liquid enough to be transported to a refinery. (Sometimes in situ recovery is possible, where steam and chemicals are pumped into underground wells to enable the bitumen to come to the surface.) The process is energy- and water-intensive and the waste massive and dangerous, at least as it has been done in northern Alberta (see photos here).

Utah is the primary location of tar sands in the U.S., but oil shale abounds in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. Oil shale is similar to tar sands, but when heated the rock releases kerogen, an oil-like substance. The presence of oil shale in the West is no secret–Ute Indians referred to it as “ rocks that burn.” What is new, however, is the economics of bringing these unconventional fuels to market and the green light from Washington.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

How the U.S. Military Presence in Africa Could Spawn a New Era of Radical Terrorism

0

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Adam Ziaja

June 18, 2013
 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

The Gulf of Guinea. He said it without a hint of irony or embarrassment. This was one of U.S. Africa Command’s big success stories. The Gulf… of Guinea.  

Never mind that most Americans couldn’t find it on a map and haven’t heard of the nations on its shores like Gabon, Benin, and Togo. Never mind that just five days before I talked with AFRICOM’s chief spokesman, the Economist had asked if the Gulf of Guinea was on the verge of becoming “ another Somalia,” because piracy there had jumped 41% from 2011 to 2012 and was on track to be even worse in 2013.

The Gulf of Guinea was one of the primary areas in Africa where “stability,” the command spokesman assured me, had “improved significantly,” and the U.S. military had played a major role in bringing it about. But what did that say about so many other areas of the continent that, since AFRICOM was set up, had been wracked by coups, insurgencies, violence, and volatility?

A careful examination of the security situation in Africa suggests that it is in the process of becoming Ground Zero for a veritable terror diaspora set in motion in the wake of 9/11 that has only accelerated in the Obama years. Recent history indicates that as U.S. “stability” operations in Africa have increased, militancy has spread, insurgent groups have proliferated, allies have faltered or committed abuses, terrorism has increased, the number of failed states has risen, and the continent has become more unsettled.

The signal event in this tsunami of blowback was the U.S. participation in a war to fell Libyan autocrat Muammar Qaddafi that helped send neighboring Mali, a U.S.-supported bulwark against regional terrorism, into a downward spiral, prompting the intervention of the French military with U.S. backing. The situation could still worsen as the U.S. armed forces grow ever more involved. They are already expanding air operations across the continent, engaging in spy missions for the French military, and utilizing other previously undisclosed sites in Africa.

The Terror Diaspora

In 2000, a report prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute examined the “African security environment.” While it touched on “internal separatist or rebel movements” in “weak states,” as well as non-state actors like militias and “warlord armies,” it made no mention of Islamic extremism or major transnational terrorist threats. In fact, prior to 2001, the United States did not recognize any terrorist organizations in sub-Saharan Africa.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, a senior Pentagon official claimed that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan might drive “terrorists” out of that country and into African nations. “Terrorists associated with al Qaeda and indigenous terrorist groups have been and continue to be a presence in this region,” he said. “These terrorists will, of course, threaten U.S. personnel and facilities.”

When pressed about actual transnational dangers, the official pointed to Somali militants but eventually admitted that even the most extreme Islamists there “really have not engaged in acts of terrorism outside Somalia.” Similarly, when questioned about connections between Osama bin Laden’s core al-Qaeda group and African extremists, he offered only the most tenuous links, like bin Laden’s “salute” to Somali militants who killed U.S. troops during the infamous 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident.

Despite this, the U.S. dispatched personnel to Africa as part of Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) in 2002. The next year, CJTF-HOA took up residence at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, where it resides to this day on the only officially avowed U.S. base in Africa.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Chris Hedges Defends Snowden's Heroism in the Face of a Growing Smear Campaign

0

In this excellent debate from Democracy Now!, Chris Hedges makes a brilliant defense of Edward Snowden, and the collapse of our institutions:

“Unfortunately, the press, like most institutions in this country, and I would add the legal profession, has largely collapsed under this corporate coup d’état that’s taken place and is no longer functioning. And I want to get back, that what this is fundamentally a debate about is whether we are going to have, through the press, an independent institution within this country that can examine the inner workings of power or not. And it is now–I mean, many of us had suspected this widespread surveillance, but now that it’s confirmed, we’re seeing–you know, why did Snowden come out publicly? Well, because I think he knew that they would find out anyway, because they have all of Glenn Greenwald’s email, phone records and everything else, and they can very quickly find out who he was speaking to and whether Snowden had contact with him. And that–I speak as reporter–is terrifying, because it essentially shuts down any ability to counter the official propaganda and the official narrative and expose the crimes. And we have seen in the last few years tremendous crimes being committed by those in power. We have no ability now to investigate them.”

The full transcript is well-worth reading to the bottom 

Edward Snowden’s decision to leak a trove of secret documents outlining the NSA’s surveillance program has elicited a range of reactions. Among his detractors, he’s been called “a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison,” (Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker), who’s committed “an act of treason,” (Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee). To supporters, Snowden is a hero for showing that “our very humanity [is] being compromised by the blind implementation of machines in the name of making us safe,” (author Douglas Rushkoff), one whom President Obama should “thank and offer him a job as a White House technology advisor,” (American Conservative editor Scott McConnell). We host a debate with two guests: Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for The New York Times, and Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Stone served as an informal adviser to President Obama in 2008, years after hiring him to teach constitutional law.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to a debate on Edward Snowden’s decision to leak a trove of secret documents outlining the NSA’s surveillance program. In an interview with The Guardian  newspaper, Snowden described why he risked his career to leak the documents.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government, that that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy. And if you do that in secret consistently, you know, as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it will kind of get its officials a mandate to go, “Hey, you know, tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side.” But they rarely, if ever, do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens. But they’re typically maligned. You know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they’re against the government. But I’m not. I’m no different from anybody else. I don’t have special skills. I’m just another guy who sits there, day to day, in the office, watches what happening–what’s happening, and goes, “This is something that’s not our place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.” And I’m willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, “I didn’t change these. I didn’t modify the story. This is the truth. This is what’s happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

4 Recent Supreme Court Rulings Show Which Way the Wind Is Blowing: Corporations Are Getting Whatever They Want

0

They are not the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated rulings on same-sex marriage, voting rights and affirmative action, but the last week has seen a string of alarming decisions that strengthen the corporate assault on ordinary Americans, primarily by restricting American’s access to jury trials or making it harder to win in court.

Consider these four recent Supreme Court decisions where the Court’s right-wing majority is denying justice or raising legal standards of proof to prevail. These cases underscore how federal court rulings–not just big money in campaigns and lobbying–are part of corporate America’s playbook.

1. Arbritration yes, trial by jury no! In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Court majority held that signing a contract with an arbitration agreement precludes the right to a jury trial. This case involved a restaurant chain that didn’t want to pay American Express’ high fees for a services it didn’t use, but had signed a contract. The Court took AmEx’s side, saying a “bad” contract is still a contract, pushing more individuals and small businesses outside the legal system. That ongoing trend favors corporate power, as individuals and small businesses lose access to lawsuits.

2. Generic drug takers can’t sue? In this complex case decided Monday, the Court ruled that if you are taking a generic medication lacking warning labels and you have a bad reaction, you can’t sue the generic drug maker. “If you were prescribed the brand-name drug’s generic copy–which public policy has favored for three decadess–your suit against the generic manufacturer is kaput. Got that?” wrote Brian Wolfman, on Public Citizen’s Consumer Law and Policy blog. “Another loss for injured consumers’ access to the courts .”

3. Co-worker harassment–forget suing! In an employment case also decided Monday, the Court’s right-wing majority held that an employee cannot sue her employer if she’s harassed at work by a co-worker. Instead, she can only sue the employer if the hostility is created by a supervisor–which is not the same as a bossy and harassing colleague.

“Until today, our decisions have assumed that employees who direct subordinates’ daily work are supervisors,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a dissent that was signed by three other more moderate justices. “This realignment will leave many harassment victims without an effective remedy.”

4. Racial harassment at work–prove it! In another workplace retaliation case decided Monday, an Arabic doctor who claimed that his new supervisor at a Texas medical center was racially prejudiced and forced him to quit, saw his civil rights lawsuit sent back to a lower court with new and tougher instructions for proving racial discrimination.

That fact that the new supervisor was heard saying, “Middle Easterners are lazy,” among other things, was not specific enough to allow the Arabic doctor to sue and win in lower federal court. Instead, the Court’s conservative majority said the physician had to prove his claim more specifically.

The Court’s minority, led by Ginsburg, wrote that real life isn’t always so specific.

“This point, lost on the Court, was not lost on Congress. When Title VII was enacted, Congress considered and rejected an amendment that would have placed the word “solely” before “because of [the complainant’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” …Senator Case, a prime sponsor of Title VII, commented that a “sole cause” standard would render the Act “totally nugatory.” Life does not shape up that way, the Senator suggested, comment­ing “[i]f anyone ever had an action that was motivated by a single cause, he is a different kind of animal from any I know of.”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Billion-Dollar Scam In a Bottle: Why Vitamins Could Be Useless–or Even Shorten Your Lifespan

2

If you’re like roughly half of your fellow Americans, you probably popped a multi this morning. As the slightly acrid taste lingered on your tongue, you felt good knowing that something so quick and easy would help safeguard your health.

Multivitamins are the most popular dietary supplement on Earth. But here’s the sobering reality: They may be simply useless–or worse.

For the last several years, a Mount Fuji of evidence has piled up to show that multivitamins don’t do much of anything for the health of the average person. Though less conclusive, a growing body of evidence suggests that they may even shorten your life. Unless you are taking vitamins to address a specific deficiency, malnutrition or illness, gulping down a multivitamin in hopes of preventing disease or cheating the Grim Reaper may be one of the most prevalent medical myths of our time.

Yet Americans aren’t getting the message. In fact, as the economy remains stagnant, we are taking more vitamins than ever in the hopes that we can avoid a costly doctor’s visit. However misguided our thinking, there’s one sure bet on vitamins: With annual sales of more than $20 billion, there are pots of money to be made for an industry that operates in the shadows –money so big that hedge funds are tripping over themselves to get in on the action.

The victim is not just your wallet. It might be your health.

A look at the science

As recently as 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association recommended that “all adults take one multivitamin daily.” Your doctor probably told you to take one, confident that her advice reflected the scientific consensus. Your friends or family members may nudge you to jump on the vitamin train, and share their favorite brands and doses.

But for the last several years, many doctors have begun to reverse their previous recommendations. Two gigantic studies have caused what Prevention magazine called a “sea change” in clinical thinking.

The first study, published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in 2006, combed through 63 randomized, controlled trials (the highest standard of research) on multivitamins. Turns out they did absolutely nothing to prevent cancer or heart disease in most people, with the exception of those in developing countries, where nutritional deficiencies are common. In a second paper, published in 2009, scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center followed 160,000 postmenopausal women for about 10 years, and found that multivitamins did zilch to prevent cancer, heart disease and all causes of death, regardless of what the women were eating.

There’s more: In a 2010 study, a team of French researchers, who published their work in the International Journal of Epidemiology, tracked over 8,000 volunteers who took either a multivitiamin or a dummy pill every day for six years. Results? The vitamin-takers showed no improvement in health or well-being over the placebo group.

Jaakko Mursu, a nutritional scientist, was among those in the medical community who had grown skeptical of multivitamins. So he led a team of researchers to study the issue. Even he was shocked by what he found, which was published as the Iowa Women’s Health Study: Older women who took multivitamins were 6 percent more likely to die than others. This was true even though the women taking the vitamins tended to have healthier lifestyles than those who didn’t (calcium was the only vitamin associated with decreased risk).

Useless is one thing. But harmful? That’s really turning conventional wisdom upside-down.

So what’s the problem?

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Psychedelic Renaissance: LSD, Ecstasy and Magic Mushrooms Are Helping People Face Death, Cope with Trauma and Quit Booze and Smokes

0

“The room instantly lit up in a blinding glare of white, white light. I was seized by an ecstasy such as I had never known,” wrote AA’s co-founder, Bill Wilson, of his first spiritual experience.He was dropping acid as part of an informal study supervised by a doctor in the ‘50s, when LSD was legal and the power of psychedelic-assisted therapy was heralded as potentially transformative.

So began a lifelong interest in altered states of consciousness that included extensive experiments with LSD. Wilson claimed that his initial experiences were crucial to his recovery and his belief in his mission to create a community of alcoholics helping one another. He was so enthusiastic that he contemplated advising other AA members to take acid, especially those incapable of feeling “a power greater than ourselves.” Still, he acknowledged the limits of its possible benefits: “I don’t believe [LSD] has any miraculous property of transforming…sick people into healthy ones overnight,” he wrote to a fellow participant in the study. “[But] it can set up a shining goal on the positive side [and] create a large incentive [to recovery.]”

The AA fellowship disagreed. The idea of treating those who cannot control their substance use with another substance seemed, then as now, heretical. The link between spirituality and sobriety, however, remains a mainstay of modern recovery.

Today, some four decades after the counter-culture’s widespread recreational use of hallucinogens led to criminalization of the substances, there’s a resurgence of interest in their therapeutic potential for mental illness and addiction. A dozen or more studies of LSD, psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms) and MDMA (ecstasy) are ongoing in the US, Britain, Israel and Switzerland; a handful of others have recently concluded. Most of the patients involved in these studies are in dire straits: vets with PTSD, the terminally ill who have a terror of death, people with treatment-resistant depression and alcoholics.

The results are consistently positive. Indeed, the PTSD and cancer studies have garnered big headlines recently for their exceptionally beneficial outcomes. But these are tiny pilot studies–and because the drugs are still illegal and mired in controversy and stigma, research is likely to remain stalled.

Advances in neuroscience, coupled with the new model of mental illness and addiction as brain diseases, are largely responsible for rekindling this research. Neurons and their transmitters, receptors, pathways and the like are increasingly viewed as the source of the “self” and perception, cognition, emotion and other functions. Psychedelics have a uniquely powerful, even explosive, effect on both your neurochemistry and your “self.” But the trip itself typically only lasts for about 12 hours. Whether these “mystical” effects deliver enduring benefits is the question researchers seek to answer, for only then could these substances become “medicines.”

Rick Doblin believes the answer is yes. He’s the founder and president of the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which funds pilot studies and advocates for these drugs’ use in legal medical settings. “Addiction involves past material, a lot of denial and running away. Psychedelics bring material to the surface in ways where people need to surrender to them; it’s hard to hide from yourself under [them],” says Dobin. “The other part is more positive. People often have a spiritual sense of connection that they can later draw strength from.”

Psychedelic-based treatment can cause elevation in mood, openness and changes in values–which, for people with substance use disorders, can cause a reduction in craving, increase in motivation and, ultimately, a reduction in use, says Michael Bogenschutz, MD, a psychiatry professor at the University of New Mexico. “[But] the tricky thing is developing a neurobiological theory. We know a fair amount about the acute effects of psilocybin and drugs like it on the brain, and we’re learning something about the functional effects with fMRI,” he says. “So how do you get from those acute effects to a longer-lasting effect on behavior?”

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Matt Taibbi’s Blockbuster Cover Story Exposes Key Culprits in Financial Crash

0

Anyone who paid attention to the financial collapse of 2008 knows that the ratings agencies who are the arbiters of whether companies are a safe bet to take on debt played a big role. Less known are the exact details of how big a role they played. The Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi fills in the gaps in a blockbuster cover story.

Taibbi’s new piece, titled “The Last Mystery of the Financial Crisis,” shows in detail the role of the ratings agencies and how they rubber-stamped dubious bank transactions. The agencies Taibbi focuses on are the nation’s top two: S&P and Moody’s, which control a good chunk of the ratings agency market. Ratings agencies define what is safe to put money in and what is not. Their ratings are vitally important to the financial industry. But instead of evaluating companies objectively and giving them the ratings they deserve, Moody’s and S&P doled out top ratings to entities that were undeserving.

The new details Taibbi writes on come from documents and e-mails released as part of a lawsuit against the ratings agencies that alleged they conspired with Morgan Stanley to induce investment in subprime deals.

In April, the ratings agencies settled the lawsuit brought against them, with King County, Washington and the Abu Dhabi Commercial bank being the lead plaintiffs. The case centered on what’s known as a structured investment vehicle, or SIV.

SIVs are similar to other tools that are used by companies who want to move liabilities off their books and onto an entity where they could hide them. SIVs were used by banks to keep mortgage-backed securities–pools of mortgages, some of them bad–off their own books. “The SIV structure allowed investment banks to create and take advantage of, without risk, billions of dollars of things like subprime loans, which became the centerpiece of the new trendy corporate scam — creating and then selling masses of risky mortgage-backed securities as AAA investments to institutional suckers,” Taibbi writes.

The ratings agencies were asked to sign off on the safety of these SIVs. And that’s what they did, even if they were totally unsafe. The major reason why they would sign off on bad investments was that the same banks asking them to sign off on them were the ones giving them the money to operate as a rating agency.

In one specific case, an SIV was created by London-based hedge fund Cheyne Capital Management. The hedge fund was run by ex-employees of Morgan Stanley, which got involved in a deal to get investment into Cheyne. Morgan Stanley reaped fees from structuring the investment deal, and also earned money for selling their own mortgage-backed securities to the SIV, which were then marketed to investors like the Abu Dhabi bank. Internal documents from Morgan Stanley reveal that the bank put bad mortgages into the SIV.

The ratings agencies had nothing to go on to rate the subprime SIVs. But Moody’s and S&P–banks often used multiple ratings agencies because they often gave investments a lower rating if they weren’t involved with evaluating the deal–gave it top ratings anyway.

The ratings agencies knew they were rubber-stamping bad deals, e-mails show. “Lord help our fucking scam,” one e-mail from an S&P executive reads. “This has to be the stupidest place I have worked at.”

The ratings agencies gave top grades to another bad deal with a subprime-laden SIV called Rhinebridge. Both the Rhinebridge and Cheyne investments eventually went down the tubes, along with other subprime deals.

Despite the implosion of the U.S. economy due to the top grades these bad deals got, the system remains much the same.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Where Is Edward Snowden? Reporters Are Chasing Rumors and Shadows, in Russia and Beyond

0

June 24, 2013
 |

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

As the Aeroflot jet bound for Havana rolled away from the gate at Sheremetyevo airport, the question became: was he ever even really here?

For more than 24 hours the sprawling international airport on Moscow’s northern outskirts was the site of an intricate game of cat-and-mouse. The target: Edward Snowden, sought by an enraged US, which has charged him with leaking classified documents on US surveillance programmes and warned countries suspected of abetting his escape.

The action culminated at 2pm on Monday afternoon outside gate 28, where Snowden was checked in for a flight to Havana, another stopover en route to Venezuela or Ecuador, where he had sought political asylum.

Dozens of journalists assembled at the window, hoping to spot the man who had eluded them for endless hours inside Sheremetyevo’s winding halls. Hours later, they imagined, they would have Snowden cornered, ready to spill his innermost thoughts as the plane hurtled towards Havana for a full 12 hours.

The news zoomed through the hall — Russian news agencies reported that Snowden and his travelling companion, Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks, had checked into seats 17A and 17C. Those seated nearby were giddy.

As the plane started to board, more than a dozen Aeroflot agents converged on the gate and ushered reporters away from the windows.

They threatened to confiscate cameras and telephones, and attempted to block the view. Some journalists said they were ready to hide their telephones in their pants. Anything for a snap of Snowden.

One by one, the journalists got on board — all the world’s media, and Russia’s too. The line dwindled to a crawl and the Aeroflot agents began to whisper: “He’s not on board.”

The gate closed. A detachable staircase pulled away from the aircraft. The Airbus began to roll backward. “He’s not on board,” said Nikolai Sokolov, an Aeroflot gate employee, his eyes wide. “I was waiting for him myself.”

Around two dozen journalists settled in for the 12-hour journey to Havana — a flight on which no alcohol is served, much to the chagrin of the reporters, many of whom aren’t used to going half a day without a stiff drink.

And, yet again, Snowden was nowhere to be found.

He was reportedly in Moscow for 21 hours but no photographs or video of him have emerged — no leaks from the Federal Security Service or police, who use the website Life News to broadcast the news they want the world to see.

Moscow has made its overtures to Snowden obvious, with Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, repeatedly saying the Kremlin would consider an asylum request from the American, as it would from any other. But the events come amid the worst Russian-US relations since the end of the cold war, with the Kremlin once again making anti-Americanism a central governing pillar. The sight of a US whistleblower, hounded by his own government, being welcomed on Russian soil would be nothing short of a coup.

But was he ever here?

When it emerged on Sunday morning that Snowden had boarded Aeroflot flight SU23 from Hong Kong to Moscow en route to an undisclosed third country, journalists streamed towards the airport. They shoved pictures of Snowden into the faces of disembarking passengers, asking: “Have you seen this man?”

Most shrugged and pushed on through the crowd. Two Spanish men, transiting through Moscow en route to Madrid, thought that maybe one of them had. It was the first suspected sighting of a man who would become a ghost.

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet

Scots U-turn on anti-nukes policy

0

The Scottish government has U-turned on its pledge to remove Trident nuclear weapons from the Scottish soil if Scots vote for independence in the 2014 referendum.

The ruling Scottish National Party (SNP) said in a set of proposals for defending an independent Scotland that Faslane naval base, which is the home to British Trident nuclear weapons, could remain a sovereign UK territory after the Scottish independence.

The proposal made by thinktank the Scotland Institute for SNP will enable Britain to continue to use Scotland as a launch pad for its four Trident nuclear-armed submarines for an estimated 20 years until it builds a new Trident home within British borders.

This comes as SNP defense spokesman Angus Robertson said last year that the Scottish government is Å“against weapons of mass destruction being in our waters” and pledged SNPâ„¢s Å“solid commitment” to the Å“earliest possible withdrawal of Trident from Scotland”.

SNP has been historically opposed to both Trident and NATO.

The party voted to ditch its anti-NATO policy in October 2012 during their party conference in Perth.

The resolution on NATO was put forward by Robertson himself, who at the time claimed the party will retain its 30-year-old anti-nukes policy and any entrance into NATO will be on the condition that the alliance agrees to Scotsâ„¢ removal of Trident from their soil.

However, the new proposals reveal that Trident will probably be the subject of the next resolution at a party conference.

The proposals also question the extent of SNPâ„¢s commitment to rule a sovereign Scotland as keeping a British sovereign territory on Scottish soil will seriously undermine that concept.

AMR/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

The Limits of US Power

0

By trying to crush these young whistleblowers with espionage charges, the U.S. government is taking on a generation, and that is a battle it is going to lose.

— Julian Assange, quoted in New York Times, Jun 23, 2013

There is no mores striking anger than that which comes from impotence. This is well illustrated by the bullying line being taken by Washington regarding countries granting passage to Edward Snowden as he veers his way to Ecuador. Cooperate with us, or else. Precisely — and what of it?

The case of Snowden is becoming a cornucopia of diplomatic ferment and dazzling excitement. A senior Obama official, as recorded in The Guardian (Jun 22), threatened that, “If Hong Kong doesn’t act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong’s commitment to the rule of law.” This is the obscenity of the absurd: When we spy on you through secret mass surveillance, the law is served. It isn’t if the public is told about it.

Despite the U.S. request formally requesting Hong Kong authorities to proceed with the extradition process, the whistleblower could still get on a commercial flight on Sunday (hardly anything covert about it) and head to Moscow. It was brazen, but it was still fabulously ordinary for being so open. This also came as Hong Kong legislators such as the democratic political activist Leung Kwok-hung urged residents to “take to the streets to protect Snowden.” The final call rested with Beijing, and Chinese authorities were in no mood to comply with the U.S. request.

The key in combating any clandestine culture is to treat matters as normal, open and ordinary. It is the double bluff — to deceive the deceivers by disregarding their worth, their strength, their ploys. The prosaic nature of a secret world mocks it to death. Then gather allies, mutual interests and antagonisms. Journalists getting off the plane in Moscow were thrilled to bits at the adventure, showing passengers happy snaps of Snowden.

No sooner had Snowden touched down in Moscow, he disappeared. He apparently had the Ecuadorean ambassador, Patricio Chávez, in tow. The suggestions here are that Snowden will be heading for Quito via Havana. If this takes place without a hitch, it will be a brilliant coup, one orchestrated by those outside standard government channels. It will also have the finger prints of Julian Assange over it.

WikiLeaks has provided assistance of a logistical kind to Snowden, delivering special documentation enabling him to travel in the absence of his revoked passport. WikiLeaks British activist Sarah Harrison was also accompanying Snowden in his flight. “He is bound for the Republic of Ecuador via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisers from WikiLeaks.”

The statement released from the organisation on Sunday further explained that Snowden had “requested that WikiLeaks use its legal expertise and experience to secure his safety. Once Mr Snowden arrives in Ecuador his request will be formally processed.”

And what of Washington’s incandescent fury? A good deal of egg found its way to the faces of its officials when it came to light that the National Security Agency had hacked Chinese mobile phone companies in an effort to access millions of private messages. Only some days prior, Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping had spoken about the need to cultivate ties of “mutual trust”.

Snowden has not merely been devastating in his revelations; he has been wise in divvying the detailed muck. Richly deserved mistrust has been sown. The South China Morning Post (Jun 23) was the grateful recipient of Snowden’s disclosures on that occasion.  The paper’s editorial (Jun 24) went so far as to regard his “choice of Hong Kong to hole up while he revealed who America was spying on and how its surveillance operations were conducted” as “genius”.

There was also more. NSA’s cyber snooping had involved attacks on the networks of Tsinghua University and computers at the Hong Kong headquarters of Pacnet, owner of one of the most extensive fibre optic submarine cable systems in the region. Pacnet’s cables amount to 46,000 kilometres in length linking data centres through mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. Tag one, and you tag them all.

Little wonder then that Beijing is hardly in any mood to cooperate on this score, nor was Hong Kong. The latter authorities contended that the U.S. arrest warrant was defective at law. Restraining Snowden, to throw the comment back at the Obama administration, would have been contrary to law. State media went so far as to label Washington the “villain” of the peace.

Over the weekend, from the detained abode he is residing in London, Assange called for a global effort to assist the likes of Snowden. He is the near perfect genotype of exposure and revelation, indispensable to combating the cocksure goons of secrecy who perforate privacy and undermine personal dignity. Something stirring is afoot, and the alarums are getting louder by the day.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

This article originally appeared on: Counterpunch

Brazilians Demand Social Justice

0

Brazilians Demand Social Justice
by Stephen Lendman
Justifiable public anger holds back only so long. On June 11, protests began. On June 17, they erupted across Brazil. Hundreds of thousands turned out. Estimates ranged up to 1.5 million. 
At issue is scandalous misspending on sports. It’s at a time of stalling economic growth, layoffs, rising inflation, and few opportunities for youths. 
Public need are sacrificed. Billions go for construction. It’s spent for the 2014 International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics. 
On June 21, FIFA secretary general Jerome Falcke said:
“The Confederations Cup is taking place in Brazil and the World Cup must be held in Brazil. There is no plan B.”
FIFA media head Pekka Pdriozola added:
“At no stage has FIFA considered or discussed abandoning the Confederations Cup with the local authorities. We are monitoring the situation with the authorities. We support the right of free speech. We condemn violence.”
More on what’s ongoing below. Police show no mercy. Peaceful protesters are brutalized. Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. Brazil’s dark side resembles realpolitik in America, Canada, Europe and elsewhere.
James Petras includes Brazil among so-called Latin American “progressive camp” nations. Their rhetoric belies their policies.
On the one hand, they reduced poverty. On the other, they “increased dependence on agro-mineral exports and investments.” Venezuela achieved most social justice. Others lack “any vision or project for redistributing wealth, income or land.”
“Brazil leads the way in catering to Wall Street speculators and in government anti-poverty spending on minimum food baskets.”
“Poverty reduction is matched by the spectacular growth of millionaires (and billionaires) linked to the finance and agro-mineral export sector.”
Moderate progressives “have the most egregious” environmental record. “Presidents Lula da Silva and Dilma Rouseff….promoted the destruction of millions of acres of the Amazon rain forest and displacement of scores of Indian communities in a decade.”
Brazil accommodates US military policy. Its “overall economic performance is mixed.” Manufacturing is “stagnating.”
Brazil matters. It ranks sixth among world economies. It’s by far Latin America’s largest. It’s GDP exceeds the rest of South America combined. Its population equals nearly half the entire continent.
In 1971, Nixon said, “As Brazil goes, so will the rest of that Latin American continent.” Brazil encouraged other regional countries to challenge US hegemony. At the same time, it embraces it. 
It does so by accommodating US military policy. It fails to condemn its ruthlessness. It’s silent in the face of crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. It’s more concerned about good political and trade relations than rule of law principles and fairness.
Michel Chossudovsky says Brazil reflects “neoliberalism with a human face.” Scandalous misspending on sports alone explains.
In 1998, Joanna Cagan/Neil deMause’s book “Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit” discussed how influential sports organizations hold cities hostage.
They operate in a climate of manipulative team owners, “deceptive politicians, taxpayer swindles, media slants, the power of big money, and most of all, a political system that serves the rich and powerful at the expense of the average fan, the average taxpayer, and the average citizen.”
So-called public servants sell out constituents. They do so for profit, power and privilege. An “anatomy of a swindle” follows.  As revenues soar, owners insist they’re losing money.
Books are cooked to show it. Old facilities aren’t suitable, they claim. Replace them, they demand. Otherwise, they’ll leave. They lie saying stadium construction stimulates local economies. Cities without them lose out. Polar opposite is true.
Once deals are finalized, pressure continues. More concessions are extracted. They’re gotten at taxpayers’ expense. It’s the same everywhere.
Big money profits. Public needs go begging. According to Cagan and deMause:
“The effective blackmail that professional teams wield over cities is not good, it is not correct, and it not eternal. It is the consequence of a particular state of affairs in which public agencies have become beholden to private power. It can be changed, and it’s worth changing.”
It requires public pressure to do so. The authors stress “chang(ing) the terms of the debate.” People have more power than they realize. It’s up to them to use it. 
Olympism’s a scam. It’s more about profiteering, exploitation and corruption than sport. The Olympic Movement’s Charter reflects doublespeak duplicity, not truth.
It’s not about promoting good will, open competition, and fair play. It’s about profiteering, marginalizing the poor and other disenfranchised groups.
It affects communities adversely. It sticks taxpayers with the bill. It providing nothing in return but hype and the illusion of amateur international sport at its best.
Thousands are evicted and displaced. Disadvantaged residents are left high and dry. Cozy relationships among government officials, corporate sponsors, universities, and IOC bosses facilitate exploiting communities, people, and athletes.
It’s done for power and profit. It’s done deceitfully. It’s grand theft writ large. 
Behind a facade of public friendliness and high-minded hyperbole lie profiteers, political intrigue, corruption, disregard for public needs and rights, exploitative practices, and scandalous wheeling, dealing, collusion, and bribery turning sport into a commercial grab bag free-for-all. 
Olympism’s big business. Power brokers spare nothing promoting it. They do so for self-aggrandizement and big bucks. Total costs are enormous. 
Workers are exploited. Taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Public needs go begging. Illusion substitutes for reality. Hyperbole and deception belie truth.
It’s the American way. It’s commonplace across Europe. It’s same old, same old in Brazil. This time people reacted. They did so en masse. Ordinary people are cheated. It’s done to enrich fat cats.
Protesters expressed profound discontent. They did so for good reason. Signs reflect it. Some read: 
“You do not represent me!” 
“More bread, less circuses!” 
“FIFA give us our money back!”
“We want health and education. World Cup out!”
At issue isn’t sports. It’s neoliberalism writ large. It’s force-fed austerity. It’s social injustice. It’s rage against what’s wrong.
Corruption is widespread. Basic services are lacking. Brazil’s socially polarized. It’s one of the world’s most unequal countries. Vast slums pockmark city landscapes. They’re emblematic of ingrained poverty and systemic inequality.
Growth lifting millions out of deep poverty left millions more mired in distress. Too little is done to help. Billions are misspent for FIFA tournaments and Olympism. Public needs are sacrificed to finance them.
Police responded violently. Brutality is standard practice. Tear gas, beatings, rubber bullets and pepper spray are commonplace. Demonstrators, journalists and bystanders are attacked.
Popular concerns go unaddressed. People needs go begging. Concessions offered are too few. Promises are made and broken. Rouseff claimed “we changed Brazil.” 
It’s not enough to matter. The disparity between wealth and working people is greater than ever. Fifty billionaires and 150,000 millionaires reflect it. Social injustice is institutionalized.
University graduates can’t find decent jobs. Too few accommodate their skill levels. Salaries paid are too low. Benefits are too few. Future prospects look dim. 
Rage against injustice continues. Institutional reform is demanded. Polls show 75% of Brazilians support protests. They’ve been ongoing since June 11. 
They began against raising public transit fares. They mushroomed against corruption, unconscionable sports spending, politics as usual, and social injustice. 
They continue nationwide. Brazil’s caras pintadas (painted faces) demand social justice until it’s achieved. It remains to be seen what follows.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 
http://www.dailycensored.com/brazilians-demand-social-justice/

This article originally appeared on: Stephen Lendman

America: Police State Ruthlessness Writ Large

0

America: Police State Ruthlessness Writ Large
by Stephen Lendman
Cold-blooded barbarity reflects US policy. Democracy’s more illusion than reality. Rule of law principles don’t matter. They’re systematically spurned. 
Dissent’s increasingly targeted. Freedom’s imperiled. Obama’s ruthless. He exceeds the worst of George Bush. He’s waging war on truth-tellers. He targeted more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined. 
Merrian-Webster calls a police state “a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures.”
The Oxford dictionary calls it “a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities.”
America raised the stakes higher. It did so with technological ease. It mass-spies everywhere all the time on everyone. It does so lawlessly. Core constitutional principles are violated. Foreign country statutes are defied.
Washington prioritizes state terrorism. It commits global espionage. It does so on an unprecedented scale. It’s lawless and unprincipled. It targets federal employees exposing wrongdoing. Acting responsibly is criminalized.
Whistleblowers reflect duty above and beyond the call. Legions more like them are necessary. Sunshine’s our best defense. Washington demands darkness.
US-style realpolitik reflects New World Order harshness. Edward Snowden’s more than an American hero. His revelations help everyone.
He fled security and prosperity for safety. He took temporary refuge in Hong Kong. On Sunday, he flew to Moscow. 
Ecuador’s Russian ambassador Patricio Chavez and other embassy staff met him. They did so at Sheremetyevo Airport. He requested asylum. 
Russia Today said Ecuador granted him refugee status. Expect he’ll get asylum unless he has an unannounced destination in mind. 
Perhaps he’s granted safe haven elsewhere. Maybe he did it secretly. Given the enormous risks he faces, it makes sense to do so. He needs all the protections he can get.
Julian Assange said he’s “in a safe place and his spirits are high. Due to the bellicose threats coming from the US administration, we cannot go into further detail at this time.”
“Unfortunately we cannot reveal what country he is in at this time.” Perhaps he’s in Russia. Maybe elsewhere. He’s wise to keep his whereabouts a closely-held secret.
Washington revoked his passport. He’s wrongfully charged under Espionage Act provisions. The White House asked Russia to detain  him. It wants him extradited. Moscow responded nyet diplomatically. It did so by not complying.
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden lied saying:
Snowden’s disclosures “suggest that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the US, not to advance internet freedom and free speech.”
She expressed disappointment with Hong Kong authorities. They let him leave despite Washington’s “request to arrest him for purposes of his extradition under the US-Hong Kong Surrender Agreement.”
“We have registered our strong objections to the authorities in Hong Kong as well as to the Chinese government through diplomatic channels and noted that such behavior is detrimental to US-Hong Kong and US-China bilateral relations.”
Expect little sympathy in return. America’s waging political and cyberwar on China. Lawless spying and hacking were revealed. Beijing and Hong Kong aren’t pleased.
Xinhua is China’s official press agency. It called ongoing US practices “troubling.” America’s “the biggest villain in our age,” it said.
Hayden said Moscow’s decision to let Snowden travel to Russia further complicates bilateral relations. 
Chuck Shumer (D. NY) calls himself Israel’s Senate “guardian.” Others call him US senator from AIPAC. 
On CNN’s State of the Nation, he said:
“The bottom line is very simple: allies are supposed to treat each other in decent ways, and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States, whether it is Syria, Iran and now of course with Snowden.”
He’s “aiding and abetting Snowden’s escape.”
Senator Lindsey Graham (R. SC) told Fox News Sunday: 
“I don’t think he’s a hero. I believe he hurt or nation. He compromised our national security program designed to find out what terrorists were up to.” 
“So, the freedom trail is not exactly China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. So, I hope we’ll chase him to the ends of the earth, bring him to justice and let the Russians know there will be consequences if they harbor this guy.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told CBS Face the Nation she doesn’t believe Snowden’s a whistleblower.
“Whatever his motives are – and I take him at face value – he could have stayed and faced the music. I don’t think running is a noble thought,” she said.
Washington wants him arrested wherever he goes. It asked Ecuador not to admit him. It wants him extradited. It wants him silenced. It wants him brutalized like Bradley Manning. 
It wants other potential whistleblowers warned. Hopefully they’re emboldened to tell all. It’s more than ever a national imperative.
On Monday, an unnamed senior administration official said:
“Mr. Snowden’s claim that he is focused on supporting transparency, freedom of the press and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador.” 
“His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the US, not to advance internet freedom and free speech.”
On Monday, Russia Today said Snowden left Moscow at 14:04 local time (11:04 GMT). He’s traveling on Aeroflot flight SU 150. He’ll fly through US air space briefly en route to Havana.
A follow-up report said he wasn’t seen on board. Two seats (17A and C) were reserved in his name. RT correspondent Egor Pishunov’s aboard.
“(S)omething out of the ordinary is definitely happening,” he said. An unnamed airport security team member said Snowden remains in Sheremetyevo’s transit zone.
What’s ongoing isn’t clear. Perhaps SU 150 is clever deception. Maybe Snowden’s airborne on an unannounced flight. Perhaps he will be later. Maybe he arrived secretly at an undisclosed destination.
Given Washington’s intensive targeting, traveling secretly makes sense. Snowden’s safety demands extreme precautions. He’s not entirely safe anywhere. 
America governs lawlessly. CIA hitmen operate everywhere. An unnamed State Department official said:
“The United States has been in touch via diplomatic and law enforcement channels with countries in the Western Hemisphere through which Snowden might transit or that could serve as final destinations.” 
“The US is advising these governments that Snowden is wanted on felony charges, and as such should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel, other than is necessary to return him to the United States.”
Washington’s going to extraordinary lengths to get him. Jean le Carre couldn’t have written a more riveting espionage thriller. He’s 81. Perhaps he’ll do one on Snowden.
His 1963 novel titled “The Spy Who Came In from the Cold” remains his best know work. It was an international best-seller.
Snowden’s no spy. The Whistleblower Who Came In from the Cold might be a suitable title. Sub-plots could include others doing the same thing. Le Carre might have another winner.
Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzon advises WikiLeaks. In 1998, he indicted Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. 
He said “what is being done to Mr. Snowden and to Mr. Julian Assange – for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest – is an assault against the people.”
Snowden’s not safe anywhere. Disappearing entirely won’t help. When America’s long arm goes all out, targets remain vulnerable.
Assassins “R” Us reflect official US policy. Abductions and disappearances are commonplace. Capture and eliminate are prioritized. Covert operatives are experts at finding people.
Techniques include bribing, pressuring, threatening, and otherwise intimidating targeted officials to comply. America can exert enormous coercion. 
It’s hard resisting strong-armed tactics. They’ll be exerted full-force against Snowden. He knows and said so.
“I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks my end,” he said.
“There’s no saving me. I do not expect to see home again.”
Some things matter most, he added.
“The great fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. (Ahead they’ll be) tyranny.”
That and harmful effects on his family worry him most. “That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said.
It should give everyone sleepless nights!
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour 
http://www.dailycensored.com/america-police-state-ruthlessness-writ-large/

This article originally appeared on: Stephen Lendman

Court gives FARC leaders jail sentences

0

Ivan Marquez, a FARC leader and negotiator in the peace process with the Colombian government

A Colombian court has given 40-year jail sentences to two top leaders of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), of which one is a negotiator in the peace process with the countryâ„¢s government.

The Criminal Court of Villavicencio City found on Monday Rodrigo Londono and Luciano Marin guilty of terrorism, rebellion and murder committed in 2003.

The two FARC leaders were not present when the verdict was read instead they are currently in Havana, Cuba, where the peace negotiations have taken place during the past six months to end the five-decade armed conflict.

Timoshenko said from Havana that neither FARC is willing to surrender their weapons nor their members are willing to serve jail sentences in a possible post-conflict situation.

The court also sentenced 20 other FARC members jail terms as well as ordered them to pay fines for bombing a boat on the Ariari River that left four dead and 30 others injured.

FARC is Latin America’s oldest insurgent group as it began fighting the Colombian government in 1964.

Bogota estimates that 600,000 people have been killed, and some three million others have been internally displaced by the fighting.

The rebel organization is thought to have around 8,000 fighters operating across a large swathe of the eastern jungles of the Andean nation.

CAH/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

South Korea confirms cyber attack

0

Three South Korean broadcasters and two banks came under a cyber attack that paralyzed computer networks and ATMs across South Korea on March 20, 2013. (File photo)

The South Korean Ministry of Science and Technology has confirmed a cyber attack against government websites.

Å“The government can confirm a cyber attack by unidentified hackers that shut down several sites including the [presidential] Blue House,” the ministry said in a statement issued on Tuesday.

Hackers also attacked the website for the office for Government Policy Co-ordination and some media servers on the same day, the ministry added.

The shutdown came on the 63rd anniversary of the start of the 1950-53 Korean War.

Reports say the South Korean government has asked citizens to review their internet security. Seoul has also raised cyber-alert level in the country.

South Korea has blamed North Korea for the hacking incident. Seoul says the recent cyber attack is similar to that of March.

On March 20, three South Korean broadcasters and two banks came under a cyber attack that paralyzed computer networks and ATMs across the country.

According to the Korea Internet Security Agency, computer networks at KBS, MBC and YTN television broadcasters and the Shinhan and Nonghyup banks were Å“partially or entirely crippled” during the cyber attack.

Seoul and Pyongyang have accused each other of cyber attacks in recent years.

In addition, North Korea has accused the United States and South Korea of carrying out cyber attacks against its Internet servers on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, South Koreaâ„¢s Yonhap news agency reported on Tuesday that a number of North Korean websites were also shut down. Unnamed sources were quoted by Yonhap as saying that the websites were apparently targeted by hackers.

MM/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Qatari emir abdicates in favor of son

0

Qatar’s Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (L) and his son, Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim (file photo)

Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has officially abdicated power in favor of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

The 61-year-old emir, who had overthrown his father in a coup in 1995, handed over the power to his 33-year-old son on Tuesday after 18 years of ruling the country.

Å“I announce handing the rule over to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani said in a televised speech.

The decision marks the Å“beginning of a new era, in which a young leadership will hold the banner,” he added.

Tamim is currently the joint commander of Qatari armed forces and the head of the kingdomâ„¢s Olympic committee.

Sources, meanwhile, state that the Qatari emir further plans a major cabinet reshuffle in an effort to bring in a considerable number of younger ministers following the father-to-son power shift.

Qatarâ„¢s international standing has been greatly undermined, particularly across the Muslim world, because of its deep involvement in supporting the foreign-backed militancy against the Syrian government.

MSH/HN/HJL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Lebanon continues operations in Sidon

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]The Lebanese army continues operations against the supporters of Takfiri Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir in the southern city of Sidon.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Afghan govt. should lead peace talks’

0

ËœAfghan govt. should lead peace talksâ„¢

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has reiterated that any peace talks with Taliban should be led fully by the government of Afghanistan, Press TV reports.

Karzai made the remakes during his talks with US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan James Dobbins in the Afghan capital, Kabul on Monday.

Å“The peace process should not be used as a political toll by foreigners for their own interests,” Karzai told the US envoy.

Dobbins arrived in Kabul on Monday to ease recent tensions over the opening of a Taliban political office in Qatar.

The tension between Washington and Kabul broke out on June 18, when the Taliban militant group opened its new political office in Doha under the name of Å“the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”

Dobbins said the US was “outraged” at how the Taliban opened the office.

“We contacted the government of Qatar, we protested and we asked them to take corrective measures and they took them,” Dobbins told reporters in Kabul.

“We were outraged ourselves because it was inconsistent with the assurances we had been given and the assurances we had given… We thought the Afghan reaction was both entirely predictable and entirely justified.

“The use of the Islamic Emirate title… (and) the symbols, signs and nomenclature were incompatible with what had been understood to be the arrangement.”

Before arriving in Kabul, Dobbins was in the Qatari capital with US Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Afghan government has reacted angrily to the opening of the office, which is backed by the United States.

Kabul has also suspended talks with Washington on a proposed security agreement.

Afghanistan says it wants to lead any talks with militants and that the opening of Talibanâ„¢s office in Qatar contradicts earlier US security guarantees.

The Afghan government on Sunday demanded a full explanation as to how the US and Qatar allowed the Taliban to raise its flag over its office in Doha.

Senior Afghan officials in Kabul say the Taliban militants will be able to use the office to raise funds for their campaign in Afghanistan.

The Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan following the invasion of the country by the United States and its allies in 2001, which was carried out as part of Washingtonâ„¢s so-called war on terror.

FKO/DB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Salehi condemns Shia killing in Egypt

0

Iranâ„¢s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has condemned the recent attack on Shia Muslims in Egypt, warning against attempts to create insecurity in the country through religious discord.

In a phone conversation with his Egyptian counterpart Mohamed Kamel Amr on Monday, Salehi condemned the attack by Takfiri extremists on the house of prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Hassan Shehata, during which the sheikh and three of his followers were killed.

The incident happened on June 23 when several hundred Takfiris attacked and surrounded the house in the village of Abu Mussalam near Cairo in Giza Province. Their bodies were then dragged into the streets by the extremist assailants.

Takfiri extremists claim that only their interpretation of Islam is correct and believe that all other Muslims are infidels.

The Iranian foreign minister said certain groups in Egypt seek to weaken and destabilize the country by creating conflict discord among the Muslims in Egypt one day and sowing rifts within the Egyptian Christian community another day.

The Egyptian foreign minister, for his part, denounced the recent deadly incident in Abu Mussalam and said the Cairo administration would not allow extremists to fuel religious and sectarian conflicts in Egypt.

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil has also denounced the killing of the Shias, saying that he is closely following an investigation into the incident. He has also promised that the culprits would be punished.

Recently, Salafi clerics in Egypt have been insulting Shia Muslims.

The Shia community in Egypt is being targeted by Salafis, with the support of a number of countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

MYA/HSN/HJL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Why the GOP Can't Learn

0

It’s as if they didn’t learn a thing from the 2012 elections. Republicans are on the same suicide mission as before – – trying to block immigration reform (if they can’t scuttle it in the Senate, they’re ready to in the House), roll back the clock on abortion rights (they’re pushing federal and state legislation to ban abortions after the first 22 weeks), and stop gay marriage wherever possible.

As almost everyone knows by now, this puts them the wrong side of history. America is becoming more ethnically diverse, women are gaining economic and political power, and young people are more socially libertarian than ever before.

Why can’t Republicans learn?

It’s no answer to say their “base” – ever older, whiter, more rural and male – won’t budge. The Democratic Party of the 1990s simply ignored its old base and became New Democrats, spearheading a North American Free Trade Act (to the chagrin of organized labor), performance standards in classrooms (resisted by teachers’ unions) and welfare reform and crime control (upsetting traditional liberals).

The real answer is the Republican base is far more entrenched, institutionally, than was the old Democratic base. And its power is concentrated in certain states – most of the old Confederacy plus Arizona, Alaska, Indiana, and Wisconsin – which together exert more of a choke-hold on the Republican national party machinery than the old Democrats, spread widely but thinly over many states, exerted on the Democratic Party.

These Republican states are more homogenous and conspicuously less like the rest of America than the urbanized regions of the country that are growing more rapidly. Senators and representatives from these states naturally reflect the dominant views of their constituents – on immigration, abortion, and gay marriage, as well as guns, marijuana, race, and dozens of other salient issues. But these views are increasingly out of step with where most of the nation is heading.

This state-centered, relatively homogenous GOP structure effectively prevents the Party from changing its stripes. Despite all the post-election rhetoric about the necessity for change emanating from GOP leaders who aspire to the national stage, the national stage isn’t really what the GOP is most interested in or attuned to. It’s directed inward rather than outward, to its state constituents rather than to the nation.

This structure also blocks any would-be “New Republicans” such as Chris Christie from gaining the kind of power inside the party that a New Democrat like Bill Clinton received in 1992. The only way they’d be able to attract a following inside the Party would be to commit themselves to policies they’d have to abandon immediately upon getting nominated, as Mitt Romney did with disastrous results.

It’s true that by 1992 Democrats were far more desperate to win the presidency – having been in the wilderness for twelve years – than today’s GOP appears to be. Nonetheless it’s doubtful the GOP will be willing to eschew its old base even if it loses the presidency again in 2016, because without its collection of relatively homogenous states, there just isn’t much of a GOP.

The greater likelihood is a steady eclipse of the Republican Party at the national level, even as it becomes more entrenched in particular states. Those states can be expected to become regressive islands of backwardness within a nation growing steadily more progressive.

The GOP’s national role will be primarily negative – seeking to block, delay, and filibuster measures that will eventually become the law of the land in any event, while simultaneously preaching “states’ rights” and praying for conservative majorities on the Supreme Court.

In other words, more of the same.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

Rewilding the West, One Step at a Time

0

<img src="http://truth-out.org/images/2013_June_Images/2013.06.24.Canyonlands.Main.jpg" alt="Canyonlands National Park. (Photo: Wolfgang Staudt / Flickr)” width=”637″ height=”416″ />Canyonlands National Park. (Photo: Wolfgang Staudt / Flickr)

My home sits at the gateway to a national park in Utah, a source of envy among tourists who gather along Capitol Reef’s “scenic drive.” But after 40 years of living in one desert or another, I know firsthand that America’s iconic desert landscapes, places like Monument Valley and Arches National Park, are the exceptions, not the rule. The rule is that we dig up, dump on, dam, bomb, drill, over-graze, and otherwise abuse our deserts, most of them public lands owned by you, the taxpaying citizen. Generally, our management of the nation’s public lands is a disgrace and deserts are exhibit A. 

But let’s skip the grim survey of how humans are overloading the carrying capacity of our original earthly Eden that usually opens a report like this. The intent of such a recitation of folly is to compel the reader’s attention by underlining the dire importance of the topic at hand. But I assume you understand by now that you woke up this morning on an overheated planet of slums threatened by ecological collapse. 

So instead, let’s get right to the point: what do we do about it? How do we begin to heal the wounds?

The crises we face and that our children and grandchildren will endure long after we leave them invite a visionary response. On the other hand, the world is already awash in well-intentioned tinkerers. Yet dysfunction and destruction still reign. Maybe it’s time to leap to a new paradigm.

Enter John Davis and Trek West. At this very moment, Davis is walking, biking, paddling, and horseback riding 6,000 miles through a chain of mountain ranges that stretches like a spine across North America from the Sierra Madres of Mexico through the Rockies of the American West up into Canada. He started this winter in the Sonoran desert we share with our southern neighbor and has been heading northward for months. He will cross many of our most treasured national parks like Yellowstone and Grand Canyon, the ones that tourists love, but his trek is no sightseeing adventure. 

Davis and his Trek West partners along the route are advocating for what they call “landscape connectivity” on a continental scale. Two years ago, Davis trekked from Key West to Quebec, 8,000 human-powered miles. Same theme: conserve and connect.

A Conservation Revolution

Gone are the days when conservation was all about bullets, hooks, and cameras. Fishermen and hunters are still an important constituency in the conservation community, but birdwatchers now outnumber them. Ecological criteria increasingly frame any debate about how to heal degraded habitat. What the nineteenth century naturalist and Sierra Club founder John Muir knew intuitively — that everything in the universe is “hitched to everything else” — has been confirmed beyond doubt by hard science.   

Davis is one of the founders of a new school of thought called conservation biology. Its proponents argue that it is not faintly enough to preserve scenic rock and ice parks and isolated islands of wildlife. Wild creatures need room to roam so they can find the necessary water, food, and mates. In the long run, many of America’s wild creatures from salamanders to bears will survive only in Disney movies if we box out genetic diversity, block migration routes, destroy nesting grounds, and save only carefully preserved, isolated populations of a species. Connectivity is the keel of an emerging conservation ethic for helping to heal this country.

John Davis envisions an unbroken chain of wild lands spanning North America from Mexico to Canada.  When completed, a necklace of “core” areas, including national parks, wildlife reserves, and protected wilderness areas will be linked together and buffered by national forests and private lands. Creatures now boxed into wild islands surrounded by a sea of development will have room to roam. 

A connected landscape will be more resilient as climate change puts further stress on creatures and their habitats. Already species from birds to mammals are responding to warming temperatures by moving northward if they can, or to higher ground if they can’t migrate horizontally. The famed scientist and conservationist E.O. Wilson called the project to link together America’s wild lands the most important conservation initiative in the world today.

After trekking through the habitat of the last remaining jaguars on the continent, Davis ran into the new wall designed to keep illegal Mexican migrants out of the United States. It is, he pointed out, a far more effective barrier against wildlife migration than the human version of the same and so is lobotomizing the border ecosystem we share with Mexico. As for Davis, he easily climbed it in less than five minutes and was on his way.    

Backpacks Meet Cowboy Hats 

Although pushing 50, Davis has the trim, muscular build of a professional athlete — and he’ll need every toned muscle he has to complete his quest. The day before I met him in Escalante, Utah, he had been surprised by a lingering bout of spring weather and found himself pushing his bike through 10 miles of deep snow on top of Utah’s Aquarius Plateau. The next week, he planned to paddle through Desolation Canyon, one of the most spectacular river passages on the planet. But when I encountered him, he was taking a break and making a pitch for connectivity before a gathering of federal land managers, concerned local citizens, and ranchers who share the watershed of the Escalante River. 

The Escalante River Watershed Partnership (ERWP) is the unwieldy name for a grassroots coalition whose aim is to restore the river’s degraded ecosystem. The rugged network of high desert canyons that drain into the remote Escalante River have been eroding for years thanks to overgrazing by cattle. They are also choked with tamarisk and Russian olive trees. 

Tamarisks are an invasive species that suck up precious ground water, while filling in springs and seeps that are the only water sources for many bird and animal species. The tall, feathery plumes of the tamarisk have taken over hundreds of miles of riverbank in the West. “Tammies” also salt the surrounding soil when they shed their leaves, killing native plants that might otherwise compete. A beetle was imported from Eurasia to eat the tammies and was unbelievably successful. As a result, those thick hedges that still block riverbanks are now dead-dry and ready to ignite. If not cut back, they will burn or regrow. Russian olive trees also crowd stream banks and add needle-like thorns to the unpleasant mix.

The diverse stakeholders in the Escalante River Watershed Partnership may not share John Davis’s grand vision of an ecologically whole and “rewilded” continent, but they are intent on sewing together and rewilding their pieces of the torn fabric of American life. As any effective organizer knows, you start where there is common ground — or where there are common weeds. 

Ranchers, rangers, biologists, hikers, and back-country guides are in many ways competing constituencies, but it turns out they all share the goal of clearing riparian (wet) canyons of those suffocating tammies. The scientists survey the ground and identify targets. Grants are written to bring in volunteers to do the fieldwork. Last week, a dozen Great Old Broads for Wilderness, mostly outspoken middle-aged women, spent a week clearing unwanted brush as a service project. 

As biologists monitor progress and the group discusses issues that arise, inevitably the damage done by grazing cows comes up. It couldn’t be a more awkward topic. After all, ranchers are in the room. Cattle ranching in these desert landscapes is a marginal activity. Those ranchers depend on federal grants, tax breaks, and access to public land to make it work. But cows erode stream banks and silt the water, short-circuit forest succession by eating seedlings, and contaminate fresh water with their voluminous poop that also spreads cheatgrass and weeds.

The hope is that eventually the EWRP will become a platform for a public airing of difficult issues like where cattle should be allowed to graze on public land and how many and when. 

A Roadkill Extravaganza

Those awaiting Davis’s Trek West presentation this particular day in this particular corner of Utah have already found a scale that seems to fit the desperate needs of our landscape, state, country, and planet. Most of us who believe in change are caught between the seeming futility of small-scale actions — like recycling our trash or using more energy-efficient light bulbs — and the impotence we experience when we push for large-scale change like climate legislation in Congress or international treaties to limit atmospheric greenhouse gases. 

On the one hand, too little; on the other, too late. There does, however, turn out to be a middle scale between individual action and national or global campaigns that works well and makes sense: the community. That’s the place where people can best embrace their roles as citizens, face off, share, contend, cooperate, create, learn from, and empower one another.

Watershed partnerships harken back to an old ideal. John Wesley Powell, the one-armed general and Civil War hero who later explored the Colorado River and its tributaries, was the first person to grasp and publicize the aridity rather than fecundity of significant parts of the American West. He argued that practices and policies developed for wet Eastern lands were inappropriate for the drier West. He advocated for governance around watersheds where local stakeholders committed to living within the limits they knew firsthand could come together and plan. That’s what I’m observing this morning in Utah. In twenty-first-century terms, think of it as ecological citizenship.

Davis claims he is shy and a poor presenter, but it turns out that he is quietly charismatic. The case he makes for corridors is practical.  His listeners know that he is trekking across a landscape that is not your grandfather’s Wild West. The wide-open spaces where the antelope once roamed are now fragmented by a zillion roads featuring SUVs with flattened animals on their bumpers. Davis says that, on his most recent journey, he’s already seen at least 1,000 crushed, dead creatures. It’s been a roadkill extravaganza. 

So, what to do? He shows pictures of a landscaped underpass in nearby Kanab, Utah, constructed at a deer crossing where at least 100 deer a year were being hit by cars. Every year about 10% of the local herd was becoming roadkill along with foxes, turkeys, and the occasional bobcat. The underpass cost $2.6 million, which is hardly chump change in this neck of the woods, but each deer-car collision costs, on average, $6,600. Do the math, he tells them. Making the landscape permeable for animals seeking food, mates, and water keeps them healthy and pays for itself soon enough. 

The Wolf at the Door 

Ranchers and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangers who serve them view John Davis skeptically. For one thing, he’s been frank about the need to reintroduce wolves across Western ecosystems, given the “keystone” role they play in shaping a healthy landscape. In case you’re not a Westerner, you should know that the subject of wolf reintroduction is a political third rail in much of our region. It’s an idea that would stun and appall our grandfathers, who killed wolves on their lands to leave more deer and elk for hunters and make meadows safe for cattle. 

Ecologically, the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park has been an unqualified success. Since wolves were returned to that landscape, elk are no longer bunching up and munching down in stream-fed valleys until they are silted, eroded, and devoid of other wildlife. The wolves thin the elk herds and move them, which, in turn, allows willows, aspens, beavers, birds, and a more biodiverse landscape to thrive. Their success in Yellowstone has confirmed the insights of conservation biologists, giving them credibility and authority. Cowboys fear that, having pushed aside elk, conservationists will go after their cows next. 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, elk hunters, cowboys, gun-nuts, and tea-hadi politicians have worked themselves into an anti-wolf frenzy. Western state legislators have introduced several bills designed to limit and control wolves even if they haven’t seen one in their area for 100 years. They want to trade the wolves’ endangered status under the law for licenses to hunt them. A few days after Davis met the watershed group, the Obama administration caved in to this eco-political hysteria and agreed to remove endangered species protections from wolves. This backlash against reintroduction has been painful for advocates like Davis. 

A Greater Canyonlands National Monument Moment? 

The decision to lift wolf protection is consistent with the Obama administration’s disappointing record on Western environmental issues. Nevertheless, conservation advocacy groups like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and the Sierra Club are urging the president to take a cue from Bill Clinton’s example. Back in 1996, he created the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument under the Antiquities Act that allows presidents to set aside natural and archaeological treasures. Now, the conservation groups want Obama to do something similar on an even grander scale and create a “Greater Canyonlands National Monument” from some of the healthiest wild lands in southern Utah. 

A few days later, Davis addressed the need for such a monument at a forum in Moab, Utah.  Our state has about nine million acres of quality wilderness land ready to be designated and protected as such. That’s a lot of core area for John Davis’s conservation vision, a lot of possibility for connectivity. But the public debate about wilderness designation has been stalemated for decades. Utah Republicans in particular resist more steps to formally protect wilderness areas even though the public overwhelmingly supports it. 

They are wedded to traditional mining and grazing interests and like to portray themselves as victims of a bullying federal government that wants to jam national monuments and formally designated wilderness areas down their throats. But Clinton’s creation of the new monument has proven a boon for Escalante’s economy. In the 12 years since it came into being, the populations of surrounding Kane and Garfield counties have grown by 8%. Jobs rose in those years by 38% and per capita income by 30%. Adjoining counties whose economies are oriented towards gas and oil lagged far behind. 

President Obama’s appointment of Sally Jewel, former CEO of REI, a chain of outdoor gear and clothing stores, may signal a shift away from ranching and mining as the dominant voices on the Western political stage. Jewel understands firsthand that recreation and tourism have become powerful economic engines here.

A presidential initiative alone will hardly begin to settle all the questions we face about how to make peace with the land that holds us in its embrace. But designating another monument here could be a catalyst for an ever-expanding idea of grassroots stewardship of America’s wild lands. 

The Escalante watershed partnership was formed in the wake of Clinton’s catalytic act. At that time, the Clinton administration took another experimental step. It gave stewardship of Grand Staircase Escalante to the controversial Bureau of Land Management instead of the National Park Service. That was a first and undoubtedly a concession to Utah’s politicians who would rather deal with the traditionally compliant, pro-mining, pro-grazing BLM than the stricter National Park Service. Clinton gambled that the move might instill a missing environmental ethic in that bureau. 

The results on that are not yet in, but there is no question about one thing: Clinton’s creation has been a catalyst for grassroots political activity. When monument status was a done deal, the river’s stakeholders decided the time had finally come to practice that awkward dance of mutuality among conservationists who want to save the land, ranchers who want to use it, and federal land managers charged with sorting out what exactly to do. John Davis is clearly on the side of conservation. 

Making the Imaginary Real  

The Trek West sponsors recognize that there may never be some grand national initiative to accomplish their vision, nothing like the Wilderness Act, the Clean Air Act, or the other signature environmental legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. If our troubled public lands are rescued, it’s likely to happen in a piecemeal fashion, as local and regional groups work to improve their own backyards. The folks who gather in Escalante don’t claim to have all the answers. They are not here to spread the truth and save the world. They belong to no ideology or movement. They’re just working on their piece of the puzzle, experimenting and learning as they go. Rivers being the arteries of the land, it makes sense to start there.

An existing constituency almost always trumps an imaginary one. You can make a case, for example, that a change in land use practices and policies would benefit more people, boost the local economy, and be healthier for wildlife, too, but those imaginary winners can’t compete with cattlemen who are real, well organized, and have been active in the political arena for many years. They have established close relationships with local politicians who depend on their support.  Because they were there first, they wrote most of the rules and those favor their uses of public land. 

The trick for conservationists who want change is to make that imaginary constituency real, to bring a new set of stakeholders together and find ways to empower them. That may not be the intention of those who gathered in Escalante for the watershed partnership, but it’s what is happening nonetheless — and John Davis is a catalyst.

According to the prevailing belief, growth should always be the bottom line. Trek West expresses an alternate vision that aims instead to translate ecological principles and criteria into actual designs on the ground. That’s not simply a matter of making better maps. Those of us who live within the iconic Western landscapes so treasured by all Americans understand that maps, charts, and spreadsheets do not adequately measure or describe this inspiring and awesome place where we live. 

We experience the land sensually. Perhaps that is the ultimate message John Davis is delivering as he treks across the continent’s wild spine. He is making sense of the land one footfall at a time, listening to it, watching it, and feeling it as he goes. So, reconnect landscapes, yes, but also connect head and heart.

Davis’s quest is heroic, but his testimony is simple: when we learn from the land we lean towards wholeness.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

Off the Chart Inequality in the US

0

Salvatore Babones: According to UN report, US is the only nation where inequality is both high and rising.

TRANSCRIPT:

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

A recent study on inequality by a UN agency, the International Labor Organization, found that U.S. inequality is not only the highest in the world in the developed world, but is also rising faster than almost any other developed country.

Our guest today, Salvatore Babones, wrote an article in Truthout on the ILO report titled–our guest today, Salvatore Babones, wrote an article in Truthout on the ILO report, titled “U.S. inequality now literally off the chart”.

Salvador is a senior lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney in Sydney, Australia, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.

SALVATORE BABONES, SENIOR LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL POLICY, UNIV. OF SYDNEY: Thanks for having me on, Jessica.

DESVARIEUX: So, Salvatore, let’s first start off with your article being that the U.S. inequality is off the charts. What do you mean by that?

BABONES: Well, I mean literally off the charts, that if you want to place the United States on the same graphic with other countries, the ILO in its official report had to put a little “…” and say the United States is up there, it’s not actually on the same graph with all the other countries.

DESVARIEUX: So why is it that the U.S. has such an increase and rising inequality gap?

BABONES: Well, it’s really something new. The United States was pretty similar to other developed countries up until the 1970s. And since the middle of the 1970s, inequality has simply risen dramatically in the United States to the point where it now outstrips any other developed country of the world.

DESVARIEUX: How much has the U.S. income inequality actually risen, especially since the financial crisis?

BABONES: Well, there are lots of statistics on it. I mean, the usual statistic we use is something called the GINI coefficient. The GINI coefficient runs from zero–perfect equality–to 100–one person owns all the money. Historically, the United States was down in the upper 30s, just like most other developed countries, which means something like, you know, 35 to 40 percent of the way towards total inequality. Now, that may not sound bad. Some countries are down to 20 percent inequality. Other countries are up at 60 percent. The U.S. seems to be in the high 30s. Now the United States is at 47.7 percent. It’s one of the highest countries in the world. Since the global financial crisis, it’s been rising every year, bit by bit by bit. In 2007, it was 46.3 percent; in 2008, 46.6 percent; 46.8 percent; 47.0 percent; 2011, 47.7 percent. That’s the most recent year for which data [are available].

DESVARIEUX: And what are the major factors actually contributing to this inequality?

BABONES: Well, it’s hard to say. Economists have all sorts of answers. They think it has to do with globalization or it has to do with changes in the structure of work in the country or with unemployment rates. But, frankly, I think that’s probably not the real solution. The fact is that other countries have those same problems. They all face problems with globalization and with high unemployment, but they don’t have anywhere near the levels of inequality that we do.

DESVARIEUX: And can we talk specifically about your article? [incompr.] a look at it here. You write that out of a total of 57 countries studied by the ILO, 31 developing and 26 developed, only one–the one being the United States–has a level of income inequality both high and rising. What are some factors that are actually unique to the United States that is causing this?

BABONES: That’s absolutely correct. For developed countries, the United States has a very high level of inequality. Other developed countries also have rising inequality, but from a much lower base than the United States.

On the other hand, there are some poor countries that have higher levels of inequality–Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. But in those countries inequality is coming down from its high levels.

The United States is the only country in the world that seems to be making the transition from looking more like a rich country to looking more like a poor country.

DESVARIEUX: Can you explain the runaway inequality that we’re seeing in the United States?

BABONES: Well, I think I can. My own view is that it mainly has to do with government policy. There have been enormous shifts in the way the workforce is organized in the United States. Government policy no longer favors unions, so unionization rates have gone down dramatically. Government policy now makes people pay a lot more for university educations, which has resulted in a big shift in people’s ability to pay for schooling. Government policy has led to a reduction in what we call the welfare state. So there’s really less government-provided medical care, less government-provided services. And when the government withdraws from the economy, that essentially leads the richest to take advantage of the poorest.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. We’ll get into this more in our second segment, and we’ll discuss some of the policy recommendations to actually decrease the inequality.

Thank you for joining us, Salvatore.

BABONES: Oh, thank you for having me on.

DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

Henry A. Giroux | Challenging Casino Capitalism and Authoritarian Politics in the Age of Disposability

0

(Photo: Monthly Review Press)(Photo: Monthly Review Press)Henry A. Giroux exposes the apostles of education “reform” who mistake corporatizing the classroom for preparing young people for a robust, productive democracy. Get the book with a minimum contribution of $25.00 to Truthout.  

Introduction

There is by now an overwhelming catalogue of evidence revealing the depth and breadth of the corporate- and state-sponsored assaults being waged against democracy in the United States. Indeed, it appears that the nation has entered a new and more ruthless historical era, marked by a growing disinvestment in the social state, public institutions, and civic morality. The attack on the social state is of particular importance because it represents an attempt to shift social protections to the responsibility of individuals while at the same time privatizing investments in the public good and undermining the bonds of communal solidarity. The renowned sociologist Zygmunt Bauman makes this clear in his definition and defense of the social state:

A state is “social” when it promotes the principle of the communally endorsed, collective insurance against individual misfortune and its consequences. . . . And it is the same principle which lifts members of society to the status of citizens–that is, makes them stakeholders in addition to being stockholders, beneficiaries but also actors responsible for the benefits’ creation and availability, individuals with acute interest in the common good understood as the shared institutions that can be trusted to assure solidity and reliability of the state-issued “collective insurance policy.” The application of that principle may, and often does, protect men and women from the plague of poverty–most importantly, however, it stands a chance of becoming a profuse source of solidarity able to recycle “society” into a common, communal good, thanks to the defense it provides against the horror of misery, that is, of the terror of being excluded, of falling or being pushed over the board of a fast-accelerating vehicle of progress, of being condemned to “social redundancy” and otherwise designed to “human waste.”1

Matters of politics, power, ideology, governance, economics, and policy now translate unapologetically into a systemic disinvestment in those public spheres that traditionally provided the minimal conditions for social justice, dissent, and democratic expression. The reign of the commodity, with its growing economy of individualism, privatization, and deregulation, offers a market solution for all of society’s problems. Yet, given that the apostles of neoliberalism work tirelessly to destroy with naked power the numerous essential institutions of social justice and social protections that exemplify the social state, it is clear that solving society’s problems is not their goal. Neoliberalism aims to enhance the wealth and power of those already rich. No longer responsive to the social contract and the preservation of labor, neoliberalism “shifts into a mode of elimination that targets most of us–along with our environment–as waste products awaiting managed disposal.”2 Unfortunately, neoliberalism, or what might better be called “casino capitalism,” has become the new normal.

Unabashed in its claim to financial power, self-regulation, and a survival of the fittest value system, neoliberalism not only undercuts the formative culture necessary for producing critical citizens and the public spheres that nourish them, it also facilitates the conditions for producing a bloated defense budget, the prison-industrial complex, environmental degradation, and the emergence of “finance as a criminalized, rogue industry.”3 It is clear that an emergent authoritarianism haunts a defanged democracy now shaped and structured largely by corporations.4 Money dominates politics; the gap between the rich and poor is ballooning; urban spaces are becoming armed camps; militarism is creeping into every facet of public life; and civil liberties are in shreds.5 Neoliberalism’s ideology of competition now dominates policies that define public spheres such as schools, allowing them to be stripped of a civic and democratic project and handed over to the logic of the market.6 Regrettably, it is not democracy, but authoritarianism, that remains on the rise in the United States as we move further into the twenty-first century.

The Politics of Fraud

The 2012 U.S. presidential election took place at a pivotal moment in this transformation away from democracy, a moment in which formative cultural and political realms and forces, including the rhetoric used by election candidates, appeared saturated with celebrations of war and social Darwinism. Accordingly, the possibility of an even more authoritarian and ethically dysfunctional leadership in the White House in 2013 caught the attention of a number of liberals and other progressives in the United States. American politics in general, and the 2012 election in particular, presented a challenge to progressives, whose voices in recent years have been increasingly excluded from both the mainstream media and the corridors of political power. Instead, the media played up the apocalyptic view of the Republican Party’s fundamentalist warriors, who seemed fixated on translating issues previously seen as non-religious–such as sexual orientation, education, identity, and participation in public life–into the language of a religious revival and militant crusade against evil.7

How else to explain Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s claim that the struggle for the future is a “fight of individualism versus collectivism,” with its nod to McCarthyism and the cold war rhetoric of the 1950s?8 Or former senator Rick Santorum’s assertion that “President Obama is getting America hooked on ‘the narcotic of government dependency,'” promoting the view that government has no responsibility to provide safety nets for the poor, disabled, sick, and elderly.9

There is more at work here than simply a ramped-up version of social Darwinism, with its savagely cruel ethic of “reward the rich, penalize the poor, [and] let everyone fend for themselves.” 10 There is also a full-scale attack on the social contract, the welfare state, economic equality, and any viable vestige of moral and social responsibility. As Robert O’Self argues, the social contract is crucial to what it means for Americans to lead a decent life. At the same time, he wonders if there is a place for women in the Republican Party’s view of the contract. Of course, he could easily have added youth, people of color, immigrants, the elderly, and the unemployed. He writes:

The social contract is supposed to bind us together. It’s everything from Medicare to the Americans with Disabilities Act to Social Security to the Equal Pay Act. It is the basic architecture of our collective responsibility to ensure that Americans share in a decent life. The social contract says that though our individual fates differ, we have a collective destiny, too. Many of us respond viscerally to comments from politicians like Mr. Akin because he leaves us wondering what place for women Republicans see in that collective future.11

The Romney-Ryan appropriation of Ayn Rand’s ode to selfishness and self-interest is of particular importance because it offers not only a glimpse of a ruthless form of extreme capitalism in which the social contract is shredded, but also provides a testimony to a logic of cruelty and disposability in which the poor are considered “moochers,” viewed with contempt, and singled out to be punished. But this theocratic economic fundamentalist ideology does more. It destroys any viable notion of civic virtue in which the social contract and common good provide the basis for creating meaningful social bonds and instilling in citizens a sense of social and civic responsibility. The idea of public service is viewed with disdain just as the work of individuals, social groups, and institutions that benefit the citizenry at large are held in contempt.

As George Lakoff and Glenn W. Smith point out, casino capitalism creates a culture of cruelty, with “its horrific effects on individuals– death, illness, suffering, greater poverty, and loss of opportunity, productive lives, and money.”12 But it does more by crushing any viable notion of the common good and public life by destroying “the bonds that hold us together.”13 Under casino capitalism, the spaces, institutions, and values that constitute the public are now surrendered to powerful financial forces and viewed simply as another market to be commodified, privatized, and surrendered to the demands of capital.14 With market-driven zealots in charge of both parties, politics becomes an extension of war, and greed and self-interest trump any concern for the well-being of others. For the extremists who now control the Republican Party, in particular, reason is trumped by emotions rooted in absolutist certainty and militaristic aggression, and skepticism and dissent are viewed as the work of Satan.

At the same time, both Republicans and Democrats embrace the logic of casino capitalism in which Wall Street creates an economy focused on speculative, short-term investments “designed to make a killing rather than expanding the productive base of the economy.”15 Casino capitalism is the true religion of America and provides a common ground for both major parties, in spite of their differences on the role of government and the welfare state. Casino capitalism does not make tangible products needed to address basic human needs or foster broad-based prosperity as much as it “creates an infinite amount of paper assets that can be traded between individuals.”16 It is an economy that has become a playground for gamblers and bettors in which the dice are loaded in favor of the ultra-rich, bankers, hedge fund managers, and financial elite who operate on the assumption that “society’s resources are best allocated by profit-seeking individuals betting on short-term price movements in intangible or paper assets.”17 Casino capitalism thrives on a deregulated and ascendant financial sector that offers easy credit (particularly evident before the 2007 economic recession), cheap mortgages, and the seductive lure of a promising lifestyle built on ever burdening debt.

Appeals to religion often provide a rationalization for the culture of greed, war, repression, and cruelty that drives casino capitalism, but both parties support unfettered capital accumulation, the endless search for short investments, and the criminalization of dissent. What is new in American politics in the current historical conjuncture is the emergence of a casino capitalism largely unchecked by massive social movements, the religionization of politics, and the intense role that religion increasingly plays as a formative register in legitimating the very parameters of politics.

The Religionization of Politics

It is also the case that something far more serious and dangerous is unfolding in American politics than the politicization of religion and the march toward authoritarianism. We are witnessing what Zygmunt Bauman has called the “religionization of politics,” whereby secular politics and policymaking will be reshaped by the logic and certitude of religious fundamentalism. As Bauman points out in a different context:

Much too little attention is paid to . . . the “religionization of politics,” arguably still more dangerous and often much more gory in its consequences [than the politicization of religion]. A conflict of interests calling for negotiation and compromise (the daily bread of politics) is then recycled into an ultimate showdown between good and evil that renders any negotiated agreement inconceivable and from which only one of the antagonists can emerge alive (the liminal horizon of monotheistic religions).18

If the Republican candidacy race of 2012 is any indication, then political discourse in the United States has not only moved to the right–it has introduced totalitarian values and ideals into the mainstream of public life. Religious fanaticism, consumer culture, and the warfare state work in tandem with neoliberal economic forces to encourage privatization, corporate tax breaks, income and wealth inequality, and the further merging of the financial and military spheres in ways that diminish the authority and power of democratic governance.19 Neoliberal interests in freeing markets from social constraints, fueling competitiveness, destroying education systems, producing atomized subjects, and loosening individuals from any sense of social responsibility prepare the populace for a slow embrace of social Darwinism, state terrorism, and the mentality of war–not least of all by destroying communal bonds, dehumanizing the other, and pitting individuals against the communities they inhabit.

The Dark Shadows of Authoritarianism

Totalitarian temptations now saturate the media and larger culture in the language of austerity as political and economic orthodoxy. What we are witnessing in the United States is the normalization of a politics that exterminates not only the welfare state, and the truth, but all those who bear the sins of the Enlightenment–that is, those who refuse a life free from doubt. Reason and freedom have become enemies not merely to be mocked, but to be destroyed. And this is a war whose totalitarian tendencies are evident in the assault on science, immigrants, women, the elderly, the poor, people of color, and youth.20 What too often goes unsaid, particularly with the media’s focus on inflammatory rhetoric, is that those who dominate politics and policymaking, whether Democrats or Republicans, do so largely because of their disproportionate control of the nation’s income and wealth.

Increasingly, it appears that these political elite choose to act in ways that sustain their dominance through the systemic reproduction of an iniquitous social order. In other words, big money and corporate power rule while electoral politics are rigged.21 The secrecy of the voting booth becomes the ultimate expression of democracy, reducing politics to an individualized purchase–a crude form of economic action and a claim to hermetic power. A politics willing to invest in such ritualistic pageantry only adds to the current dysfunctional nature of our social order while reinforcing a profound failure of political imagination. The issue should no longer be how to work within the current electoral system, but how to dismantle it and construct a new political landscape capable of making a claim on equity, justice, and democracy for all of its inhabitants. Obama’s once inspiring call for hope has degenerated into a flight from responsibility. The Obama administration has worked to extend the policies of the George W. Bush administration by legitimating a range of foreign and domestic policies that have shredded civil liberties (going so far as to claim the authority to kill Americans without recourse to due process), expanding the permanent warfare state, and increasing the domestic reach of the punitive surveillance state. And if Romney and his ideological cohorts, now viewed as the most extreme faction of the Republican Party, had come to power, surely the existing totalitarian and anti-democratic tendencies at work in the United States would very likely have been dangerously intensified.

The War against Youth

One measure of the increasing move toward authoritarianism in the United States is evident in that the war against democracy and for neoliberalism is now being directed with special force and intensity against young people, especially low-income youth and poor minorities. We now live during an era in which obscene violence is directed with impunity against young protesters, and youth increasingly serve as targets of myriad forms of public and state-sanctioned punishment.22 The purpose of this book is to bring into the realm of consciousness the degree to which U.S. public spheres, institutions, and values have been hijacked by a politics of distraction and by violent spectacles whose alleged entertainment value conceals an underlying culture of degradation, state-sponsored repression, and an unrelenting depravity that, while it affects everyone, has the most damaging effects on today’s and tomorrow’s youth. A catalogue of indicting evidence reveals the depth and breadth of the war being waged against the social state, and particularly against young people. Beyond exposing the moral depravity of a nation that fails to protect its young, such a war speaks to nothing less than a perverse death wish, a barely masked desire for self-annihilation. The willful destruction of an entire generation not only transforms U.S. politics into pathology but is sure to signal the death knell for America’s future. How much longer will the American public have to wait before the nightmare comes to an end?

For these dire reasons, the time has come for progressives and others to shift the critique of Obama (or the Romney-Ryan platform for that matter) away from an exclusive focus on the policies and practices of his administration and instead develop a new language for politics–one with a longer historical purview and a deeper understanding of the ominous forces that now threaten any credible notion of the United States as an aspiring democracy. Democracy in this case serves not only as a referent for engaging the gap between the existing reality and the promise of its principles and ideals, but also as a site of ongoing struggle that is never finished or completed.23

Toward a New Political Project

The first part of this book examines the trends and forces that are contributing to a widespread shift in American life toward authoritarianism. An awareness of the material and cultural elements that have produced these conditions is important; however, it is simply not enough. The collective response here must be to refuse to enter the current political discourse of compromise and accommodation–to think well beyond the discourse of facile concessions and to conduct struggles on the mutually informed terrains of civic literacy, education, and power. A rejection of traditional forms of political mobilization must be accompanied by a new political discourse, one that uncovers the hidden practices of neoliberal domination while developing rigorous models for critical reflection and fresh forms of intellectual and social engagement. As discussed in the second part of this book, young people across the United States and the globe are certainly doing so, despite the barbaric treatment to which they have been subjected over the past two decades, and particularly since the economic collapse of 2008.

Finding our way to a more humane future demands a new politics, a new set of values, a new understanding of politics, and a renewed sense of the fragile nature of democracy. In part, this means that the militant rhetorical war being waged by social conservatives guided by a distorted notion of religion or austerity under the guise of sound fiscal policy must be understood as a facet of contemporary authoritarianism. These tendencies have a long legacy in American history. But the current historical moment seems at an utter loss to create a massive social movement capable of addressing the totalitarian nature and social costs of a religious and political fundamentalism that is merging with an extreme market fundamentalism. In this case, a fundamentalism whose idea of freedom extends no further than personal financial gain and endless consumption.

Under such circumstances, progressives should focus their energies on working with the Occupy movement and other social movements to develop a new language of radical reform and to create new public spheres that will make possible the modes of critical thought and engaged agency that are the very foundations of a truly participatory and radical democracy. Such a project must work to develop vigorous educational programs, modes of public communication, and communities that promote a culture of deliberation, public debate, and critical exchange across a wide variety of cultural and institutional sites. Ultimately, it must focus on the end goal of generating those forma- tive cultures and public spheres that are the preconditions for political engagement and vital for energizing democratic movements for social change–movements willing to think beyond the limits of a savage global capitalism. Pedagogy in this sense becomes central to any substantive notion of politics and must be viewed as a crucial element of organized resistance and collective struggles.

The deep regressive elements of neoliberalism constitute both a pedagogical practice and a legitimating function for a severely oppressive social order. Pedagogical relations that make the power relations of casino capitalism disappear must be uncovered and challenged. Under such circumstances, politics becomes transformative rather than accommodating and aims at abolishing a capitalist system marked by massive economic, social, and cultural inequalities. A politics that uncovers the harsh realities imposed by casino capitalism should also work toward establishing a society in which matters of justice and freedom are understood as the crucial foundation of a substantive democracy. This book draws hope from youth movements doing this very thing, despite the intensification of emerging social and political forces that are relentlessly damaging young people and any prospects they might have for the future.

Rather than invest in electoral politics, it would be more worthwhile for progressives to develop formative conditions that make a real democracy possible. Central to such a project is the development of a new radical imagination that operates in the service of a broad-based social movement that can move beyond the legacy of a fractured left/ progressive culture and politics in order to address the totality of society’s problems. As Angela Davis has suggested, this means engaging “in difficult coalition-building processes, negotiating the recognition for which communities and issues inevitably strive [and coming] together in a unity that is not simplistic and oppressive, but complex and emancipatory, recognizing, in June Jordan’s words, that ‘we are the ones we have been waiting for.'”24 Developing a broad-based social movement means finding a common ground upon which challenging diverse forms of oppression, exploitation, and exclusion can become part of a wider effort to create a radical democracy. Language is crucial here, particularly language that addresses what it means to sustain a broad range of commitments to others and build more inclusive notions of community. Appeals to social and economic injustice are important, but do not go far enough. There is a need to invent modes of communication that connect learning to social change and foster modes of critical agency through which people assume responsibility for each other. This is not merely about skill sharing or democratizing education and politics; it is about generating a new vision of democracy and a radical project in which people can recognize themselves, a vision that connects with and speaks to the American public’s desires, dreams, and hopes.

Reclaiming a Discourse of Ethics and Social Responsibility

Questions of what it means to be a critical and engaged member of society (and how these are linked to the ways people understand themselves, their relations to others, and their relation to the world) are at the heart of a politics wedded to the primacy of the radical imagination. In part, this necessitates, as media scholar Nick Couldry has argued, reclaiming a discourse of ethics and morality, elaborating a new model of democratic politics, and developing fresh analytical concepts for understanding and engaging the concept of the social. The social has to be reconfigured so as to expose and eliminate a market-driven project–or what I refer to as the Big Lie–that individualizes responsibility while also silencing claims made in the name of democracy. Reclaiming a democratic notion of the citizen-subject goes hand-in-hand with inventing a new understanding of social conditions, civic responsibility, and critical citizenship.

Matters of education and how the public is educated (what I call public pedagogy) are central to a new understanding of politics. Issues of identity, desire, and agency must be considered as part of an energized struggle to reclaim the promise of a substantive global democracy. This entails teaching people to feel a responsibility toward others and the planet, to think in a critical fashion, and to act in ways that support the public good. In this instance, progressives need to create public spheres of engagement using new technologies and other tools that open up new modes of communication and social relations. These efforts should be situated in a larger project rooted in an understanding that critical education and democracy are the primary and mutually constituting elements of any society that can make a claim to promoting the health, justice, and equality of its citizenry. The radical imagination rejects the notion that a corporate-dominated market society represents the essence of democracy. In doing so, it connects economics to social costs and measures the political and spiritual life of a nation by the degree to which it offers collective security, justice, equality, and hope to existing and future generations. At the same time, it refuses the seductions of the prevailing economic and political system, whether in the form of an appeal to the virtues of the electoral system or the call for acting within the existing framework of reform. Young people have “experienced a lifetime of betrayal” and what they need is more “than protection from uncontrolled market forces.”25 Instead of reformist blabber, what is needed are critical viewpoints, modes of governance, and policymaking that address matters of democracy, public life, equality, and the redistribution of wealth and power. Crucial here is the development of new critical vocabularies, modes of knowledge, theoretical resources, and a far-reaching and visionary political project capable of informing and empowering those who have been reduced to the margins of society, barely surviving, while the upper 1 percent accrues highly disproportionate amounts of wealth, income, and power.

This means that progressives must take a cue from youth protesters the world over and develop new ways to challenge the corporate values that shape American and, increasingly, global politics. It is especially crucial to provide alternative values that challenge market-driven ideologies that equate freedom with radical individualism, privatization, and deregulation, while undermining democratic social bonds, the public good, and the welfare state. Such actions can be further addressed by recruiting young people, teachers, labor activists, religious leaders, and other engaged citizens to become public intellectuals who are willing to use their skills and knowledge to make visible how power works and to address important social and political issues. Of course, the American public needs to do more than talk. It also needs to bring together educators, students, workers, and anyone else interested in real democracy in order to create a social movement–a well-organized movement capable of changing the power relations and vast economic inequalities that have created the conditions for symbolic and systemic violence in American society.

Building New Educational Spaces

Regarding policy interventions, progressives can explore a variety of options to build coalitions with labor unions, environmental organizations, and public servants in order to develop a broad-based alternative party to push for much-needed reforms, including paid family and medical leave, a new equal rights amendment for women, literacy and civic engagement programs, a guaranteed minimum income, ecological reform, free child care, new finance laws for funding public education, the cancellation of higher education debt obligations for middle- and working-class students, health care programs, and a massive jobs program in conjunction with a Marshall Plan—like program to end poverty and inequality in the United States. But, to achieve these goals, progressives will invariably need to take on the role of educational activists. One option would be to create microspheres of public education that further modes of critical learning and civic agency, and thus enable young people and others to learn how to govern rather than be governed. This could be accomplished through a network of free educational spaces developed among diverse faith communities and public schools, as well as in secular and religious organizations affiliated with higher educational institutions. These new educational spaces, focused on cultivating both dialogue and action in the public interest, can look to past models in those institutions developed by socialists, labor unions, and civil rights activists in the early twentieth century and later in the 1950s and 60s. Such schools represented oppositional public spheres and functioned as democratic public spheres in the best educational sense and ranged from the early networks of radical Sunday Schools to the later Brookwood Labor College and Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.26 Stanley Aronowitz rightly insists that the current system “survives on the eclipse of the radical imagination, the absence of a viable political opposition with roots in the general population, and the conformity of its intellectuals who, to a large extent, are subjugated by their secure berths in the academy, less secure private sector corporate jobs, and centrist and center-left media institutions.”27

At a time when critical thought has been flattened, it becomes imperative to develop a discourse of critique and possibility–one that recognizes that without an informed citizenry, collective struggle, and dynamic social movements, hope for a viable democratic future will slip out of our reach. Threatening the future of not only youth, but any group marginalized by virtue of age, gender, race or class, is a growing democratic deficit among developed countries as the gap widens between the people and institutions elected to govern and the citizenry they represent. Chapter 1 of this book provides the contexts for understanding how democratic decline in America now works in tandem with a national education deficit, whereby the critical and civic literacies needed for people to engage as active citizens are undermined by both educational policies and practices in schools and the weakening of the public-political culture in broader society. If left unchecked, then tomorrow’s concern will be less a persistent democratic deficit than the rise of a new authoritarianism.28 Chapter 2 reviews how the forces of authoritarianism have evolved from neoliberal-infused political culture, which is driven to restructure society to empower the wealthy and erode the state’s ability to act as a defense on behalf of citizens. This is especially dire for society’s most vulnerable, who suffer disproportionately from the set of orthodoxies characterizing the dominant pedagogy of late twentieth-century neoliberal capitalism with respect to market deregulation, extreme patriotic and religious fervor, the instrumentalization of education, and the militarization of the entire society. These four fundamentalisms marshal a set of pernicious forces that fuel inequality, unemployment, cultures of cruelty and violence, a harsh penal system, the suppression of dissent, and a lack of access to education, among other ruinous social and economic conditions.

The permanent state of warfare abroad and at home has resulted in cultures of violence across several public spheres beyond the military. Chapter 3 focuses in more detail on U.S. popular culture and a growing celebration of military-like values, which has led not only to an infusion of militaristic technologies and ways of thinking across society, but also to the militarization of public spaces, such as schools. The normalization of violence is accomplished through the reproduction of violent pedagogies in contexts that lack (and sometimes actively destroy) the critical apparatuses by which the public becomes sensitized and thus resists the dehumanization, suffering, and social costs entailed by acts of violence. A mass culture of violence leads to the gradual acceptance of violence in everyday life–seen in, for example, grotesque spectacles such as The Hunger Games and the television series The Following. Chapter 4 turns to the tragic death of the African American youth Trayvon Martin, and the way media coverage fixated on the “hoodie” and its alleged symbolic power to trigger life-threatening fear and brutal violence supposedly apart from persistent forms of racism. Analysis of the “color-blind” media suggests that mass spectacles along with fantasies of post-racialism have diverted public attention away from the hidden modes through which neoliberal racism and social inequality continue to operate in American society, particularly through the criminalization of poor minority youth.

Through the alienation and isolation of increasing numbers of young people, the United States is moving ever closer to self-annihilation. Chapter 5 expands further on the war on youth through connecting it to Paul Virilio’s notion of a “suicidal state”–defined as a state that “works to destroy its own defenses against anti-democratic forces.”29 Capitulating to authoritarian tendencies, the government works systematically to disenfranchise its own youth, thus attacking the very elements of a society that allow it to reproduce itself. In the United States, but increasingly everywhere, youth are subject to social conditions that are based on mistrust and fear; they are isolated by society and considered expendable or redundant. Chapter 5 also explores how the demonization of young people in the broader culture and neoliberal values rooted in a virulent social Darwinism have now joined forces with increasingly pervasive forms of state-sanctioned cruelty–all of which escalate the violence used against young people and threatens to culminate in an unprecedented and disastrous global war on youth.

Pointing to the challenges inherent in opposing the warfare state and its culture of cruelty is important, but mere vilification of these ideologies is not enough. Political and pedagogical interventions that enter the conversation in ways that offer both critique and hope should be central in the struggle to create the conditions for a more critical and engaged citizenry. In chapter 6, educators committed to cultivating students as thoughtful citizens are called upon to engage with broader public discourse over the vital importance of public education, as well as the ongoing challenges besetting it, among which are a host of frightening projects rooted in totalitarian logic. There is an urgent necessity in such dark times for intellectuals and various cultural workers to bring the fruits of their scholarship to bear on the crucial issues of the day. In part, this suggests a pressing need for progressives to oppose the right-wing agenda to privatize (and thus demolish) one of the few remaining spaces where critical thinking can be fostered among all young people regardless of privilege and wealth: the public school system and the system of higher education. Religious fundamentalists, in particular, are attempting to steamroll democracy by limiting people’s access to critical education–democracy’s strongest pillar. Through appeals to moral superiority and self-interest, proponents of privatization like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich work to disarm the citizenry and prevent people from seeing the most pernicious impacts triggered by privatization on educational policy and practices, most notably the expansion of charter schools, the narrowing of the teaching curriculum, the dismantling of financial and other supports for students, and the skyrocketing costs of higher education, much of which the Obama administration opposes. Most alarming is how the far-right arm of the Republican Party is using private religious schools to destroy the democratic edifice built on the separation of church and state, and ultimately to marshal support for a theocracy in the United States.

Since the emergence of the Occupy movement in 2011, the potential for collective resistance has grown exponentially. Chapter 7 encourages critical educators to join with Occupiers and other youth in supporting a collective cultural campaign that links the defense of accessible public and higher education to progressive social movements and independent media sources. What must be resisted are the “disappearing acts” of corporate-funded, anti-public intellectuals who erect walls around knowledge, while simultaneously rendering invisible those disadvantaged populations who are deserving of compassion and social protections. These gated intellectuals, often abetted by the dominant media, use privilege and ideological narrowness to divorce themselves from understanding the systemic elements that contribute to social and economic injustice. Their views reduce citizenship to consumption, support corporate greed and private interests, and fuel hyper-individualized notions of equality and freedom. In contrast, engaged public intellectuals might adopt a “borderless pedagogy” that crosses zones of knowledge control and policing and aims to democratize power and knowledge. These new modes of resistance are necessary because a sustainable democratic future will require more than electoral democracy or democracy in name only. It will require a multitude of public and free access forums along with the broad mobilization of traditional and new educational sites in which public intellectuals can do the work of resistance, engagement, and policymaking to support a democratic politics.

Chronicling how the Occupy Wall Street movement has broadly impacted political discourse, chapter 8 explains in detail why a movement that foregrounds the importance of critical education is especially necessary in the current historical moment. The Occupy movement initiated such a task by challenging the fatalism inherent in the capitalist system and developing a new vision of politics. Through the practical translation of theoretical discourses into action for social change, the hope produced by the Occupy movement extends its life to new movements and causes. In the face of police brutality leveled against peaceful protesters with impunity, generations both young and old have a duty to reverse the pressures of the punishing state and develop social movements that not only restore the principles and practices of democracy but build and sustain institutions and formative cultures that can provide a safe, dignified future to young people everywhere. As neoliberal educational policies organize schools today in alignment with punitive and market cultures, the abilities of educators to carry out pedagogies that will ignite students’ social responsibility and political consciousness are being stifled. In this new, corporatized climate, teachers are consigned to the role of technicians and are allowed to do little more than robotically carry out assigned curriculum, teaching-to-the-test mandates, or uphold harsh disciplinary policies. In response to this crisis of pedagogical agency among educators, chapter 9 unravels the current neoliberal attacks being waged on teachers in today’s culture of consumerism and violence. Taking up the media’s momentary celebration of teachers as protectors of youth after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in the fall of 2012, this chapter addresses the heightened difficulty teachers face in safeguarding the futures of young people. At this specific historical conjuncture teachers are subject to an onslaught of attacks against their role as public servants and critical intellectuals. In addition, the very concept of educator should be continually conceptualized as a defender of youth, rather than being celebrated as such only after this kind of tragedy–a short-lived praise quickly lost in the sea of assaults teachers remain subjected to at the hands of advocates for school privatization and market-based education. Importantly, this chapter calls for educators to fight against this anti-democratic configuration of education by reconceptualizing themselves as engaged citizens and public intellectuals committed to making the pedagogical more political and the political more pedagogical, nurturing the critical and civic capacities of the next generation that will challenge the emergent authoritarianism.

Chapter 10 focuses further on the educational foundations of a truly democratic society and the vital role of critical pedagogy for any democratizing movement. Unfortunately, the growing popularity of neoliberal narratives coincides with a trend of thinking about society through a strictly economic lens, and this has produced a generation that views education as a form of technical training whereby a student’s skills only matter if they can be commodified and traded in the marketplace. As the reigning market orthodoxy translates all aspects of our personal and social lives into the context of commerce, the mode of critique that searches for the gaps between the sociopolitical configuration of the moment and the ideal of democracy to come is quickly becoming a thing of the past, replaced by a desire not for our collective betterment and the public good, but for private gain of a distinctly selfish bent. When political engagement disappears, how can a movement toward equality and social justice even begin to emerge? This final chapter explains the crucial responsibility and pivotal role that critical educators as public intellectuals can assume in resisting the neoliberalization of society by using new political and pedagogical languages to recontextualize democracy outside of market values, while equipping young people with the critical skills and sense of agency they need to play an active role in struggling for and shaping a genuinely democratic future. Central to addressing the education deficit in America will be a robust, broad-based social movement that prioritizes a defense of public and higher education as the crucibles out of which engaged citizenship and democracy are forged.

As a whole, this book provides a context for understanding the war on youth through an examination of the regressive educational apparatuses and culture of cynicism that are now dominating the United States as well as Canada, all of which indicate how both societies are increasingly infused with violence. These real and symbolic forms of violence are promoted by a range of intersecting forces, including neoliberal policymaking, militarization, religious fanaticism, corporate elitism, and persistent racism. Despite widespread calls for electoral reform, the United States, in particular, has arrived at such a crisis in governance that it cannot possibly begin to engage prevailing issues through political reform alone. Education–and critical education in particular–must be taken seriously as a matter of primary importance among all who believe in the promise of U.S. democracy. The education deficit will require wholesale cultural and policy change if the United States is going to redress its devastating impact across all levels of society, particularly on young people. But with the emergence of Occupy Wall Street and other social movements, there is hope on the horizon. Indeed, abandoned by an increasingly punitive state and a generation of adults, youth are taking matters into their own hands and are asserting the power of democratic expression and collective struggle in a society that has all but relinquished its claim to equity, justice, social responsibility, and public life.

Notes

 1. Zygmunt Bauman, “Has the Future a Left?,” Soundings, 35 (2007). Online: http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/bauman07.html.
2. David Blacker, The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame (Lon- don: Zero Books, 2013),
3.Charles H. Ferguson, Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America (New York: Crown Business, 2012), 21. See, for example, Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Random House, 2006); Chalmers Johnson, Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Hope (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010); and Angela Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003)
4. Henry A. Giroux, Against the Terror of Neoliberalism (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2008); Colin Crouch, The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism (London: Polity, 2011).
5.Glenn Greenwald, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2011); Jeff Madrick, The Age of Greed (New York: Vintage, 2012). On the issue of inequality there is an abundance of research. Some recent work includes Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality (New York: W. W. Norton, 2012); and a brilliant essay by Michal D. Yates, “The Great Inequality,” Monthly Review 63/10 (March 2012), http://monthlyreview. org/2012/03/01/the-great-inequality.
6. See Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1991); Stanley
Notes to pages 11—13 207
Aronowitz and Henry A. Giroux, Education Still Under Siege, 2nd ed.(New
York: Praeger, 1993). 7. See, for example, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, “Let’s Just Say
It: The Republicans Are the Problem,” Washington Post, April 27, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html.
8. Jane Mayer, “Ayn Rand Joins the Ticket,” The New Yorker, August 11, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand.html.
9. Rick Santorum, “Video: Town Hall Meeting,” C-Span, January 4, 2012, http://c-spanvideo.org/program/SantorumTo. Santorum believes that the “moochers,” code for the young, elderly, low-income poor, and disadvantaged minorities, are draining the public coffers. What he ignores, as Larry Bartels points out, is that “programs serving heavily minority and poor populations are not where the money is. According to the Census Bureau’s Consolidated Federal Funds Report, less than 8 percent of federal spending in 2010 was for unemployment benefits, food stamps, housing assistance, student aid, and the earned-income tax credit. Almost half was for salaries and wages, grants, and procurement; most of the rest consisted of Social Security and Medicare payments. Large-scale reductions in government spending would require significant cuts in big-ticket programs that mostly benefit the middle class.” See Bartels, “The Narcotic of Government Dependency,” The Monkey Cage, February 13, 2012, http://themonkeycage.org/ blog/2012/02/13/the-narcotic-of-government-dependency/.
10. Robert Reich, “Romney-Ryan Will Bring Back Social Darwinism,” Kansas City Star, August 14, 2012, http://www.kansascity. com/2012/08/14/3762436/robert-b-reich-romney-ryan-will.html.
11. Robert O. Self, “The Antisocial Contract,” New York Times, August 25, 2012,http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/the-antisocial-contract/.
12. George Lakoff and Glenn W. Smith, “Romney, Ryan and the Devil’s Budget,” Huffington Post, August 22, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost. com/george-lakoff/romney-ryan-and-the-devil_b_1819652.html.
13. Ibid. 14. Books on the public sphere almost constitute an industry. The classic is
Jürgen Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991). For an excellent reader on seminal articles on the public sphere, see Jostein Gripsrud, Hallvard Moe, Anders Molander, Graham Murdock, eds., The Idea of the Public Sphere: A Reader (Boulder, CO: Lexington Books, 2010). For some recent interesting work, see Ian Angus, Emergent Publics: An Essay on Social Movements and Democracy (Winnipeg, MB: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2001); Daniel Drache, Defiant Publics
208 Notes to pages 13—21
(London: Polity Press, 2008); Dan Hind, The Return of the Public (London: Verso, 2010); and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Commonwealth (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2009).
15. Proinnsias Reathnach, “Casino Capitalism and Global Recession: Historical Background and Future Outlook,” Irish Left Review, September 15, 2009, http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/09/15/casino-capitalism-global-re- cession-historical-background-future-outlook/. The term “casino capitalism” was first coined by Susan Strange, in Casino Capitalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997). Also see Hans-Werner Sinn, Casino Capitalism: How the Financial Crisis Came About and What Needs to Be Done Now (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); and Susmit Kuman, Casino Capitalism: The Collapse of the U.S. Economy and the Transition to Secular Democracy in the Middle East (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2012).
16. Editorial, “How to Profit in Our Casino Economy,” Casino Capitalism, September 8, 2010, http://www.casinocapitalism.com/about/.
17. Ibid. 18. Zygmunt Bauman, Living on Borrowed Time: Conversations with Citlali Rovirosa-Madrazo (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), 132. 19. See Jeffrey R. Di Leo, Henry A. Giroux, Sophia A. McClennen, and Kenneth J. Saltman, Neoliberalism, Education, Terrorism: Contemporary Dialogues
(Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2012). 20. Chris Mooney, Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science–
and Reality (New York: Wiley, 2012). See also Joseph Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future (New York: W. W. Norton, 2012); Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: New Press, 2012); and Dorothy Roberts, Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-first Century (New York: New Press, 2011).
21. Ferguson, Predator Nation. 22. Henry A. Giroux, Zombie Politcs in the Age of Casino Capitalism (New York:
Peter Lang, 2011). 23. Democracy is a complicated concept and one of the most useful books I
have read mapping its divergent theories is Frank Cunningham, Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2002). See also David Held, Models of Democracy, 3rd ed. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006); Marc Stears, Demanding Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
24. Angela Davis, “The 99%: A Community of Resistance,” The Guardian, November 15, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/15/99-percent-community-resistance.
25. Stanley Aronowitz, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Situations 4/2 (Spring 2012): 40, 60.
Notes to pages 22—34 209
26. For a history of such experiments, see Paul Avrich, The Modern Schools Movement (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2005); and Allen Graubard, Free the Children;: Radical Reform and the Free School Movement (New York: Pantheon, 1972).
27. Stanley Aronowitz, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Situations 4/2 (Spring 2012): 68.
28. One particularly important source among the many dealing with the emerging authoritarianism in the United States is Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). See also Henry A. Giroux, Against the New Authoritarianism: Politics After Abu Ghraib (Winnipeg, MB: Arbieter Ring Publishing, 2005); Tony Judt, “What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?,” New York Review of Books 56/ 20 (December 17, 2009), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23519.
29. Paul Virilio, “The Suicidal State,” in The Virilio Reader, ed. J. DerDerian (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 29—45.
1. BEYOND THE POLITICS OF THE BIG LIE
1. Tony Judt, Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century (New York: Penguin, 2008), 420.
2. Raymond Williams, “Preface to Second Edition,” Communications (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 15.
3. Ibid. 4. Robert Jenson, “Florida’s Fear of History: New Law Undermines Critical Thinking,” CommonDreams.org, July 17, 2006, http://www.common-
dreams.org/views06/0717-22.htm. 5. Jessica LaGreca, “Texas GOP Platform Opposes Teaching ‘Critical Thinking Skills’ in Schools., Daily Kos, June 27, 2012, http://www.dailykos. com/story/2012/06/27/1101959/-Texas-GOP-Platform-to-ban-teaching-Critical-Thinking-Skills-in-schools-The-stupid-IT-BURNS.
6. Steve Horn, “Three States Pushing ALEC Bill to Require Teaching Climate Change Denial in Schools,” DeSmogBlog.com, January 31, 2012, http:// www.desmogblog.com/print/6851.
7. Hannah Arendt, “Thinking and Moral Considerations: A Lecture,” Social Research 38/3 (Fall 1970): 417.
8. Zygmunt Bauman, The Individualized Society (London: Polity Press, 2001), 55.
9. Zygmunt Bauman, “Freedom From, In and Through the State: T. H. Marshall’s Trinity of Rights Revised,” Theoria (December 2005), http://www. berghahnbooksonline.com/journals/th/abs/2005/52-3/TH520303.html.
10. Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty (London: Polity Press, 2007), 103

Copyright (2013) of Henry A. Giroux. Not to be reprinted without permission of the author.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

The Other James Gandolfini: "Sopranos" Actor Remembered for Support of Injured Vets, Community Media

0

James Gandolfini, the celebrated actor best known for his role as mob boss Tony Soprano on the hit TV series, “The Sopranos,” died Wednesday at the age of 51. While coverage of his death has focused mainly on his acting career, little has been mentioned about the more political side of his work. In New York City, he was a beloved figure not only because of his acting on the stage and screen, but also because of his major support for community media and producing documentaries critical of war. In 2010, he produced the HBO film “Wartorn: 1861-2010” about post-traumatic stress disorder from the Civil War to Iraq and Afghanistan. He also conducted a series of in-depth interviews with U.S. soldiers wounded in the Iraq War for a 2007 HBO film, “Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq.” We speak to the films’ co-directors, Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill.

TRANSCRIPT:

JUAN GONZALEZ: We end today’s show with a look at a lesser-known side of a well-known actor James Gandolfini. Celebrated for his role as mob boss Tony Soprano on the hit TV series, “The Sopranos,” he died Wednesday the age of 51. He was vacationing with his family in Italy when he died of a possible heart attack. The coverage of his death has focused mainly on his portrayal as Tony Soprano, a role that earned him three Emmys. He’s also been recognized for his roles in films including, Get Shorty, Killing them Softly, and Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In a statement, Sopranos creator, David Chase, called James Gandolfini “One of the greatest actors of this or any time.”

AMY GOODMAN: But, the news coverage has mentioned little about the more political side of James Gandolfini’s work. In New York City he was a beloved figure not only because of his acting on the stage and screen, but also because of his major support for community media. And while his fictional roles have received wide acclaim, he has received less attention for his leading roles in two documentaries about the ravages of war on U.S. soldiers. In 2010 he produced the HBO film, “Wartorn: 1861-2010” about post-traumatic stress disorder from the Civil War to Iraq and Afghanistan. He also conducted a series of in-depth interviews with U.S. soldiers wounded in the Iraq war for 2007 HBO film called, “Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq.” the film centers on the idea that the soldiers remember two key dates in their lives – their birthday and they’re alive day, the day when they narrowly escaped a violent death. This is the trailer for the film.

JAMES GANDOLFINI: Mike, I’m right in front of you, it’s Jim Gandolfini.

SOLDIER: Hi, how you doing, Sir?

JAMES GANDOLFINI: How are you? It’s good to see you again.

SOLDIER: Great. How you doing?

JAMES GANDOLFINI: Why did you join the Army?

SOLDIER: I wanted to go and protect the nation and defend it protect it and punish those who seek to destroy it.

JAMES GANDOLFINI: Everyone I’ve talked to know the exact date when they’ve been hit.

SOLDIER: It was one of those nights in the desert. I will never forget it.

SOLDIER: I had my left hand on the steering wheel. I was smoking and then the bomb went off.

SOLDIER: All I heard was screaming and everything went black.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the trailer for the HBO film, “Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq.” produced by James Gandolfini. For more we’re joined here in New York by the film’s co-directors, Jon Alpert and Matt O’Neill. They also co-directed, “Wartorn: 1861-2010.” They work together at New York’s Downtown Community Television, a community media center based in Chinatown where we also worked until we moved to our new studios. It’s where James Gandolfini was a board member. Jon Alpert is the founder and Executive Director of DCTV. This year Jon and Matt were nominated for an Oscar for their short film “Redemption,” about bottle and can collectors in New York City. Their other honors over the years include four Emmys for the 2006 film “Baghdad ER.” We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! Jon, talk about James Gandolfini. He was a friend of yours, and was a board member of DCTV and he did your films.

JON ALPERT: He was a friend to many people. I think if you could just sort of crystallize him, he sort of believed in nobody left behind. He did not leave his high school friends behind or his college friends behind he didn’t leave the soldiers behind. He did not leave people with learning disabilities – didn’t leave them behind, didn’t leave me behind. Any time he came to town, the phone would ring. Democracy Now! and DCTV used to be neighbors. We’re, what 20 blocks away, and we consider each other friends, but we don’t call each other up. We work, we’re in our own little world. Jim’s world was really big. He made sure that he never forgot anybody. When you were his friend, you were always his friend.

JUAN GONZALEZ: How did he get involved with DCTV to begin with? Because, obviously, it’s a – the commercial acting world is somewhat removed from documentaries and community media.

JON ALPERT: Through working on the documentaries, we all showed a respect for the soldiers, horror at the cost of the wars. He worked really hard on those documentaries. The interesting thing about documentaries, in their essence, they show war in all its terror. They are antiwar films. The army has embraced these films and shows him to every single soldier that comes into the army. It was a really constructive series of documentaries. He came to DCTV – he especially liked our high school kids. He bought them all cameras this Christmas so they could tell their stories. We didn’t have money for cameras. Jim bought the cameras.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to one of Jim Gandolfini’s interviews with “Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq.” He’s speaking with First Lieutenant Dawn Halfaker, who lost an arm in Iraq.

FIRST LT. DAWN HALFAKER: When I came back, a lot of people would ask me, well, what do – how do you feel about this? Do you ever think you’ll get married? Do you ever think you’ll have a boyfriend? Do you ever think you’ll have kids? I did not know the answers to all those questions, but as I go through life, I am learning that it has nothing to do with whether or not I’m amputee. Do I wonder if I ever my kid, if I ever have a kid, do I wonder if they’ll love me for who I am? I hope so.

JAMES GANDOLFINI: What were you just thinking about?

FIRST LT. DAWN HALFAKER: The reality of, will I be able to raise a kid? I won’t be able to pick up my son or daughter with two arms. I won’t. But, I just, I hope they still love me, and I hope I will still be a good parent. What can you do?

JAMES GANDOLFINI: Well, if it matters, I think you’re going to be a wonderful parent.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Jim Gandolfini speaking with First Lt. Dawn Halfaker. Matt O’Neill.

MATTHEW O’NEILL: I think when you see that when he asks Dawn, Dawn, what are you thinking, after that long pause, I think is an example of why he connected to people. He listened so carefully to what the soldiers were saying. He paid attention to what we were talking about, about documentaries or about friendship. And he treated everyone with respect and warmth. I think, when you said the political side of Jim, I was thinking about these interviews, and it was not political in the traditional sense of the word, but he wanted people to hear the stories that he heard. He was inspired by what they said. He was inspired by the fact that he had never heard the stories before. He did USO tours and came back saying, why is nobody talking about these soldiers lives? How can I help tell these stories. You see in that film, in that clip there, about all you ever see of him in the film is the back of his head, because he wanted the cameras focused and the spotlight focused on other people.

JUAN GONZALEZ: That’s one of the things I wanted to raise; how little he felt the need to be seen in the films or even to raise long questions of the film.

MATTHEW O’NEILL: It was always about them. I remember when we were doing press for the film out in Los Angeles and the press would be saying, JIm, Jim, or, James, James, Mr. Gandolfini! And he would always grab one of the soldiers and say, don’t talk to me, talk to them, it’s about them, it’s not about me. I got nothing to say. He lent his energy and his warmth and his compassion to these stories that were not being heard. It was a real gift everyone.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to a clip from the HBO documentary, “Wartorn: 1861-2010” of James Gandolfini interviewing two members of the Louisiana National Guard at Camps Slayer in Iraq. The soldiers are Sergeant John Wesley Mathews and Sergeant First Class Jonathan Deshotels.

SGT. JOHN WESLEY MATHEWS: It’s hard to be taught to do what we do. It’s combat arms, and then they expect you to just turn it off. That is a hard thing about being in the guard, is that you go back and they expect you to just to just get back in society.

JAMES GANDOLFINI: Who is they?

SGT FIRST CLASS JONATHAN DESHOTELS: Family, friends, whoever else.

SGT. JOHN WESLEY MATHEWS: …and the Army. In early April of 2006 is really when I hit rock bottom. I actually contemplated suicide for a while. It had really got to the point where I did not know what it was. Mentally I did not know where I was. I was lost. I really felt like I was feeling my way with my hands in the dark.

SGT FIRST CLASS JONATHAN DESHOTELS: It’s like you just can’t get straight. You just can’t get yourself right. And no matter what you do –

JAMES GANDOLFINI: You mean, talking to other people, talking to each other, there’s nothing that helps?

SGT FIRST CLASS JONATHAN DESHOTELS: You just can’t figure yourself out.

SGT. JOHN WESLEY MATHEWS: It will tear you apart. It will tear your life apart. And many a soldier has met an end at his own hand or at a bottle because they didn’t know to do.

AMY GOODMAN: The documentary “Wartorn.” The voice in the distance was Jim Gandolfini.

JON ALPERT: But, it wasn’t distant from people because everybody thought that they knew him. He was sitting in your living room every Sunday night, and he was part of your family. He spent more time with you than your cousins. It was instant recognition. So, people were ready to talk and share intimate things with him and that was an extraordinary gift that he brought to these documentaries.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And his involvement with Downtown Community Television? As a board member, was he frequently in The Firehouse?

MATTHEW O’NEILL: He came by The Firehouse whenever he was in town. He continued to work in documentary’s. He stayed involved in our lives the same way he stayed involved in the soldiers’ lives. We’ve had so many of the people from “Wartorn” and from “Alive Day Memories” reach out to us as they mourn. He gave these men and women his cellphone number. He was a super big movie star and they stayed in touch with him for years because he lent that intimate connection and kept up with it.

AMY GOODMAN: Last comment, Jon Alpert?

JON ALPERT: We’re in the middle of a documentary that he was producing about people with learning disabilities. It’s another cause that he felt very strongly about, again, nobody left behind. The kids who were pushed into the back of the classroom, he felt that wasn’t right. He knew that if they had the right educational opportunity they could blossom, and he wanted everybody in the country to think about that. I would also like the Democracy Now! community not only to think about Jim, but also another documentary filmmaker, Saul Landau. He’s a friend of ours, and we need to send him our best wishes. He is a really good guy.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s right, all the best to Saul. You can go to our website, democracynow.org, to see our interviews with Saul Landau who is battling cancer right now. I want to thank you both for being with us and all of the work that you do. Jon Alpert and Matt O’Neill who co directed, “Wartorn: 1861-2010” and “Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq.” They were were both produced by James Gandolfini. That does it for our show. A very fond farewell to our video production fellow Nemo Allen. We thank you, Nemo, for your persistence, for your dedication and wish you the very best in your journey to Colombia and beyond. You will always be with us.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

As Whistleblowers Hunted Worldwide, Celebrating Another Rebel, From Apartheid Era

0

<img src="http://truth-out.org/images/2013_June_Images/2013.06.24.Hedges.Main.jpg" alt="South African President Jacob Zuma awards Ronnie Kasrils with the Military Veterans Decoration in Platinum Class III in Bloemspruit Airforce Base, Bloemfontein, August 2, 2012. (Photo: GovernmentZA / Flickr)” width=”308″ height=”412″ />South African President Jacob Zuma awards Ronnie Kasrils with the Military Veterans Decoration in Platinum Class III in Bloemspruit Airforce Base, Bloemfontein, August 2, 2012. (Photo: GovernmentZA / Flickr)What is it that makes a rebel? Why does one willingly step outside society to destroy a system of power, break the law and risk persecution and even death for an ideal? As the state calcifies into corporate totalitarianism, as prominent rebels such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are defamed by a bankrupt media and political class and hunted down as criminals, as change through the established mechanisms of reform becomes impossible, as systems of power invert morality to silence and imprison the just, we are going to have to ask hard questions about what we are willing to endure to make a better world. For if we do not rebel, if we do not actively defy corporate power, we will steadily be herded like captive animals into pens where we will be watched, controlled, abused, exploited and finally cast aside when our bodies and our minds are deemed superfluous by the corporate state. It is not enough to interpret the world. We must change it.

Rebels at the inception of struggle are vilified. They are few in number. They are ostracized by the wider society. They are left to brood in shadows where the organs of state security track and hunt them like prey. These rebels of history must become our tutors. To discuss the nature of rebellion, I recently met with Ronnie Kasrils, who was a leader of the armed wing of the African National Congress when the group was fighting South Africa’s government and who from 2004 to 2008 was minister for intelligence services in the ANC government.

Kasrils, white, middle class and Jewish, turned his back on his race and his class to join the African National Congress as a 22-year-old in 1960. A year later he became a member of the South African Communist Party. He was a founding member, along with Nelson Mandela, of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), or Spear of the Nation, the armed wing of the ANC. He served as the commander of the Natal Regional Command and underwent military training in 1964 in Odessa, in the Soviet Union. As a leader in the MK, Kasrils carried out sabotage and bombings of state infrastructure and industrial sites. Although a 1983 MK guerrilla attack left 19 civilians dead and a 1986 raid killed three civilians and injured 73 others, Kasrils points out that overall only a small number of whites died in the struggle while tens of thousands of blacks were slaughtered by the apartheid state.

Kasrils, along with his late wife, Eleanor, lived the shadowy life of an armed revolutionary. In his long liberation campaign he encountered resistance figures ranging from Ernesto “Che” Guevara to Malcolm X. His autobiography, “Armed and Dangerous: My Undercover Struggle Against Apartheid,” is a meditation on the cost and demands of revolutionary discipleship.

Kasrils said the rebel and the revolutionary are driven by an instinctive compassion, concern for others and “standing up for the underdog.” These impulses are often present in children, he said, but they are muted or crushed by the institutions of social control including the family and school. Kasrils, although an atheist, sees the rebel in Jesus Christ, as well as in the thunderous denunciations of evil and oppression by the Hebrew prophets of the Bible. He said that those who endure oppression such as Mandela and rise up to resist are better described as revolutionaries. The rebel, he said, is one who often enjoys certain “liberties” but who is “prepared to give up his class or her class, or tribe.” Rebels turn their backs on their own.

Kasrils in his autobiography writes about a discussion on the nature of the rebel with Jack Simons, a retired university professor who was teaching ANC recruits in Angola and who had been a leader in the South African Communist Party before it was outlawed in 1950. The conversation, Kasrils said, “stunned me.” “Unconventional thought is a force for development,” Simons told Kasrils. “It is wrong to suppress it. The likes of you and I were thrown to the lions in Roman times and burnt at the stake in the Middle Ages as heretics.”

“The person who could [have escaped all that and had] a privileged or comfortable life–isn’t that the rebel, the John Browns?” Kasrils asked. “Why does John Brown raise the flag of rebellion? So, for a rebel, the officer in an army who certainly stands up and says this army is standing for the wrong thing, we want to stand for the freeing of the slaves, I find this the more fascinating area in terms of rebellion, not that I find it more satisfying or important than understanding why the worker stands up against the boss. I mean, that’s the motive force of revolutionary change, not the rebel’s role. Not my role. And I think this is what Jack Simons was saying to me. We would have been burnt at the stake. That’s the dissident factor. I find this on the question of having been Jewish-born but standing for Palestinian rights. There you need such courage to stand up against your tribe. In South Africa I see so many people now who were oppressed before, and now have a chance to advance in life and become ministers or government officials of various kinds and mayors or–through black empowerment–heads of companies, forgetting what their backgrounds were and feeling, ‘Well, now I can give my children a decent home and education, I’m not worried about those without.’ That’s not a rebel.”

It was in post-apartheid South Africa that Kasrils fully realized Simons’ wisdom. Kasril’s relentless quest for not just political but economic justice has turned him into a fierce critic of the two organizations to which he has dedicated himself for 50 years–the African National Congress and the Communist Party. The failure of these two organizations to ameliorate the suffering of the poor, the rampant corruption he says exists within the leadership of the ANC, and the Marikana Massacre last August in which 44 striking miners were gunned down by the South African Police Service–the most lethal assault on unarmed civilians since the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, the event that prompted Kasrils to join the ANC–have left him alienated, once again, from the centers of power.

“I have to speak up,” he said. “It’s deep within me.”

Kasrils said the ANC’s fatal mistake, which he concedes was partly his fault, was its decision in the transition to power in 1994 to mothball its socialist economic agenda, known as the Freedom Charter. The charter, which had wide popular appeal, demanded the end of the exploitation by the white oligarchic elite that treated black laborers as serfs on farms, in mines and on factory floors. It called for the right to work, freedom of expression, access to decent housing and land for all South Africans and a sharing of South African wealth, especially its mineral resources. Banks, industries and mines were to be nationalized. He and other leaders in the ANC believed they could deal with economic injustice later. They were fearful of defying Western imperialism and, as Kasrils put it, “neoliberal global economy market fundamentals.” But the ANC’s caving in to global pressure to adopt a free market economy has proved to be a disaster. South Africa continues to be one of the most unequal societies on the planet. Whites, although they are less than 10 percent of the nation’s population, earn 7.7 times more on average than their black counterparts. Only a few thousand of the country’s 41 million blacks earn more than $5,000 a year. It is apartheid by another name.

A “true rebel would not have accepted that,” Kasrils said, citing Che Guevara and Simons.

Kasrils became deputy minister of defense in the ANC government in 1994 when Mandela was elected president of South Africa.

“I felt, perhaps as a rebel, that this was something that I could focus on and make a big difference,” he said of his appointment. Kasrils wanted to reform “a white supremacist army into a military that would serve democracy” but in the process, he said, “I took my eye off the ball in terms of the economic factors.”

The forces of global corporate capitalism that have deformed South Africa are harder to define and fight than the palpable evil of white supremacy under apartheid, Kasrils said. The current battle requires “more courage and inner depth” because the enemy is faceless. Kasrils said, however, that we have reached a moment in history that is like 1848 or 1917 or some other seismic turning point. Marx, Engels and Lenin, he said, illuminated the maze the rebel faced in 19th century industrialized society; now, a new maze has to be deciphered. 

“We need something of that nature now,” he said of the light provided by these thinkers. Answers “existed and then petrified.” The onslaught of globalization has “torn apart” the world and created conditions that Kasrils believes replicate those Engels correctly predicted would convulsed the early 20th century.

“It’s very similar,” Kasrils said. “The ruthless struggles for ascendancy, the rivalries, the aggressive wars. That huge confusion and tumult of capital, and now finance corporate capitalism.”

He views the rise of the revolutionary force in the Arab Spring, the recent Turkish street protests and the Occupy movement as signals of a new age.

“We see the anger, the rebellious spirit of people not wanting to live in the way we’re being forced to live at present,” he said. “But the question of how to come together, and the way ahead, and clarifying the enemy, is at present something we’re striving for. There are obviously groups of revolutionaries, rebels and anti-war groups around the world. But what’s lacking is the ability to define what it is that needs to be replaced. [We need] to define that for the vast multitudes, not just for those who are convening movements and protests.”

“Rebels are detonators in terms of getting other people to understand what we’re up against and how we should be organized,” he said. “That’s where the Communist International of Marx, and then later with the 1917 revolution, emerged as a major tool in opposition to imperialism and developed as an anti-imperialist movement.”

What we face through the rise of corporate capitalism is, in essence, the “re-colonization of Africa and the rest of the world,” Kasrils said.

Marx predicted that eventually unfettered, global capitalism would evolve into a revolutionary force, but it would also have within it the seeds of its own destruction. National boundaries helped check capitalist exploitation with government regulation, an adversarial press and labor organizing, but once corporations created global markets, once they could play one country off another, once workers around the globe were in effect disempowered, the barriers to unfettered capitalism were lifted. I asked Kasrils if we had now reached the last stage that Marx wrote about.

“I think it is that,” he said. “You know we call it today globalism and give it the name of the neoliberal agenda, but that’s exactly what Marx is talking about. Globalism isn’t something that’s just emerged. There’s been the force toward globalism on the basis of the replacement of feudalism into first industrial capital, which was the building up of separate empires. And obviously state powers, and empires, and interfinance capital, and the imperialism that we have today.

“The rise under capitalism of Western Europe is directly, as a result of the ability, time and place, to colonize what we call the developing world today: Africa, Asia, Latin America. It’s on that basis that the empires of Europe, and then of America–North America–grow.”

And as nations are re-colonized, the forms of control become more sophisticated.

“Every single dictatorship builds up the surveillance mechanisms and the control system of its society, of its people,” Kasrils said. “Right throughout history–from ancient times–it becomes absolutely necessary the moment the state based on classes emerges. So the slaves are kept under control. Fear is put into their hearts on a minute-to-minute basis. The sword, the ax, is always over your head, and that applies in modern times where it’s not just the club over your head but it’s also the other threats of losing job, losing profession, of being ruined or being thrown onto the streets.”

“People fear what they see emerging,” he said. “It has happened before under McCarthyism, communist witch hunting in Europe, Britain. So, to keep people in line, whether it’s schoolboys under disciple or sailors on the deck of a ship, or the unemployed, or the factory worker, there’s always been that element of fear to control, to reinforce the control through socialization, education and the hegemony of ruling-class thought, prayer, religion and so on. But in history, as Spartacus or any rebel movement shows, and as we’ve seen in the Arab Spring–Tunisia and Egypt are the particular models–the point comes when people lose fear. That emerged very starkly in the police state of [Hosni] Mubarak. Fear was everywhere. People didn’t dare to speak or to step out of line. The few rebels were always crushed on the torturer’s wheel, their tongues cut out, metaphorically, sometimes actually in reality. So the contradictions of the few ruling the many in terms of injustice brings to my mind the great lines of Shelley, the poet, at the time of the Peterloo Massacre, ‘Rise from your slumbers like lions, we are many they are few.’ [Paraphrase.] And, you know, when I read that I was amazed at the similarity in South Africa when in 1976 young people, 12-year-olds, teenagers in the schools, rose against the apartheid police state, with all of the fear factor, including that of the myth of white supremacy, and were prepared to take it on in the streets and were prepared to die, and those who weren’t shot down were prepared to look for the organizational form to fight back and instead of stones to seek guns and bullets. The ANC was the organization that they turned to because it had always been the rebel organization. It had never died, it was always there and always strove to resist. So, fear, as we’ve seen, can keep people in check for many, many years. Decades. And there comes a time when the system breaks, when the weakest link snaps, and people suddenly lose fear and find courage and stand up. And that’s what we’re seeing.”

“I recall in the long, dark years of our struggle against apartheid where we were being hammered, or imprisoned, or we were in exile, and we would always speculate what would start the fire again,” he said. “And it’s like what’s happened actually as we speak in the square in Istanbul. Quite a small, insignificant square, which was the only parkland with trees in a huge district. And young people and old people wanted to defend this park as one of their lungs. We’re reading about it as we speak and seeing it on our TV screens this very day. That’s a kind of poetic beauty about rebellion and revolution. It’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It’s that dialectic–the drip of water that wears away a stone. What is it? This is where you use the term ‘mystery.’ It’s happening over many, many years. It’s wearing away a chain that’s imprisoning people. It’s melting somehow. It’s breaking the fetters. And that happens suddenly from a trigger like the demand, the protection of the park, and the Turkish despot, [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, saying, ‘No matter what you do or say, the development of the shopping area on your blessed park is going ahead.’ And that’s just one bridge too far.”

“You’ve got to be organized,” he said. “You’ve got to have a program of action. You’ve got to have a strategy about your tactics and who is the enemy, and what are you going to replace the system with.”

Although Kasrils embraced violence against the apartheid state he is very hesitant about employing violence against the corporate state. But he sees oppression, if finally left unchecked, as justifying the use of force by the rebel. He quoted John F. Kennedy’s dictum: “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”

“When you get to a point where it’s impossible to make change in any other way, then violent means comes on the agenda, revolutionary struggles,” Kasrils said. “I wouldn’t speak for [the] American people. Certainly in a democracy where everybody has the right to vote at every level from national to local, isn’t it then a question of the extent to which you … use your space and the opportunities of organizing people against particular obstructions, against injustice of whatever form, and electing the people who can do the job?”

“The corporate [state], as you say, they are the unseen force, but behind what?” he asked. “It’s behind the media, so to propagandize, and subject us to their world through the visual and the printed forms, and the way we’re educated, through the running of governments and getting their hands on the Appalachian minerals, but isn’t there potential? Doesn’t the Occupy movement show that there is energy there that can be tapped, that can be mobilized? That’s the challenge. It’s very, very difficult. I know.”

“The fact that we have a bourgeois democracy with the right to vote means that there must be the space to organize,” he said. “So we’ve got a situation in South Africa where things, I believe, are going wrong, where our ruling party is serving corporate elements and is being bribed and corrupted. It’s not so easy to mobilize people who see their only hope with the ANC and will use their vote for that, but in fact aren’t getting proper service from the ANC. Until there’s a force on the scene in South Africa to do better, people won’t vote otherwise. … I wouldn’t [want to] see a repeat of what the Weathermen did in the late ’60s with the Black Panthers. Look how isolated they were as a result. If you’re going to take up arms as we did, it’s on the basis that in the end you will win, that you will isolate your adversary, and that you will win to your side the vast multitudes of people, not be isolated as so many armed struggles become, not only in Germany with the Baader Meinhof group or the Red Brigades of Italy.”

“This wave of jihadism is absolutely reactionary. … They see certain problems with their culture, with Western domination,” he said. “It goes [to] more than just the culture … it’s all about the domination of the wealth of those countries. They’re using the wrong means here and bringing such incalculable suffering on their people. And I’m not blaming them for drone war, etc., but you’ve got to take this into account. They’re going about it in the absolutely wrong way. So to consider the use of violence in terms of resistance, it’s, in a sense, the highest form of struggle to use weapons when you can’t use any other forms of change. But you have to be so scientific, so clear in your goals and in your strategy and tactics if you want to use this. Otherwise, you’ll be absolutely smashed, and you’ll bring untold harm and devastation onto the heads of people, and a price that you can never pay.”

Kasrils in his autobiography tells of an incident involving a South African death squad led by the notorious killer and former police colonel Eugene de Kock. De Kock was the commanding officer of C1, a counterinsurgency unit of the South African police that in the 1980s and 1990s kidnapped, tortured and murdered hundreds of anti-apartheid activists and ANC leaders. He and his hit squad had recently assassinated three of Kasril’s ANC comrades. Kasrils tracked de Kock, nicknamed “Prime Evil” and now serving a life sentence in South Africa, along with de Kock’s squad of killers, to a hotel. Kasrils organized a group of ANC insurgents to gun down the members of the hit squad there. De Kock and his men had left, however, before Kasrils and his party burst into the room where they had been. I asked Kasrils if he would, should the situation be repeated today, organize an armed group to kill de Kock and his hit men.

“I see this as similar to the French Resistance and the resistance in Europe against the Nazis,” he said. “So, you know there were the battles in the open, but most of the battles were by stealth. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong in the battle of stealth against power when you are engaged in a war. They had killed, murdered in cold blood, three of our people in Swaziland. You’ve got to take harsh decisions at times, and this is in the context of an ongoing war there. … I put it within the context of a revolutionary war.” He said, nevertheless, that “when I look back and I meet some of these people who we fought before and I hear from them how they knew someone who died, I wish that that person didn’t have to die.”

“To go up in a war, a revolutionary war, to attack a barracks and blow it up with soldiers inside, you know they’re doing that to you–that’s warfare. Terrorism is the indiscriminate action against the civil population, unarmed people. And there were times there, probably 20, 30, 50, maybe, acts that took place in so many years where you could say that was an act of terror, where a bomb was put in a bar or a restaurant, but we stopped it as soon as that was taking place in the mid-’80s. Some of our elements, our units, did that in a very small-scale way. We came down upon it very quickly.”

“To have taken lives that way, I think, is coming down to the unspeakable level of your adversary, which you must not do,” he said. “And you lose the moral high ground in the process.”

He said that the ANC learned to differentiate between the apartheid regime and all other whites, even those whites who voted the apartheid leaders into power and backed their racist ideology.

“When people vote they often aren’t even really clear about why, and they do it out of fear,” he said. “So we were very careful in relation to that. But it was another thing if you were on the track of hit squads, of very vicious people who were taking our lives. You were actually saving lives if you could stop them.”

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

Oil Industry Must Pay for Its Waste

0

<img src="http://truth-out.org/images/2013_June_Images/2013.06.24.DT.Main.jpg" alt="Air pollution. (Photo: via Shutterstock )” width=”308″ height=”432″ />Air pollution. (Photo via Shutterstock )Tomorrow, President Obama will deliver a speech on climate change at Georgetown University, which, according to the White House, will outline the president’s “vision for a comprehensive plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it.”

In tomorrow’s speech, it’s expected that the president will announce new emissions rules for existing power plants in the country.

This could be a big deal, because existing power plants in the U.S. account for nearly 40 percent of all carbon emissions in the country. The new standards expected to be unveiled would, for all practical purposes, signal the beginning of the end of conventional coal-fired power in America.

And, while that’s a great start, and a move that is sorely needed, if President Obama really wants to do what’s necessary to save our planet, he needs to propose a carbon tax.

Right now, the fossil fuel industry is the only industry in America that doesn’t pay to have its waste disposed of. That waste is known as carbon dioxide.

As a result, you and I are forced to pay the costs for their waste; costs that come in the form of massive disaster cleanup efforts, species loss across the world, and possibly even the eventual extinction of most life on Earth.

In an interview with Jeff Goodell for Rolling Stone magazine, Professor Harold Wanless, the chair of the University of Miami’s geological sciences department, said that if we continue to do nothing to fight the devastating effects of climate change, the city of Miami could be completely devastated.

Wanless said that thanks to climate change and rising ocean levels, Miami is on its way to becoming the American version of the lost city of Atlantis.

The professor went on to say that, “Miami, as we know it today, is doomed.”

And Miami isn’t just some isolated cautionary tale on the effects of global warming and climate change.

All across our nation, climate change is already having disastrous effects on cities and communities, and those effects will continue to get worse if we continue to do nothing. Miami won’t be the only city under water.

Some way of accounting for the real costs of carbon is desperately needed if we want to have any hope of combatting the greatest threat that this planet has ever faced.

Meanwhile, while we’re paying the costs for the fossil fuel industry’s waste, the industry is shelling out millions to lawmakers in Washington, in attempts to ensure that they are never forced to pay for their own waste cleanup.

But it won’t be easy.

Oil and gas companies have doled out more than $238 million to political candidates and parties since 1990, and of that $238 million, 75% has gone to Republicans.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2011-2012 election cycle, Big Oil giant Chevron Corporation spent more than $3.8 million on campaign donations, while ExxonMobil spent another $2.7 million.

And, to make matters even worse, Big Oil benefits from over $4 billion in tax breaks each year, and estimates suggest that annual fossil fuel industry subsidies range anywhere from $10 billion to $52 billion annually.

The easiest way to stop this damage to our planet is by introducing a carbon tax.

As soon as a carbon tax is applied, all of the clean and green energy alternatives to fossil fuels become economically viable, while fossil fuels become more expensive.

As a result, the fossil fuel industry will almost be forced to invest in cleaner and greener forms of energy, in order to stay in business.

Imposing a carbon tax is nothing new either.

The European Union has had a carbon market in place since 2005, and China is working feverishly to establish a national carbon emissions cap and trade program.

In fact, that nation just launched its first carbon cap and trade program in the highly industrialized city of Shenzhen.

The stakes are high: The fate of planet Earth versus money from the fossil fuel industry.

So, Mr. President, when you take to the stage tomorrow at Georgetown, if you are truly serious about addressing the issues of climate change and global warming, and are serious about leading the world in combatting this growing threat, than you need to propose a carbon tax, and put an end to this nation’s toxic addiction to fossil fuels.

Let’s put the interests of Big Oil aside, and put a price on carbon to help preserve the future of the only planet we are able to call home.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

On the News With Thom Hartmann: Senate Votes Today on "Border Surge" Amendment to Immigration Bill, and More

0

In today’s On the News segment: Supreme Court will hear case on Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, and more.

Thom Hartmann here — on the news…

You need to know this. Over the weekend, government officials and news agencies were playing a game of “Where’s Snowden.” The NSA whistle-blower made a sudden departure from Hong Kong, reportedly traveling to Moscow, Russia. Snowden was then not in his seat for the next flight, which would have brought him from Russia to Cuba. Officials are now unclear if Snowden ever actually made his way to Russia, or if the flight was simply a diversion. U.S. intelligence officials have warned Western nations that Snowden “should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel, other than is necessary to return him to the United States.” It appears that warning is meant specifically for the nation of Ecuador, which has granted asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, said, “We will consider the position of the U.S. Government and we will make a decision in due course in line with the [Ecuadorean] constitution, the laws, international politics, and sovereignty.” As of now, there are no confirmed reports on Snowden’s actual location, but Reuters is reporting he has received refugee documentation to ensure safe passage to Ecuador. Already tense relations between these countries are being further strained by this new development. The world is watching to see how these events unfold, but it’s anyone’s guess as to where Edward Snowden may turn up.

In screwed news… Nuclear waste is leaking into the ground at a decommissioned nuclear weapons site in Washington state, but officials say there’s no need to worry. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation has become the final resting place for about 56 million gallons of radioactive waste, and has long-been considered the most contaminated nuclear site in our nation. New reports indicate that many of the double-walled underground storage containers holding the toxic sludge have been leaking for some time. State and federal officials say that only 6 of 177 tanks are leaking, and they pose no threat to public safety. However, Tom Carpenter, executive director of the environmental group Hanford Challenge, said, “A third of these tanks have failed already. One third! They’ve leaked a million gallons, there’s more to come.” Many of the tanks were designed for a maximum use of 20 years, however some have been in place since the 1940s. According to CBS News contributor Michio Kaku, who is also a physics professor at the City University of New York, the Hanford site is a “ticking time bomb.” He said, “When it hits the ground table, it will go right into the Columbia River, and remember that’s one of the major rivers in the entire Pacific Northwest.”

In the best of the rest of the news…

President Obama will deliver his long-awaited climate speech tomorrow at Georgetown University, according to a White House video tweet. Among the proposals he is expected to announce, is a new cap on our nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions. In the video tweet President Obama said, “There’s no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change. But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can.” The video was met with excitement and support by climate activists. Even Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, responded saying, “The world desperately needs climate leadership, and today Barack Obama showed he might turn out to be the guy who provided it.” Hopefully, Mr. McKibben is correct, and our President will lead the fight against the fossil fuels that are destroying our planet.

Today, the United States Senate will vote on an amendment that could determine the future of comprehensive immigration reform. The Corker — Hoeven amendment, dubbed the “border security surge”, introduces many extreme — and expensive — border security provisions, such as doubling the number of agents on the border, doubling the size of the border fence, and increasing spending on border surveillance. Despite all those extreme provisions, Senators Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz say the bill doesn’t go far enough. And, Tea Party Senator Rand Paul says he won’t vote for the final bill unless it includes so-called border security triggers, which are essentially unattainable benchmarks that block any future path to citizenship. Even if immigration reform survives the objections of hard-Right Senators, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will have its turn to push the reform even further Right. Stay tuned.

Today, most Americans will focus on the opinions released by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the remaining decisions to be handed down. However, case decisions aren’t the only big news out of our nation’s highest court. Today, the Court announced that they will hear National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. At issue in that case is whether President Obama’s recess-appointments to the NLRB were valid, and how strictly the Constitution defines recess appointments. The Supreme Court will hear the case next term, and determine whether the Senate is actually in recess when they simply gavel-in and gavel-out during so-called “pro forma sessions” designed to block Presidential recess appointments. The outcome could determine whether the President can use recess appointments to combat Senate obstructionism. Considering the number of judicial vacancies, and the number of empty posts at crucial agencies such as the NLRB board, this ruling could have a huge impact on our nation.

And finally… We’ve all heard the jokes about someone having a bridge to sell, but one Russian man just turned those jokes into reality. According to a Russian news agency, the man didn’t want to wait until a local bridge was on the market, so he hooked it up to his tractor and hauled it away to sell for scraps. However, police had no problem identifying the suspect, because they followed the drag marks directly to his home. Apparently, metal thefts in Russia are a huge problem, because this wasn’t even the strangest. Russian news agencies say that previous thefts have included several locomotives, and even a special bike ridden by a circus bear.

And that’s the way it is today — Monday, June 24, 2013. I’m Thom Hartmann — on the news.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

"The Revolution Is Going to Be Fought With the Hoe": Agriculture and Environment in New Mexico

0

 Spring cleaning of the acequia that irrigates Sol Feliz farm. Acequias are a traditional irrigation system used through much of New Mexico, and managed democratically by the community. Photo by Miguel Santistevan.Spring cleaning of the acequia that irrigates Sol Feliz farm. Acequias are a traditional irrigation system used through much of New Mexico, and managed democratically by the community. (Photo by Miguel Santistevan.)

“We’re surrounded by agricultural land but we have no food security. Right now we’re strapped to the global market,” said Miguel Santistevan, a New Mexican farmer and biologist. “Some people are trying to figure out how to set themselves free and are showing other people. It’s as if we were all tied to a train that’s headed off a cliff, and pretty soon a lot of us are saying, ‘Hey, I’m going to jump off this train before it goes.’

Miguel and his partner Margarita García are helping youth reclaim knowledge about traditions behind lands and waters. Sol Feliz Farm, Miguel’s grandfather’s house east of Taos, is an acre of spiral gardens, rock gardens, and straight rows. The farm’s Agriculture Implementation Research and Education (AIRE) project is capturing the imagination of an impassioned group of youth in northern New Mexico. At AIRE, the youth get to engage in everything from planting seeds to plucking chickens to visiting the state legislature. On any given morning during the summer, you can find the youth irrigating the field, using the traditional acequia method of diverting flowing water to the land via hand-dug channels.

“You figure maize agriculture, 10,000 years of agricultural evolution, at least,” Miguel said, “and we’re losing all that cumulative knowledge.” Miguel is a walking encyclopedia about plants and water, but not the type of encyclopedia you’d find in any local library. “People try to put together equations. ‘Oh, well, you have this many acres and this much corn, and corn requires this much water, so you’ve got to irrigate this many times.’ And I say, ‘Dude, nature doesn’t work that way. Go talk to the Hopi about how much water corn needs.’ I know an elder Hopi who said, ‘It doesn’t even need to rain. A cloud just needs to fly overhead.’

“All these people think that, dammit, this system has to conform to the mathematics of engineers, lawyers and economists, with the help of politicians. That’s why I like working with youth, because the youth don’t buy it. They buy a lot of it: this rap music, and the gangster stuff, and the drug subculture. When it comes to what’s happening to the mountains, what’s happening to the rivers, what’s happening to the elders, they don’t buy it. Some kids are saying, ‘Oh well, the world’s gonna end anyways. The older generation, they already destroyed the planet. Might as well just party, have a good time.’ But other kids are saying, ‘How’re we going to fix it?’

“Our part in this process is not just about social change and justice, it’s also about food production and how do we feed ourselves.

“The other day, we were harvesting corn. Some of these kids are on probation, getting in trouble in school, dropping out of school. Just to see that look on their faces and the wonder as they’re opening that corn up, just amazed at the sight of the kernels, the color… it was awesome. That wonderment, that’s how we’re going to get to the next stage.”

Other New Mexicans are focused on creating a “regional foodshed,” a local food ecosystem that bases its boundaries on ecological parameters like water flow, rather than on arbitrary state lines. One important contributor to rebuilding the foodshed along the Rio Grande Valley is La Montañita Co-op food market. A 37-year-old store with five locations throughout the state, one of La Montañita’s slogans is “fair fresh local.”

The ecosystem dictates what the co-op sells, said Robin Seydel, membership coordinator. “We want to utilize all the eco-climes up and down the Rio Grande Valley.” Currently, 20% of the store’s sales come from more than 1,500 different items produced by nearly 900 local producers. The goal is to increase that to 50%. The co-op’s local production coordinator develops plans with farmers to increase the diversity and seasonality of local foods. “That way we’ll have quinoa from Southern Colorado, chili from New Mexico,” said Robin. La Montañita also provides training in land-stewardship practices and product improvement, and negotiates pre-payment on some contracts to help out struggling farmers.

Over the past few years, as Robin and others at the co-op watched many local farms go out of business, they realized that a major challenge for farmers — especially given the skyrocketing cost of gas — was transporting their products to market. The co-op now leases a refrigerated truck to bring local goods to its stores, like milk from one of the only two dairy farms in the state that still produces and bottles milk for local consumption.

Some other pro-agriculture, pro-environment initiatives in New Mexico include:

* Preservation of agricultural lands, both through direct purchase and mechanisms like conservation easements and agricultural land trusts (see, for example, the Quivira Coalition);

* Community kitchens for small producers so that, without the hefty cost of starting their own commercial kitchens, they can create value-added products and capture a better price (see, for example, the Taos Food Kitchen of the Taos County Economic Development Corporation);

* Production, distribution, and marketing alliances to help small farmers increase their sales (see, for example, the Southwest Grassfed Livestock Alliance);

* Programs to help small farmers sell to restaurants, schools, and other institutions, (see, for example, Farm to Table New Mexico); and

* Farmer-to-farmer trainings to exchange innovative practices and information.
 

Miguel said, “The revolution isn’t going to be fought with guns. It’s like [Iroquois author and activist] John Mohawk said: the revolution is going to be fought with the hoe. And the shovel. And not against people, but with people, working the land.”

Download the Harvesting Justice pdf here, and find action items, resources, and a popular education curriculum on the Harvesting Justice website. Harvesting Justice was created for the US Food Sovereignty Alliance, check out their work here.

Read more from Other Worlds here, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Copyleft Other Worlds. You may reprint this article in whole or in part. Please credit any text or original research you use to Tory Field and Beverly Bell, Other Worlds.

This article originally appeared on: Truth Out

Center for Auto Safety Dissatisfied With Chrysler’s Jeep Recall

0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/center_for_auto_safety_dissatisfied_with_chryslers_jeep_recall_20130624/

Posted on Jun 24, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

Greece's socialists receive key posts

0

Greece’s socialist leader Evangelos Venizelos leaves the official prime minister’s residence in Athens on June 14, 2013.

Members of Greece’s minority Socialist party have received key posts in a cabinet reshuffle after coalition party Democratic Left quit the government over the closure of state broadcaster ERT.

After continuous talks on Monday, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) received 11 minister and deputy minister posts while the remaining 32 went to Prime Minister Antonis Samarasâ„¢ conservative party.

The leader of the PASOK party, Evangelos Venizelos, was named deputy prime minister and foreign minister.

Other senior Socialist officials were granted top posts: Michalis Chrysochoidis becomes transport minister, while Yiannis Maniatis takes the energy brief.

Yannis Stournaras continues as finance minister to implement further austerity measures and other economic reforms.

The new two-party coalition government will take oath on Tuesday and will have a slight majority in parliament as it controls 153 of the 300 seats.

The cabinet reshuffle came after coalition member Democratic Left quit the government last week in protest of Samaras ordered the closure of state broadcaster ERT on June 11.

State TV and radio signals remain off air despite a ruling by Greeceâ„¢s top administrative court on June 17 ordering the government to restore public broadcasts.

Samaras has defended his action by saying ERTâ„¢s closure was part of the governmentâ„¢s pledge to slash 15,000 public sector employees by the end of 2014.

The large cut is a condition for the debt-stricken country to receive 240 billion euros (USD 314 billion) in rescue loans by the troika of international lenders — the European Union, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The country is already struggling with record high unemployment rates as the overall level stands at 27 percent and 62.5 percent of youths are without work.

CAH/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

UK claims Syrian army obstacle to peace

0

British Foreign Secretary William Hague claims the Syrian armyâ„¢s successful offensive against foreign-backed militants is the biggest obstacle to peace in the country.

“What is being done now by the regime who have embarked on fresh military offensives since it was agreed that we would have a second Geneva conference is not helping to bring that about,” Hague told reporters on Monday on the sidelines of a UN Security Council meeting he chaired.

This comes as the militants continue their offensive against Syrian government forces and civilian targets but London has refused to call for a halt in their attacks, or their violence against civilians and the army forces, as it has been Britainâ„¢s practice since the conflict began in March 2011.

Britain has been directly providing assistance to armed militants in Syria over the past months with the stated aim of overthrowing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad.

London has also been pushing for sending arms to Syrian militants that places Hague in the impossible position of claiming London wants the terrorists armed to make peace.

Meanwhile, the militants, rather than the Syrian government, have boycotted the proposed Geneva 2 peace talks.

Hague also claimed that new efforts are needed to bring the Syrian government to the negotiating table while Damascus has been expressing its readiness for sending a delegation to the proposed Geneva conference for at least a month.

Russia and the US have agreed to hold a follow-up meeting to the 2012 Geneva conference on Syria to find a peaceful solution to the situation.

The conference, originally planned to be held in June, has been hampered by the divisions between foreign-backed militants and their western supporters.

AMR/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Erdogan discusses Syria with Obama

0

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) watches as US President Barack Obama speaks during a joint press conference in the White House on May 16, 2013.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has discussed Syria with US President Barack Obama, highlighting the need to provide further support to foreign-backed militants in the Arab country.

The White House said in a statement on Monday that the two leaders had a telephone conversation, focusing on their “commitment to pursuing a political solution (and) the need to provide additional support to the opposition.”

It came after US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech in a meeting of the so-called ”Friends of Syria” in Doha, Qatar, on Saturday that the Syria militants need further support Å“to be able to address the imbalance on the ground.”

“The United States and other countries here — in their various ways, each choosing its own approach — will increase the scope and scale of assistance to the political and military opposition,” he said.

Meanwhile, the foreign-backed Takfiri militants in Syria said on Sunday that the armed groups have been supplied with heavy weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles by Å“brotherly nations.”

The Los Angeles Times reported on the same day that CIA operatives have been secretly providing the militants with training on the use of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons for months.

Elsewhere in the conversation, Obama spoke about anti-government demonstrations that have rocked turkey for more than three weeks.

The White House statement also said that the two leaders talked about Å“the importance of nonviolence and of the rights to free expression and assembly and a free press,” in Turkey.

This is while the two sides have been contributing to violence in Syria by sending military aid to foreign-sponsored militants.

Ankara and Washington had earlier exchanged sharp remarks over Turkeyâ„¢s violence, with the US government voicing concerns over Å“excessive” use of police tactics against protesters. The Turkish government, however, rejected the criticism.

SAB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Workers Struggles, the Americas

0

 

25 June 2013
Latin America

Nicaraguan health workers strike to demand resources to fight diseases.

Some 300 public health workers in the Nicaraguan department of Chinandega began a strike June 18 to demand that the government supply needed medicines and equipment to combat diseases in the area, as well as other demands.

Fernando Loáisiga, secretary general of the health workers’ union, Fetsalud, told El Nuevo Diario that dengue, malaria and leptospirosis outbreaks have been reported in various parts of the department, and the workers have been laboring along with 80 soldiers to combat the diseases. “As union members we propose to work from Monday to Friday, but the Minsa (Health Ministry) wants to include us in Saturday and Sunday, something that we do not accept.”

Loáisiga added that the delivery of resources for the nurses, doctors, educators and brigadistas was “urgent” to fight the diseases. The health workers also called for the sacking of some directors of hospitals and assistance centers, whom they accuse of poor management and verbally abusive mistreatment.

Still other demands are repairs of ambulances and equipment; delivery of fuel for applying insecticides and cleaning; and travel pay.

Costa Rican banana workers strike over firings

On June 5 over 650 workers for Del Monte’s Costa Rican subsidiary, the Banana Development Company, or Bandeco, struck to demand the reinstatement of 59 workers who were fired during a 2011 strike. A judge recently ruled the firings illegal.

The banana workers’ union, known as Sitepp, called the action at three Bandeco farms in the city of Daytonia de Sixaola, near the Panamanian border. On June 13 and 14, about 200 workers blocked the main streets of Sixaola to protest stalled negotiations.

Argentine chemical workers end weeklong strike over unfulfilled contract commitments

Workers at about 40 chemical industry firms in the Argentine cities of Zárate and Campana returned to their jobs on June 19 after seven days on strike. The workers went back following the signing of an accord at a meeting between representatives of the Petrobras firm, the Labor Ministry and the Chemical and Petrochemical Industries Syndicate the night before.

Originally the strike was solely against Petrobras, but it spread to other chemical industry firms in the Gualeguaychú Industrial Park in northern Buenos Aires. It included pickets that prevented the entry of personnel and raw materials and the exit of finished products, affecting all the chemical-related industries in the two cities.

The workers walked out over the oil company’s failure to apply the salary agreement that was signed in 2012 and included a 22 percent raise. Under the terms of the June 18 agreement, Petrobras is to pay the salary hike, including retroactive payments going back to April of last year, in five increments beginning in July and ending in March 2014. Petrobras also agreed to rescind the sacking of four employees.

48-hour strike by Uruguayan teachers for increased education budget

On June 20, public school teachers across Uruguay went on a two-day strike to demand that more resources for education be included in budget proposals that the government will present to the national parliament on June 30. The strike was reported to have been total throughout the country.

In about thirty institutions, police were sent to dislodge teachers who occupied buildings. Under orders from their unions, the teachers left peacefully, but said that they would return to occupy in the future.

The president of the National Secondary Professors Federation (Fenapes), Manuel Oroño, told reporters that the strike and occupations were meant to pressure the government regarding three aspects of education funding: “One is to improve infrastructure, because there’s an important lack of buildings and many need repairs. There are also shortages in the number of clerical staff, teachers and services. The third element relates to salaries. In the next budget, we want the teachers to make more.”

Currently, the base-level salary for teachers is 17,000 pesos (US$800); the teachers unions are calling for a raise to 25,000 pesos (US$1,190) by the end of the current administration of president José Mujica in 2015.

Mujica claimed that “under no circumstance” has the budget proposal been completely defined yet. However, the president, who was elected with union support on a left-reformist platform, warned against policies that would “unleash inflation and an immeasurable increase in the fiscal debt” and lead to “a retraction in investment because we would eat up the possibilities for jobs in the future.”

The United States

New York car wash workers strike ends with contract agreement

Workers at Sunny Day Car Wash in New York City ended their 13-week strike and signed a first-time labor agreement on June 4. During the course of the new three-year agreement wages will rise from the minimum wage to $9.18 an hour. Workers will also receive a standard 40-hour week, seniority and five paid days off and two personal days.

The organization of Sunny Day Car Wash workers follows an earlier union organizing drive that resulted in an agreement at Astoria Car Wash & Hi-Tek 10 Minute Lube. Two organizations–“Make the Road New York” and “New York Communities for Change”–backed by the the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union have mounted a campaign to organize an estimated 5,000 car wash workers in New York City.

Parents launch hunger strike against Philadelphia school layoffs

Four parents and two school employees launched a hunger strike against the decision by the Philadelphia Schools administration to lay off lunchtime aides in an overall cut that will see 3,800 school workers axed. The layoffs will hit staff, assistant principals, teachers, counselors and secretaries, totaling some 20 percent of the Philadelphia school district’s workforce.

The district’s $304 million deficit will also cut music, arts and sports when the fall school year begins. There is no indication that Republican Governor Tom Corbett or the state legislature will make up the deficit before the legislature’s June 30 deadline to pass a budget.

The hunger strike was organized by UNITE HERE, which represents the 1,200 lunchtime aides that received layoff notices.

Canada

Nova Scotia paramedics to strike against union brokered deal

Up to 800 air and ground paramedics across the province of Nova Scotia could go on strike as early as July 5 after rejecting a deal recommended by their union, the International Union of Operating Engineers.

The membership voted 73 percent against the proposed contract. It was the second time in four months that they had voted down a deal that had been accepted by union negotiators.

Union leaders had promoted the deal because it contained a defined benefit plan for pensions, which had been a major sticking point in negotiations.

Paramedics in Nova Scotia are not restricted from striking under essential services laws but the union and the employer, Emergency Medical Care Inc., had agreed that there would not be a strike or lockout for at least two weeks if the deal was rejected.



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Letters from our readers

0

 

25 June 2013

On “British government moves to censor media coverage of spying operations”

I noticed that the big, blue-highlighted section containing news about Edward Snowden’s revelations suddenly vanished from the Guardian ’s web site front page and were replaced with articles about actor James Gandolfini’s death. Much as I liked Gandolfini, I don’t believe any other actor’s death would merit the blue section like this (although it would still be a big story). It seemed to me to be an obvious replacement for the Snowden material, and incidentally not complimentary to Gandolfini for his death to be used as a cover for censorship.

Carolyn
California, USA
21 June 2013

On “The WSWS speaks to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s son”

This is really an epoch-making interview. It brings out past imperialist horror to impact positively on the present international working class, which is made by the current war-mongering imperialism to sustain and endure something similar to incessant electric shocks before the demise.

Thank you, Fred, for your unsurpassable acumen to serve humanity today.

This reader is 68. Born to a family of 7 children. A family that had only our father’s labour power for sustenance. I have no doubts that the US imperialism must have handed over death and prison terms to a myriad of people in my boat over the period of its ruthless reproduction. I presume the US claims the highest number of prisoners when compared with the rest of the nation states on our planet. If that is the case, my former point is substantiated.

Hats off to Robert Meeropol. Your service to the troubled child population is admirable. We should unite under the banner of the SEP to battle the case against tormented children. The international working class, in my view, is more than capable of wiping out the necessity for espionage and war. The current war on terror created by imperialists should be wiped out by the socialist revolution that will usher in a system of planning to cater to human needs.

IVE
Sri Lanka
22 June 2013

On “Actor James Gandolfini, lead actor in The Sopranos, dies at 51”

This is a very fine and illuminating obituary. I’m currently working my way through Season 3 of The Sopranos, the lack of Summer School due to financial cutbacks allowing me to catch up with it as it did for The Wire two years ago. Gandolfini was a fine actor whose technique dissolved the boundaries between film and television performance. He was also very good as the tormented gangster in Killing Them Softly, a film whose time period was appropriately changed from the 1970s to the beginning of Obama’s election campaign in 2008. The historical background elements are disturbing, especially in the scenes showing the sudden eruption of violence and the disposal of erring gangster bodies, one of which in the penultimate episode of Season 2, resembles the torture porn films of Eli Roth meets The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes than anything else. Again, another stimulating obituary.

Tony W
21 June 2013

***

Dear Mr. Walsh,

I agree. The Sopranos attempted to put a square peg in a round hole. Gangsters are…gangsters.

I don’t think you have seen John Turturro’s Romance and Cigarettes? The best performance/film that I’ve seen James Gandolfini in. And a piece that confirms–by showing the potential opposite–the waste of talent in the industry of film-making.

Desmond
22 June 2013



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Daniel Pinkwater’s <em>Bushman Lives</em>: To become an artist

0

 

By
Christine Schofelt

25 June 2013

Daniel Pinkwater’s Bushman Lives (2012, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, hardcover, $16.99) introduces us to Harold Knishke, a young teen living in Chicago in the 1950s. Harold’s love/obsession with Bushman, the famous gorilla who lived at the Lincoln Park Zoo and with whom he is convinced he shared a special connection gives rise to the greeting “Bushman Lives!,” which he shares with his high-climbing friend, Geets, and everyone else.

Largely unsupervised, Harold wanders the streets of Chicago, enjoying the sights of the city and allowing the days to take him where they will. Early on, Harold is kicked out of his flute lesson by his teacher Mr. Pfiff, who declares that Harold does not have any musical talent at all. It’s a friendly, funny conversation, and Pinkwater’s love of accents encourages reading it out loud.

Harold, flute lesson money in his pocket, meanders to the Art Institute of Chicago where he’s exhorted to visit the Willem de Kooning painting, Excavation, by a girl sitting on the steps. There follows a beautiful passage in which Harold is hit with Art Appreciation. Sucked in by the painting, he sees intricate layers adding up to a story full of potential and drama. He leaves the museum and views the world with new eyes. He loves the new view, disorienting as it initially is, and determines he’s going to be an artist.

Pinkwater’s description of the change in Harold is well-wrought and the reader willingly follows along as the young man’s level of observation and thought deepens. Still light in attitude, but now with a purpose, Harold’s narrative is one of maturation.

Harold continues to wander the city, and Pinkwater’s appreciation for iconic landmarks gone by which used to be part of Chicago daily life is put to excellent use. Harold’s descriptions of the neighborhoods, monuments, characters and foods have the tone of one friend introducing another to the best things in life.

Unlike many, Pinkwater does not use the past as a battering ram against the present, but as an incentive to find the interesting things in one’s own era and environment, to look beneath the surface. Here, the 1950s are a time of expansion. For Harold, being among beatniks and other assorted outsiders and artists provides fertile ground for exploring and developing his own new-found talent.

Pinkwater has a way of introducing fantastical elements with an earnest matter-of-factness. Harold’s voice carries the reader along at a pretty fast clip, and when the strange things start happening, it’s often not until a few paragraphs later that one stops and thinks, “Well, now that’s odd.” It takes a deft hand to pull off such an effect.

While Bushman Lives is part of a series including The Neddiad, The Yggysey, and The Adventures of a Cat-Whiskered Girl, and characters from these (and other) Pinkwater books do make appearances, the book is self-contained. The mystical and weird elements do not depend on having read the others for coherency. Harold’s world is fully drawn.

Daniel Pinkwater has long been an advocate of children’s literature and the importance of art. In this book, he pointedly takes up the theme of art as an essential part of a person’s development. Coming at a time when many schools have eliminated the arts due to a combination of budget cuts and a focus on test results and when the very existence of public museums is under attack, Bushman Lives gives a surprisingly poignant reminder that art is crucial to gaining an understanding of the world.



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Canada: CAW agrees to expansion of cheap labor at GM’s Oshawa plants

0

 

By
Carl Bronski

25 June 2013

The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union has entered into an agreement with General Motors to organize special early retirement buyouts at its two assembly plants in Oshawa, Ontario. The move is designed to accelerate the automaker’s drive to replace higher-paid veteran workers with workers earning cheap-labor wages.

About 350 of the 1,300 employees eligible for retirement at the Oshawa facilities will be offered a one-time inducement of up to $50,000 plus a $20,000 GM auto-purchase voucher to leave the company. They will be replaced by a mixture of temporary workers and new hires, both groups earning wages and benefits far below the compensation received by other GM workers, even after years of concessions contracts.

The temporary workers will earn about $10 per hour less than their counterparts, receive an inferior benefits program, and be barred from enrolling in the pension plan. New hires will begin work at $14 per hour below the regular-tier rate, will receive reduced benefits and also will be ineligible to participate in the pension plan.

This latter provision, stripping workers of any pension rights, is a further concession offered by the CAW, since the union further extended the two-tier wages and benefits system in giveback deals negotiated with the Detroit Three auto companies last fall. Those agreements deepened a two-tier wages system introduced in 2009, reducing new-hire wages another $4 per hour (to $20 from $24) and extended new-hires’ time on the second tier from six years to ten years. Veteran workers, who have had their wages and cost-of-living allowances frozen, currently earn $34 per hour.

Under the concession deals the CAW inked last fall, newly hired workers were also denied a defined benefits pension plan that guarantees them a fixed pension amount and were obliged, for the first time ever in a CAW contract, to pay substantial pension premiums into a separate inferior “defined contributions” plan. New employees pay $1 per every hour worked into the new pension scheme, rising to $1.50 per hour in years five, six and seven and to $2 per hour in every year employed at the company after that. Thusly, by their eighth year on the job, almost 6 percent of the wages of new hires will be creamed off to pay the auto bosses’ “legacy costs.”

In the just-announced revised arrangement, the cynicism of the CAW bureaucracy reaches new heights. When the CAW negotiated its latest surrender to GM last fall, CAW Local 222 officials in Oshawa attempted to camouflage their treachery by pointing to a negotiated local provision that was meant to restrict GM’s use of temporary workers. At membership ratification meetings they bragged that they had “held the line” against the company’s abuse of the temporary worker hiring process. Now, only a few short months later, they trumpet the surrender of restrictions on this process as an “opportunity,” “a unique agreement” and “good news for the local economy.”

The new arrangement is certainly “good news” for corporate management and stockholders who have seen GM profits steadily increase in the wake of the 2009 government auto bailout and the all-out attack on workers’ wages and benefits that was tied to it.

The auto bosses, in collusion with the union officialdom, seek to drive wages and benefits down to levels comparable to those paid to workers in cheap-labour platforms around the world. One concession “naturally” leads to another as the union and the auto companies jointly preside over a race to the bottom. Thus, GM Oshawa spokeswoman Faye Roberts said of the just announced deal, “We continue to work with our CAW partners to address the changing needs of our business.” And then forebodingly, “To be competitive in this global market, there is no finish line for improving our products and processes.”

The new provision to speed the exodus of veteran workers comes as one of the two Oshawa assembly plants is slated to close in the summer of 2014 with the shifting of product lines to Michigan. In addition, the second, larger Flex plant only has production guaranteed through 2016. The CAW is frantically beating the bushes in the interim to find ever more concessions that it can offer GM in hopes that wages can be further reduced and productivity increased sufficiently for GM to consider adding a new product line to Oshawa. GM has consistently refused to guarantee any such addition, preferring to await further concessions proposals from the union. Company executives have consistently pointed to the poverty level two-tier contracts already in place in the United States as the benchmark from which any future decisions for new product lines will be made.

At the time of this past autumn’s contract negotiations, the World Socialist Web Site warned that management would use the two-tier wage and benefits opening provided by the union to “weed out” the more highly paid first-tier workers: it would threaten layoffs, intensify shop-floor speedup and discipline and victimize older workers so as to force them into early retirement or fire them outright. That prognosis has been grimly verified over the past period.

In plants organized by the UAW in the United States, the loosening of work rules and seniority protections has been used by plant managers to place veteran workers in the most physically taxing jobs, forcing them out through injury or early retirement.

The same is happening in Canada. Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne–who in 2009 infamously said workers had to accept a “culture of poverty” instead of a “culture of entitlement”–cryptically stated after the signing of last fall’s concession deal in Canada that it is “an agreement we can use.”

As one auto worker recently stated in a letter to the World Socialist Web Site, “In Windsor, Chrysler is targeting all employees over the age of 50, employees who have had temporary or permanent workplace accidents, disease or illness, and workers who have had non-occupational illness, disease or accidents. The CAW is also turning a blind eye to the discrimination and harassment by Chrysler. When asked to file a grievance, they say we don’t understand the contract term that Chrysler has violated; or you are a Pennsylvania lawyer stirring up the pot.”



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Qatari emir abdicates in favor of son

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has officially abdicated power in favor of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

West, Central Africa discuss piracy

0

Leaders of West and Central African countries have begun a two-day summit over piracy in Cameroon. (File photo)

Leaders of West and Central African countries have gathered in the capital of Cameroon to address the growing concern over the issue of piracy and other illicit activities in the Gulf of Guinea.

The two-day summit in Yaounde began on June 24. Leaders from 25 West and Central African countries have attended the conference.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and the United Nations jointly sponsored the meeting, aiming at improving cooperation among the member states to sort out the regional problems.

During the meeting, the heads of states and government leaders discussed a strategic plan to deal with crippling maritime security, drug trafficking, and other illegal activities escalating in the strategic region.

The United Nations Security Council has warned that insecurity and criminal activities in the African region could put the global trading and regional development at risk if the issues are not addressed.

Å“This alarming insecurity could… become a source of instability and an obstacle to development,” said Cameroonâ„¢s Communications Minister Issa Tchiroma Bakary, pointing out several attacks carried out by pirates in the country.

The presence of pirates has also driven down the oil production and anchorage in the regional countries.

The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) has recorded around 996 pirate attacks on oil cargo vessels since 2012, which cost West Africa up to $950 million last year.

According to the IMB, piracy has affected more vessels off the Gulf of Guinea, than off the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean, in recent months.

Almost 1,000 sailors or fishermen have been attacked by armed pirates in the Gulf of Guinea. Some 200 have also been taken hostage.

MM/HSN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iran nuclear official in Russia for confab

0

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Fereydoun Abbasi has arrived in Russia to participate in the International Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Power in the 21st Century.

Heading a high-ranking Iranian delegation, Abbasi arrived in the Russian city of Saint-Petersburg on Monday to attend the conference, which will be held on June 27-29.

The Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Power in the 21st Century is organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in cooperation with the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The conference, which convenes every four years, will discuss a wide range of issues, including nuclear powerâ„¢s contribution to sustainable development, nuclear safety and reliability and also the prospects of nuclear power for the future.

Abbasi is scheduled to meet with Russian officials and other participants during the event.

The Iranian official will also participate in the fifth International Industrial Forum ATOMEXPO, which is due to begin on the eve of the nuclear conference on June 26.

The Islamic Republic of Iran will showcase its nuclear energy achievements for the first time in the ATOMEXPO, which is organized by Russiaâ„¢s State Atomic Energy Corporation, ROSATOM, and attended by leading international organizations and companies of the nuclear industry.

More than 4,000 delegates from 53 world countries attended ATOMEXPO 2012.

MYA/HSN/HJL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

US issues threats to China, Russia over Snowden

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]The Obama administration is stepping up its threats and bullying in a bid to force the Russian government to hand Snowden over.

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

US Supreme Court upholds affirmative action

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]The reluctance of the court, including most of its extreme right-wing bloc, to overthrow affirmative action reflects the degree to which the politics of race and gender have been integrated into the official ideology of the American ruling class.

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Turkish police renew attacks on protesters

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]After six days of relative calm, the Turkish police resumed their violent attacks on demonstrators Saturday, using tear gas, water cannon, rubber bullets and batons

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Sri Lankan government evicts poor families in Dambulla

0

 

By
Vilani Peiris

25 June 2013

The Urban Development Authority (UDA) has begun evicting poor families around the Dambulla Buddhist temple in Central Province. The UDA claims the area belongs to the “sacred city” of the Rangiri Dambulu Temple. In reality, the evictions in Dambulla city are part of the Sri Lankan government’s plans to promote the country to investors, in line with the requirements of the International Monetary Fund.

On June 19, the UDA demolished the houses of 22 families who agreed to vacate, accepting 100,000 rupees ($US780) to find new places to live. The UDA has ordered another 44 families to leave by June 27. While some have agreed to vacate in return for the meagre compensation, others are struggling to defend their homes.

Last week, the UDA told residents of another 20 small houses, built in an abandoned paddy field, that they were inside the “sacred area”. Families living in another area close to the temple, at Padeniya and Nissanka junction, are also facing eviction. These moves indicate that the government is preparing to displace hundreds of families.

President Mahinda Rajapakse’s government has been carrying out mass evictions in towns around the country, as part of its drive to encourage investment and tourism. Evictions began in the capital Colombo, targeting 70,000 families. In order to suppress residents’ opposition, Rajapakse placed the UDA and the Land Reclamation and Development Board–two civilian bodies–under the authority of his brother, defence secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse and thus the military.

Those who face evictions in Dambulla include small vendors, city cleaners and day labourers. A resident told the WSWS that the government was planning to build tourist hotels in the area.

The government has deployed plainclothes police officers from the criminal investigation division (CID) to spy on people and monitor their movements. Police are also protecting the UDA employees brought in to demolish houses.

Faced with this intimidation, some families have packed their belongings, but cannot find alternative accommodation. One woman told the WSWS: “I went with my mother all over the area looking for a place to live. But we couldn’t find one. Even if we find a room, the rent is not affordable.”

An old woman explained that she had no alternative and took the compensation offered by the UDA. She added: “They warned me that if I didn’t agree, I would get nothing. There are 17 in my family, as my children’s families live with me. We are now on the road.”

So-called sacred cities in the island’s ancient Buddhist centres were first declared in Dambulla, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Kandy by the United National Party (UNP) government of Prime Minister R. Premadasa in 1982. The decision was one of a series of communal provocations against Tamils and other minorities prior to the start of the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1983.

Clearing poor families from the Dambulla temple area is part of a “mega project”–the Greater Dambulla Development Plan, which covers 1,063 square kilometres. The area has been earmarked as a “commercial hub” for investors. Poor families will be evacuated without any plan to provide alternative homes, as the current evictions demonstrate.

This project began in 2009 and is due for completion in 2020, according to the UDA. Not only will the poor families around the Buddhist temple be affected, but others throughout the entire area.

As a means of dividing any resistance, the Buddhist prelates in Dambulla are carrying out ethnic and religious provocations. In April 2012, the chief priest of Rangiri Dambulu temple, Inamaluwe Sri Sumangala, launched an anti-Muslim campaign, demanding the demolition of the Masjidul Khaira mosque in a so-called sacred area.

Despite attempts by the government and chauvinist groups to whip up communal divisions, Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim residents have united to fight the eviction plans. On May 19, more than 300 people participated in a picket that cut across ethnic and religious lines.

A young Tamil worker told the WSWS that “it’s even more difficult for Tamils to find new houses for rent as the temple has started spreading Sinhala Buddhist communalism.” He said the government was backing the racist campaign.

A Sinhala youth said: “We are scared to make our names known. White vans could abduct people here. The CID has rounded on us. We are opposed to the removal of the Muslim mosque. Everyone has the right to believe in their religion. We also oppose the eviction of Tamil people from the area.”

Another resident told the WSWS that the major opposition parties, the UNP and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna), had not opposed the evictions. “We supported Rajapakse in the elections but the government is against us,” he said. “Now we have no sympathy for any of these political parties.”

The opposition parties have similar economic programs to the government and also back Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists.

Socialist Equality Party (SEP) teams distributed a leaflet entitled “Defend Dambulla residents’ housing rights.” CID officers twice confiscated leaflets in an attempt to intimidate residents, but people continued to hold discussions with SEP supporters.

SEP supporters explained the economic crisis that lay behind the government’s attacks on residents, and on the wages, conditions, public services and basic rights of the working class as a whole. Without challenging the profit system with an alternative socialist program, working people could not solve their problems.

This was an international struggle, the SEP supporters explained, with governments around the world, including in the advanced industrialised countries, mounting an assault on every previous social gain of the working class, including public education, housing and health services.

Dambulla residents cannot put their faith in any of the ruling class parties but must build independent action committees and appeal to the working class as a whole for support on the basis of a socialist perspective. Without overthrowing the capitalist system, controlled by the wealthiest few, and establishing a workers’ and peasants’ government, working people cannot defend even their most basic rights, such as housing.

The SEP appeals to workers, students and youth everywhere to defend those facing evictions. It urges workers to pass resolutions in their workplaces opposing the government’s actions and upholding the right of the Dambulla residents to decent, affordable housing.



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Share selloff points to new crisis

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]The renewed turmoil on global financial markets underscores the fact that none of the problems that erupted in the 2008 meltdown have been overcome.

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Probe into DC mayor’s “shadow campaign” donor exposes political culture rife with criminality

0

 

By
Nick Barrickman

25 June 2013

New information has recently surfaced which links Washington, D.C. businessman and regional powerbroker Jeffrey E. Thompson to a myriad of illegal “straw donor” campaigns. The revelations occur as part of an ongoing federal investigation into alleged donations made by Thompson to an undisclosed 2010 “shadow campaign” fund used by current DC Mayor Vincent C. Gray.

New details emerged as Stanley Straughter, a Philadelphia businessman, and Lee A. Calhoun, a former employee of Thompson, were found guilty this week and last in federal court of concealing the source of donations totaling nearly $300,000. The funds had been given to the electoral campaigns of various candidates in DC and regional politics over the course of a decade. According to US attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr., Thompson is alleged to have been running an “assembly line” of illegal campaign donations out of his law firm’s offices.

Under the scheme, employees of Thompson, Cob, Bazilio and Associates were urged to make donations to candidates in their own names, but were then summarily reimbursed through the company’s accounting department. The repayments were then labeled as “advances” on bonuses in the firm’s records. Political figures listed as benefiting from the illegal machinations of Thompson’s law firm included the late Arlen Specter (Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania), current Democratic Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, and various local DC politicians. The law firm released a statement a week and a half ago revealing that “employees and their family members and friends were ensnared by the aggressive solicitation of campaign contributions.”

This behavior is seen in a myriad of localities, with local businessman making use of “bundles” of donations given to candidates of their choosing, often with funds raised from their employees.

In all, various campaign finance records show 35 individuals citing Thompson’s firm as their employers for over a 10-year period. Thompson allegedly pressed his straw donors to make “larger and larger contributions” over time, according to statements Calhoun made to US District Court judges.

Though Calhoun is accused of serving as a proxy donor of Thompson’s for a “mere” total of $160,000, the sheer magnitude of illegal activities the latter is alleged to be involved in suggests something characteristic of the DC political terrain and beyond.

The current charges emerge in the context of an ongoing investigation into a “shadow campaign” which Thompson had allegedly funded for the election bid of Vincent Gray. Three of Gray’s campaign aides, who are now serving time, apparently coordinated a series of payments totaling roughly $650,000 to the then-candidate’s election fund, which went undisclosed.

More light was shed on this story late last week when Michael Brown, a former legislator of the DC Council, was implicated on bribery charges for taking $55,000 in cash payments from undercover federal agents. The probe launched against Brown stemmed from his receiving an undisclosed $20,000 donation in 2007 from Jeanne Clark Harris, who also spearheaded Thompson’s “shadow campaign” to elect Mayor Gray. It is reported that Brown is cooperating with law officials in order to avoid having to face charges in connection with this $20,000 donation.

Likewise, Thompson until recently functioned as the owner of DC Chartered Health Plan, a private Medicaid contractor which held the largest contract within the city, netting $350 million worth of medical disbursements in 2011 alone. The sell-off of the contractor late last month left the city’s government on the hook for nearly $60 million in unpaid bills from local health providers. Currently, Chartered’s new owners are suing Thompson for embezzling as much as $17 million from the private firm before selling it.

According to statements, Thompson apparently utilized employees at this firm and others he controlled to organize his illegal “straw donor” campaigns for politicians in the region.

Such corruption is manifest across the DC political landscape. A study released last month by American University, which documented the patterns of donations given to various politicians in the city by developers over a decade, found that out of 133 individual businesses, nearly half had donated multiple times to single candidates. This “LLC Loophole,” in which one business will spin off several “subsidiaries”–often while maintaining the same executive figure at each–in order to influence the outcomes of elections, was found to be standard operating practice, with over 50 percent of those entities surveyed utilizing the method.

In one particular case it was found that 17 affiliated businesses donated a total of $15,000 to DC Councilman Kwame Brown from 2008-2010. Brown was later indicted in 2012 for pocketing city money for personal use, although the deals handed out by his office to contractors have not been investigated.

Similarly, despite the probes being launched into Mayor Gray’s “shadow campaign” and other such offenses, Thompson has not yet been officially targeted by federal officers for crimes, despite the pervasive nature of his abuses.



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Portland, Oregon: School board denies education to disabled children

0

 

By
Katie Hughes

25 June 2013

Last month, parents of medically fragile children were informed that schooling their children was no longer the legal responsibility of Portland Public Schools (PPS). More than three dozen children who have been living full-time in the Center for Medically Fragile Children at Providence Child Center are left to whatever resources their families can acquire for their schooling.

Many of these children require 24-hour care and intensive nursing services. With such extensive and most likely expensive care needed, hiring a private instructor or home schooling may not be an option for most families. Nichole, mother of eight-year-old Joslyn, told the Oregonian, “I don’t know where they expect her to go”.

Since 2004, Portland schools have taken in many of these children, providing more instruction and interaction with students of the general population. School officials in May sent out a letter, with no warning, to more than 40 families stating that after reviewing state law these children’s education is not their responsibility. It stated that Oregon law does not require Portland Public Schools to educate children whose guardian does not live within the school district.

The Center for Medically Fragile Children is the only pediatric skilled nursing facility in the Pacific Northwest. If provides intensive highly specialized care for children from as far away as Alaska and California.

The district was prompted to review the necessity of educating Providence Child Center students after receiving a bill for a child who resides in an out-of-state medical facility but who has a Portland residing parent. Because the student was being educated outside of the school district it was decided to be outside the scope of the district’s responsibility. The savings from this decision amounts to about $1.5 million.

In a letter to the Oregonian, Mary Pearson, director of Special Education for Portland Public Schools, said, “We wish that we could continue to educate all students without regard to cost. Yet we are also obligated to be mindful stewards of taxpayer money, especially as our resources have grown ever tighter and the demands on those resources ever higher.”

Cuts in education spending are pervasive throughout the Portland School District. Textbooks are outdated, class sizes are too large, and basic supplies are in high demand. Funding by the state and federal government has continuously declined, with the PPS operating $117 million short of its recommended funding level.

Teachers are facing major trials due to budget cuts as well. Earlier this month at a public meeting hosted by the Portland Association of Teachers it was discussed how the newest contract by the school board is making ever greater demands and setting ever higher expectations, giving teachers little to work with. However, president Gwen Sullivan made it clear in an interview with the Oregonian that the union was not preparing a strike despite the draconian concessions demands of the school board.

Cuts to education are slicing deeper and deeper, and not just in Portland. The excuse that “there isn’t enough money” is an untrue statement, especially when major billion-dollar corporations such as Apple and Nike are managing to avoid paying taxes by using legal loopholes.

This year, Nike only agreed to a major expansion in Oregon instead of going elsewhere as long as the state kept its policy of only levying taxes on in-state sales. Using some publicly available information, it was estimated that Nike shaved more than 90 percent (about $17 million at the time) off its tax bill, enough to fund education for medically fragile children as well as many other much needed resources for public education in Oregon.

This latest assault on the most vulnerable section of the population–in this case out-of-state and medically dependent–is a foreshadowing of even deeper attacks on public education as a whole, which is a basic social right.

Katherine, mother of a child being cared for at Providence, said, “I understand the challenge of educating these kids, but it’s their right to have an appropriate education.”



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

NAACP, UAW hold Martin Luther King Jr. rally to promote Democratic Party

0

 

By
E.P. Bannon and Richard Vargas

25 June 2013

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United Auto Workers (UAW) held a rally in downtown Detroit over the weekend, on the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 Detroit march. The UAW and the NAACP used the event in an attempt to channel the mass hostility to emergency manager Kevyn Orr behind the Democratic Party.

Orr is currently carrying out a slash-and-burn policy in Detroit, aimed at ripping up pensions and health care, slashing wages, and selling off city assets to pay wealthy bondholders. He has the support of the entire political establishment, including local Democrats, who have presided over the dismantling of the city for decades.

The march went down Woodward Ave, ending at Hart Plaza right next to the GM headquarters in downtown Detroit. The stage was set at the far end of the plaza. The immediate area in front of the stage was cordoned off exclusively for NAACP officials and union bureaucrats. The area was lined with metal barricades and heavily guarded with police and marshals, prohibiting those attending from coming within some fifty feet of the stage.

The speakers feigned opposition to the devastating cuts imposed on Detroit while making cynical calls to vote Democrat. President of the Detroit NAACP Reverend Wendell Anthony began by addressing the crowd. Anthony proclaimed that the rally had “defied the odds,” adding that “in the midst of economic turmoil and social injustice, and political repression, that the ‘Dream’ lives on.” He then told the crowd that “marching doesn’t mean anything” unless they registered more voters and mobilized them behind the Democratic Party.

He then introduced UAW International President Bob King, whom Anthony referred to as the union’s “fearless leader.” King, who has forced plant closures, mass layoffs as well as wage and pension cuts, began with a very telling statement: “In life, you get what you’re willing to accept.”

King continued by praising “African-Americans, Latino, labor, women, immigrant rights, and the LGBT community” for re-electing President Obama, while blaming the social crisis in Detroit on workers who did not vote Democrat. “We are suffering the consequences for not voting,” he said.

Mayor David Bing, the next speaker, was greeted with boos throughout the crowd, an indication of the alienation of the city establishment. Accepting the de-industrialization of Detroit, he exclaimed, “We’re going to bring this city back whether there’s an emergency manager or not.”

As he continued, “Detroit will never again have 1.8 million people–” he was drowned out by workers shouting “Why not?” and “We want 2 million people!”

The rally concluded with a short speech from Reverend Jesse Jackson. He declared that the city of Detroit was in “a state of emergency,” and told the crowd “it’s time to take a stand and fight back” by supporting the Democrats.

SEP supporters spoke with workers and youth while handing out the latest copies of the Detroit Worker Newsletter. Workers discussed a broad range of social and political issues. One worker who had attended the rally spoke on the social crisis in Detroit. “I’ve lived here since the 50’s. I’ve seen this city go up and down,” he said. “But now they’re just gutting it! They’re getting a fat paycheck from it too.”

He talked about the vast sections of the city abandoned to nature. “There are wild animals all over the city now. I saw a deer on the corner the other day,” he said. “I even saw a pack of coyotes roaming down that road.” He then addressed the indifference of city officials to the problem of blight. “All those houses could be fixed up,” he said. “But they’re sitting on their butts and getting rich.”

Another worker came to the defense of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who currently faces charges of espionage and theft by the US government. “I think [Snowden] is an absolutely courageous man,” he said. “He’s what a lot of people aspire to be. I think a lot more people will come out and support him.”

An 85-year-old auto worker spoke out against war. “I was in the Korean war and it was when I was over there that I learned that it’s the rich sending us poor folk over to die for their meddling,” he said. “No black folk and no poor white folks started it. It was the rich and their meddling.”

SEP supporters also encountered a group of youth. The youth were against the wars abroad and would not support a new war. They rejected the idea of working class youth being sent to fight imperialist wars. SEP supporters explained that the Obama administration has continued the military occupation of Afghanistan, while waging a new war in Libya and now ratcheting up tensions with Syria and Iran. Although not yet of working age, they expressed serious concern over chronic unemployment. “Where are all the jobs?” one asked.

Barbara Herard, a Democratic Party candidate for Detroit City Council, interrupted discussion between SEP supporters and the youth. She cornered the youth, shouting, “Don’t talk to them! They aren’t supposed to be here!” Her aide admonished the youth, “You all are Democrats. You are Democrats. Don’t listen to them.” When one youth wanted to sign an SEP contact sheet, the aide tried to intimidate them. “Don’t sign anything,” he said. “Your mother taught you better than that.” Her aide tried to take one supporter’s flyers away.

Herard unsuccessfully attempted to eject the SEP supporters from the rally. “I’m gonna get the NAACP to get you all out of here. You better leave now because the police are coming for you!” One supporter noted that Herard’s scare tactics were indistinguishable from that of the emergency manager Kevyn Orr. “ And what’s so wrong with that?” she shouted, “Kevyn Orr is here to help us!” She left with her aide in a huff.

A few minutes later, the youth approached the SEP supporters. “I just wanted you to know that we all agree with you. I think everything you said is right,” one said to one campaigner.



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Infrastructure of a police state

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]The National Security Agency has built up a vast apparatus of telecommunications interception, computer storage and data processing directed against the American people.

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

Germany: Socialist Equality Party wins support in Cologne and the Ruhr area

0

 

By
our correspondents

25 June 2013

In recent weeks, members and supporters of the Socialist Equality Party (Partei für Soziale Gleichheit, PSG) in North Rhine-Westphalia have collected the 2,000 signatures necessary to qualify at a state level for the federal parliamentary election this autumn. PSG supporters and candidates distributed the election statement, “A socialist program against welfare cuts and unemployment in Europe”, in the Ruhr area and the city of Cologne, winning an important response from the unemployed, young people and immigrant workers.

Social inequality is very pronounced in the Ruhr and Cologne, and was the most common topic of discussion.

Nearly 5 million people live along the Ruhr River between Duisburg and Dortmund, but less than 1.5 million have proper employment involving social insurance contributions. The unemployment rate in the region was 11.3 percent in May, and in some cities it is much higher.

Even these figures, however, fail to reveal the true extent of poverty. The so-called “social equator” of the region, the A40 motorway, divides the area into “poor and less poor” (Süddeutsche Zeitung). North, in the poorer regions of cities, you will find poverty levels of 30 to 40 percent. There are a number of streets where hardly anyone has a job.

The division of the “Ruhr area” has its roots in the long history of the region’s coal and steel industry. Almost 200 years ago coal mining commenced in the south, with miners over time tunneling underground to the north. With them went their families. During this period there were around 3,200 mines in the Ruhr. Today there are only two functioning mines, namely Prosper-Haniel (Bottrop) and Auguste Victoria (Marl).

Mines in the south of the Ruhr area were abandoned well over 100 years ago. The city of Dusseldorf and adjacent areas in the south have become residential areas for the very wealthy. The richest man in Germany, Karl Albrecht, owner of the Aldi merchandise chain, lives here, in the city of Essen.

In the north, the remaining mines were closed down step by step in recent decades. The steel industry also experienced a decline and shed about half a million jobs between 1980 and 2002.

The northern Ruhr region has never recovered from this decline. A trip from Duisburg to Dortmund on the local train resembles passing through a war zone–decaying factories, run-down housing estates, boarded-up or broken windows, desolate stations and, above all, people who are very clearly victims of long-term poverty.

Political circles and business interests reacted to the mining crisis of 1957 by erecting the Opel plant in Bochum on the site of a disused colliery. At one point 20,000 workers were employed at the factory. Today there are around 3,000 and the plant is due for closure at the end of next year. An estimated 40,000 ancillary jobs are also at risk.

Today, coal mines and steel mills have been turned into cultural centers, and the children of former industrial workers largely earn their living in the low-paid service sector, such as the shopping centers in Essen, Oberhausen and Duisburg.

These flagship projects are often hotbeds of corruption and nepotism enabling local politicians to enrich themselves. While swimming pools, libraries, youth centers and other public facilities are closed, the city leaders–whether Social Democrat, conservative CDU or the Greens–are continually raising the salaries of the heads of communal facilities whom they depend on for support.

At job centers, supermarkets and shopping malls the PSG election team encountered widespread anger over the social decline engineered by the SPD, CDU, the Greens, the FDP and the Left Party. Men leaving the local job center were seething with anger, while a number of women were reduced to tears by their plight.

No one here has forgotten who is responsible for the Hartz IV laws, which have led to a massive expansion of temporary low paid work–namely the SPD and the Greens. All those who spoke with PSG campaigners said there was no difference between the SPD’s chancellor candidate, Peer Steinbrück, and conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Manfred Stock from Bochum survives on his small pension and fumed about the “depraved policies of all parliamentary parties.” All of them are the same: “There is not the slightest difference between Merkel and Steinbrück,” he said. The politicians have plenty of money “for underground stations, prestige airports, military drones, etc., but nothing for education and the care of the elderly, apart from Hartz IV from the Gazprom chancellor.” This last was a reference to the former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who went on to earn millions with the Russian oil and gas company.

“I cannot believe the way the SPD now pose as supporters of the welfare state. Their own policies are based on making the working man pay,” Manfred declared. He announced his intention of reading the PSG election statement very closely. None of the parties represented in the Bundestag would get his vote, he told us.

Alfred Franke has undertaken temporary work for years. He is currently receiving the minimum wage for security personnel of €8.19 per hour. He is unmarried: “It is impossible to afford a family with such money.” All the wives of his colleagues had to work in order to survive.

He is currently working on a construction site owned by the Nestlé company. He has worked in many jobs and areas of responsibility. “The permanent colleagues have always earned more,” he says. Everyone should receive the same pay for the same work, was his modest request.

“This is also what the permanent colleagues say,” Alfred continued. He also told of the agreements struck by the unions whereby employers pay staggered surcharges, involving rates of 15 percent after six weeks on the job, and then up to 50 percent after nine months. When asked if he had ever worked long enough to receive these supplements, he responds that on most occasions his contract ran out before he could benefit.

Holger Loewink from Bochum is dependent on Hartz IV and cares for a terminally ill friend. He immediately raised the issue of poverty: “Billions are available for the banks, but nothing for the homeless, Hartz IV recipients and the unemployed.”

When we spoke to him the papers were full of reports detailing how companies like Apple pay a minimum in taxes, and the wealthy elite can avoid paying any taxes by shifting their assets into tax havens.

“The rich and corporations are always moaning about their tax burden, but in fact pay no taxes at all. In the case of ordinary workers taxes are immediately deducted from their pay,” Loewink declared. “Another law applies to the rich. They are requested to specify their income and then invariably play down their wealth. They buy property, art and anything else they can get their hands on in order to minimize their taxes. This is a glaring injustice.”

He was furious about reports in the media about the business practices of the locally based EON energy concern. “Any excessive business tax paid by a company must be repaid by the municipalities at an interest rate of 6 percent,” he pointed out. EON voluntarily paid excessive business tax to the municipalities for a few years in order to reclaim it with interest. “They stash their money with impoverished local authorities and then reclaim it, leading to the bankruptcy of cities and towns, or at least to further cuts. This cannot go on. “

Along with two thousand others, he supported the PSG election with his signature. The collection of signatures is proceeding apace even though some people are alarmed by the latest surveillance scandals and are reluctant to give the personal data needed on the signature form. They do not trust the government.

Unemployed workers at the Cologne labour exchange were also interested in finding out more about a socialist alternative. Their first question is usually: “You’re not right-wing, are you?” This is an expression of the strong opposition from broad social layers to racist organizations such as Pro Cologne and Pro NRW, active especially in Cologne against Muslims and foreigners.

There are now many Turkish-born students and workers who are entitled to vote. They were affected by the recent development in Turkey and strongly sympathized with the protests against the Erdogan government. They also gave their signatures following a discussion on the international perspective of the PSG.



‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
var pCount = $(‘#content’).children(‘p’).length;
var position = Math.floor(pCount*0.1);
$(‘#content’).children(‘p’).eq(position).before(html);
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}

function appendBottomAppeal() {
if (!$(‘#content’).is(‘.width72,.category’)) {
var htmlArray = [
‘

‘
];
var html = htmlArray.join(”);
if ($(‘#article-tools’).length > 0) {
$(‘#article-tools’).before(html);
} else {
$(‘#content’).append(html);
}
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘form’).children(‘.more-options’).children(‘a’).click(function() {
$(‘#inline-appeal’).children(‘.initially-hidden’).show();
$(this).parent().hide();
return false;
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function(){
appendInlineAppeal();
appendBottomAppeal();
});

This article originally appeared on: World Socialist Web Site

India PM to visit Kashmir despite attack

0

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will visit Indian-administered Kashmir on Tuesday, despite an attack in Srinagar a day earlier that killed eight Indian soldiers.

The prime minister’s office said on Monday the visit would go ahead as scheduled.

The premier will be accompanied by Sonia Gandhi, the president of the ruling Congress party, during the two-day visit.

Singh will inaugurate part of a rail line that connects southern and northern Kashmir, and meet officials to review development projects.

On Monday, militants opened fire on a convoy transporting the soldiers on the outskirts of Srinagar.

The militants were able to pull off the attack despite the fact that a high state of alert was imposed ahead of Singhâ„¢s scheduled visit.

Singh issued a statement strongly condemning the attack, saying, Å“This cowardly attack will not deter the security forces, who are engaged in bringing peace and order to the Kashmir Valley.”

Kashmir lies at the heart of more than 60 years of hostility between India and Pakistan. Both countries claim the region in full but each only has control over a section of the territory.

Over the past two decades, the conflict in Kashmir has left over 47,000 people dead by the official count, although other sources say the death toll could be as high as 90,000.

MN/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Random Thoughts

0

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Edmund Burke said, “There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men.” Evil men do not always snarl. Some smile charmingly. Those are the most dangerous. If you don’t think the mainstream media slants the news, keep track of how often they tell you that the Arctic ice pack is shrinking and how seldom they tell you that the Antarctic ice pack is expanding. The latter news would not fit the “global warming” scenario that so many in the media are promoting.

Someone has referred to Vice President Biden as President Obama’s “impeachment insurance.” Even critics who are totally opposed to Barack Obama’s policies do not want anything to cut short his presidency, with Joe Biden as his successor.

People who refuse to accept unpleasant truths have no right to complain about politicians who lie to them. What other kind of candidates would such people elect?

Given the shortage of articulate Republican leaders, it will be a real loss – to the country, not just to the Republicans – if Senator Marco Rubio discredits himself, early in his career, by supporting “comprehensive” immigration reform that amounts to just another amnesty, with false promises to secure the border.

Ever since I learned, as a teenager, that the “Saturday Evening Post” magazine was actually published on Wednesday mornings, I have been very skeptical about words. “Gun control” laws do not control guns, “rent control” laws do not control rent and government “stimulus” spending does not stimulate the economy.

It is hard to think of two people with more different personalities than New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama. But they are soul mates when it comes to thinking that they ought to take a whole spectrum of decisions out of citizens’ hands, and impose the government’s decisions on them.

Maybe the reason for the New York Yankees’ low batting averages has something to do with the fact that so many of their batters seem to be swinging for the fences, even when a single would score the winning run.

President Obama’s denial of knowledge about the various scandals in his administration that are starting to come to light suggests that his titles should now include Innocent-Bystander-in-Chief.

It has long been my belief that the sight of a good-looking woman lowers a man’s IQ by at least 20 points. A man who doesn’t happen to have 20 points he can spare can be in big trouble.

When Attorney General Eric Holder argued that a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants was a “civil right” and a “human right,” that epitomized the contempt for the public’s intelligence which has characterized so much of what has been said and done by the Obama administration.

You know you are old when waitresses call you “dear.”

Although many people have been surprised and disappointed by Barack Obama, it is hard to think of a president whose policies were more predictable from his history, however radically different those policies are from his rhetoric.

When any two groups have different behavior or performance, that plain fact can be turned upside down and twisted to say that whatever criterion revealed those differences has had a “disparate impact” on one of the groups. In other words, the criterion is blamed for an injustice to those who failed to meet the standard.

Have you heard any gun control advocate even try to produce hard evidence that tighter gun control laws reduce murder rates? Does anyone seriously believe that people who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are going to obey laws against owning guns or large capacity magazines?

I may be among the few people who want Attorney General Eric Holder to keep his job – at least until the 2014 elections. Holder epitomizes what is wrong with the Obama administration. He is essentially Barack Obama without the charm, so it should be easier for the voters to see through his lies and corruption.

Despite political differences, it is hard not to feel sorry for White House press secretary Jay Carney, for all the absurdities his job requires him to say with a straight face. What is he going to do when this administration is over? Wear a disguise, change his name or be put into a witness protection program?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Explosions, gunfire rock Afghan capital

0

Afghan troops are seen in Kabul after an attack on June 11.

A series of explosions and gunfire have rocked the central part of Afghan capital Kabul, police officials say.

Heavy gun firing and explosions occurred in early hours of Tuesday near the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Defense in an area of the city where there are many official buildings and diplomatic missions including the US embassy.

The CIA office and UN and NATO compounds have been locked down in the area and the US Embassy sounded its “duck and cover” alarm drill.

Kabul police confirmed that the palace and the CIA office were targeted by a group of militants.

It is not clear whether Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in the palace at the time of the explosions and the shootings.

Taliban militant group has claimed responsibility for attack.

“A big group of attackers have struck against the CIA office as the main target and also the palace and the Defense Ministry nearby,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said.

Kabul Police Chief General Ayoub Salangi said that all assailants have been killed in the attacks.

There have been no reports of casualties among military forces.

In late April, the Taliban announced the start of their annual “spring offensive” against US-led and Afghan forces, vowing a new wave of attacks across Afghanistan.

The militant group said it would use “every possible tactic” to inflict casualties on Afghan and US-led forces. They specifically mentioned insider attacks, and bomb attacks.

Thousands of people have been killed in attacks carried out by the Taliban militant group and the US-led foreign forces in Afghanistan over the past years.

Violence continues to plague the country despite the presence of thousands of foreign forces, more than a decade after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

DB/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

War, Christianity, and the State

0

by
Laurence
M. Vance

Recently
by Laurence M. Vance: Dumb
Law, Dumber Preacher



Introduction
to Laurence M. Vance,
War,
Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian
Militarism
(Vance Publications, 2013), 416 pgs., paperback,
$19.95.

These essays,
although organized under four headings, have one underlying theme:
the relation of Christianity to war, the military, and the warfare
state. If there is any group of people that should be opposed to
war, torture, militarism, and the warfare state with its suppression
of civil liberties, imperial presidency, government propaganda,
and interventionist foreign policy it is Christians, and especially
conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim
to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince
of Peace.

These seventy-six
essays also have one thing in common — they were all published
on the premier anti-state, anti-war, pro-market website, LewRockwell.com,
during the period from October 29, 2003, to March 28, 2013. The
vast majority of them first appeared on and were written exclusively
for that website. LewRockwell.com is the brainchild of Lew Rockwell,
the founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn,
Ala., and a leading opponent of the central state, its wars, and
its socialism.

Thirty-five
of the essays contained in this work originally appeared in the
second edition of the author’s book Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State
, published
in 2008. Four of them appeared there and in that book’s first edition,
published in 2005. In addition to essays relating to Christianity
and war and Christianity and the military, that book also included
essays on war and peace, the military, the war in Iraq, other wars,
and the U.S. global empire. Although a third edition was planned,
two things served to redirect my intentions.

Because the
second edition had already grown in size to seventy-nine essays
in 432 pages and I had written so much on these subjects since its
publication early in 2008, a third edition would just be too large
of a book if I tried to include everything I had written on these
subjects since the publication of the second edition. Additionally,
since one part of the book and much additional material consisted
of essays with a decidedly Christian theme, while the other part
of the book and much additional material was more secular in nature,
it seemed best to organize the existing and new material along these
themes. So, instead of issuing an unwieldy one volume third edition,
I opted to collect all of the former material into War, Christianity,
and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism
,
and issue the latter material in a companion volume titled War,
Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S.
Foreign Policy
.

Each essay
is reprinted verbatim, with the exception of the correction of a
few minor errors. It should be noted, however, that the original
spelling, capitalization, and punctuation are followed in all quotations.
Because they were published on the Internet, most of the essays
originally contained numerous links to documentation and further
information on the Web that the reader could click on if he desired.
Because this feature is not possible in a printed format, the reader
is encouraged to consult the online versions of each essay at LewRockwell.com
where they are archived. Many of the essays also originally included
pictures, which, for space considerations, are not included here.

Although many
of these essays reference contemporary events, the principles discussed
in all of them are timeless: war, militarism, the warfare state,
and especially the proper Christian attitude toward these things.
The essays in each chapter are listed in their order of publication.
Each chapter as well as its individual essays can be read in any
order.

In chapter
1, “Christianity and War,” Christian enthusiasm for war
and the military is shown to be an affront to the Saviour, contrary
to Scripture, and a demonstration of the profound ignorance many
Christians have of history. In chapter 2, “Christianity and
the Military,” the idea that Christians should have anything
to do with the military is asserted to be illogical, immoral, and
unscriptural. In chapter 3, “Christianity and the Warfare State,”
I argue that Christians who condone the warfare state, its senseless
wars, its war on a tactic (terrorism), its nebulous crusades against
“evil,” its aggressive militarism, its interventions into
the affairs of other countries, and its expanding empire have been
duped. In chapter 4, “Christianity and Torture,” I contend
that it is reprehensible for Christians to support torture for any
reason.

The books listed
at the close under “For Further Reading” include not only
some of the more important books referenced in the essays, but other
recommended works that relate in some way to Christianity and war,
the military, and the warfare state. Most of them are available
from Amazon.com. The inclusion of any book should not be taken as
a blanket endorsement of everything contained in the book or anything
else written by the author.

It is my desire
in all of these essays to show that war and militarism are incompatible
with biblical Christianity.

June
25, 2013

Laurence
M. Vance [
send him mail]
writes from central Florida. He is the author of
King
James, His Bible, and Its Translators
, The
Revolution that Wasn’t
, Rethinking
the Good War
, The
War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom
, and Social
Insecurity
. His latest book is War,
Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian
Militarism
. Visit his
website
.

Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The
Best of Laurence M. Vance

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

The Stock Market Is Doomed

0


by
Paul Craig Roberts
PaulCraigRoberts.org

Recently
by Paul Craig Roberts: Stasi
in the White House



One of the
myths of economics is that markets are rational. Theories are based
on this assumption, and the belief that markets are rational fuels
the argument against regulation. The market response to the Federal
Reserve’s June 19 statement that it will taper off its bond
purchases if its forecast comes true is unequivocal proof that markets
are irrational.

The Federal
Reserve’s statement that it “currently anticipates that
it would be appropriate to moderate the monthly pace of purchases
[of bonds] later this year” depends on a very big if.
The if is the correctness of the Fed’s forecast of moderate
economic growth and employment gains.

The Fed has
not stopped purchasing $85 billion of bonds each month. So nothing
real has changed. Indeed, there was no new information in the Fed’s
statement. It has been known for some time that, according to the
Fed, its bond purchases will gradually cease.

In response
to this repeat of old information, the stock and bond markets sold
off in a major way on June 19-20. This market response to the Fed’s
statement indicates that the Fed’s forecast is unlikely to
come true. Low interest rates and a high stock market are totally
dependent on the liquidity that the Fed is injecting by printing
$1,000 billion per year. If this liquidity is not injected, what
will sustain the markets? If the markets crash and interest rates
rise, how can the Fed expect recovery?

In other words,
the participants in the stock and bond markets know that the markets
are bubbles created by the printing press. There is no real basis
for the high stock and bond prices. The prices are an artificial
reality created by the printing press. Rational markets would take
into account the printing press element and would price stocks and
bonds at a much lower level.

Zero real interest
rates mean that there are no risks. But how can there be no risk
in Treasury bonds when the debt is growing faster than the economy?

Normally, high
stock values mean strong profits from strong consumer income growth
and retail sales. But we know that there is no growth in real median
family income and real retail sales.

I suspect that
the reason the Fed made the announcement, which seems to be derailing
the Fed’s forecast of recovery on which the announcement depends,
is to relieve pressure on the US dollar. For several years the Fed
has been printing 1,000 billion new dollars each year. There is
no demand for these dollars. So far these dollars have inflated
stock and bond prices instead of consumer prices. But the implication
for the dollar’s price or exchange value in currency markets
is clear. The supply is increasing faster than the demand. If the
dollar falters, the Fed would lose control. Rising import prices
would soon drive domestic inflation and interest rates far higher
than the Fed’s targets.

Washington
has succeeded in getting Japan and the EU to print yen and euros
in order to eliminate the likelihood of flight to other large currency
alternatives to the dollar. Smaller countries have also had to print
in order to protect their export markets. With so many countries
printing money, the Fed’s statement implying that the US might
stop printing makes the dollar look good, and, indeed, the dollar
rose on the currency exchange markets.

Having neutralized
the alternative currency threat to the dollar, the Fed and its agents,
the bullion banks, the banks too big to fail, are still at work
against the gold and silver threats to the dollar. Massive short
selling of gold began at the beginning of April. Again on June 20
massive shorts of gold were sold at a time of day chosen to maximize
the price decline. Only those who intend to drive down the price
would sell in this way.

Since QE began,
the Fed has deprived retirees of interest income and has forced
retirees to spend down their capital in order to pay living expenses.
Judging from the initial market response, the Fed’s latest
policy announcement is adversely impacting bond, stock and real
estate investors, and the manipulation of the bullion markets continues
to wreak destruction on wealth stored in the only known safe haven.

How can a recovery
happen when the Fed is destroying wealth?

The Fed’s
irrational behavior could be seen as rational if the assumption
is that the Fed’s intent is not to save the economy but to
save the banks. As the Fed is committed to saving the banks “too
big to fail,” it is likely that the banks know of the Fed’s
announcements in advance. With inside information, the banks know
precisely when to short the stock, bond, and bullion markets. The
banks make billions from the inside information. The billions made
help to restore the banks’ balance sheets.

Guy Lawson’s
book, Octopus (2012), shows that front-running on the basis of inside
information has always been the source of financial fortunes. In
order to save the banks, the Fed now supplies the inside information.

How is this
going to play out? I suspect that the recovery, although officially
a weak one, does not really exist. However, thanks to statistical
artifacts that understate inflation and unemployment and overstate
GDP growth, the Fed and the markets think that a recovery of sorts
is in process and that the unprecedented money printing by the Fed
will succeed in shifting the economy into high gear.

No
such thing is likely to happen. Instead, as 2013 progresses, a further
downturn will become visible through the orchestrated statistics.
This time the Fed will have to get the printed money past the banks
and into the economy, and inflation will explode. The dollar will
collapse, and import prices – as globalism has turned the US
into an import-dependent economy – will turn high inflation into
hyperinflation. Disruptions in food and energy deliveries will become
widespread, and a depreciated currency will cease to be used as
a means of exchange.

I wouldn’t
bet my life on this prediction, but I think it is as likely as the
Fed’s prediction of a full recovery that allows the Fed to
terminate its bond purchases and money printing by June 2014.

Americans,
who have been on top of the world since the late 1940s, are not
prepared for the adjustments that they are likely to have to make.
And neither is their government.

June
25, 2013

Paul
Craig Roberts,
a
former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases
of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book,

The
Tyranny of Good Intentions
,
co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how
americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random
House. Visit his website.

Copyright
© 2013
Paul
Craig Roberts

The
Best of Paul Craig Roberts


This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

Out of Africa?

0



by David Deming

Recently
by David Deming: What
If Atlas Shrugged?



It has been
called “the most fundamental change in human behavior” that ever
occurred. About 50,000 years ago, human beings began to produce
art and develop innovative new technologies that allowed them to
master their environment as never before. Population increased and
Homo sapiens
spread rapidly around the globe displacing cousins such as Neanderthals.
A significant evolutionary advance in human neurological capacity
must have occurred. Yet the appearance of culturally modern humans
is an event without an apparent cause.

Where did modern
humans originate? The answer may be hidden underneath a cow pasture
in Oklahoma. Abandoned for more than eighty years, what could be
one of the most important archeological sites on earth lies neglected
and forgotten.

In the 1920s
A. H. Holloman operated a commercial gravel pit near the small town
of Frederick, Oklahoma. Holloman began to find both animal fossils
and human artifacts interspersed among the gravels. A friend of
Holloman’s wrote to the editor of Scientific American concerning
the finds. Subsequent visits by paleontologist Harold Cook and museum
director J. D. Figgins resulted in publications
describing both fossils and human artifacts from the Holloman Pit.

Almost immediately,
the Holloman site became the subject of controversy. Fossils associated
with the artifacts appeared to be from the Pleistocene
epoch, about 150,000 years before present. Found among the Pleistocene
fauna were arrowheads that anthropologist Leslie
Spier
described as “resembling modern Indian forms.” Even in
the 1920s, this was regarded as impossible. The archeological consensus
was that humans had evolved in the Old World and only entered the
Americas during the Holocene
epoch starting about 10,000 years ago.

Every possible
objection was raised as to why the artifacts from Holloman could
not be of Pleistocene age. Without bothering to visit the Holloman
site, Leslie Spier argued that the arrowheads must have fallen into
the pit from the surface. Another critic speculated that the gravel
deposits represented a recent reworking and mixing of Pleistocene
fossils with Holocene artifacts.

All objections
were met and defeated. In 1929 Mr. Holloman located an arrowhead
cemented in place. A team of geologists from the University of Oklahoma
led by Charles
Gould
visited the Holloman site and satisfied themselves as
to the in situ nature of the artifact. Even critic Leslie Spier
conceded that the human artifacts were of the same age as the fossil
animals.

Yet the controversy
continued. Tired of the contentious quarrelling, in 1932 Mr. Holloman
closed the site. A 1955 retrospective published by the Oklahoma
Geological Survey concluded “it is a scientific tragedy that the
disagreement among observers and scientists caused all to cease
collecting and observing the pit.” Despite its apparent promise,
the Holloman site was never systematically excavated.

By 1965 North
American archeologists had acceded to moving the date of first human
occupation in America back to the late Pleistocene. Dating of a
site near Clovis, New Mexico suggested that humans first entered
the Western Hemisphere about 11,500 bp when an ice-free corridor
opened up that would have allowed entry into the continental interior.
The Clovis-first
theory
seemed to have extraordinary explanatory power and it
remained the ruling theory for more than thirty years.

For US archeologists,
Clovis-first became dogmatic truth. No one looked for an older human
presence in the Americas because everyone knew that the Clovis culture
was first. When archeological excavations reached the Clovis level,
digging stopped. But Central and South American archeologists were
unencumbered by preconceived notions. Not knowing that pre-Clovis
occupation
was impossible they went out and discovered it. Excavations
in Brazil and Mexico uncovered evidence of a human presence in the
Americas as early as 295,000 bp.

In 1997 US
archeologists were finally forced to abandon their beloved Clovis-first
theory. Excavations at Monte
Verde
, Chile, by Tom Dillehay and his colleagues definitively
documented a human presence in South America during pre-Clovis times.
Yet the accepted date of first entry into the Americas was barely
nudged back from 11,500 bp to 15,000 bp.

Archeologists
have yet to come to terms with the reams of evidence documenting
a human presence in the Americas as early as 300,000 bp. It is likely
that humans evolved initially in Africa. But they didn’t remain
there very long. Homo is a highly mobile species. Hominids
were in the Republic of Georgia by 1,800,000 bp and people occupied
cold climates in northern Europe as early as 780,000 bp.

The Bering
Land Bridge
between Asia and Alaska was open for about 200,000
of the last 500,000 years. Yet we are supposed to believe that Homo
sapiens
only entered the Americas 15,000 years ago, even though
Homo erectus
was in east Asia as early as 1,500,000 bp. It is more likely that
hominids moved back and forth over the Bering Land Bridge repeatedly.

The currently
fashionable theory
is that the modern humans evolved in Africa
about 50,000 bp and then migrated throughout the world, displacing
other forms of Homo such as Neanderthals. Yet there are numerous
difficulties with this theory and little evidence in support.

The most significant
problem with the Out-of-Africa
theory is that evolution requires geographic isolation of a small
population. Yet people living in Africa shared a common stone technology
with hominids in Eurasia and surely would have interbred with them.
Any evolutionary change would have been muted by gene flow.

Another problem
with Out-of-Africa is that it implies that a species which evolved
in tropical Africa rapidly displaced cold-adapted Neanderthals in
northern Europe during the coldest part of the last Ice Age. Acceptance
of Out-of-Africa also requires us to accept the bizarre corollary
that modern humans managed to cross the ocean to Australia as early
as 60,000 bp, yet failed to walk into Europe until 43,000 bp.

It is more
likely that culturally modern humans originated in the Americas.
This theory was first proposed by Jeff
Goodman
in 1981. Only in America do we find evidence of advanced
stone technology at early times. Holloman is not the only site in
the Western Hemisphere at which human artifacts of great age have
been found. At the Hueyatlaco
site in Mexico, Virginia Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues have
found advanced stone technologies dating to 250,000 bp.

It is possible
that the opening and closing of the Bering Land Bridge has functioned
as the pacemaker of human evolution over the last several hundred
thousand years. Archaic Homo sapiens from Africa could have walked
into America from about 189,000 to 130,000 bp. The critical period
for evolutionary change was the last
interglacial
. From about 130,000 to 75,000 bp the land bridge
was closed. Isolated from the rest of humanity, a relatively small
population of people in the Americas could have evolved the intellectual
capabilities of modern humans. When the land bridge opened again
at 75,000 bp, there likely were one or more migrations back into
Asia, with humans moving down the coast of Asia into Australia,
eventually reaching both Africa and Europe.

The key to
understanding where modern humans originated may lie in an obscure
location in rural Oklahoma. The Holloman Pit is only a small part
of a broad ridge of Pleistocene gravels 800 meters wide that extends
linearly more than 12 kilometers. This area has never been excavated,
yet it has a vast potential for discovery. If we do not look we
shall not find.

June
25, 2013

David
Deming [send him mail]
is
a geologist, professor of arts and sciences at the University of
Oklahoma, , and the author of “Did Modern Humans Originate in the
Americas? a Retrospective on the Holloman Gravel Pit in Oklahoma,”
published in the current issue of the
Journal of Scientific
Exploration. He is the author of the series Science
and Technology in World History
.

Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The
Best of David Deming


This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

Forced Funding for Circumcision?

0

Pretty much
any law school worthy of its bias toward left-liberalism and socialism
has a clinic dedicated to fighting poverty, to promoting welfare
rights, opposing gender and racial discrimination, advocating
socialized medicine, tenants’ rights, countering the death penalty,
etc. But now there is something new under the sun in this realm
of legal education: a conservative legal clinic at the Stanford
University Law School of all places, bastion of “progressive”
thinking (apart from its Hoover Institute).

What, pray
tell, will be the mission of this Religious Liberty Clinic? It
is funded by a $1.6 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation,
via the good offices of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
As such, it will be teaching its law students how to represent
“Seventh-day Adventists who were fired by FedEx for refusing
to work on Saturdays, a Jewish convert in prison whose request
to be circumcised was rejected and a Muslim group that was told
its plan to build a mosque violated land-use laws” (Bronner,
2013
).

But do Seventh-day
Adventists really have a right not to work on Saturdays as their
religion requires, if their employers want to hire people to labor
on that day? Of course not, at least not according to libertarian
law. Forcing firms to make special arrangements to fulfill the
religious sensibilities of some employees violate their
rights of free association. Under this rubric, bosses cannot be
prevented from engaging in voluntary labor contracts with whoever
agrees to accept their offer, and that certainly includes working
on the Sabbath whether for Seventh-day Adventists or Jews. Of
course, if an employer makes special accommodations for religious
minorities such as this, he is likely to be able to hire them
at a lower wage than they would otherwise command. But then, presumably,
this new conservative legal clinic would sue the company in question
for pay discrimination.

Do converts
to Judaism really have a right to circumcisions — paid for by
other people? Certainly not, again, at least not on the basis
of libertarian law. That would be a positive obligation, and libertarianism
only recognizes negative rights. From the latter perspective the
very purpose of prison is to ensure that the convict works at
hard labor, the proceedings of which go to compensate the victim.
Instead, it currently costs more than university tuition at prestigious
institutions to house criminals. This is because instead of being
compelled to work, they are coddled with air conditioning, psychological
services, gymnasiums, color television, and forsooth, if Stanford’s
Religious Liberty Clinic gets it way, free circumcisions at taxpayer
expense. Thus, the target of the crime is victimized not once
but twice. First by the criminal, and a second time by being forced
to pay for his cozy existence, including these religious “rights.”

The institution
of slavery has demonstrated that forced labor can be organized
at a profit. While victimless “criminals,” those guilty
of violating the law regarding pornography, prostitution, gambling,
drugs, etc., should all be set free, forthwith, rapists and murderers
and others of their vicious ilk should be in effect enslaved until
they pay off their debts to their victims or heirs.

Yes, Muslim
groups have a right to build mosques wherever they wish, provided
only that this is on their own land. The Stanford clinic may well
do some good in this one area. Posit, however, that this were
a libertarian, not a conservative, undertaking. It would then
attempt to repeal all land use laws such as zoning, rent
control (landlords are prohibited from converting their property
to condominiums), eminent domain, environmental, etc.

Curiously,
the Stanford law group refuses to defend a Christian photographer
who declines to take pictures for a homosexual wedding, and a
religious employer who is unwilling to undertake health plans
that make contraceptives available to employees. The reason appears
to be that this Stanford group wants to focus on believers rather
than governments. But the photographer and the contraceptive-refusing
employer seem to fit that precise bill.

Perhaps on
reflection there is not all that much new under the sun. Yes,
conservatives at a law school or anywhere else in academia for
that matter is certainly to be remarked upon, there are so few.
But insofar as protecting liberties, true liberties as libertarians
see them, there is nothing new here. So keep on moving citizen,
there is nothing to be seen here.

A libertarian
law clinic in sharp contrast to those of both the left and the
right, would defend the “undefendable” (Block,
2008
): those who wish to engage in discrimination on the basis
of race, or sex, or age, or, indeed, anything else. Free association
is the key here. It would sue in behalf of those guilty of economic
“crimes,” such as practicing numerous professions without
a license: hair braiders, teeth whiteners, gypsy cab drivers,
and, yes, doctors, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, etc., too.
It would devote great efforts to freeing people guilty of victimless
crimes, particularly regarding drug prohibition. A libertarian
clinic at a law school would be a very different kind of creature.
Where is campus diversity when we really need it?

This article
originally appeared at Backbencher.

Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

Did a Military Missile Down TWA Flight 800?

0



The fate of
TWA Flight 800 is exposed, but at the time was covered up by the
FBi. 96 eyewitness reports state that a missle struck the aircraft.
NTSB crash investigators break their long silence and describe how
the FBI tampered with evidence. A new documentary aims to reveal
the real truth of the government’s criminal conspiracy and massive
cover-up of the tragedy of TWA 800. The producer states: “One or
more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused its destruction.
The documentary, “TWA Flight 800,” will premiere July 17 on the
17th anniversary of the attack.

All 230 people
aboard died when the plane exploded and crashed into the Atlantic
Ocean. (2:48)

Comments
open at YouTube.

June
25, 2013

Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

Can a Feminist Military Rule the World?

0

by
Patrick
J. Buchanan

Recently
by Patrick J. Buchanan: The
Palin Doctrine



“The Pentagon
unveiled plans Tuesday for fully integrating women into front-line
and special combat roles, including elite forces such as Army Rangers
and Navy SEALs.”

So ran the
lead on the CNN story. And why are we doing this?

Did the young
officers leading troops in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, returning
with casualties, say they needed women to enhance the fighting efficiency
of their combat units and the survival rate of their soldiers?

Did men from
the 101st and 82nd airborne, the Marines, the SEALs and Delta Force
petition the Joint Chiefs to put women alongside them in future
engagements to make them an even superior force?

No. This decision
to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military
brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute
to feminist ideology.

This is not
a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action
reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature,
human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women
are just as good at soldiering as men.

But if this
were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind
the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

In the history
of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies,
attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly.
Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into
battle, but old men and boys.

“You don’t
hit a girl!” was something every American boy had drilled into him
from childhood. It was part of our culture, the way we were raised.
A Marine friend told me he would have resigned from the Corps rather
than fight women with the pugil sticks used for bayonet practice
at Parris Island.

Sending women
into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When
they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive.
Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber
women in prisons 10 to 1.

For every Bonnie
Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.

Is it a coincidence
that every massacre discussed in our gun debate — from the Texas
Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Ft. Hood, from
Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown — was the work of
a crazed male?

Nothing matches
mortal combat where soldiers fight and kill, and are wounded, maimed
and die for cause or country. Domestically, the closest approximations
are combat training, ultimate fighting, boxing and that most physical
of team sports, the NFL.

Yet no women
compete against men in individual or team sports. They are absent
from boys’ and men’s teams in high school and college, be it football,
basketball, baseball, hockey or lacrosse.

Even in the
non-contact sports of golf, tennis and volleyball, men compete with
men, women against women. In the Olympics, to which nations send
their best athletes, women and men compete separately in track and
field, swimming and gymnastics.

Consider our
own history. Would any U.S. admiral say that in any of America’s
great naval battles — Mobile Bay, Manila Bay, Midway, the Coral
Sea — we would done better with some women manning the guns?

In the revolutionary
and civil wars, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam, women were
not in combat. Was it invidious discrimination of which we should
all be ashamed that women were not fighting alongside the men at
Gettysburg, in the Argonne, at Normandy or with “Chesty” Puller’s
Marines in the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir?

Undeniably,
some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is
true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year
old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into
combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?

Carry this
feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half
of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls
and women. Is this not an absurdity?

We have had
Navy ships become “love boats,” with female sailors returning pregnant.
At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly
raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed
and frightened to report it.

An
estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted
in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably
outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of
forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory
factor here?

Among the primary
reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat
three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future
war, women could be drafted equally with men, and sent in equal
numbers into combat.

But what appalled
the Reaganites is social progress in the age of Obama. This is another
country from the one we grew up in.

June
25, 2013

Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail
] is co-founder and editor of
The
American Conservative
. He is also the author of seven books,
including
Where
the Right Went Wrong
, and Churchill,
Hitler, and the Unnecessary War
. His latest book is Suicide
of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
See his
website
.

Copyright
© 2013 Creators Syndicate

The
Best of Patrick J. Buchanan


This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

Bit by Bit Strategy

0

by
Walter E. Williams

Recently
by Walter E. Williams: Unasked
and Unanswered Questions



There’s a move
on to prohibit Washington’s football team from calling itself “Redskins,”
even though a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision said that it has
that right. Now the name change advocates are turning to the political
arena and intimidation. The NCAA has already banned the University
of North Dakota from calling its football team the “Fighting Sioux.”

This is the
classic method of busybodies and tyrants; they start out with something
trivial or small and then magnify and extend it. If these people
are successful in banning the use of Indian names for football teams,
you can bet the rent money that won’t end their agenda. Our military
has a number of fighting aircraft named with what busybodies and
tyrants might consider racial slights, such as the Apache, Iroquois,
Kiowa, Lakota and Mescalero. We also have military aircraft named
after animals, such as the Eagle, Falcon, Raptor, Cobra and Dolphin.
The people fighting against the Redskins name might form a coalition
with the PETA animal rights kooks to ban the use of animal names.

Another example
of the strategy of starting out small is that of the tobacco zealots.
In 1965, in the name of health, tobacco zealots successfully got
Congress to enact the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. A
few years later, they were successful in getting a complete smoking
ban on planes, and that success emboldened them to seek many other
bans. The issue here is not smoking but tyrant strategy. Suppose
that in 1965, the tobacco tyrants demanded that Congress enact a
law banning smoking in bars, in workplaces, in restaurants, in apartments,
within 25 feet of entrances, in ballparks, on beaches, on sidewalks
and in other places. Had they revealed and demanded their full agenda
back in 1965, there would have been so much resistance that they
wouldn’t have gotten anything. By the way, much of their later success
was a result of a bogus Environmental Protection Agency study on
secondhand smoke. I’d like to hear whether EPA scientists are willing
to declare that people can die from secondhand smoke at a beach,
on a sidewalk, in a park or within 25 feet of a building.

During the
legislative and subsequent state ratification debates over the 16th
Amendment — which established the income tax — the political task
of overturning the Constitution’s prohibition of such tax was considerably
eased by political promises that any income tax levied would fall
upon only the wealthiest 3 to 5 percent of the population. Most
Americans paid no federal income tax, and those earning $500,000
or more paid only 7 percent. In 1913, only 358,000 Americans filed
1040 forms, compared with today’s 140 million. That’s the rope-a-dope
strategy. To get the votes of the masses, politicians start out
small and exploit the politics of envy by promising that only the
rich will be taxed.

In
1898, Congress imposed a temporary federal excise tax on telephones
as a revenue measure during the Spanish-American War. At that time,
only the rich owned phones. Soon nearly all Americans owned phones.
Both the rich and the poor paid the telephone excise tax. Congress
repealed this “temporary” Spanish-American War tax in 2006. Nobel
laureate Milton Friedman had it right when he said, “Nothing is
so permanent as a temporary government program.”

The Tax Reform
Act of 1969, called the alternative minimum tax, was created to
raise revenue from 155 “rich” Americans who legally avoided federal
income taxes by buying tax-free municipal bonds. Today more than
4 million Americans are hit by the AMT, and most of them hardly
qualify as rich.

Here’s another
rope-a-dope just beginning. The National Transportation Safety Board
recently recommended that states reduce the allowable blood alcohol
content by more than a third — to 0.05 percent, as opposed to today’s
0.08 percent. The NTSB is calling it a recommendation just to test
the waters. If the board doesn’t see resistance, its next move will
be to threaten noncomplying states with a cutoff of highway construction
funds. Setting the legal limit at 0.05 percent is not these people’s
end objective. Their end objective is to outlaw any amount of alcohol
in the blood while one is driving.

June
25, 2013

Walter
E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics
at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other
Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate web page
.

Copyright
© 2013 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The
Best of Walter E. Williams

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

An FBI Double Agent?

0


by Russ Baker
WhoWhatWhy.com

Recently
by Russ Baker: FBI:
Knew About Saudi 9/11 Hijacker Ties — But Lied To Protect ‘National Security’



Amid the swirl
of mysteries surrounding the alleged Boston bombers, one fact, barely
touched upon in the mainstream U.S. media, stands out: There is
a strong possibility that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two
brothers, was a double agent, perhaps recruited by the FBI.

If Tsarnaev
was a double agent, he would be just one of thousands of
young people coerced by the FBI, as the price for settling a minor
legal problem, into a dangerous career as an informant.

That he was
so coerced is the easiest explanation for two seemingly incompatible
incidents in his life:

The first is
that he returned to Russia in 2012, ostensibly to renew his Russian
passport so he could file an application for US citizenship.

The second
is that Tsarnaev then jeopardized his citizenship application with
conspicuous, provocative – almost theatrical – behavior
that seemed more caricature than characteristic of a Muslim
extremist.

False Notes

While walking
around in flashy western clothes in the Russian Republic of Dagestan,
he visited his cousin, Magomed Kartashov, a prominent Islamist leader,
already on the Russians’ radar. The two reportedly spent hours discussing
Tsarnaev’s wish to join a terrorist cell there in the Caucasus.
Later, Russian authorities asked Kartashov if he had tried to incite
Tsarnaev with “extremist” views. Kartashov said it was the other
way around: he had tried to convince Tsarnaev that “violent methods
are not right.”

Experts agree
that Tsarnaev could not have expected such provocative activity
to escape the notice of the vigilant Russian authorities.

Back in America,
Tsarnaev again called attention to himself as a radical Muslim.
Just one month after he returned from his trip, a YouTube page that
appeared to belong to him featured multiple jihadist videos that
he had purportedly endorsed.

And in January
2013, he got himself thrown out of a mosque in Cambridge for shouting
at a speaker who compared the Prophet Mohammed to Martin Luther
King Jr. Tsarnaev rarely attended this mosque, but he must have
known it was moderate. (He had done something similar the previous
November at the same mosque.) Typically, jihadists are trained to
blend in, to be as inconspicuous as possible. Did Tsarnaev go to
this mosque with the express intent of smoking out possible radicals?

The key to
Tsarnaev’s puzzling behavior may lie in the answer to another question:
when exactly did Tsarnaev first come to the attention of the FBI?
The timeline offered by the agency, and duly reported in the mainstream
media, has been inconsistent. One story line focused on the FBI’s
response to an alert from Russian authorities.

Eric Schmitt
and Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times, wrote, on April 24,
2013,

The
first Russian request came in March 2011 through the F.B.I.’s office
in the United States Embassy in Moscow. The one-page request said
Mr. Tsarnaev ”had changed drastically since 2010” and was preparing
to travel to a part of Russia “to join unspecified underground groups.”

The Russian
request was reportedly based on intercepted phone calls between
Tsarnaev’s mother and an unidentified person (The Guardian
[London], April 21, 2013). According to another source, several
calls were intercepted, including one between Tsarnaev and his mother.

So was it the
Russian alert in March
2011
that first prompted the FBI to investigate Tsarnaev? This
conclusion seems undermined by another report in the Times – written
four days earlier by the same two reporters plus a third—
that dated the agency’s first contact with Tamerlan and family members
at least two months earlier, in January
2011.

If the FBI
interviewed Tsarnaev before the Russians asked them to, then
what prompted the agency’s interest in him? Were his contacts here
as well as in Russia considered useful to American counterintelligence?

The Canadian
Connection

Although it’s
not known why the Russians were intercepting phone calls involving
the Tsarnaevs, one reason might have been Tamerlan’s connection,
direct or indirect, with a Canadian terrorist named William Plotnikov.
According to USA Today, a Russian security official told
the AP that

Plotnikov
had been detained in Dagestan in December 2010 on suspicion of having
ties to the militants and during his interrogation was forced to
hand over a list of social networking friends from the United States
and Canada who like him had once lived in Russia, Novaya Gazeta
reported. The newspaper said Tsarnaev’s name was on that list,
bringing him for the first time to the attention of Russia’s
secret services.

According to
a slightly different version, Plotnikov, “while under interrogation
in the militant hotbed of Dagestan, named Tsarnaev as a fellow extremist.”

The similar
backgrounds of Plotnikov and Tsarnaev make it likely that they had
indeed been in contact. Both were recent immigrants from the former
Soviet Union. Both had successful boxing careers in North America,
and both surprised their friends by converting to Islamist extremism.

Plotnikov was
a member of the Caucasus Emirate, an al-Qaeda ally, and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police had been searching for him since 2010. By
2011 the United States had joined the Russians in targeting this
terrorist group as an al-Qaeda ally, and had offered $5 million
for information leading to the capture of the group’s leader
Dokka Umarov. (Moscow Times, May 27, 2011)

Plotnikov was
killed in July 2012 in a shootout between militants and police in
Dagestan. Tsarnaev left Dagestan for America two days after Plotnikov
was killed.

US and Russia
Share Concerns

Tsarnaev’s
hopes for a Russian passport would have been put at risk by his
openly provocative behavior in Dagestan —unless he was acting
as an informant. But for which government, the U.S. or Russia?

The United
States and Russia have two shared concerns in the “arc of crisis”
stretching from Afghanistan to the Caucasus — terrorism and drugs.
The two problems are interrelated, because drugs, especially in
the Caucasus, help finance terror operations. This vitally affects
Russia, both because it has one of the highest heroin death rates
in the world, and even more because some of its member republics,
like Dagestan, are up to 80 percent Muslim. This shared concern
has led to a successful joint US-Russia anti-drug operation in Afghanistan.

Was Tamerlan
Tsarnaev caught up in a similar counter-intelligence operation?

The FBI’s
Dysfunctional Informant Program

One of the
more controversial features of the FBI’s informant program is the
frequency with which FBI agents coerce young people into the dangerous
role of informant, as a price for settling a minor legal problem.
Tsarnaev fits the mold. His successful career as a boxer
was interrupted and his application for U.S. citizenship was held
up (and perhaps denied) because “a 2009 domestic violence complaint
was standing in his way.” This alone would mark him as a candidate
for recruitment.

Thousands of
vulnerable young people avoid our overcrowded prisons by agreeing
to become snitches, sometimes wearing a wire. In this way a person
whose only crime may have been selling marijuana to a friend can
end up risking his career and even his life. And for what?

According to
Sarah Stillman in The New Yorker,

The
snitch-based system has proved notoriously unreliable, fuelling
wrongful convictions. In 2000, more than twenty innocent African-American
men in Hearne, Texas, were arrested on cocaine charges, based on
the false accusations of an informant seeking to escape a burglary
charge. This incident, and a number of others like it, prompted
calls for national legislation to regulate informant
use.

After 9/11,
the coercive techniques of the FBI drug war, along with half of
the agents using them, were redirected to surveillance of Muslims.
The emphasis was no longer on investigation of specific crimes,
but the recruitment of spies to report on all Muslim communities.

In 2005 the
FBI’s Office of the Inspector General found that a high percentage
of cases involving informants contained violations of the FBI’s
own guidelines. Its report noted that since 2001 the rules had been
loosened to reflect the new emphasis on intelligence gathering and.
by extension, the bureau’s urgent need for informants.

According
to the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, … nearly
every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved
a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant.
In these cases, the informants – who work for money or are seeking
leniency on criminal charges of their own – have crossed the line
from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging
and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted
by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants
provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory
political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level
of terrorism.

A writer for
Mother Jones,
Trevor Aaronson, also investigated the FBI’s
informant-led terrorism cases for over a year; he too found that
in a number of cases, “the government provides the plot, the
means, and the opportunity.”

Read
the rest of the article

June
25, 2013

Russ
Baker is an award-winning investigative reporter. He has written
for
The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation,
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Village
Voice and Esquire and dozens of other major domestic and
foreign publications. He has also served as a contributing editor
to the
Columbia Journalism Review. Baker received a 2005
Deadline Club award for his exclusive reporting on George W. Bush’s
military record. He is the author of
Family
of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in
the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America

(Bloomsbury Press, 2009); it was released in paperback as
Family
of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and
the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years
. For more information
on Russ’s work, see his sites, www.familyofsecrets.com
and www.russbaker.com.

Copyright
© 2013
WhoWhatWhy.com

The
Best of Russ Baker

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

Americans Hate Freedom

0



I read the
other day that overwhelming majorities of Americans support federal
fuel economy mandates: 77 percent of Republicans and 92 percent
of Democrats, according to a recent poll (see here).
That means they also support the $1,300 line item on the window
sticker of the new Cadillac CTS-V GM dropped off for me to evaluate
this week. It’s not a wheel/tire package. Not an upgrade audio
system. Not special paint.

It’s
a “gas guzzler” tax.

You buy the
CTS-V, you pay $1,300 extra — on top of the sales
tax; on top of the title taxes — with the money you’ve
got left after paying federal, state, local, Social Security and
Medicare taxes. And why? Because your fellow (and frequently flag-waving)
Americans are anti-freedom. They resent you — the
buyer of a car like the CTS-V, which uses more fuel than they think
it ought to use — and have put in place mechanisms
designed to punish you for having the effrontery to buy
such a car.

They will cry,
“but the CTS-V is a gas hog!”

And they
are liberty hogs — because they cannot comprehend that whatever
gas the CTS-V uses — whether it’s a lot or a little
— every last drop of it was paid for in toto by the
owner of the car. These people have no more right to bitch about
the gas that goes into the tank of a CTS-V than they do about the
gas that goes into the tank of a Prius hybrid. In both cases, the
owners of the cars bought the gas. It is their gas. Whatever
stake that amorphous entity that goes by the name of “society”
might have had in the disposition of that fuel prior to the sale
of that fuel is vitiated by the fact of its purchase — at
which point the fuel becomes the property of the person
who bought it. Who paid for it in full — including the regressive
and confiscatory motor fuels taxes that are part and parcel of every
gallon purchased.

The buyer of
a car such as the 556 horsepower supercharged CTS-V, which does
indeed use a great deal of gas, also pays a great deal more in motor
fuels taxes than the Prius driver. That means, he pays more
to maintain “our” roads than the Prius driver. A great
deal more, in fact. It says so — in bold face type, right
there on the MSRP window sticker: “You SPEND
$6,150 more in fuel costs over five years, compared to the average
new vehicle.”

The Prius driver
should applaud the CTS-V driver, who is subsidizing
his hybrid. At the least, he ought to have the decency to leave
him in peace. After all, he’s paying the lion’s share
of the tab for “our” roads — not the
Prius driver.

Instead, the
Prius driver, the freedom-hating American, wants to punish
the driver of the CTS-V.

Again.
(Don’t forget all those other taxes, already paid
— and in greater proportion, since “the rich”
who buy cars like this also pay disproportionately higher taxes).

It’s
despicable.

But also indicative
of the envy-addled, control-freak cancer that’s metasticizing
across the country. The sickness of mind — and heart —
that begrudges others their liberty, their free choice. And which
is determined to impose its values and views on others by force.

Read
the rest of the article

June
25, 2013

     

Eric Peters
[send him mail] is an
automotive columnist and author of
Automotive
Atrocities and Road Hogs
(2011). Visit his
website
.

Copyright
© 2013 Eric Peters

The
Best of Eric Peters

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

American Supremacy Is Over

0

by
Sean Thomas
Daily Telegraph



It’s tough
being a travel writer. I sometimes think of going on strike and
refusing to enjoy any more complimentary massages or free champagne
until they improve my working conditions. That’ll show ‘em.

However, travelling
the world in great luxury, and at no personal cost, does have an
upside: it gives you an overview. And during my recent sojourns
I’ve noticed one thing: the Chinese are here. There. And everywhere.
The point was rammed home when I visited the Darling Hotel in Sydney,
a lavish new casino complex where 95 per cent of the guests are
Chinese.

Spookily enough,
two months after my trip to Australia, my vague insight was confirmed
by a survey, which shows that the Chinese are now the world’s
most important tourists, overtaking the Germans and Americans in
spending power.

And this is
where geopolitical reality has disconnected from British perception.
Too many UK pundits and journalists still think of America as unquestionably
the most puissant and important country.

The BBC will
send a dozen hacks to cover any old American tornado – even
as they ignore vast tragedies and triumphs elsewhere. These attitudes
are ludicrous – and dangerously outdated.

Consider the
stats. China (population 1.35 billion) overtook America (population
320 million) as the biggest consumer of steel in 1999. That was
the beginning. China overtook America as the world’s main exporter
in 2007, as the biggest user of the internet in 2008, and as the
world’s greatest manufacturer in 2010 (the first time America
has been supplanted in this role since the 1880s, when the USA overtook
the UK).

2010 was also
the year China overtook America as the world’s largest car
market, as the world’s largest retail market, and as the world’s
greatest producer of patents. A year later China became the globe’s
greatest user of energy. In 2012 China became the world’s biggest
market for PCs, and the primary source of global trade. Just three
days ago China unveiled the world’s most powerful computer.
As for Chinese forex reserves, they total $3.4 trillion. That is
to say, the loose change in China’s pockets, from all those
foreign hols, is equivalent to the entire economy of Germany.

Read
the rest of the article

June
25, 2013

Copyright
© 2013 Daily Telegraph

This article originally appeared on: Lew Rockwell

76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck

0

Angela Johnson
money.cnn.com
June 24, 2013

Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.

Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all.

“It’s disappointing,” said Greg McBride, Bankrate.com’s senior financial analyst. “Nothing helps you sleep better at night than knowing you have money tucked away for unplanned expenses.”

Even more disappointing; The savings rates have barely changed over the past three years, even though a larger percentage of consumers report an increase in job security, a higher net worth and an overall better financial situation.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 10:26 pm

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Richard Clarke: Hastings Accident “Consistent with a Car Cyber Attack”

0

“Intelligence agencies… know how to remotely seize control of a car.”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 24, 2013

Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post on Monday that the fatal crash of journalist Michael Hastings’ Mercedes C250 coupe last week is “consistent with a car cyber attack.”

“There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers” – including the United States – know how to remotely seize control of a car,” Clarke said.

On Saturday, Infowars.com posted a video of a talk presented by Dr. Kathleen Fisher, a program manager for DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technologies. Fisher admitted that the Pentagon has researched remotely controlling cars through hacking on board computers.

“What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag,” Clarke told The Huffington Post. “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”

In 2011, Car and Driver magazine published an article substantiating the Pentagon research. “Currently, there’s nothing to stop anyone with malicious intent and some ­computer-programming skills from taking command of your vehicle. After gaining access, a hacker could control everything from which song plays on the radio to whether the brakes work,” writes Keith Barry, citing research conducted by the Center for Automotive Embedded Systems Security, a partnership between the University of California San Diego and the University of Washington.

“What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag,” Clarke told The Huffington Post. “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”

Clarke was careful not to directly implicate the government in hacking Hastings car. “So if there were a cyber attack on the car – and I’m not saying there was,” he said, “I think whoever did it would probably get away with it.”

He also put credence in the FBI’s claim — despite claims to the contrary by associates of the writer — that the agency was not investigating him. “I believe the FBI when they say they weren’t investigating him,” said Clarke. “That was very unusual, and I’m sure they checked very carefully before they said that.”

“I’m not a conspiracy guy. In fact, I’ve spent most of my life knocking down conspiracy theories,” said Clarke. “But my rule has always been you don’t knock down a conspiracy theory until you can prove it [wrong]. And in the case of Michael Hastings, what evidence is available publicly is consistent with a car cyber attack. And the problem with that is you can’t prove it.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Michael Hastings was targeted and assassinated for his journalism — most notably his story resulting in the fall of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and remarks on NSA surveillance — the establishment media continues to portray the attack on Hastings as the delusional meanderings of conspiracy theorists. Clarke’s comments serve as the latest pièce de résistance in an unfolding drama revealing just how far the government will go to silence critics and truth tellers.

Prior to his murder, Hastings said the Obama administration had declared war on the press. His desire to go into hiding — expressed in an email mere hours before his assassination — demonstrates the ability of the government to monitor opponents by using a well-developed NSA surveillance grid and take executive action against investigative journalists and others who dare to stand up to the national security state.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:30 pm

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

'Explosions, gunfire heard in Kabul'

0

A series of explosions and gunfire have been heard in the central Kabul, police officials have said.

Heavy gun firing occurred near the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Defense in an area of the city where there are many official buildings and diplomatic missions including the US embassy.

MN/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

‘Protests threaten Turkey Olympic hopes’

0

Turkish police detain a man during a silent protest in Taksim Square, Istanbul. (file photo)

Istanbul’s mayor Kadir Topbas has cautioned that the protests in Turkey could turn the countryâ„¢s hopes of hosting the 2020 Olympics into a “dream.”

On Monday, Topbas called on the protesters not to continue the demonstrations because the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will decide on the host city in less than three months.

Å“We have now entered the final stages of the 2020 Olympic (bidding),” Topbas said.

Å“If these (incidents) continue and there are problems, the 2020 games will be nothing but a dream,” he added.

Å“The (Turkish nation) stands to lose, Istanbul stands to lose. We all know who will gain,” he said.

Istanbul is competing against Madrid and Tokyo for the Olympics. The IOC will select the host city on September 7 in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Recent anti-government protests in the country and the governmentâ„¢s use of violence during the protests have posed a serious challenge to the countryâ„¢s bid for the Olympics.

The unrest in Turkey began on May 31 after police broke up a sit-in at Istanbul’s Taksim Square to protest against a proposal to demolish Gezi Park.

The protesters said Gezi Park, which is a traditional gathering point for rallies and demonstrations as well as a popular tourist destination, is one of Istanbul’s last green public spaces.

On Sunday, thousands of people and human rights activists staged a demonstration near the Taksim Square, condemning what they called Erdoganâ„¢s authoritarian rule and demanding his resignation.

Riot police on Saturday cleared protesters from Taksim Square, while the prime minister was addressing his supporters in the coastal city of Samsun.

Five people, including a police officer, have died in the clashes and more than 5,000 protesters and 600 police officers have been injured.

IA/HN

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Making of a Monster: How the U. S. Helped Build Iraq's War Machine

0

Exactly two years after the August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the state-run radio and newspaper in Baghdad were blaring that Kuwait would fall again to Iraq’s claims. This summer, even as one emergency seemed to be averted involving a standoff over alleged weapons data in Baghdad’s agriculture building, the spectre of yet another crisis loomed, with Iraq again thumbing its nose at international inspectors.

Aid to Hussein

Ironically, the intersection of “agriculture” and Iraqi weapons is apt, since Washington has become embroiled in a stew of its own making – involving, in part, Iraq’s use of U.S. taxpayer-subsidized agricultural loan guarantees to buy military equipment. Investigating these and other developments, the House Banking Committee has voted to issue new subpoenas concerning administration support for Iraq before the Gulf War. The extent of Bush administration aid to Baghdad is growing more evident with the passage of time, with one of the latest revelations being that even the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff had gotten into the acts of appeasement. The Pentagon, for example, proposed a plan to train and exchange forces with Saddam’s military, and even sought to protect the dictator’s personal aircraft from missile attack. These particular plans, which were being pushed in late May 1990, less than three months before the invasion, were not implemented – but many others were.

Bush administration apologists have called their efforts a misguided attempt to moderate Saddam Hussein’s behavior. In truth, they constructed a monster that was then used to justify the war for a new world order.

Keep in mind that mollification was the order of the day even after years of Iraqi support of terrorism, after Saddam had utilized deadly chemicals on the Kurds within Iraq’s borders, after nuclear-triggering devices had been intercepted on the way to Iraq (March 1990), and after Hussein had boasted that his chemical-warfare capability would “burn half of Israel” if it attacked Iraq (April 1990).

Green Light for Saddam

The fact that these recently exposed plans for direct military aid were not approved did not mean that the administration was suddenly getting tough with Baghdad. By no means: Even as thousands of American troops and tanks were massing on the Iraq-Kuwait border one week before the invasion, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, 1990 signaled what had to be the most blatant go-ahead since Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s 1950 war-prompting remark to Congress that South Korea was outside the “defensive perimeter” of the United States. Face-to-face with Saddam, Glaspie assured him that the United States “has no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” Such a comment amounted to a green light for Saddam to move on Kuwait.

Surprise! Or was it? As Glaspie remarked that September: “I didn’t think … that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.” Presumably taking just a little bit would have made it a matter for negotiation. Had Saddam listened to Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly on July 31, 1990, on Capitol Hill, he would have heard the invitation to strike reissued, with Kelly opposing congressional sanctions against Baghdad and noting that the United States had no formal commitment to defend Kuwait from an invasion by Iraq.

Nowadays, you understand, the White House can’t seem to wait for sufficient provocation to strike again. As a Bush administration official, quoted in the Washington Post for July 29, 1992, put it about Saddam: “We all want to pop him.” Of course, Saddam has already been more than mildly provocative by ignoring most of the cease-fire provisions, as well as bombing Shiites in the southern part of the country, carrying out summary executions of those suspected of collaborating with rebels, and executing businessmen accused of “profiteering.” Will there be another “misunderstanding” and more fighting as a dismal political season grows short for the administration? As it happens, a senior UN official said the July dispute over the agriculture ministry began over just such a misunderstanding and could have been avoided.

Tilting Toward Baghdad

The generally used excuse for Washington’s policy vis-à-vis Baghdad is that Iraq needed to be built up as a counterweight to Iran. This explanation, however, ignores the fact that the Iranian revolution itself came about as a result of the Carter administration’s sellout of the Shah. For every action, in diplomacy and physics, one should expect a reaction. Moreover, while the United States did “tilt” to Iraq after Baghdad invaded Iran in 1980 and began an eight-year war, Washington also sold weapons to both sides in the conflict.

Saddam Hussein, even two decades ago, had no compunctions about being a beneficiary of U.S. policy. As quoted in a compendium by Robert Hennelly in the Village Voice for August 11, 1992, Hussein noted in 1974: “There is no contradiction between our decision to sever diplomatic relations with America and to deal commercially with some American companies…. The presence of these American companies will never open the door to a change in our programme.” Despite being put on the American list of terrorist nations in 1979, Iraq received gas turbine engines for its frigates. They came from Italy, but with the 1980 approval of the U.S. Commerce Department.

It was a pattern that would be repeated for years, and which would be made easier after the March 1982 removal of Iraq from the official list of nations supporting terrorism. Yet in the fall of 1982, Iraq scoffed at such placation by offering safe haven to notorious terrorist Abu Nidal. If a country was on the terrorist list, it was supposedly restricted in obtaining technology that could be used for both civilian and military functions. This is why the change occurred – the better to “tilt” to Baghdad. This leaning would be aided by guaranteed loans, a large percentage of which were defaulted upon and some $2 billion of which have been covered by the U.S. taxpayers. Never mind that at least three major terrorist outfits operated from Iraq, and that Iraq also offered refuge and a passport to Abul Abbas, who was responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985.

Iraq’s nuclear potential at Osiraq was the target of an Israeli air strike in June 1981, a move that George Bush publicly deplored. Israeli Defense Minister Sharon was charging by the fall of 1981 that the United States was providing covert military aid to Baghdad, but by the next year the aid was overt, with the announcement of sales of transports and jets. By 1984, when Iraq was spending some $14 billion annually on foreign military purchases, George Bush was back at the hawker’s table. In June 1984, after initial reluctance on the part of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Vice President Bush personally called his college buddy William Draper, the Ex-Im chairman, successfully urging a $484 million loan guarantee to Iraq for a pipeline to be constructed by Bechtel. Secretary of State George Shultz, it will be recalled, was Bechtel’s president before taking over at the State Department.

“We Created This Monster”

In November 1984, after the American elections, Washington and Baghdad established diplomatic relations for the first time since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The recognition came many months after the United States had become aware that Iraq was using mustard gas in its war with Iran, and was widely suspected of using nerve gas as well. Meanwhile, the head of the Atlanta branch of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) – the second-largest bank in Italy and almost completely owned by the Italian government – offered Iraq a $100 million credit line for the purchase of U.S. grain.

The U.S. government was by this time doing its utmost to share military intelligence with Iraq. Adding impetus, a U.S.-Iraq Business Forum was established, eventually bringing in some of the largest U.S. firms (including Westinghouse and Caterpillar) to aid Saddam. Ex-Im loan guarantees backed by the U.S. taxpayers grew from $35 million in 1985 to $267 million by 1990.

It now develops that the United States knew even in 1985 that Iraq had designs for American nuclear technology. A March 1985 document, written by Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle to Secretary Caspar Weinberger, cited a CIA report “indicating that Iraq continues to actively pursue an interest in nuclear weapons, that the large number of Warsaw Pact nations in Iraq makes diversion in place a real possibility and that in the past Iraq has been somewhat less than honest in regard to the intended end-use of high technology equipment.”

In 1986 Stephen Bryen, the Reagan administration’s deputy under secretary of defense for international economic trade and security policy, discovered that the final destination for an advanced computer similar to one being used at White Sands missile base in New Mexico was a research facility in Mosul, Iraq. The complex, known as Saad 16, was working on a ballistic missile, and Bryen warned against approval “because of the high likelihood of military end-use and the association for the involved companies in sensitive military applications.” But the State and Commerce Departments had no problems in approving the sale without conditions. By 1991 American servicemen and other allies were risking their lives on bombing raids against the very same Saad 16 complex, which was dubbed a key target. As Bryen told Time magazine: “We created this monster. If you want to know who’s to blame for all this, we are, because we let all this stuff go to Iraq.” Yet George Bush, in the summer of 1992, has asserted repeatedly that the United States did not help Saddam’s chemical, nuclear, or missile capability at all.

By 1986, the Iraqis had bought up to $600 million annually in U.S. grain with the loans guaranteed by the Agriculture Department’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This back-door foreign aid scheme resulted in the taxpayers being stuck with some $2 billion in bad loans. The scheme hooked in American farmers as well, with Baghdad borrowing the money to pay for American goods based on artificially inflated prices. There was also fraud and diversion of grain. Moreover, there were excess profits that reportedly were used for weapons procurement. There were well over $5 billion dollars in loan guarantees that went this way to Baghdad between 1983 and 1990. In addition, congressional investigations have discovered that foreign commodities were even substituted for U.S. commodities, and kickbacks were demanded if middlemen wanted in on the scheme.

More Aid and Comfort

Saddam Hussein even used the Iran-Contra arrangement for leverage, complaining he was being betrayed by the Tehran dealings. In response, Richard Murphy of the State Department pushed for easier Ex-Im terms and faster approval of exports for Baghdad. In a letter to Secretary of State Shultz, Murphy’s flaccidity was underscored as he offered self-congratulations that U.S. policy had brought Saddam to the point of paying his American Express bill. Murphy also wrote: “In the judgment of the intelligence community as a whole, DOD concerns are exaggerated. In practice they have meant lost sales for U.S. companies and a constant irritant in U.S.Iraqi relations.” One surely wouldn’t want to irritate the man George Bush was to call a modern Hitler.

The U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an Iraqi fighter in May 1987, with 37 Americans killed – at a time, it was reported earlier this year, when the United States was secretly fighting with Iraq against Iran. The State Department made much of the fact that Baghdad promised to pay compensation; three years later, after Kuwait had been invaded, State was obliged to admit Iraq had never paid. The same month, after another call from Vice President Bush, the Export-Import Bank approved another $200 million in revolving loan guarantees to Iraq, a country whose dwindling currency reserves had forced renegotiation of loans with Western banks in March 1987, two months earlier.

By March 1988, Baghdad was bold enough to use poison gas on the Kurdish village of Halabjah, killing as many as 5,000 people. In response, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani came to Washington to request assistance, and several U.S. senators called for sanctions against Iraq. This measure, called “premature” by the Reagan administration, stalled in the House. Though both chambers eventually passed sanctions, they were not imposed by the administration. In May 1988, there were accounts of Iraq’s new surface-to-surface missile with a range of nearly 600 miles. “Western military specialists,” reported the New York Times, “have been repeatedly surprised by Iraq’s ability to improvise and modify the weapons it receives from outside suppliers to fit its own needs.” Moreover, Baghdad was given the capability to produce its own poison gas when, in July 1988, the British branch of Bechtel got a $2.5 billion contract for a petrochemical plant. The same month, the Iran-Iraq war ended with the signing of a cease-fire in August 1988.

If a pro-Baghdad tilt in order to maintain a balance of power against Iran could have been justified before, it no longer could. Nevertheless, in an alleged attempt to moderate Saddam, greater economic ties were urged by the new Bush administration. How temperate and pleasant a fellow did he become? In January 1989, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) reported that the United States was sending bacteria to Iraq – ten times as lethal as anthrax – which could be used for biological weapons. The next month, CIA Director William Webster testified about the thousands of tons of chemical agents being produced by Baghdad. Meanwhile, an FBI raid in August 1989 of the Atlanta branch of BNL found massive fraud involving the CCC (Iraq had become one of its biggest “customers”) and billions of dollars’ worth of secret loans to Baghdad. “Some of the loans,” reported Rachel Flick in the January 1991 Reader’s Digest, “went to British, American, and West German companies exporting militarily useful technology to Iraq, some to Iraq’s central bank.”

Bush’s NSD 26

An Iraqi-American business connection had meanwhile been greatly facilitated by Kissinger Associates, according to The BNL Blunder, by Kenneth Timmerman. In addition, despite incriminating information in the hands of the FBI, President Bush in October 1989 signed National Security Decision Directive 26, mandating more economic and political incentives supposedly to change the behavior of Iraq. NSD 26, which became the basis for administration action until the 1990 invasion, essentially called for plying Saddam with assistance, though stipulating (in its declassified mode) punishment if Baghdad used chemical or biological weapons or sought nuclear weapons.

Yet, even in the State Department at that very time, there was knowledge about malfeasance with government loans and Saddam’s military boosting. Frank Lemay of the Bureau of Legislative Affairs sent a now-famous memo to his boss in the office of the under secretary for economic affairs – a memo that was relayed to Secretary Baker, then given the unusual secretive designation “Not for the System.” The October 13, 1989 memo warned that nuclear-related equipment was being bought by Iraq with government-backed farm loans. Speaking about the federal investigation in Atlanta, Lemay wrote: “If smoke indicates fire, we may be facing a four-alarm blaze in the near future.”

After Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz went to James Baker to claim that the BNL scandal did not involve Iraq, Baker personally lobbied Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter on October 13 for more loan guarantees, according to documents made public by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas). Customs believed that missile- and chemical-weapons technology was bought with the money, but after Justice Department intervention, no indictments came until after Operation Desert Storm. The cause of that delay is now a matter of contention. Though some in the Bush administration advised against it, the president followed the advice of State Department officials Lawrence Eagleburger and Robert Kimmitt, approving another $1 billion in loan guarantees for lraq in 1990.

Where Was Congress?

Congress, concerned about the reports of poison gas, ended Saddam’s sweetheart deal with Ex-Im, only to be overruled by President Bush in January 1990. Bush said it was in the “national interest” of the United States to continue aiding Iraq. In like fashion, after the Voice of America called Iraq a police state, James Baker directed Ambassador Glaspie to apologize to the dictator. In March 1990, it was noted that Iraqi missiles had been moved near the Jordanian border where they were capable of reaching Israel. The same month, triggering devices for nuclear weapons – apparently purchased with funds from the BNL – were seized on their way to Iraq by the British.

By April of the year of the invasion, the violations of the CCC program were blatant enough to call a halt, but State prevailed upon Agriculture not to announce the suspension. Agriculture balked until, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft intervened and the last $500 million guarantee was put on hold without being announced – a suspension that Ambassador Glaspie was attempting to have lifted as late as the end of July.

Congress should not feel too proud of itself either. As Bruce Fein reviewed in the Washington Times, some of today’s more critical Democrats, such as Representatives Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut, Jack Brooks of Texas, and Charles Rose of North Carolina, respectively, pushed for more “dual-use” technology, shilled for more rice credit guarantees, and backed construction of a subsidized heavy truck plant in Iraq. The ever-radical Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) visited Saddam in April 1990 to inform the dictator that “I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man, and that you want peace.” Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wy.) on the same trip was little better: “I believe that your problems lie with the Western media and not with the U.S. government.”

Republican Senator Robert Dole of Kansas not long ago accused Democratic Senator Al Gore of Tennessee of having tried to barter which way his vote would go on the Iraq war resolution. Dole, one remembers, when he spoke with Saddam in April 1990, apologized for criticism of Hussein on the Voice of America, then returned to tell George Bush that the dictator was “a leader to whom the United States can talk.”

VIP Involvement

Not everything has yet come out. Consider some of BNL’s friends, such as Henry Kissinger (who got $10,000 per BNL board meeting) and his associates – now on the inside – Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft. BNL was the largest participant in the CCC program, used by Iraq for more than $5 billion, and BNL (a client of Kissinger Associates until just before the scandal broke) had patrons in the above-named men. Representative Gonzalez notes, “Several Kissinger Associates clients had extensive dealing with Iraq including Volvo, Midland Bank, Fiat, and Asea Braun Bovert, and those same companies were also the beneficiaries of BNL loans to Iraq or were involved in some way with BNL-Atlanta.”

Other members of the BNL board were David Rockefeller, former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and former British Defense Minister Lord Thornycroft. Kissinger told the Financial Times he bailed out of BNL a week before the BNL indictment in February 1991 because “he did not want to answer questions about such incidents” – yet subsequent reporting indicates that Kissinger did not resign until four months later, when his contract expired.

Cover-up seems to be a polite way to refer to the problem of finding out what went on before the war. For example, when the Commerce Department sent Congress an export-license record about sensitive electronic equipment to be shipped to Iraq, according to the Los Angeles Times for June 21, 1992, it first removed the following sentence: “According to our information, the end-user is involved in military matters.” Even Congress might have picked up that clue. As it happens, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, headed by Representative Doug Barnard (D-Ga.), got a list from the Commerce Department of those high-tech items it approved for shipment to Iraq between 1985 and 1990, and found no less than 68 instances where Commerce had deleted references to the military uses of those exports. Responsibility for the tampering is now under investigation.

Representative Henry Gonzalez – no conservative, mind you, but a dogged investigator nonetheless – contends that about two of seven export licenses approved between 1985 and 1990 “went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology” to weapons of mass destruction. He cites particulars involving chemical, missile, nuclear, and germ warfare.

In a letter to this reporter, Gonzalez indicated that he is now turning his investigation

toward a direct examination of how Iraq was able to abuse the U.S. financial system in its military industrialization effort. Throughout this investigation, I have also continued to outline the involvement of the Bush administration with the BNL, its role in helping Saddam Hussein build the Iraqi war machine, and its continued efforts to mislead the American public regarding the President’s policy of support and appeasement toward Iraq and to thwart my and other Congressional investigations into the conduct of this policy.

This shying from the facts involves more than embarrassment over being wrong about Saddam. Between March 1987 – when Vice President George Bush met with the Iraqi Ambassador to the United States to tell him that some military-related equipment, long-awaited, was now approved – until the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, there was $600 million worth of dual-use technology approved for licensing, according to Commerce Department records.

The president’s denials look weak in the face of, for example, a CIA document in October 1989 that warned: “Baghdad has created complex procurement networks of holding companies in Western Europe to acquire technology for its chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile development programs,” also citing companies linked to Atlanta’s BNL bank. This was less than a month after the president called for more economic and political incentives to Saddam. Just days after this warning, the administration approved $500 million in new loan guarantees to Saddam.

State Department Warning

No, these were not all accidental misreadings. In February 1990, Deputy Secretary of State Eagleburger cautioned U.S. embassies in nine countries that Iraq’s NASSR State Enterprise was seeking “glass-fiber related technology” which could be used for nuclear and missile systems. The United States had known about NASSR’s “bad end-use” programs since 1988. Despite all this, says Representative Gonzalez, “and in complete contradiction to the State Department’s warning, on May 30, 1990, the U.S. Commerce Department informed Matrix-Churchill [an Ohio firm owned by Iraq] that it did not even need a license to ship the equipment and the glass-fiber technology to Iraq.” Yet we now find out that the real boss of the Ohio firm was Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law in Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, who was in charge of all overseas weapons technology procurement.

Recall that two days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie reassured Saddam Hussein: “I have direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq…. President Bush … is not going to declare an economic war on Iraq.” Considering how much economic and military assistance Saddam had already gotten, the wonder is that he didn’t laugh out loud. It was not until September 1990, more than a month after the invasion of Kuwait, that Matrix-Churchill of Ohio – an Iraqi front company long known as the “eyes and ears” of Baghdad’s weapons procurement network in the United States – was padlocked by the U.S. Customs Service. However, the proverbial horse was long out the door.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

39 die in Iraq bombing spree

0

Thirty-nine people have been killed and dozens injured in ten car bomb attacks across Iraq.

On Monday, in the Karada district of central Baghdad, a car bomb was detonated outside a popular up-scale supermarket, killing at least eight people.

Two more car bombs went off near a market in the western district of Jihad, killing eight and injuring 21 people.

A car bomb exploded near shops in the Shia district of al-Shurta al-Rabeaa and claimed the lives of four people and injured nine.

Five people also lost their lives when a car bomb exploded in the New Baghdad neighborhood, and another bomb went off near an outdoor market in the Nahrawan district, killing four and injuring 15.

Car bomb explosions also targeted the Shia stronghold of Sadr City and killed five people.

Elsewhere, a soldier and a police officer were also killed when a bomber drove an explosives-laden car into an army patrol in the city of Mosul.

In the city of Tikrit, another bomber set off explosives on a university campus, killing a counter-terrorism official and two bodyguards.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

On Saturday, at least 24 people, mostly Shia Muslims, were killed and many others injured in Iraq.

The deadliest attack occurred in the town of Taji, north of Baghdad, when a bomb planted inside a mosque went off at about 8:00 p.m. (1700 GMT), killing 15 people and injuring more than 31 others.

On June 19, some 31 people were killed in two coordinated bomb attacks inside and near a Shia mosque in Baghdad.

On June 16, 51 people lost their lives and many others were injured in a spate of attacks across the country.

IA/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony “Consensus” Crumbles

0

President Obama’s White House website recently unveiled a one-and-a-half-minute video, “Addressing the threat of Climate Change,” (see video below) in which he underscores his commitment to enact energy policies that he says will help stem the damage to the planet that, supposedly, is being caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (GHGs).

A big problem for the president and others in the global warming choir is that even many of the most faithful voices in that choir are dropping out and starting to sing another tune. The British journal The Economist, one of the most revered opinion bellwethers of the chattering classes, has for years been a leading purveyor of the Al Gore-IPCC end-of-the-world fright peddling, when it comes to global warming. However, in a major about-face on June 20, “Climate change: A cooling consensus,” The Economist takes writers at the New Republic and the Washington Post to task for admitting that the global warming projections predicted by the computer models have failed, while at the same time trying to spin the results in such as way as to maintain the urgency for enacting drastic (and very costly) climate policies.

“… the public has been systematically deceived.” – The Economist

The Economist criticizes Nate Cohn at The New Republic and Brad Plumer at the Washington Post for clinging to support for policies that promise plenty of pain while offering no gain, especially since they acknowledge that time and reality have proven the predicted warming scenarios to have been false. The Economist piece notes:

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Of course, the media and its selected “scientific” voices have indeed been crying wolf. And, The Economist points out, the supposed “scientific consensus” that has been touted as dogma for the past decade-plus has been shown to be a hollow and systematically deceptive façade:

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that “In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word ‘uncertainty’ with striking regularity.”

The Economist article then drops a couple bombshells that echo charges that The New American has been making for nearly two decades concerning the global warming. The Economist states:

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which … now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. [Emphasis in original.]

The Economist sums it up:

The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. [Emphasis in original.]

Yes, the phony “consensus” is falling apart. In fact, as we have shown repeatedly (see links below) the claim of “scientific consensus” regarding global warming has been false from the start. Now this fraud is being acknowledged by some of the very news organs and opinionators that have previously propagated the “consensus” line. And we agree, in this case, with The Economist, that this is “a very big deal.” Perhaps someone in the White House brain trust should apprise the president of this development before he channels Al Gore at Georgetown.

Photo of President Obama at top: screen-grab from the “Addressing the threat of Climate Change” video

Related articles:

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked

Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books

Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again – and Again, and Again

This article originally appeared on: The New American

‘S Sudan Army nabs dozens of civilians’

0

Human Rights Watch (HRW) says South Sudanâ„¢s Army has arrested dozens of civilians without charges since February.

Å“Soldiers rounded up dozens of young men (from Lakes state), often detaining others if they couldn’t find the suspects they were seeking, and held them in harsh conditions for weeks or months,” the New York-based rights group said in a statement issued on Monday, citing witnesses in the state.

The statement also added that some of the civilians were severely beaten by the members of the (South) Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

Meanwhile, the United Nations Refugee Agency said fighting in South Sudan’s Jonglei State displaced tens of thousands of people.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also said in a statement released earlier this month that Å“In South Sudan, we are working both in Jonglei State and at the national level to advocate for better protection of displaced people.”

Clashes between South Sudanâ„¢s Army and militants led by David Yau Yau in the eastern state erupted in March.

South Sudan seceded from the Republic of Sudan on July 9, 2011, after decades of conflict with Khartoum. The new oil-rich nation is one of the least-developed countries in the world with one in seven children dying before the age of five.

Yau Yau rebelled against the government in Juba after he was defeated in the elections of April 2010. However, he accepted amnesty in June 2011, a month before South Sudan gained independence.

MAM/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Egypt steps up crackdown on Gaza tunnels

0

A Palestinian man transports bags of cement through tunnels used to transfer food, fuel, and building materials, along the Gaza-Egypt border in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip on August 23, 2012.

Egypt has stepped up its crackdown on underground supply tunnels between the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.

According to Palestinians, the moves against the tunnels have led to exorbitant increases in the price of petrol and cement in the besieged Gaza Strip.

The Sinai Peninsula has had security problems since an uprising deposed former President Hosni Mubarak more than two years ago.

Palestinians depend on the tunnels to bring in food, medicine, and other vital supplies.

The tunnel trade is vital to Gaza’s economy, which has suffered under a land, air, and sea blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt in June 2007.

Some 1.7 million residents of Gaza are being denied their basic rights, including freedom of movement, the right to a decent standard of living, and proper employment, healthcare, and education.

MAM/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Iran denounces Shia killings in Egypt

0

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned the recent killing of Shia Muslims in Egypt, saying that such actions run contrary to the tenets of Islam and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Å“The Islamic Republic of Iran denounces any act of extremism and violence which contradicts Islam and the tenets of Islam,” read part of a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry late on Monday.

Å“Iran is certain that the sensible and revolutionary Egyptian nation, through its prudent leaders, will once again thwart the Zionist plot to create rifts between Islam and Christianity, and safeguard their revolution and national unity, and will also exercise vigilance vis-à-vis plots to foment discord among various schools of Islam and will not let such a thing happen,” the statement added.

On Sunday, a group of takfiri extremists attacked the house of a Shia cleric in a village near Cairo in Giza Province.

The cleric and three of his followers were murdered after the house was surrounded by hundreds of people vowing to kill them for being Shias.

Their bodies were then dragged into the street by takfiri extremists.

Takfiris believe that only their interpretation of Islam is correct and all other Muslims are unbelievers.

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil has denounced the killing of the Shias and said he is closely following the investigation into the incident. He also promised that the culprits would be punished.

The incident comes a week after Salafist clerics insulted Shia Muslims during a demonstration.

The Shia community is being targeted by Salafists, with the support of various countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Shias, who form just one percent of Egyptâ„¢s population, are now often attacked by extremist groups.

MP/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Italian minister resigns over tax claim

0

The Italian minister for sports and equal opportunities has resigned over tax dodging allegations but defended herself by saying she was a victim of “aggressive and violent accusations.”

Josefa Idem from the center-left Democratic Party handed in her resignation on Monday and it was accepted, a statement from Premier Enrico Letta’s office said.

Idem, a former Olympic athlete from Germany who took Italian citizenship in 1992, avoided paying property taxes on a gym in 2008 to 2011 by declaring it as her primary home in the city of Ravenna, while the rest of her family was registered in a house nearby.

She changed her address just before being elected for the first time to parliament in February.

In a statement released on Monday, Idem described media criticism over her actions as “disproportionate” and said she was a victim of “aggressive and violent accusations.”

The accusations against Idem came days after Prime Minister Enrico Letta vowed to constrain the prevalent occurrence of tax evasion in the country.

MN/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Markets Tumble After Fed Chair Bernanke Predicts the End of Quantitative Easing

0

Stock and commodities markets went into a two-day slide after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke hinted that the United States would end so-called “quantitative easing” sometime during 2014. “Quantitative easing” is the term used by Federal Reserve Bank officials for the inflationary creation of money to finance U.S. government debt and purchase mortgage-backed securities from banks on the open market.

The June 21 trading day ended slightly up, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 41.08 to 14,799.40, after losing more than 500 points in the previous two days. Gold dipped below the $1,300 per ounce threshold, the lowest price in more than two years, and other precious metals and oil also fell over the same period.

In the release about the Federal Reserve Bank’s Open Market Committee meeting, Fed officials predicted three percent GDP growth in the U.S. economy next year, low inflation, and a reduction of the unemployment level to six percent by the end of 2015. The prediction may have been too rosy, considering the extraordinarily low savings rates of consumers, high national debt, and recent economic history. In the past 20 years, the U.S. economy has only seen CPI-adjusted growth exceeding three percent of GDP in years before an economic crash. The U.S. economy saw two three-percent growth years in 2004-05 (before the housing/banking bubble burst), and four years of four-percent growth from 1997-2000 (before the dot-com bubble burst). 

Regarding “quantitative easing,” the Fed explained that “the Committee decided to continue purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month and longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $45 billion per month.” The Federal Reserve release also announced almost unanimous plans to continue the Fed’s policy of a near-zero discount loan rate for banks through the end of 2014. Members of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee split on what the policy should be in 2015:

The Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent.

Discounted interest rates – a result of the Fed’s policy of discounted loans to banks – was the primary reason for huge capital inflows to the stock market in the 1920s before the Great Depression and capital inflows to the housing markets a decade ago, which resulted in the housing bubble bursting. The Fed’s continued policy of suppressing market interest rates has created another housing boom in the past year, with housing prices rising 15.4 percent over a year ago. The 14,799.40 closing stock price for the Dow Jones – though reduced substantially from its all time high – is still more than double the price at the bottom of the recession in 2008-09.

Regarding a new housing bubble, even the pollyannaish National Association of Realtors is starting to get nervous. Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, explained in a June 20 press release, “The home price growth is too fast, and only additional supply from new home building can moderate future price growth.” 

The interesting thing about the two-day stock market plunge – along with the plunge in orders for precious metals, such as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium – is that the two-day crash occurred only on the word of Federal Reserve officials who had announced no actual change in policy. All of the crash was speculative: metals traders speculating high price inflation abandoned their speculative efforts, and stock market investors left the market expecting some sort of economic crash. It also serves as evidence that the stock market is being driven more by speculation than market fundamentals. 

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Obama Admin. Charges NSA Whistleblower Snowden With Espionage

0

The Obama administration Friday charged National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden with espionage.

Snowden, 29, leaked to the Washington Post and to The Guardian (U.K.) a cache of documents exposing the NSA’s wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment through the dragnet surveillance of phone records and monitoring of Internet traffic.

The Washington Post reports that U.S. officials have requested that Hong Kong detain Snowden on “a provisional arrest warrant.”

According to the criminal complaint filed by the federal government against Snowden in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the former NSA networking contractor will be charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person.”

The last two counts are violations of the Espionage Act of 1917.

The Washington Post story on the filing of the espionage charges against Snowden reports that the district court chosen by the Justice Department because Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered within that jurisdiction and it is “a district with a long track record of prosecuting cases with national security implications.”

With the formal filing of the charges against him, Snowden becomes the eighth person to be charged under the Espionage Act by the Obama administration.

Another former government employee, James Hitselberger, was working as a linguist for the U.S. Navy when he became the seventh to be charged under the nearly-century-old law.

President Obama has targeted each of these men – including Edward Snowden – for their efforts to expose government corruption. In fact, the others charged with espionage are targets of an apparent vendetta against whistleblowers in direct contradiction of the president’s promise to protect them.

In 2008, then-president-elect Obama declared, “We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.”

Not that politicians have a habit of keeping campaign promises, but President Obama’s policy of zealously pursuing, prosecuting, and punishing those who report abuses in government is remarkable for its relentlessness.

Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ government secrecy project, is quoted in a story published by Reason magazine online, explaining, “The administration’s aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than ‘authorized’ news.”

This ferocity has come to the attention of others, as well. Speaking at a symposium on investigative reporting held in April 2012 at Berkeley, Edward Wasserman powerfully chronicled the chilling effect that the Obama administration’s pursuit of whistleblowers is having on such disclosures and against the journalists who report them.

Wasserman, the Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington & Lee University, informed the audience,

[The Obama] Justice Department has conducted six prosecutions over leaks of classified information to reporters. Five involve the Espionage Act, a powerful law that had previously been used only four times since it was enacted in 1917 to prosecute spies.

The first whistleblower cited in Wasserman’s address was Thomas Drake. Drake was a senior executive at the National Security Agency who made the mistake of revealing to the Baltimore Sun that the NSA’s Trailblazer Project, a project intended to analyze data carried on in the United States and elsewhere through the Internet, cellphones, and e-mails, not only violated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unwarranted searches and seizures, but it was a “billion-dollar computer boondoggle.”

In April 2010, Drake was indicted by a federal grand jury of several crimes, including violation of the Espionage Act. A spokesperson for the Government Accountability Project reported that the government’s prosecution of Drake left him devastated. “His intelligence career is over, his finances are drained and he is personally spent,” said Jesselyn Radack.

Early in the summer of 2011, after several exposés ran in newspapers and on television, the Obama administration dropped all the charges against Drake in return for Drake’s guilty plea to a misdemeanor of misusing NSA computers. Drake was sentenced to one year of probation and community service.

The second target of the government’s attack on whistleblowers was Shamai Leibowitz, an FBI linguist who was eventually sentenced to 20 months in a federal prison for leaking documents to a blogger.

Leibowitz testified that he believed that the papers he transmitted while working for the FBI contained evidence of “violations of the law” including the illegal attempt by the embassy of Israel to influence American foreign policy.

In exchange for his guilty plea to one count of disclosure of classified information, Leibowitz agreed to never file petitions to look at documents related to his case and to “never disclose” any classified or sensitive information to which he had access while on contract with the FBI.

Next on the list of those who believed (wrongly) that President Obama would keep his campaign promise to shield from prosecution those government employees brave enough to bring to light hidden abuses and waste is John Kiriakou.

Kiriakou was an agent with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who was indicted in 2012 by a federal grand jury for disclosing to reporters the name of another CIA asset who was tasked with interrogating alleged al-Qaeda financier Abu Zubaydah.

The indictment included one charge of making false statements, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence, and four counts of violating federal law, including the Espionage Act – an offense punishable by up to 10 years in a federal prison.

In October, Kiriakou pleaded guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and will serve up to 30 months in a federal prison.

There is little wonder why the Obama administration would seek to silence Kiriakou: In 2007, Kiriakou told ABC News that he considered waterboarding an “unnecessary” form of interrogation.

Wasserman then mentions two others upon whom the federal government must place the muzzle of prosecution:

Stephen Kim, a State Department analyst, allegedly told a reporter for Fox News – wait for it – that the U.S. was worried North Korea might respond to new UN sanctions by testing another A-bomb; and Jeffrey Sterling, who allegedly disclosed a botched CIA operation in Iran that was described in a 2006 book by a Times reporter.

A story published by Politico confirmed that “the case [against Kiriakou] is the sixth of six leak-related prosecutions brought during President Barack Obama’s term – a higher tally than under all previous presidents combined.”

Supporters of the president may wonder why he didn’t think this through a little better and provide the whistleblowers with the protection he promised rather than seek to silence the journalists who break the stories given them by these well-informed sources.

The answer to that question was given in a comment made “rather gloatingly” by “a national security representative” to Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: “We’re not going to subpoena reporters in the future. We don’t need to. We know who you’re talking to.”

Given this president’s propensity for rapidly and relentlessly enlarging the size and power of the surveillance state apparatus, it is certain that Dalglish’s statement is truer than we would like to believe.

The Washington Post reports that after the paper broke the story of Snowden’s impending prosecution, “senior administration officials said late Friday that the Justice Department was barraged with calls from lawmakers and reporters and decided to unseal the criminal complaint.”

Based on his earlier statements, Snowden is likely to fight extradition from Hong Kong to the United States. Should the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong entertain Snowden’s challenge to the request for his arrest, the case could be decided by a Hong Kong court and “could last many months” according to legal experts interviewed by the Washington Post.

Photo of banner supporting Edward Snowden: AP Images

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Small Businesses Cutting Jobs, Hours to Save Themselves From ObamaCare

0

ObamaCare, Americans were assured, would create millions of jobs and be a boon to small businesses. But according to a recent survey, as full implementation of the healthcare law rapidly approaches, small-business owners, rather than rejoicing at their good fortune, are slashing jobs, work hours, and expansion plans.

The Gallup poll, commissioned by the law firm Littler Mendelson, found that because of ObamaCare, 41 percent of small businesses have instituted a hiring freeze, 19 percent have shrunk their workforces, and 18 percent have “reduced the hours of employees to part-time.” Nearly four in 10 small businesses – 38 percent – told pollsters they “have pulled back on their plans to grow their business” in anticipation of the law’s implementation.

“We were startled because we know that employers were concerned about the Affordable Care Act and the effects it would have on their business, but we didn’t realize the extent they were concerned, or that the businesses were being proactive to make sure the effects of the ACA actually were minimized,” Littler Mendelson attorney Steven Friedman told CNBC.

“To think that [nearly] 20 percent of small businesses have already reduced the numbers they have in their business because they’re concerned about the medical coverage is significant, and a bit troubling,” he said.

These businesses, however, have good reason to take such measures. ObamaCare’s employer mandate requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees either to offer “affordable” health insurance to their full-timers or to pay a $2,000 fine for each employee obtaining subsidized insurance on an exchange. What’s more, the law defines a full-time employee as one who works at least 30 hours per week on average. Employers thus have a strong incentive to keep their head counts below 50 and their employees’ weekly work hours under 30 – something that major restaurant and theater chains and some state and local governments have already begun to do. And since expanding a business entails hiring new employees, which in turn could trigger the employer mandate, owners now have a disincentive to grow their businesses, retarding economic growth and forestalling job opportunities.

This may explain why even though the economy has been adding jobs in recent months, nearly half those jobs have been part-time, and the average work week has been shrinking. Forced to choose between subjecting themselves to the employer mandate – which means either increasingly expensive health insurance or hefty fines – and staying in business, employers are quite rationally opting for the latter.

It doesn’t help matters that the one piece of ObamaCare that was specifically designed to help small businesses afford coverage – an insurance exchange of their own – has been delayed a year.

“Lots of small businesses struggle with providing insurance for their workers so this was supposed to facilitate it and make it easier for small business to do this,” Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center told Fox News. “It was a huge portion of the sale job. When they passed the law in 2010 there were many senators and members of Congress who were saying ‘I am doing this because it’s going to help small businesses.’”

Between this and the manifold uncertainties surrounding ObamaCare’s ever-changing rules and regulations – “requirements of the health care law are now the biggest concern for small businesses,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found in its first-quarter survey – it’s no wonder that small employers have a highly negative view of the law. Gallup found that 48 percent of small-business owners think the law will hurt them, while just nine percent think it will help them. (Another 39 percent expected “no impact.”) Fifty-five percent of owners believe the law will make healthcare more costly, while a mere five percent think it will cut costs. And 52 percent think ObamaCare will reduce the quality of care, as opposed to 13 percent who expect an improvement.

“I can’t say that the fears appear overstated, because the potential for big problems seems rather large,” Friedman told CNBC, echoing the concerns of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who warned that implementation of ObamaCare could be a “huge train wreck.”

“We don’t know until 2014 and beyond what the impact of the ACA will be on businesses,” added Friedman, whose firm recently formed a healthcare-reform consulting group. “There is tremendous fear that the premiums will be much higher, for small businesses especially. At this point we can’t look a client straight in the eye and say, ‘Don’t worry about it. Everything will be fine.’”

Indeed, all indications are that everything won’t be fine. Besides the delay of the small-business exchange, the state exchanges are behind schedule and over budget, and another ObamaCare program, the Basic Health Plan, has also been pushed back a year. According to the American Action Forum, the Obama administration has missed 29 of the ACA’s regulatory deadlines, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the law; and those rules it has managed to issue have vastly increased the paperwork and financial burdens on businesses. Then there are the new taxes, some of which have already cost jobs, and the steeply rising health-insurance premiums. Only the uninformed (and Democrat loyalists) would claim that everything with ObamaCare is going swimmingly.

Of course, there are those who argue that the problem is not that the law’s implementation is going badly but that the public simply needs to be educated about its vast (alleged) benefits. One such group, the Small Business Majority, “said the findings reflect misconceptions about [ObamaCare’s] true effects as well as the need for continued outreach by reform advocates to the small business community,” writes CNBC.

This is also the Obama administration’s tack. The problem, as far as the administration is concerned, lies not in the law itself but in its advocates’ public-relations campaigns.

Yet the more facts – as opposed to administration spin – Americans learn about the law, the less attractive it becomes. And as this latest poll shows, small-business owners, whose very livelihood is threatened by ObamaCare, may be the most aware of its impending terrible consequences.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent

0

The Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 17 that has been ignored by most media outlets, despite its devastating effect on one of the most fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that a person no longer has the right to remain silent as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment mandates that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, that part of the Bill of Rights has been excised – and has joined the list of so many other fundamental liberties that now lie on the scrap heap of history.

Here’s a little background of the circumstances of the Salinas case, as told by Slate:

Two brothers were shot at home in Houston. There were no witnesses – only shotgun shell casings left at the scene. Genovevo Salinas had been at a party at that house the night before the shooting, and police invited him down to the station, where they talked for an hour. They did not arrest him or read him his Miranda warnings. Salinas agreed to give the police his shotgun for testing. Then the cops asked whether the gun would match the shells from the scene of the murder. According to the police, Salinas stopped talking, shuffled his feet, bit his lip, and started to tighten up.

At trial, Salinas did not testify, but prosecutors described his reportedly uncomfortable reaction to the question about his shotgun. Salinas argued this violated his Fifth Amendment rights: He had remained silent, and the Supreme Court had previously made clear that prosecutors can’t bring up a defendant’s refusal to answer the state’s questions. This time around, however, Justice Samuel Alito blithely responded that Salinas was “free to leave” and did not assert his right to remain silent. He was silent. But somehow, without a lawyer, and without being told his rights, he should have affirmatively “invoked” his right to not answer questions. Two other justices signed on to Alito’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia joined the judgment, but for a different reason; they think Salinas had no rights at all to invoke before his arrest (they also object to Miranda itself). The upshot is another terrible Roberts Court ruling on confessions. In 2010 the court held that a suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk, after receiving his Miranda warnings, during two hours of questioning.

Consider the ripple effect of the Salinas decision. Specifically, imagine how this ruling will alter the entire landscape of rights – including Miranda – and how they are applied (or not applied) to those accused of serious crimes. Here’s one potential application singled out by the Atlantic:

You know what’s a much more recent wrinkle to the potential precedent effect of today’s ruling? A case like that of the younger Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who reportedly sat through 16 hours of questioning before he was read his Miranda rights. Had Tsarnaev, who was recovering from serious injuries at the time, remained silent during questioning without explicitly invoking his Fifth Amendment, prosecutors could, under the Salinas ruling, now use that silence to their advantage.

Guilty or not, suspects in the United States no longer have the right to remain silent. If they remain silent, moreover, that silence will now be interpreted as guilt and will indeed – despite what you see on television court and cop dramas – be used against that person in a court of law. Even, in fact, the highest court in the land.

Another terrifying twist to the Salinas decision is that it imposes on a suspect the necessity of invoking specific language before law enforcement will honor the basic civil liberties of a person who is (or historically, was) innocent until proven guilty.

Justice Breyer recognized how this novel necessity places a nearly insuperable barrier to invoking one’s right to remain silent. Writing for the dissent, Justice Breyer asked, “How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words [“I expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination”] are legally magic?”

Breyer goes on to propose a “far better” way to protect a person’s right to not incriminate himself.

Can one fairly infer from an individual’s silence and surrounding circumstances an exercise of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege? The need for simplicity, the constitutional importance of applying the Fifth Amendment to those who seek its protections, and this Court’s case law all suggest that this is the right question to ask here. And the answer to that question in the circumstances of today’s case is clearly: yes.

In the black-is-white-up-is-down world that we live in, it is no longer surprising to see constitutionally protected liberties being championed by the “liberal” bloc of justices, while the so-called “conservatives” chisel away at the bedrock of freedom.

Our Founding Fathers understood how vital the right against self-incrimination was to the pursuit of justice. Consider the following defense of that right offered by imminent Founding Era jurist Joseph Story:

This also is but an affirmance of a common law privilege. But it is of inestimable value. It is well known, that in some countries, not only are criminals compelled to give evidence against themselves, but are subjected to the rack or torture in order to procure a confession of guilt. And what is worse, it has been (as if in mockery or scorn) attempted to excuse, or justify it, upon the score of mercy and humanity to the accused. It has been contrived, (it is pretended,) that innocence should manifest itself by a stout resistance, or guilt by a plain confession; as if a man’s innocence were to be tried by the hardness of his constitution, and his guilt by the sensibility of his nerves. Cicero, many ages ago, though he lived in a state, wherein it was usual to put slaves to the torture, in order to furnish evidence, has denounced the absurdity and wickedness of the measure in terms of glowing eloquence, as striking, as they are brief. They are conceived in the spirit of Tacitus, and breathe all his pregnant and indignant sarcasm. Ulpian, also, at a still later period in Roman jurisprudence, stamped the practice with severe reproof.

In one day the Supreme Court of the United States now dispenses with a right defended by Cicero over 2,000 years ago.

Finally, read the warning issued by Abraham Holmes during the Massachusetts ratifying convention in January 1788:

There is nothing to prevent Congress from passing laws which shall compel a man, who is accused or suspected of a crime, to furnish evidence against himself, and even from establishing laws which shall order the court to take the charge exhibited against a man for truth, unless he can furnish evidence of his innocence.

I do not pretend to say Congress will do this; but, sir, I undertake to say that Congress (according to the powers proposed to be given them by the Constitution) may do it; and if they do not, it will be owing entirely – I repeat it, it will be owing entirely – to the goodness of the men, and not in the least degree owing to the goodness of the Constitution.

In the Salinas case, it was as Holmes wisely predicted: The goodness of the Constitution was not enough to protect one of our most fundamental and cherished liberties from the assault by an almost all-powerful federal government.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Governor Rick Perry Signs a Pair of Bills Upholding Fourth Amendment

0

Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill into law June 14 that curtails the power of law enforcement and government to use drones to conduct surveillance on the citizens of the Lone Star State.

HB 912 – the Texas Privacy Act – charges with a Class C misdemeanor any private or public entity that “uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.”

The bill was passed by an impressive majority of state legislators. On May 10, the state House of Representatives approved the measure 119-11. The state Senate followed suit a week later, passing the bill by a vote of 29-1.

While the bill is a laudable attempt to shore up the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” as protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, there are numerous exceptions to the drone prohibitions.

Law enforcement, for example, may deploy drones in the “immediate pursuit of a person” officers have “reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect has committed an offense.”

Other exceptions protect images captured by drone “by or for an electric or natural gas utility”; “for purposes of professional or scholarly research”; and as permitted by the lawful owner of the property under surveillance.

While those exceptions are arguably reasonable, there are others that seem to leave a very large loophole in the law that military and spy drones can fly through to the detriment of Texans’ privacy.

Section 423.002 exempts from the law all drone flights and surveillance conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration “for the purpose of integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace”; as well, any drone deployment that is “part of an operation, exercise, or mission of any branch of the United States military.”

Given the federal government’s rapid acceleration of the growth of the surveillance state and the transformation of citizens into suspects, it seems that the Texas bill, while commendable, fails to sufficiently nullify the frequent unconstitutional federal assaults on the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution.

With Governor Perry’s signature on HB 912, Texas now joins Idaho, Virginia, Florida, Montana, and Tennessee on the list of states that have enacted laws regulating the use of drones in their sovereign skies.

As The New American has reported, the Idaho law reinforces “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” by amending the Idaho code. Specifically, the law imposes new restrictions on the use of drones by government or law enforcement, particularly when it comes to the gathering of evidence and surveillance of private property.

Should police in Idaho try to submit in court evidence illegally obtained by drone, they would find themselves running headlong into Section 5, which directs that “no information obtained or collected in violation of the provisions of this act may be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding in any court of law in the state or in an administrative hearing.”

In April, Governor Rick Scott of Florida signed into law the Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act. The law in the Sunshine State forbids federal agents “from using a drone to gather evidence or other information” on citizens of Florida. Should a state citizen be the target of an unlawful search and seizure in violation of this bill, he or she would be authorized “to initiate a civil action in order to prevent or remedy” that violation.

As The New American reported earlier, the language of the Florida law is not perfect. Section 4(a) of the bill carves out a dangerous exception to its otherwise commendable constitutional protections.

Section 4(a) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to launch a drone over Florida (and seemingly violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”) “to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization.”

As is the case with the Texas anti-drone bill, Section 4(a) of the Florida bill leaves an enormous loophole in the law, one just large enough for a Hellfire missile.

Such an occurrence is not unthinkable in this era when the United States has been declared a battleground and Congress has given the president the power to indefinitely detain any American he believes to be aiding enemies of the state. Ostensibly, drones would be the perfect tool to accomplish such a round-up of potential prisoners. (See, for example, the comments made by Senator Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] regarding the search for the suspected Boston marathon bomber.)

Although the Texas bill suffers from a few unfortunate flaws, it is an otherwise commendable measure – and Governor Perry was wise to sign it. The Texas Privacy Act goes into effect on September 1.

Meanwhile, on June 14, Governor Perry signed into another important bill. This new law increases his state’s protection of the rights against unwarranted searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment.

As explained in an article published previous to Governor Perry’s signing of the bill by the blog Law360, HB 2268 “would establish the strongest email privacy protections in the U.S. by becoming the first measure to override a provision in the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act that allows law enforcement to access emails that are open or more than 180 days old using only a subpoena.”

Similar federal legislation, S. 607 – the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013 – is currently on the Senate’s calendar for debate.

As with the drone regulating measure, Governor Perry is to be commended for signing into law the electronic privacy bill.

If freedom is to be protected and if the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution are to be preserved, Texas and all her sister states must quickly recognize that they have “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil” resulting from the federal government’s habitual disregard for the constitutional limits on its power. The states’ duty to thwart the federal government’s attempts to break the constitutional chains on its power is called nullification.

Simply stated, nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

In The Federalist, No. 33, Alexander Hamilton declared that any act of the federal government exceeding the limited powers granted it by the Constitution is not a law at all:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

Hamilton is not alone. The undeniable truth is that not a single one of our Founding Fathers, not even the most ardent advocate of a powerful central government, would have remained even one day at the Philadelphia Convention if he had believed that the government they were creating would become the instrument of tyranny that it has become.

All state legislatures have an obligation to liberty and to their citizens to follow the example of Texas and to stop all unconstitutional acts of the federal government at the state borders. They can accomplish this by enacting state statutes nullifying those acts, based on the 10th Amendment and their natural right to rule as sovereign entities. On the other hand, should these states fail to fearlessly oppose federal overreach, the day may rapidly come when the Constitution and individual liberty will be nothing more than remarkable relics of a once-free republic.

Photo of Gov. Rick Perry: AP Images

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Amid Controversy, Zimmerman Murder Trial Begins

0

Following the controversial selection of an all-female jury, opening statements begin Monday, June 24, in the high-profile murder trial of former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman (shown), who fatally shot Trayvon Martin in what he argues was self-defense. National media have been following the case closely, but major controversies surrounding the entire prosecution have largely taken a back seat in press coverage to manufactured hysteria over gun laws and race – then-17-year-old Martin was black and Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Questions about whether the defendant can even get a fair trial at this point still abound. Widespread criticism of the prosecution by heavy-weight legal experts, for example, has cast a cloud of doubt over prosecutors’ bid to get Zimmerman convicted. A months-long media circus surrounding the case featuring deeply deceptive reporting added to the unease, not to mention the race-baiting by professional agitators like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Of course, President Obama’s comments – “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” – did not help, with analysts saying such inappropriate remarks could bias jurors.

Finally, controversial decisions by the judge as to what Zimmerman’s defense team will be allowed to introduce as evidence have also raised concerns that the defendant may not be allowed to properly defend himself. Among other measures that have drawn public scrutiny, Circuit Judge Debra Nelson ruled, at prosecutors’ request, that Martin’s prior history of drug use, fighting, and school suspensions not be allowed. On the other side, the court sided with the defense in refusing to allow evidence from a novel technology that can supposedly tell who was screaming during a phone call. 

If convicted, Zimmerman could face up to life in prison for second-degree murder, defined as the unlawful killing of a person without pre-meditation. In Florida, however, state law allows a potential victim to use deadly force if he or she has reasonable cause to fear loss of life of serious bodily harm, including in public areas. Zimmerman is pleading not guilty to the charges, but it was not immediately clear whether or not he would testify at the trial.    

Defense attorneys plan to argue that Zimmerman, who was patrolling his gated complex on February 26, 2012 following multiple break-ins in the community, killed Martin in a straightforward case of self-defense. Indeed, prosecutors did not even charge Zimmerman with a crime for a month and a half after the shooting. Not until alleged racism was injected into the case through nationwide protests stirred up by race profiteers and wildly dishonest media reports did a special prosecutor for the state of Florida bring charges.

“We’re trying so hard in this case not to make it what everybody outside the courthouse wants it to be,” defense attorney Mark O’Mara was quoted as saying in media reports. “What I do think we have, and I’m very happy with this, is six jurors who have told us that they’ll be fair and impartial…. This case will fall on the fact that the state will not be able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt with their evidence that a crime was committed by my client.”

Among other evidence to support the self-defense assertion, Zimmerman’s lawyers almost certainly plan to show jurors pictures of the serious injuries he sustained during an altercation with Martin that night. One of the most important photographs, taken minutes after the killing, reveals bloody wounds to the back of Zimmerman’s head consistent with his story that Martin was pummeling him on the ground. Police and medical reports confirmed that Zimmerman’s nose was bleeding and severely injured as well.

When the photographs emerged publicly, legal analysts said they offered compelling evidence to support Zimmerman’s assertions. Some experts even blasted the prosecution for concealing the information and bringing chargers in the first place. Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, for example, who had already criticized the prosecution before the pictures came out, even accused prosecutors of perpetrating a “grave ethical violation” for not including the crucial evidence in the original affidavit.

“An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie,” Prof. Dershowitz explained at the time. “I’m not taking sides, but I’m insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules.”           

Prosecutors, meanwhile, plan to argue that Zimmerman, 29, profiled Martin and then murdered him after being told by authorities that he did not need to follow Martin. Citing Zimmerman’s call to the police in which he indicated that a “suspicious” person who “looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something” was walking through the gated community, the prosecution hopes to paint a picture of Zimmerman as a vigilante type trying to take the law into his own hands.

To succeed, however, the state will have to convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was actually a murder rather than self-defense. At this point, legal experts appear divided about whether or not the state has a decent case against Zimmerman.

Attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing Martin’s family, was quoted in media reports claiming that the facts would be enough to convict Zimmerman in the case. “The evidence is overwhelming that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin,” the lawyer claimed over the weekend, one of a series of statements over the past year expressing confidence in the prosecution’s ability to secure a conviction. “Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin isn’t here to tell us his version.”

The trial – and indeed, the entire case – have polarized the nation, polls show, with some Americans believing that Zimmerman committed murder and others confident that he killed Martin in justifiable self-defense. The six-member jury, selected from a pool of some 500, was narrowed down by prosecutors and defense attorneys by reportedly seeking out individuals who had not formed an opinion on the case yet.

However, the fact that all six of the jurors are women has raised some concerns among experts. The New York Times cited legal authorities with varying opinions, with one side saying that the all-female jury would be harmful to Zimmerman’s case. “Women as a group might be less receptive to Zimmerman’s behavior than men,” Professor Jules Epstein at Widener University School of Law was quoted as saying. Another expert, a defense attorney from Orlando, said women might be more sympathetic to losing a child.

Separately, concerns are also being raised about the racial make-up of the jury. Five out of the six jurors are white, which – despite the fact that it is statistically proper given the demographics of Seminole County – race-mongers claim could create the appearance of bias. There are no blacks on the jury. If Zimmerman were to be found not guilty, analysts are already speculating that race profiteers could seize on that to claim that the jurors were motivated by the fact that Martin was black. Already, white and black racist groups have threatened a “race war” over the case.

Both sides have expressed confidence in their positions. However, no matter what happens, the drama surrounding the case is likely to go on far longer than the trial. A not guilty verdict, for instance, could spark unrest among those who believe Zimmerman committed murder, with some analysts already mentioning the Rodney King trial and its aftermath as an example of what could happen. A guilty verdict, meanwhile, would almost certainly be appealed. The trial is expected to last between two and four weeks, according to legal experts.

Photo of George Zimmerman: AP Images

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

Related articles:

Judge in Trayvon Martin Case Rules Some Evidence Off Limits

First Anniversary of Florida Shooting Still Raises Questions

Zimmerman Injury Photo Raises Questions About Prosecution, Media

Racists Prepare for “Race War” Over Florida Shooting

Experts Weigh in After Four Witnesses in Trayvon Martin Case Change Story

Medical Report Shows Martin Attacked Zimmerman

Dershowitz: Prosecutor Should Drop Charges Against Zimmerman

Democrat Anti-Self-Defense “Trayvon Amendment” on Hold, For Now

“Stand Your Ground” and Self Defense

Florida “Stand Your Ground” Task Force Meets, Democrat Wants Changes

Anti-Gun Zealots Exploit Florida Tragedy

UN “Human Rights” Boss Questions Fla. Law, Demands Justice for Trayvon

Prosecutors In Zimmerman Case Release Affidavit, But Face Trouble Getting Conviction

Zimmerman Charged With Second-Degree Murder

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Snowden Headed to Ecuador for Asylum?

0

As of Monday morning June 24, Edward Snowden’s whereabouts were unknown despite an international effort to track him down. His final destination was also uncertain, with reports of Ecuador, Venezuela, or even Cuba being his target to escape prosecution for blowing the whistle on the National Security Agency (NSA).

Following his release of information on the NSA’s surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of citizens and government officials worldwide, Snowden headed for Hong Kong on May 20, where he holed up in an unknown location. When three felony charges were levied against him on June 14 (for theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and the willful communication of classified communications intelligence to an unauthorized person), he communicated with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks for assistance.

It is presumed that Assange, living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, recommended that Snowden request asylum in Ecuador. When Hong Kong began to receive pressure from the U.S. government to extradite Snowden, orders came down from Beijing to urge Snowden to leave immediately. He flew to Moscow where he was met by an associate of Assange’s, Sarah Harrison. They scheduled themselves onto Aeroflot flight SU150 (shown) to leave Monday morning but when the flight left, neither Snowden nor Harrison were on it.

In a conference call with reporters on Monday morning, Assange assured observers that Snowden is “healthy and safe” somewhere in Russia while he is waiting for a response to his request for asylum to Ecuador. Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters that Snowden’s request would be considered “in the shortest time possible.” Since his passport has been revoked, Snowden is unable to leave the Sheremetyevo airport so it is further presumed that he is hiding there until his request is granted.

Snowden’s escapades have left behind a long litany of frustration, hypocrisy, and farcical behaviors. For instance, Caitlin Harden, the chief spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said the White House was “disappointed” by Hong Kong’s decision to ignore a request from the U.S. government to detain him and deport him back to the United States. This was especially galling as Attorney General Eric Holder had personally called his counterpart in Hong Kong to demand that he release him. Now, directing her attention to the Russian government, she said,

Given our intensified co-operation after the Boston marathon bombings and our history of working with Russia on law enforcement matters – including returning numerous high level criminals back to Russia at the request of the Russian government – we expect the Russian government to look at all options available to expel Mr. Snowden back to the US to face justice for the crimes with which he is charged.

This willingness to cooperate with totalitarian regimes was matched by hypocritical comments from Secretary of State John Kerry, who said: “It would be deeply troubling, obviously, if they had adequate notice, and notwithstanding that, they make the decision willfully to ignore that and not live by the standards of the law.” Kerry failed to mention the laws that, thanks to the revelations by Snowden, the NSA is now known to have broken.

But the most farcical behavior was observed by the Guardian: The Aeroflot flight – the one Snowden was scheduled to take with Harrison – left without Snowden and Harrison but was filled with journalists hoping to get an inside story.

If Snowden’s final destination is Ecuador, and he arrives there successfully, he might have a surprise waiting for him. When Assange was granted asylum there in August, 2012, the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, said:

A lot of people think it’s strange that a government could act on principles. But we act on principles … when we were deciding on the asylum….

What has happened here is that Ecuador has recovered its dignity at an international level … previous governments in Ecuador did what the US or Europe told them to do. Even worse … based on what they imagined the US or Europe wanted….

What happened since 2007, since Rafael Correa has been president … is that we have started thinking with our own head and we walk on our own feet. We have dignity and sovereignty.

Snowden could very well be disappointed if he is counting on such pleasantries and sophistry to save him from the long arm of the NSA. Greg Caton, a permanent resident of Ecuador and the founder of Alpha Omega Labs which operates out of Guayaquil, Ecuador, found out the hard way about political realities under Correa: With enough money and pressure, laws and rules and niceties about sovereignty can be successfully ignored.

After serving a sentence in the United States for “defrauding customers” by not following FDA regulations on his natural remedies, Caton and his family moved to Ecuador in the summer of 2007 and applied for permanent residency. In October of that year, an overzealous FDA agent managed to get Caton’s name put on Interpol’s “Red Notice” list – the international police agency’s highest alert level for murderers, rapists, terrorists, international money launderers, and war criminals – by listing his offenses as “drugs related crimes, fraud.” On December 3, 2009, he was arrested at a checkpoint and jailed to await a hearing on December 14. As noted by Mike Adams, the journalist with Natural News who broke the story:

Caton was expected to be set free by the Ecuadorian judge at that hearing based on the facts of the case which indicated Caton’s permanent residency in Ecuador is legal and valid.

Three days before the hearing could take place, Caton was taken from his holding facility and, with the help of U.S. State Department employees, involuntarily placed on an American Airlines plane headed for Miami.

An Ecuadorian judge rushed to the airport in Guayaquil and demanded that Caton be released from the plane, stating that the attempted deportation was illegal, but American Airlines employees reportedly refused to allow Caton to leave the plane, stating that the plane was “U.S. territory” and that Ecuadorian law did not apply there (even though the plane was still on the tarmac in Guayaquil and under the direction of the air traffic control tower there).

No matter where Snowden finally reappears, there is little doubt that he will be faced with huge difficulties in proving his innocence of the charges currently levied against him. As he is about to discover, there are few places on the planet where he will not have to continually be looking over his shoulder or listening at the door for his accusers.

Photo of Aeroflot Airbus A330 that Snowden was scheduled to take out of Moscow: AP Images

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Supreme Court to Rule on Obama Recess Appointments

0

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 24 to hear a case involving the validity of three recess appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in January that the appointments to the NLRB’s board, which normally has five members, were invalid. The court’s decision will be made during the High Court’s next term, which will start in October.

The legal controversy originated when Obama ostensibly employed the recess power granted in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Constitution’s language on recess appointments reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

The core of the dispute, however, lies in the fact that the Senate was in a “pro forma” session at the time of the appointments during the 2011-12 winter holiday break. Republican senatorial leaders had arranged for a single Republican lawmaker to arrive at the upper chamber every three days and gavel the Senate to order, then after a short while, gavel it to a close.

A Yakima, Washington, Pepsi bottler named Noel Canning brought a legal challenge against an NRLB ruling concerning the bottler’s dealings with the Teamsters Union on the grounds that Obama lacked the authority to make recess appointments to the NRLB, rendering the appointments invalid and, therefore, the board lacked a quorum to render a decision.

In this case, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the D.C. appeals court decided in Canning’s favor on January 25. In so doing, the court also invalidated Obama’ recess appointments.

“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” D.C. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle wrote in the NLRB v Noel Canning decision. “An interpretation of ‘the recess’ that permits the president to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the president free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law.”

The D.C. judicial panel also voted 2 to 1 that the phrase “vacancies that may happen” means only those openings that arise during the recess, not those that already exist when the recess occurs.

Following the decision, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a written statement: “The D.C. Circuit Court today reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience but the law of the land, agreeing with the owners of a family-owned business who brought the case to the court.”

The U.S. Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., filed a petition to the Supreme Court challenging the Circuit Court’s decision, arguing that such a reading of the recess appointments clause would “drastically curtail the scope of the president’s authority.”

In his petition asking the High Court to review the case, Verrilli said that presidents have made more than 500 appointments during inter-session recesses, including “three cabinet secretaries, five court of appeals judges, 10 district court judges, a Director of Central Intelligence, a Chairman of the Federal Reserve, numerous members of multi-member boards, and holders of a variety of other critical government posts.”

A report on this case from USA Today correctly observed that the underlying power struggle between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government overshadows the immediate issue at hand in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which was a classic management vs. labor dispute. In recent years, senators have used a variety of methods to stall or derail presidential appointments and presidents have, in turn, used the recess appointment to perform an end-run around the Senate.

In anticipating how the Supreme Court might rule on this case, the USA Today writer suggested that the deciding factor might be how the justices interpret two words found in the Constitution’s recess appointments clause (“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”): “the” and “happen.” 

The report noted that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the words “the recess” means the singular break between annual sessions of Congress and that “may happen” means only positions that fall vacant during the same recess.

Court watchers will eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision regarding National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning this fall, as it will be a significant constitutional test of executive branch power.

Related article: Obama Violated Constitution With Recess Appointments, Appeals Court Rules

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Obama Comment on Ireland's "Segregated" Schools Still Rankles in U.S., U.K.

1

One week after President Barack Obama made his controversial remarks about religiously “segregated schools” in Northern Ireland, the comments continue to draw sharp rebukes on both sides of the Atlantic. “His call for an end to separate Protestant and Catholic educational institutions does not generate widespread public approval,” wrote former North Carolina congressional candidate Bill Randall in Sunday’s Washington Times.” Obama’s comments would have caused less consternation if he’d been looking in his own American back yard and made a conscious effort to mend the divisions he and his administration have caused,” Randall wrote.

Obama, while in Northern Ireland for the G-8 economic summit last week, made the comment during what the White House billed a “Town Hall” meeting with “the youth of Northern Ireland.” While praising the contributions Irish immigrants and their descendants have made to American life, Obama also praised the “just and hard-earned peace” of a “thoroughly modern Northern Ireland,” after centuries of violence and religious strife among Catholic and Protestant factions. Noting there are “still wounds that haven’t healed, and communities where tensions and mistrust hangs in the air,” he urged the Irish youth to “continue your courageous path toward a permanent peace,” saying that would benefit not only Ireland, but people in other parts of the world who could profit from that example. “We need you to get this right,” Obama said, praising the compromises and cooperation he said nurtured peace and progress in today’s Northern Ireland.

“Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity – symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others – these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it,” he said. “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”

The use of the word “segregated” in describing religious schools seems odd since the word is usually used in reference to an enforced separation of people based on racial or ethnic differences, rather than a choice by families and religious communities to educate children according to their own faith. The claim that the religiously “segregated” schools contribute to “fear or resentment” and a hardening of prejudices brought a swift rebuke from the Scottish Catholic Observer in an editorial response to the U.S. president’s “alarming call for an end to Catholic education.”

“President Barack Obama repeated the oft disproved claim that Catholic education increases division in front of an audience of 2000 young people, including many Catholics,” the publication noted, while pointing out that the U.S. president’s “unfounded claim” came only two days after a top Vatican official had praised the work of Catholic schools in a speech in Glasgow, Scotland. During a lecture at Glasgow University, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, said Catholic education brings “intellectual training, moral discipline and religious commitment” together. During Mass the previous evening, the archbishop called Catholic schools “a critical component of the Church,” providing Catholic youth the opportunity to “grow up with Jesus.”

Criticism in the United States was sharper and more disparaging in its assessment of the president’s view of the impact of religious education on civic life.

“President Obama’s anti-faith, secular agenda was shamefully on full display yesterday when he told the young people of Northern Ireland that Catholic education and other faith-based schools were divisive and an obstacle to peace,” according to a statement issued by American Catholics for Religious Freedom. “All Americans of faith should be outraged by these comments which clearly telegraph the President’s belief system and are in fact at their core even anti-American.” The president’s comment, the group declared, “demonstrated just how dangerous this administration is to eroding the rights of all people of faith.” 

In Italy, Father John Zuhlsdorf, a priest in the diocese of Velletri-Segni, weighed in on Father Z’s blog, comparing Obama’s comment about Catholic and Protestant schools with the deference he has shown to other religions: “Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a foreign visit to a Islamic nation where he told people on his arrival that they shouldn’t have madrasas. Can you?” he asked, referring to Islamic seminaries in Pakistan that train students to be Muslim clerics. “Did he when visiting, say, Israel, say ‘You Jews shouldn’t have synagogue schools and you Muslims shouldn’t have mosque schools.’ I can’t remember. Did he?”

Surprisingly, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights President William Donohue, frequently a sharp critic of Obama on matters on touching religion, dismissed the hostile response to the president’s comments as “simply insane.”

“Never did Obama say he wants ‘an end to Catholic education,'” Donohue said in a Catholic League press release. “Indeed, he never said anything critical about the nature of Catholic schools. It makes me wonder: Have any of his critics bothered to actually read his speech?”

Donohue is correct in saying the president did not call for “an end to Catholic education,” but Obama did say the “segregated schools” – both Catholic and Protestant – are among the factors that encourage division, and he implied the schools are incubators of “fear or resentment.” In his Washington Times commentary, Randall argued the comment fits a pattern of statements and actions by the Obama administration that have “marginalized Christian and Jewish organizations” in the United States. He cited, among other examples, the ObamaCare health insurance program that requires religious institutions to provide coverage for abortion and contraceptive services, and U.S. Army Reserve training materials – based on a report by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center – that labeled Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, and the Jewish Defense League as examples of extremism in a long list that included the Ku Klux Klan and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

“It is not the president’s place to lecture another nation on religious liberty and religious divisions within its borders,” Randall wrote. “The best thing that he can do for religious liberty and peaceful relations between faiths in the rest of the world is to set an example in the United States.”

Photo of President Barack Obama: AP Images

This article originally appeared on: The New American

IRS Refunded Tens of Millions of Dollars to Unauthorized Illegal Workers

0

The woes of the Internal Revenue Service continue as CNSNews.com reported June 21 that in 2011, the federal tax bureaucracy sent nearly 24,000 tax refunds totaling more than $46 million to “unauthorized” immigrant workers who all claimed the same Atlanta, Georgia, address. The revelation came in a July 16, 2012 audit report prepared by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) – a report titled tellingly, “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.”

According to the TIGTA report, the address was one of several in Atlanta used by unauthorized workers to receive millions of dollars in federal tax refunds in 2011. The top Atlanta address received 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined total of $46,378,040. A second Atlanta address received 11,284 refunds worth $2,164,976 in refunds to unauthorized immigrant workers; 3,608 refunds worth $2,691,448 went to a third; and a fourth garnered 2,386 refunds for $1,232,943.

Similar refunds went to bogus addresses around the country, with, among the top ten: 2,507 refunds worth $10,395,874 going to an address in Oxnard, California; 2,408 refunds worth $7,284,212 to Raleigh, North Carolina; 2,047 refunds worth $5,558,608 to a Phoenix, Arizona address; 1,972 refunds for a $2,256,302 to an address in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; 1,942 refunds for $5,091,027 to one address in San Jose, California; and 1,846 refunds worth $3,298,877 sent to and address in Arvin, California.

The apparent scam is nothing new for the IRS. CNSNews.com’s Terence Jeffrey reported that since 1996 “the IRS has issued what it calls Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to two classes of persons: 1) non-resident aliens who have a tax liability in the United States, and 2) aliens living in the United States who are ‘not authorized to work in the United States.’”

As long ago as 1999 the Treasury Inspector General drew attention to the problem, noting that the IRS was giving tax numbers to “undocumented aliens,” thus helping them to work illegally in the United States. “The IRS issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to undocumented aliens to improve nonresident alien compliance with tax laws,” the TIGTA’s 1999 report noted, adding that the IRS practice “seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) mission to identify undocumented aliens and prevent unlawful alien entry.”

According to Jeffrey, the 2012 audit report “was spurred by two IRS employees who went to members of Congress ‘alleging that IRS management was requiring employees to assign [ITINs] even when the applications were fraudulent.’” In a statement accompanying the audit report, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George confirmed that the audit “found that IRS management has not established adequate internal controls to detect and prevent the assignment of an ITIN to individuals submitting questionable applications. Even more troubling, TIGTA found an environment which discourages employees from detecting fraudulent applications.”

In addition to the over $46 million in refunds it gave to the 23,994 unauthorized workers who claimed the single Atlanta address, the IRS also assigned an additional 15,796 ITIN’s to illegals using one Atlanta address. Additionally, according to the TIGTA, the IRS assigned ITINs to 15,028 illegals who supposedly resided at one address in Dallas, and 10,356 tax IDs to 10,356 illegals supposedly crammed into a single dwelling in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

But perhaps the “most remarkable act” of the IRS, wrote Jeffrey, was assigning 6,411 ITINs to illegals assigned to a single address in Morganton, North Carolina. “According to the 2010 Census,” Jeffrey explained, “there were only 16,681 people in Morganton. So, for the IRS to have been correct in issuing 6,411 ITINS to unauthorized aliens at a single address in Morganton, it would have meant that 38 percent of the town’s total population were unauthorized alien workers using a single address.”

According to TIGTA, a total of 154 addresses across the United States appeared on a thousand or more ITIN applications submitted to the IRS.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

S Pars phases 17, 18 on stream in Sept.

0

A high-ranking Iranian energy official says two phases of the South Pars gas field will come on stream by the end of September.

National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) Managing Director Hamidreza Golpayegani recently said that more than 95 percent of the drilling work of phases 17 and 18 of the South Pars gas field — which is part of the biggest gas reservoir in the world — has been completed, and the projects will become operational in late September.

He added that 44,129 meters of drilling has been carried out in Phase 17, while 46,991 meters of drilling has been conducted in Phase 18.

It is projected that phases 17 and 18 of the South Pars gas field will eventually produce 50 million cubic meters of natural gas, 80,000 barrels of gas condensates, and 400 tons of sulfur per day.

They will also yield one million tons of ethane and 1.05 million tons of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) annually.

The South Pars gas field is located in the Persian Gulf straddling the common border between Iran and Qatar. It is estimated that the field contains 14 trillion cubic meters of gas and 18 billion barrels of condensates.

The field covers an area of 3,700 square kilometers. The gas production projects in the Pars Special Economic Energy Zone have been divided into 28 phases.

Earlier this month, National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) Managing Director Ahmad Qalebani announced that all phases of the South Pars gas field will come on stream in the near future.

“Phases 15 and 16 and parts of phases 17 and 18 of the South Pars gas field will become operational by the end of the current [Iranian calendar] year [ends March 20, 2014], while the remaining phases will become operational in the next two years,” Qalebani said.

He also noted that the administrative work for phases 17 and 18 of the South Pars gas field is on the right track.

MP/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Brazilian president proposes referendum

0

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has proposed a referendum on a broad “political reform” in a bid to put an end to days of anti-government protests and social unrest across the country.

On Monday, following talks with state governors, cabinet members, and city mayors, Rousseff said, Å“I am going to press for a referendum for the election of a constituent assembly tasked with political reform.”

“Political reform has been on the nation’s agenda for many years,” she added.

On the same day, following talks with protest leaders and regional officials Rousseff also said the government would allocate “50 billion reais ($25 billion) in new investments for urban mobility projects” and “to improve public transport in our country.”

On Friday, Rousseff offered a series of reforms in order to bring to an end days of anti-government protests across the country.

She stated that her government would draft a new plan to improve public transport, adding that all oil royalties would be used to improve health and education. She also pledged to fight harder in the campaign against corruption.

A poll on June 22 by Ibope polling agency revealed that three quarter of Brazilians support the protests.

The protests erupted on June 11, when people in Sao Paulo took to the streets to condemn a price hike in public transport.

The unrest spread quickly around the country and by June 22 some 1.5 million people participated in demonstrations.

At several protests, Brazilian police resorted to using tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters.

Protest organizers have vowed to continue demonstrations until concrete steps are taken to reform the political system as numerous social media call for a general strike on July 1, stating, Å“On July 1, 2013, Brazil will grind to a halt.”

IA/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Massive Flooding Hits Canada's Dirty Energy Center: A Wakeup Call on Climate Change?

0

Rising floodwaters seen in Calgary this weekend. (Photo: Wayne Stadler/cc/flickr)Might the torrential rainfalls that have set off record floods in the Canadian province of Alberta–home of the massive tar sands project–jolt action on climate change?

Widespread flooding has left homes and business submerged, washed out roads and left rivers swelling. In Calgary, Canada’s dirty energy capital, tens of thousands of residents have been displaced due to the flooding, while thousands have had to flee the southeastern city of Medicine Hat, which is still bracing for more floods n Monday.

“This is like nothing we’ve ever seen before in Alberta,” Alberta Premier Alison Redford said on Sunday.

The heavy rains also hit farther north, closer to the tar sands belly of the beast, triggering an oil spill that forced oil giant Enbridge to shut three of its major pipelines serving the tar sands. 

The crude oil giant reported on Saturday that “unusually heavy rains in the area may have resulted in ground movement on the right-of way that may have impacted” its Line 37 pipeline causing a spill of 750 barrels. 

The spill prompted the company to shut its Athabasca and Waupisoo pipelines as well. 

But the disastrous flooding that has hit the province is a disaster foretold, Calgary resident and journalist Andrew Nikiforuk wrote in The Tyee Monday:

In 2005 the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative promised warming temperatures, melting glaciers, variable rainfall, changes in stream flows, accelerated evaporation and more extreme events.

In 2006 climate scientist Dave Sauchyn told a Banff audience that “droughts of longer duration and greater frequency, as well as unusual wet periods and flooding” would be the new forecast. Meanwhile researchers documented a 26-day shift in the onset of spring in Alberta over the past century.

Five years later the Bow River Council concluded that “Our rapidly growing population demands much of the land and water. Our climate is changing and the future of our water supplies is uncertain.”

In 2010 the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, an agency that the Harper government killed last year because it didn’t like its messages on climate change, reported that changing precipitation patterns were “the most common gradual, long-term risk from a changing climate identified by Canadian companies.” […]

In 2011 the NREE published more inconvenient truths in a document called Paying the Price. It concluded that annual cost of flooding in Canada due to climate change could total $17 billion a year by 2050.

A 2011 document on climate change’s impact on the Bow River warned that events could be far more severe than modern water management has previously experienced.”

And then came the kicker. In 2012 Insurance Bureau of Canada produced a report by Gordon McBean, an expert on catastrophes. It bluntly warned that Alberta “will be greatly affected by drought and water scarcity under changing climate conditions, and can expect potential increases in hail, storm and wildfire events.” Spring rainfall could increase by 10 to 15 per cent in southern Alberta too.

Maybe, though, wrote Nikiforuk, this will be “Calgary’s Manhattan Moment” in which the people of Calgary “may even reassess their government’s carbon-laden pipeline fantasies as well as the pace and scale of the tar sands.”

* * *

Video from CBC News shows some of the devastation:

__________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Anti-War Activists Targeted as 'Domestic Terrorists'

0

Port Militarization Resistance (Photo: Brendan Maslauskas Dunn)

Anti-war activists who were infiltrated and spied on by the military for years have now been placed on the domestic terrorist list, they recently discovered. The shocking revelation comes as the activists prepare to sue the U.S. military for unlawful spying.

“The fact that a peaceful activist such as myself is on this domestic terrorist list should be cause for concern for other people in the US,” declared Brendan Maslauskas Dunn, plaintiff in the lawsuit. “We’ve seen an increase in the buildup of a mass surveillance state under the Obama and Bush Administrations.”

The discovery is the latest development in a stunning sauga that exposes vast post-9/11 spying networks in which military, police, and federal agencies act in cahoots.

Documents declassified in 2009 reveal that military informant John Towery, going by the name ‘John Jacob,’ spent over two years infiltrating and spying on Olympia, Washington anti-war and social justice groups, including Port Militarization Resistance, Students for a Democratic Society, the Industrial Workers of the World, and Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Towery admitted to the spying and revealed that he shared information with not only the military, but also the police and federal agencies. He claimed that he was not the only spy.

The activists, who blast the snooping as a violation of their first and fourth ammendment rights, levied a lawsuit against the military in 2009.

“The spying resulted in plaintiffs and others being targeted for repeated harassment, preemptive and false arrest, excessive use of force, and malicious prosecution,” reads a statement by the plaintiffs.

The Obama Administration attempted to throw out the litigation, but in December 2012 the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the case can continue.

When the plaintiffs were preparing their deposition for the courts two weeks ago, they were shocked to discover that several Olympia anti-war activists were listed on the domestic terrorist list, including at least two plaintiffs in the case.

The revelations prompted them to ammend their lawsuit to include charges that the nonviolent activists were unlawfully labeled domestic terrorists.

“The breadth and intensity of the spying by U.S. Army officials and other law enforcement agents is staggering,” said Larry Hildes, National Lawyers Guild attorney who filed the lawsuit in 2009. “If nonviolent protest is now labeled and treated as terrorism, then democracy and the First Amendment are in critical danger.”

Plaintiffs say this case takes on a new revelevance as vast NSA dragnet spying sparks widespread outrage.

“I think that there is a huge potential for the case to set precedent,” declared plaintiff Julianne Panagacos. “This could have a big impact on how the U.S. military and police are able to work together.”

She added, “I am hopeful we will win.”

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Amnesty urges Nigeria to stop executions

0

Amnesty International has called on the Nigerian authorities to stop all executions, following the hanging of four prisoners in the West African country.

On Monday, Amnesty International said in a statement that it had received “credible reports that authorities in the state of Edo… have hanged four men in Benin City Prison on Monday — the first known executions in the country since 2006.”

“If confirmed, these executions mark a sudden, brutal return to the use of the death penalty in Nigeria, a truly dark day for human rights in the country,” Amnesty deputy director for Africa, Lucy Freeman, said in the statement.

The human rights organization urged Nigerian authorities to end all executions immediately and “return to the moratorium on executions in the country.”

“We oppose the death penalty in all cases without exception, as it is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,” it said.

Henry Idahagbon, the justice commissioner in Edo State in southern Nigeria, verified the hanging of the four prisoners, who had been found guilty of either armed robbery or murder.

“The court gave the judgment this afternoon that the execution could go ahead and the prison authority went ahead,” Idahagbon said.

Over the past four years, violence in the west of Africaâ„¢s most populous country has claimed the lives of 3,600 people, including killings by the security forces.

On Saturday, thousands of Nigerians from villages in the northeast of the country reportedly fled the fighting between the military and Boko Haram militants.

Since mid-May, the Nigerian military has launched numerous airstrikes on Boko Haram training camps in the northeast of the country, forcing the fighters to leave the camps.

Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for a number of deadly gun and bomb attacks in various parts of Nigeria since 2009.

IA/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Dr. Doom: “A Lot Of Problems Are Coming… Revolution… Social Strife…”

0

Famed economist and investment guru Dr. Marc Faber of the Gloom, Boom and Doom Report weighs in on global happenings.

He predicted the collapse of global financial markets in 2008, and pegged their subsequent rise to the day back in 2009.

If there’s someone out there with his finger on the pulse of the financial crisis and where we’re headed next, it’s Doctor Doom.

If you have ten minutes today, and are looking for some realistic insights into financial markets, the monetary machinations behind the scene, and the non-traditional investments you should be focused on going forward, take the time to listen to the good Doctor.

Excerpts by Zero Hedge via The Daily Crux:

Just in case a new high would be achieved in the next two months or so, it would not be confirmed by the majority of shares. In other words, very few stocks would lead the advance. In terms of bonds, they are also incredibly oversold. Where the sentiment about equities is actually still rather positive and all of these super bulls still predicting the market to continue to rise into 2014, 2015.

In bonds and gold, sentiment is by historical standards incredibly negative. As a contrarian, I would rather buy bonds and gold than equities.

…

I think the market is on the high side, corporate profits are inflated and we could easily, from the recent high, May 22 at 1687 on the S&P, drop by 20% to 30%, easily.”

…

He [Ben Bernanke] said if the economy does not meet the expectations of the fed in one years’ time, they will consider additional measures. In other words, if the economy has not fully recovered by mid-2014, more QE will be forthcoming. As I said already three years ago, we are going to go with the Fed to QE99.”

…

We have wage deflation in the world in real terms, for sure. In other words, real wages are going down and the cost of living everywhere are going up. That is why you have social unrest in North Africa, in the Middle East, in Turkey, in Brazil, and it will spread because the average person on the street hasn’t participated in the huge asset inflation that has been going on in high-end properties, Mayfair properties, Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue, the Hamptons and in equities and until recently in bonds and commodities.

…

The only thing that I know is that I want to own some physical gold because I don’t want all of my assets in financial assets.

…

I don’t know, I am not a prophet, I don’t know exactly where the price will be on a month by month basis, but I want to have some wealth, some of my assets in physical gold.

I can see a lot of problems coming into the world including expropriation through taxation or through regulation or even through revolution and social strife.

Like Ron Paul, Marc Faber understands that the price of gold can potentially go to infinity. So, too, can the price of other physical assets like food, energy and industrial metals.

As Faber notes, he can’t predict prices, but he does understand that stock market valuations are disconnected from the reality of the situation.

The Dow Jones may go to 30,000 points, but what good does that do for you if prices across all goods and services inflate to unimaginable levels?

This is what mainstream analysts and traders don’t talk about. They are focused on making money in stock markets, not how those valuations will affect the average person on the ground. As Doc Faber notes, wages are going down across the board. All the while prices are rising.

Sure, millions of dollars are being made on Wall Street, as has always been the case. But for the rest of us, well, we’re struggling to survive and most of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

If the stock market rises to 30,000 as some have predicted, chances are you will in no way benefit from that. In fact, it’ll hurt much more than it helps, because that rise can only be made possible through price inflation.

Whatever the case with stocks — up or down — it should be clear that wealth is being destroyed across the board.

This means things can only get worse for the majority of the population.

And, as we’ve seen throughout the world over the last five years, that kind of environment tends to lead to significant upheaval.

Expect the same here in due course.

Back in August of 2010 Marc Faber suggested that things around the world would get so bad, that you’d better own some of the following collapse-proof investments:

Buy a farm you can tend to yourself way out in the boondocks. And protect it with high voltage fences, barbed wire, booby traps, military weapons and Dobermans.

Invest in assets that will have real value – Assets you can use and trade, such as precious metals, food, supplies, barterable labor skills, and of course, high voltage fences to protect you from the hordes when they come looking for what they failed to prepare.

This article originally appeared on: SHTF Plan

Dr. Doom: “A Lot Of Problems Are Coming… Revolution… Social Strife…”

0

Famed economist and investment guru Dr. Marc Faber of the Gloom, Boom and Doom Report weighs in on global happenings.

He predicted the collapse of global financial markets in 2008, and pegged their subsequent rise to the day back in 2009.

If there’s someone out there with his finger on the pulse of the financial crisis and where we’re headed next, it’s Doctor Doom.

If you have ten minutes today, and are looking for some realistic insights into financial markets, the monetary machinations behind the scene, and the non-traditional investments you should be focused on going forward, take the time to listen to the good Doctor.

Excerpts by Zero Hedge via The Daily Crux:

Just in case a new high would be achieved in the next two months or so, it would not be confirmed by the majority of shares. In other words, very few stocks would lead the advance. In terms of bonds, they are also incredibly oversold. Where the sentiment about equities is actually still rather positive and all of these super bulls still predicting the market to continue to rise into 2014, 2015.

In bonds and gold, sentiment is by historical standards incredibly negative. As a contrarian, I would rather buy bonds and gold than equities.

…

I think the market is on the high side, corporate profits are inflated and we could easily, from the recent high, May 22 at 1687 on the S&P, drop by 20% to 30%, easily.”

…

He [Ben Bernanke] said if the economy does not meet the expectations of the fed in one years’ time, they will consider additional measures. In other words, if the economy has not fully recovered by mid-2014, more QE will be forthcoming. As I said already three years ago, we are going to go with the Fed to QE99.”

…

We have wage deflation in the world in real terms, for sure. In other words, real wages are going down and the cost of living everywhere are going up. That is why you have social unrest in North Africa, in the Middle East, in Turkey, in Brazil, and it will spread because the average person on the street hasn’t participated in the huge asset inflation that has been going on in high-end properties, Mayfair properties, Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue, the Hamptons and in equities and until recently in bonds and commodities.

…

The only thing that I know is that I want to own some physical gold because I don’t want all of my assets in financial assets.

…

I don’t know, I am not a prophet, I don’t know exactly where the price will be on a month by month basis, but I want to have some wealth, some of my assets in physical gold.

I can see a lot of problems coming into the world including expropriation through taxation or through regulation or even through revolution and social strife.

Like Ron Paul, Marc Faber understands that the price of gold can potentially go to infinity. So, too, can the price of other physical assets like food, energy and industrial metals.

As Faber notes, he can’t predict prices, but he does understand that stock market valuations are disconnected from the reality of the situation.

The Dow Jones may go to 30,000 points, but what good does that do for you if prices across all goods and services inflate to unimaginable levels?

This is what mainstream analysts and traders don’t talk about. They are focused on making money in stock markets, not how those valuations will affect the average person on the ground. As Doc Faber notes, wages are going down across the board. All the while prices are rising.

Sure, millions of dollars are being made on Wall Street, as has always been the case. But for the rest of us, well, we’re struggling to survive and most of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

If the stock market rises to 30,000 as some have predicted, chances are you will in no way benefit from that. In fact, it’ll hurt much more than it helps, because that rise can only be made possible through price inflation.

Whatever the case with stocks — up or down — it should be clear that wealth is being destroyed across the board.

This means things can only get worse for the majority of the population.

And, as we’ve seen throughout the world over the last five years, that kind of environment tends to lead to significant upheaval.

Expect the same here in due course.

Back in August of 2010 Marc Faber suggested that things around the world would get so bad, that you’d better own some of the following collapse-proof investments:

Buy a farm you can tend to yourself way out in the boondocks. And protect it with high voltage fences, barbed wire, booby traps, military weapons and Dobermans.

Invest in assets that will have real value – Assets you can use and trade, such as precious metals, food, supplies, barterable labor skills, and of course, high voltage fences to protect you from the hordes when they come looking for what they failed to prepare.

This article originally appeared on: SHTF Plan

Iran aluminum output over 59k tons

0

The Islamic Republic of Iran has produced 59,100 tons of aluminum ingots in the first two months of the current Iranian calendar year, which started on March 21, 2013.

The volume of aluminum ingot production in the country over the Iranian calendar month of Farvardin (March 21-April 20) stood at 29,200 tons, which showed a 3.5-percent growth compared to the corresponding period a year earlier, IRNA reported.

The report added that Iran produced 21,900 tons of alumina powder during the same period. The number showed a 10-percent increase compared to the same period last year.

Iran also produced 29,900 tons of aluminum ingots in the Iranian calendar month of Ordibehesht (April 21-May 21). The figure showed a 3.5-percent growth compared to the last year.

The volume of alumina powder production hit nearly 20,000 tons during the mentioned period, registering a 12.4-percent growth in comparison with the corresponding period last year.

The Islamic Republic of Iran produced over 308,000 tons of aluminum ingots in the first eleven months of the previous Iranian calendar year, which ended on March 20, 2013.

The volume of aluminum ingot production at the countryâ„¢s three smelters — Iranian aluminum Company (IRALCO), the Al-Mahdi Aluminum Corporation (AAC), and Hormozal — hit 308,473 tons during the eleven-month period.

Iran also produced 207,089 tons of alumina powder in the first eleven months of the last Iranian calendar year.

In May 2012, Iranian Deputy Minister of Industry, Mines and Trade Vajihollah Jaâ„¢fari said Iranâ„¢s aluminum output would hit 1.5 million tons by the end of the countryâ„¢s 20-Year Vision Plan, which runs until March 2025.

He added that the Iranian Mining and Mineral Industries Development and Renovation Organization would implement various projects across Iran to reach the aluminum output target set for this year.

The official noted that Iranâ„¢s ranking in production of aluminum Å“has risen by four steps since 2005” to number 22 in the world.

Jaâ„¢fari also stated that Iran plans to become the worldâ„¢s 14th leading aluminum producer by the end of the 5th Economic Development Plan, which began in 2010 and ends in 2015.

MP/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

'Proxy war fought in Syria favors Israel'

0

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem says the countries that support the unrest in Syria will have no interest in ending the violence in the country as long as it serves Israel.

Å“Stopping violence is important, but they do not have a decision about that as long as the interests of Israel entail the continuation of violence,” Syriaâ„¢s official news agency SANA quoted Muallem as saying at a press conference in Damascus on Monday.

He also said Damascus is ready to participate in a peace conference in Geneva without any pre-conditions to help bring the bloodshed to an end in the country.

Syriaâ„¢s top diplomat also described the current situation in the Lebanese city of Sidon as dangerous, saying what is happening in the city is the consequence of decisions made in the so-called Friends of Syria conference in Qatar.

The Syrian minister said Damascus has repeatedly urged Beirut to secure its borders.

At a conference in the Qatari capital Doha on Saturday, foreign ministers of the countries supporting the militants fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad agreed to provide them with arms.

Top diplomats from Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States attended the talks in Doha.

The top officials agreed to “provide urgently all the necessary materiel and equipment to the opposition on the ground, each country in its own way in order to enable them to counter brutal attacks by the regime and its allies and protect the Syrian people.”

Muallem added that the issue of arming insurgents is nothing new.

Syria has been gripped by a deadly unrest since March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of government forces, have been killed in the violence.

Damascus says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

The Syrian government says the West and its regional allies including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are supporting the militants.

MN/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

War and the New Nuclear Danger: Fukushima and Beyond

0

“Russia has over a thousand hydrogen bombs on hair-trigger alert. You’re all targeted–every town with a population of 50,000 or more is targeted with at least one bomb. There may be 60 targeted on Washington alone, or on New York.

And America’s got that many targeted on Russia, China, etc…

They’re ready to go with the press of a button by Putin or Obama and they have three minutes to decide whether or not to press the button. Computer errors happen a lot … people are hacking into the early warning system and they could start a nuclear war. Especially as tensions rise in the Middle East, this is very, very dangerous.”

– Dr. Helen Caldicott

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:28)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

One of the most severe industrial accidents in history occurred two and a half years ago when the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan was crippled in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami that struck the island country.

Critically, electric generators which circulate coolant through the facility failed leaving the core vulnerable to a melt down.
There were three meltdowns within a week, four hydrogen explosions, and the release of radioactive material which continues to this day.

Project Censored lists the incident and the under-reported impacts including 14,000 deaths in the US linked to radioactive fall-out as among its top 25 most censored stories of 2011-2012.

One international figure sounding the alarm bells about Fukushima and other looming nuclear threats is Dr. Helen Caldicott. Caldicott is an Australia-born pediatrician who devoted much of her life to extolling the perils of nuclear war and nuclear power becoming the subject of an Oscar award winning documentary in the 1980s. She also became the founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility. She has likewise founded other associations dedicated to opposing depleted Uranium, nuclear weapons and power, and militarism generally.

Caldicott has been tireless in her commitment and explains on this week’s show why the nuclear danger is just as bad if not worse today, than it was at the height of the Cold War. She further outlines nuclear power, nuclear war along with global warming as the biggest threats facing humankind.

Complementing Caldicott’s presentation, Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization contributes his own research into the new nuclear doctrine.

According to Chossudovsky, nuclear weapons are now considered as part of the arsenal of conventional warfare as opposed to a ‘doomsday’ weapon meant as a bluff to scare off a would-be attacker.

Both Chossudovsky and Caldicott agree that the wider public needs greater exposure to today’s nuclear danger which is the theme of this week’s show.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:28)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour, hosted by Michael Welch, airs on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg Thursdays at 10am CDT. The programme is now broadcast weekly (Monday, 5-6pm ET) by the Progressive Radio Network in the US, and is available for download on the Global Research website.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Anti-War Activists Labeled Domestic Terrorists: Military Spying Exposed

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Port Militarization Resistance (Photo: Brendan Maslauskas Dunn)

[field_image_caption-raw]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Gold mine collapse kills 37 in CAR

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]At least 37 people have been killed and many more injured in a mine collapse in the south of the Central African Republic.

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

UN chief saddened by floods in N India

0

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has expressed sadness over the large number of lives lost as a result of torrential floods in northern India.

In a statement released on Monday, Ban expressed Å“his sincere condolences to the people and government of India, especially the families of those who have died, been injured or otherwise affected in this disaster.”

Å“The United Nations stands ready to lend its assistance to emergency recovery and rebuilding efforts if needed,” the statement added.

This came after Indiaâ„¢s Disaster Management Minister Yashpal Arya said in a statement, Å“At least 5,000 people must have been killed in the deluge that inflicted heavy damage on vast tracts of land especially in Kedarnath Valley.”

More than 40,000 people are still said to be stranded in the mountainous areas of the northern state of Uttarakhand, the epicenter of the flooding.

Indiaâ„¢s northern states have borne the brunt of the deadly monsoon floods in the country over the last week. Landslides and floods, set off by heavy rainfall, have left a trail of death and destruction in the region.

Officials say rescue and military forces rescued all the pilgrims stranded in Hindu pilgrimage spots in Kedarnath Valley.

Local authorities had earlier said that the death toll would rapidly rise as hundreds of buildings had been washed away.

Many of those affected by the floods are accusing the government of neglect.

The monsoon season, lasting from June to October, causes floods with widespread destruction. This year, India’s monsoon rains are a month ahead of schedule.

MAM/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

UN chief saddened by floods in N India

0

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has expressed sadness over the large number of lives lost as a result of torrential floods in northern India.

In a statement released on Monday, Ban expressed Å“his sincere condolences to the people and government of India, especially the families of those who have died, been injured or otherwise affected in this disaster.”

Å“The United Nations stands ready to lend its assistance to emergency recovery and rebuilding efforts if needed,” the statement added.

This came after Indiaâ„¢s Disaster Management Minister Yashpal Arya said in a statement, Å“At least 5,000 people must have been killed in the deluge that inflicted heavy damage on vast tracts of land especially in Kedarnath Valley.”

More than 40,000 people are still said to be stranded in the mountainous areas of the northern state of Uttarakhand, the epicenter of the flooding.

Indiaâ„¢s northern states have borne the brunt of the deadly monsoon floods in the country over the last week. Landslides and floods, set off by heavy rainfall, have left a trail of death and destruction in the region.

Officials say rescue and military forces rescued all the pilgrims stranded in Hindu pilgrimage spots in Kedarnath Valley.

Local authorities had earlier said that the death toll would rapidly rise as hundreds of buildings had been washed away.

Many of those affected by the floods are accusing the government of neglect.

The monsoon season, lasting from June to October, causes floods with widespread destruction. This year, India’s monsoon rains are a month ahead of schedule.

MAM/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Turkey calls for stronger ties with Iran

0

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has called for further expansion of diplomatic relations and cooperation between Ankara and Tehran in diverse areas.

In a telephone conversation on Monday evening, Gul congratulated Hassan Rohani over his victory in the June 14 president election, lauded the Iranian president-electâ„¢s stances, and wished the next Iranian administration success.

The Turkish president also expected to meet Rohani in person on the sidelines of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in late September.

Rohani expressed hope that Ankara government could resolve the ongoing issues in Turkey through prudence and discretion, describing foreign interference in Turkeyâ„¢s domestic affairs as Å“unacceptable.”

The unrest in Turkey began on May 31 after police broke up a sit-in held at Istanbul’s Taksim Square to protest against the proposal to demolish Gezi Park.

The protesters say Gezi Park, which is a traditional gathering point for rallies and demonstrations as well as a popular tourist destination, is one of Istanbul’s last green public spaces.

Five people, including a police officer, have died in the clashes and more than 5,000 protesters and 600 police officers have been injured.

Å“There is no doubt that expansion of ties and cooperation between the two countries can significantly help the resolution of regional issues and restoration of peace and stability in the region,” the Iranian president-elect noted.

Rohani won 50.7 percent of the vote to secure an outright victory. In the Iranian system, if no presidential candidate receives 50 percent of the vote, the two top candidates must face off in a run-off election.

Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the June 14 presidential election. The Interior Ministry put the voter turnout at 72.7 percent.

Rohani currently represents Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in the Supreme National Security Council and is also a member of the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts. He is also the director of the Expediency Council’s Center for Strategic Research.

MP/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Massive Flooding Hits Canada's Dirty Energy Center: A Wakeup Call on Climate Change?

0

Rising floodwaters seen in Calgary this weekend. (Photo: Wayne Stadler/cc/flickr)Might the torrential rainfalls that have set off record floods in the Canadian province of Alberta–home of the massive tar sands project–jolt action on climate change?

Widespread flooding has left homes and business submerged, washed out roads and left rivers swelling. In Calgary, Canada’s dirty energy capital, tens of thousands of residents have been displaced due to the flooding, while thousands have had to flee the southeastern city of Medicine Hat, which is still bracing for more floods n Monday.

“This is like nothing we’ve ever seen before in Alberta,” Alberta Premier Alison Redford said on Sunday.

The heavy rains also hit farther north, closer to the tar sands belly of the beast, triggering an oil spill that forced oil giant Enbridge to shut three of its major pipelines serving the tar sands. 

The crude oil giant reported on Saturday that “unusually heavy rains in the area may have resulted in ground movement on the right-of way that may have impacted” its Line 37 pipeline causing a spill of 750 barrels. 

The spill prompted the company to shut its Athabasca and Waupisoo pipelines as well. 

But the disastrous flooding that has hit the province is a disaster foretold, Calgary resident and journalist Andrew Nikiforuk wrote in The Tyee Monday:

In 2005 the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative promised warming temperatures, melting glaciers, variable rainfall, changes in stream flows, accelerated evaporation and more extreme events.

In 2006 climate scientist Dave Sauchyn told a Banff audience that “droughts of longer duration and greater frequency, as well as unusual wet periods and flooding” would be the new forecast. Meanwhile researchers documented a 26-day shift in the onset of spring in Alberta over the past century.

Five years later the Bow River Council concluded that “Our rapidly growing population demands much of the land and water. Our climate is changing and the future of our water supplies is uncertain.”

In 2010 the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, an agency that the Harper government killed last year because it didn’t like its messages on climate change, reported that changing precipitation patterns were “the most common gradual, long-term risk from a changing climate identified by Canadian companies.” […]

In 2011 the NREE published more inconvenient truths in a document called Paying the Price. It concluded that annual cost of flooding in Canada due to climate change could total $17 billion a year by 2050.

A 2011 document on climate change’s impact on the Bow River warned that events could be far more severe than modern water management has previously experienced.”

And then came the kicker. In 2012 Insurance Bureau of Canada produced a report by Gordon McBean, an expert on catastrophes. It bluntly warned that Alberta “will be greatly affected by drought and water scarcity under changing climate conditions, and can expect potential increases in hail, storm and wildfire events.” Spring rainfall could increase by 10 to 15 per cent in southern Alberta too.

Maybe, though, wrote Nikiforuk, this will be “Calgary’s Manhattan Moment” in which the people of Calgary “may even reassess their government’s carbon-laden pipeline fantasies as well as the pace and scale of the tar sands.”

* * *

Video from CBC News shows some of the devastation:

__________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Global 'Bully': As Snowden Seeks Asylum, Critics Blast US for Manhunt

0

As Edward Snowden’s quest for political asylum plays out as a global cat-and-mouse chase, defenders of international law say the US is acting the bully as it scrambles to locate and gain custody of the 30-year-old NSA whistleblower.

Though his whereabouts remained unknown Monday, supporters of Snowden say that the US government’s aggressive pursuit of the confessed NSA whistleblower–and the mainstream media’s fixation on him and not the information he has delivered to the global public regarding a “massive worldwide surveillance system”–is what should most trouble those concerned about privacy, international law and civil liberties.

“The US is doing everything they can do to interfere with [Snowden’s effort to gain asylum],” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a lawyer with expertise in international law, during a press call with journalists on Monday. “They’re bullying countries all over the world, even where they have no basis for doing so… Bullying them essentially so that they can get Ed Snowden rendered to the United States where he can be prosecuted.”

Pushing back against government statements characterizing Snowden as a “criminal” “traitor” or “fugitive of justice,” Ratner said the whistleblower “is not a fugitive in any sense of the word” and that there is “an important and legal basis for Ed Snowden’s application for asylum” abroad.

“The Obama administration was not given a mandate by the people of the US to hack and spy upon the entire world, to abridge the US constitution or the laws of others nations.” -Julian Assange, Wikileaks

Responding to comments made by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the White House warning others countries to hand over Snowden, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange blasted the Obama administrations response to the situation.

“The US secretary of state is wrong in law,” said Assange. And added, “The Obama administration was not given a mandate by the people of the US to hack and spy upon the entire world, to abridge the US constitution or the laws of others nations.”

“It reflects poorly on the U.S. administration, and no self-respecting country would submit to such interference or such bullying by the U.S. in this matter,” he said.

Though many in the corporate US news media have been quick to follow the US government’s line that Snowden should be considered a “traitor” for his release of documents that expose details of the NSA’s vast spying apparatus to the US and global public, Ratner said that Snowden’s actions were underpinned by a clear political motive and should be protected under international law.

Ratner stressed that when it comes to international law, “asylum trumps extradition” meaning that even if Russia, Ecuador, or some other nation have a bilateral extradition agreement for criminal offenders, it does not necessarily mean that those countries are obligated to hand over a person seeking political asylum, especially one who has reasonable fear to assume he will not be treated equitably or fairly by his home country’s justice system.

“There’s no international arrest warrant that we know of,” said Ratner, arguing that Snowden’s alleged crimes “are classic political crimes under the extradition treaty” and that the US’ efforts should be seen as a “big country to bully other countries to say ‘Send him here’ when there’s actually no legal basis for it.”

The ongoing attempt to extradite Snowden, added Assange, “further demonstrates the breakdown in the rule of law by the Obama administration.”

Under the United Nations’ Refugee Convention, Snowden would qualify for protection as someone who fears “being persecuted for political opinion,” said Ratner.

“What we should be discussing, unlike what seems the attention primarily in the media right now–Where’s Ed Snowden? What country is he going to?–is the massive surveillance system being carried out by the US, the UK, and perhaps other countries all over the world and the violations of rights of people all over the world.” -Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights

From a press conference in Hanoi, Vietnam on Monday, Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino read from Snowden’s asylum application letter in which Snowden himself discussed why we was taking such lengths to avoid US authorities

“I have been accused of being a traitor” and “there have been calls for me to be executed or imprisoned,” the letter from Snowden said. In addition, he said it would be “unlikely” that he would receive “a fair trial or humane treatment” if returned to the US.

Because the US is charging Snowden under the Espionage Act, says law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s Marjorie Cohn, Snowden has “a well-founded fear of persecution in the U.S.”

And citing the treatment of another well-known whistleblower, Pfc. Bradley Manning, Cohn suggests Snowden can “probably make a good case for political asylum in Ecuador.”

Norman Solomon, whose group Roots Action is circulating a petition calling the Obama administration to keep its “hands off” Snowden, decried the diplomatic bullying described by Ratner.

“The same government that continues to expand its invasive dragnet of surveillance, all over the United States and the rest of the world,”Solomon wrote on Common Dreams, “is now asserting its prerogative to drag Snowden back to the USA from anywhere on the planet. It’s not only about punishing him and discouraging other potential whistleblowers. Top U.S. officials are also determined to–quite literally–silence Snowden’s voice, as Bradley Manning’s voice has been nearly silenced behind prison walls.”

He continued, “Those at the top of the U.S. government insist that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have betrayed it. But that’s backward. Putting its money on vast secrecy and military violence instead of democracy, the government has betrayed Snowden and Manning and the rest of us.”

In addition to the petition effort by Roots Action, more than 110,000 people as late Monday had signed a petition on the White House website calling for President Obama to pardon Snowden.

“To charge Snowden with espionage is a severe form of political persecution.” -Mark Weisbrot, CEPR

“Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs,” the petition read.

Though the petition received a large enough number of signers to mandate an official response from the White House, the president is not likely to heed its urging.

That leaves Ecuador the most likely candidate current candidate to offer asylum to Snowden.

Mark Weisbrot, an expert on Latin America and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, was pointed in why supporters of the public’s right to know should support both Snowden and the country–whether Ecuador or another–if and when they grant Snowden political asylum.

“It is important that everyone who believes in freedom to defend Ecuador from Washington’s threats, which are very likely if the Ecuadorean government grants asylum to Snowden,” said Weisbrot. “Other governments around the world — whose citizens’ rights have been violated by NSA surveillance overreach — should stand behind Ecuador if it chooses to grant Snowden asylum, as should NGO’s. To charge Snowden with espionage is a severe form of political persecution.”

In the end, while the intrigue over Snowden’s whereabouts and the question over whether or not he is captured by the US or receives safe passage to a country willing to protect him, Ratner was among the many commentators in the progressive community on Monday who were concerned that the focus on Snowden as an individual was partially thwarting the bigger and more important story about the contents of what Snowden’s actions have revealed.

“What we should be discussing, unlike what seems the attention primarily in the media right now–Where’s Ed Snowden? What country is he going to?–is the massive surveillance system being carried out by the US, the UK, and perhaps other countries all over the world and the violations of rights of people all over the world,” Ratner said.

Ratner blasted the media’s fixation on Edward Snowden–his whereabouts, whether he’s a “traitor” or not, and other aspects of his personal life that were a distraction to the real story which according to Ratner is the existence of a “massive worldwide surveillance system.”

________________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

8 Indian soldiers killed in Kashmir clash

0

Indian police stand near the bodies of two Indian army soldiers lying inside a police vehicle near the scene of an attack by militants on the outskirts of Srinagar on June 24, 2013.

At least eight Indian soldiers have been killed and thirteen others wounded in an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, police officials say.

Militants opened fire on a convoy transporting the soldiers on the outskirts of Srinagar on Monday.

Å“Eight troopers died in the attack and 13 others have been wounded,” said a senior police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The injured soldiers were rushed to a nearby military hospital for medical treatment.

The militants were able to pull off the attack despite the fact that a high state of alert was imposed ahead of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâ„¢s scheduled visit to Kashmir on Tuesday.

Singh issued a statement strongly condemning the attack, saying, Å“This cowardly attack will not deter the security forces, who are engaged in bringing peace and order to the Kashmir Valley.”

Security officials said police and parliamentary forces were deployed across the territory.

“A high alert is there. We do face a threat from the militants,” Kashmir Police Chief Abdul Gani Mir said.

On Saturday, two Indian policemen patrolling Srinagarâ„¢s Hari Singh High Street market were shot and killed by militants.

Kashmir lies at the heart of more than 60 years of hostility between India and Pakistan. Both countries claim the region in full but each only has control over a section of the territory.

Over the past two decades, the conflict in Kashmir has left over 47,000 people dead by the official count, although other sources say the death toll could be as high as 90,000.

SAB/SS/MAM/HGL

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

IRS Refunded Tens of Millions of Dollars to Unauthorized Illegal Workers

0

The woes of the Internal Revenue Service continue as CNSNews.com reported June 21 that in 2011, the federal tax bureaucracy sent nearly 24,000 tax refunds totaling more than $46 million to “unauthorized” immigrant workers who all claimed the same Atlanta, Georgia, address. The revelation came in a July 16, 2012 audit report prepared by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) – a report titled tellingly, “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.”

According to the TIGTA report, the address was one of several in Atlanta used by unauthorized workers to receive millions of dollars in federal tax refunds in 2011. The top Atlanta address received 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined total of $46,378,040. A second Atlanta address received 11,284 refunds worth $2,164,976 in refunds to unauthorized immigrant workers; 3,608 refunds worth $2,691,448 went to a third; and a fourth garnered 2,386 refunds for $1,232,943.

Similar refunds went to bogus addresses around the country, with, among the top ten: 2,507 refunds worth $10,395,874 going to an address in Oxnard, California; 2,408 refunds worth $7,284,212 to Raleigh, North Carolina; 2,047 refunds worth $5,558,608 to a Phoenix, Arizona address; 1,972 refunds for a $2,256,302 to an address in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; 1,942 refunds for $5,091,027 to one address in San Jose, California; and 1,846 refunds worth $3,298,877 sent to and address in Arvin, California.

The apparent scam is nothing new for the IRS. CNSNews.com’s Terence Jeffrey reported that since 1996 “the IRS has issued what it calls Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to two classes of persons: 1) non-resident aliens who have a tax liability in the United States, and 2) aliens living in the United States who are ‘not authorized to work in the United States.’”

As long ago as 1999 the Treasury Inspector General drew attention to the problem, noting that the IRS was giving tax numbers to “undocumented aliens,” thus helping them to work illegally in the United States. “The IRS issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to undocumented aliens to improve nonresident alien compliance with tax laws,” the TIGTA’s 1999 report noted, adding that the IRS practice “seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) mission to identify undocumented aliens and prevent unlawful alien entry.”

According to Jeffrey, the 2012 audit report “was spurred by two IRS employees who went to members of Congress ‘alleging that IRS management was requiring employees to assign [ITINs] even when the applications were fraudulent.’” In a statement accompanying the audit report, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George confirmed that the audit “found that IRS management has not established adequate internal controls to detect and prevent the assignment of an ITIN to individuals submitting questionable applications. Even more troubling, TIGTA found an environment which discourages employees from detecting fraudulent applications.”

In addition to the over $46 million in refunds it gave to the 23,994 unauthorized workers who claimed the single Atlanta address, the IRS also assigned an additional 15,796 ITIN’s to illegals using one Atlanta address. Additionally, according to the TIGTA, the IRS assigned ITINs to 15,028 illegals who supposedly resided at one address in Dallas, and 10,356 tax IDs to 10,356 illegals supposedly crammed into a single dwelling in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

But perhaps the “most remarkable act” of the IRS, wrote Jeffrey, was assigning 6,411 ITINs to illegals assigned to a single address in Morganton, North Carolina. “According to the 2010 Census,” Jeffrey explained, “there were only 16,681 people in Morganton. So, for the IRS to have been correct in issuing 6,411 ITINS to unauthorized aliens at a single address in Morganton, it would have meant that 38 percent of the town’s total population were unauthorized alien workers using a single address.”

According to TIGTA, a total of 154 addresses across the United States appeared on a thousand or more ITIN applications submitted to the IRS.

This article originally appeared on: The New American

Smart Pills Snitch You Out to Your Doctor

0

New pill sends health analysis to your doctor directly from your stomach

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
June 24, 2013

Proteus Biomedical Inc., a California based company, has developed a smart pill also known as the Helius system, that has the capability of notifying your physician once a prescription drug has been ingested. The drug comes with a tiny digestible silicon-based chip that contains trace amounts of magnesium and copper. Once digested, the metals mix with your stomach acids, creating an electrical charge that’s sent to an external skin patch worn by the patient. This skin patch transmits the information to your iPhone or computer, and is then sent directly to your doctor.

The information not only notifies your doctor that you’ve taken the pill, but it also offers up a full body health check reporting your current heart rate, body temperature, exercise levels and even decides whether or not you’re sleeping well. The Helius system also reminds the patient when the next dosage is due.

Big Pharma claims the technology is absolutely vital in ensuring that elderly patients are reminded to take their prescribed medications.

The smart pill has been in development since 2010 but was given market approval by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) just last year. Proteus Biomedical made their first deal using the Helius system with a UK-based retail pharmacy called Lloydspharmacy, allowing British citizens to act as the first test subjects for the new computer-chipped drugs.

While many feel this technology is simply yet another invasive tool used to invade privacy by tracking information that should be private knowledge available to the individual only, Steve Gray the Director of Lloydspharmacy Healthcare Services says “Lloydspharmacy is committed to improving positive health outcomes for patients and the Helius system is an exciting development which takes our current medication adherence offering to a whole new level.”

Proteus Biomedical’s Chief Product Officer David O’Reilly says “The Helius product we launch with Lloyds in the UK this year represents the direction we see all pharmacy businesses in the US and Europe headed – away from selling just pills and toward selling information-based health solutions with the community pharmacist at the core.”

Cleverly, Proteus Biomedical promotes their drug by claiming it’s powered by you and is simply another opportunity for the patient to take control of their health.

Although there are probably important health benefits associated with this technology, once again the problem lies with the entity implementing the system. Too often, Big Pharma introduces technology that’s financially beneficial to itself rather than to the consumer.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Tags: , , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Smart Pills Snitch You Out to Your Doctor

0

New pill sends health analysis to your doctor directly from your stomach

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
June 24, 2013

Proteus Biomedical Inc., a California based company, has developed a smart pill also known as the Helius system, that has the capability of notifying your physician once a prescription drug has been ingested. The drug comes with a tiny digestible silicon-based chip that contains trace amounts of magnesium and copper. Once digested, the metals mix with your stomach acids, creating an electrical charge that’s sent to an external skin patch worn by the patient. This skin patch transmits the information to your iPhone or computer, and is then sent directly to your doctor.

The information not only notifies your doctor that you’ve taken the pill, but it also offers up a full body health check reporting your current heart rate, body temperature, exercise levels and even decides whether or not you’re sleeping well. The Helius system also reminds the patient when the next dosage is due.

Big Pharma claims the technology is absolutely vital in ensuring that elderly patients are reminded to take their prescribed medications.

The smart pill has been in development since 2010 but was given market approval by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) just last year. Proteus Biomedical made their first deal using the Helius system with a UK-based retail pharmacy called Lloydspharmacy, allowing British citizens to act as the first test subjects for the new computer-chipped drugs.

While many feel this technology is simply yet another invasive tool used to invade privacy by tracking information that should be private knowledge available to the individual only, Steve Gray the Director of Lloydspharmacy Healthcare Services says “Lloydspharmacy is committed to improving positive health outcomes for patients and the Helius system is an exciting development which takes our current medication adherence offering to a whole new level.”

Proteus Biomedical’s Chief Product Officer David O’Reilly says “The Helius product we launch with Lloyds in the UK this year represents the direction we see all pharmacy businesses in the US and Europe headed – away from selling just pills and toward selling information-based health solutions with the community pharmacist at the core.”

Cleverly, Proteus Biomedical promotes their drug by claiming it’s powered by you and is simply another opportunity for the patient to take control of their health.

Although there are probably important health benefits associated with this technology, once again the problem lies with the entity implementing the system. Too often, Big Pharma introduces technology that’s financially beneficial to itself rather than to the consumer.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Tags: , , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Chicago man claims cops raped him with a gun

0

A federal lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and its local law enforcement agency alleges that two police officers sodomized a man with a revolver while he was illegally detained for several hours last year.

Delivery driver Angel Perez says in recently filed legal
documents that he was assaulted repeatedly by Chicago Police
Department Officer Jorge L. Lopez and another cop during a
traumatizing experience last October that has prompted him to sue
the city and those involved for excessive force, failure to
intervene and emotional distress.

According to the lawsuit first reported Monday by Courthouse
News, Lopez and a colleague locked Perez in a cell for several
hours and sexually abused him with a handgun during the second of
two days he spent in the custody of the Chicago PD.

The ordeal started for Perez on October 22, 212 when he was
allegedly picked up by Lopez and another officer and taken in an
unmarked police car to the city’s Harrison Street Police Station
for interrogation.

“Two officers began assaulting the plaintiff with questions
regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street
area
,” the complaint states. “Plaintiff responded that he
did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings in the
Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the
officers call his lawyer. Plaintiff’s lawyer was never contacted
and the questioning continued. The officers were particularly
interested in why the plaintiff had the telephone number of an
individual by the name of ‘Dwayne’ in his telephone
.”

According to Courthouse News, Perez was released from police
custody after two hours. One day later, however, he received a
phone call from Lopez instructing him to meet at a nearby parking
lot in order to sign some paperwork. Once again, Perez says he
was assaulted and taken back to the police station where he was
handcuffed to a bar and placed in ankle shackles by Lopez and
another man identified only as “Sergeant.”

“Plaintiff was held against his will in the room for several
hours handcuffed and shackled, and not free to leave the custody
of the defendants
,” the complaint continues. There Perez was
allegedly in the presence of upwards of six officers who told him
he’d be moved to another facility “to be raped by gang
members
” if he didn’t assist them.

The officer, it continues, “would plant evidence on him and
his family members if he continued to refuse to cooperate with
them. Still, further that if he did not cooperate they would
charge him a conspiracy to obstruct justice
.”

Perez then says he was told to make contact with the man named
Dwayne that was brought up during the previous day’s
interrogation. When he refused to make the phone call, the
officers reportedly got violent.

“After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the
officers began to pull and contort the plaintiff’s body while he
was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his ankles, causing
the plaintiff severe pain. At one point, the Sergeant sat on the
plaintiff’s chest and placed his palms on the plaintiff’s eye
sockets and pushed hard against them, causing plaintiff severe
pain. The Sergeant also drove his elbows into plaintiff’s back
and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in the room at
the time and did not intervene
.”

Lopez eventually called up his acquaintance and attempted to
initiate a drug deal, but only after things escalated between him
and the officers.

“After several hours of verbal and physical torture, defendant
Lopez and the Sergeant were alone in the room with the
plaintiff
,” the complaint continues. “The officers told
plaintiff that if he refused to cooperate with them that they
were going to give him a ‘little taste’ of what he would be
getting at the Cook County jail. They put plaintiff over a chair
and pulled down his pants and defendant Lopez said, ‘I hear that
a big black nigger dick feels like a gun up your ass
.’”

“Then defendant Lopez and/or the Sergeant, knowing their
actions created a strong likelihood of great bodily harm and
mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed to be one
of officer’s service revolvers, into the plaintiff’s rectum,
causing the plaintiff severe pain and humiliation. The two
officers laughed hysterically while inserting the object into the
plaintiff’s rectum
.”

“The Sergeant then said ‘I almost blew your brains out.’ The
officers told the plaintiff that they would continue to insert
the gun into his rectum until he cooperated with them
.”

The complaint attests that Lopez soon began crying and agreed to
cooperate with the officers. He then made the drug deal and broke
off all contact with the officers while attempting to file a
report with the Independent Police Review Authority.

“At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012,
prior to plaintiff’s seizure and torture, did the plaintiff
commit a crime
,” Perez says in the complaint.

This article originally appeared on: RT

Chicago man claims cops raped him with a gun

0

A federal lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and its local law enforcement agency alleges that two police officers sodomized a man with a revolver while he was illegally detained for several hours last year.

Delivery driver Angel Perez says in recently filed legal
documents that he was assaulted repeatedly by Chicago Police
Department Officer Jorge L. Lopez and another cop during a
traumatizing experience last October that has prompted him to sue
the city and those involved for excessive force, failure to
intervene and emotional distress.

According to the lawsuit first reported Monday by Courthouse
News, Lopez and a colleague locked Perez in a cell for several
hours and sexually abused him with a handgun during the second of
two days he spent in the custody of the Chicago PD.

The ordeal started for Perez on October 22, 212 when he was
allegedly picked up by Lopez and another officer and taken in an
unmarked police car to the city’s Harrison Street Police Station
for interrogation.

“Two officers began assaulting the plaintiff with questions
regarding robberies and drug dealers in the Taylor Street
area
,” the complaint states. “Plaintiff responded that he
did not know anything about robberies or drug dealings in the
Taylor Street area and again and repeatedly requested that the
officers call his lawyer. Plaintiff’s lawyer was never contacted
and the questioning continued. The officers were particularly
interested in why the plaintiff had the telephone number of an
individual by the name of ‘Dwayne’ in his telephone
.”

According to Courthouse News, Perez was released from police
custody after two hours. One day later, however, he received a
phone call from Lopez instructing him to meet at a nearby parking
lot in order to sign some paperwork. Once again, Perez says he
was assaulted and taken back to the police station where he was
handcuffed to a bar and placed in ankle shackles by Lopez and
another man identified only as “Sergeant.”

“Plaintiff was held against his will in the room for several
hours handcuffed and shackled, and not free to leave the custody
of the defendants
,” the complaint continues. There Perez was
allegedly in the presence of upwards of six officers who told him
he’d be moved to another facility “to be raped by gang
members
” if he didn’t assist them.

The officer, it continues, “would plant evidence on him and
his family members if he continued to refuse to cooperate with
them. Still, further that if he did not cooperate they would
charge him a conspiracy to obstruct justice
.”

Perez then says he was told to make contact with the man named
Dwayne that was brought up during the previous day’s
interrogation. When he refused to make the phone call, the
officers reportedly got violent.

“After a period of time refusing to call or text Dwayne, the
officers began to pull and contort the plaintiff’s body while he
was handcuffed to the wall and shackled at his ankles, causing
the plaintiff severe pain. At one point, the Sergeant sat on the
plaintiff’s chest and placed his palms on the plaintiff’s eye
sockets and pushed hard against them, causing plaintiff severe
pain. The Sergeant also drove his elbows into plaintiff’s back
and head causing severe pain. Defendant Lopez was in the room at
the time and did not intervene
.”

Lopez eventually called up his acquaintance and attempted to
initiate a drug deal, but only after things escalated between him
and the officers.

“After several hours of verbal and physical torture, defendant
Lopez and the Sergeant were alone in the room with the
plaintiff
,” the complaint continues. “The officers told
plaintiff that if he refused to cooperate with them that they
were going to give him a ‘little taste’ of what he would be
getting at the Cook County jail. They put plaintiff over a chair
and pulled down his pants and defendant Lopez said, ‘I hear that
a big black nigger dick feels like a gun up your ass
.’”

“Then defendant Lopez and/or the Sergeant, knowing their
actions created a strong likelihood of great bodily harm and
mental anguish, inserted a cold metal object, believed to be one
of officer’s service revolvers, into the plaintiff’s rectum,
causing the plaintiff severe pain and humiliation. The two
officers laughed hysterically while inserting the object into the
plaintiff’s rectum
.”

“The Sergeant then said ‘I almost blew your brains out.’ The
officers told the plaintiff that they would continue to insert
the gun into his rectum until he cooperated with them
.”

The complaint attests that Lopez soon began crying and agreed to
cooperate with the officers. He then made the drug deal and broke
off all contact with the officers while attempting to file a
report with the Independent Police Review Authority.

“At no time on either October 20, 2012 or October 21, 2012,
prior to plaintiff’s seizure and torture, did the plaintiff
commit a crime
,” Perez says in the complaint.

This article originally appeared on: RT

Museveni’s son denies succession plan

0

Brigadier Muhoozi Kainerugaba (C) at the Sera Kasenyi training center for Special Forces in Kampala on August 27, 2012

Ugandan President Yoweri Museviniâ„¢s son has rejected the opposition’s accusations that he was being groomed to succeed his father as the countryâ„¢s next leader.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba, son of Ugandaâ„¢s incumbent president, said in a statement on Sunday that “Uganda is not a monarchy where leadership is passed on from father to son.”

“The power to choose how Uganda is governed lies with Ugandans and not a single individual as some people would want us to believe,” the statement added.

Kainerugabeâ„¢s remarks came after the oppositionâ„¢s claims that accused him of trying to take over power from his father.

Speculations about a Å“political monarchy” plan in Uganda were raised in May, when two local newspapers published a report about arguments among army generals over Museviniâ„¢s son as the next president.

Thereafter, the Ugandan police raided the offices of the newspapers and shut them for 10 days.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba, 39, was appointed head of Ugandaâ„¢s special forces unit in 2008 and has recently seen rapid promotion within the military.

President Museveni has taken the power in Uganda since 1986 following a five-year guerrilla war.

Uganda will hold presidential elections in 2016, but it is not clear if Musevini will run for the office.

MT/JR/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Museveni’s son denies succession plan

0

Brigadier Muhoozi Kainerugaba (C) at the Sera Kasenyi training center for Special Forces in Kampala on August 27, 2012

Ugandan President Yoweri Museviniâ„¢s son has rejected the opposition’s accusations that he was being groomed to succeed his father as the countryâ„¢s next leader.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba, son of Ugandaâ„¢s incumbent president, said in a statement on Sunday that “Uganda is not a monarchy where leadership is passed on from father to son.”

“The power to choose how Uganda is governed lies with Ugandans and not a single individual as some people would want us to believe,” the statement added.

Kainerugabeâ„¢s remarks came after the oppositionâ„¢s claims that accused him of trying to take over power from his father.

Speculations about a Å“political monarchy” plan in Uganda were raised in May, when two local newspapers published a report about arguments among army generals over Museviniâ„¢s son as the next president.

Thereafter, the Ugandan police raided the offices of the newspapers and shut them for 10 days.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba, 39, was appointed head of Ugandaâ„¢s special forces unit in 2008 and has recently seen rapid promotion within the military.

President Museveni has taken the power in Uganda since 1986 following a five-year guerrilla war.

Uganda will hold presidential elections in 2016, but it is not clear if Musevini will run for the office.

MT/JR/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

US Military Quietly Deploying Hundreds of Soldiers to Egypt

0

U.S. soldiers train in Ft. Hood, Texas for a deployment to Egypt (Photo: KCNTV)The U.S. military is quietly deploying more than 400 U.S. soldiers trained in riot control to Egypt.

Fort Hood news station KCEN shows the soldiers training in full riot gear on various crowd control measures, including responses to molotov cocktails.

The station reports that the soldiers will deploy soon.

While the White House has remained silent on the matter, Egyptian authorities insisted Saturday that the soldiers will not be deployed against Egyptian protests but will join other countries in a routine ‘peacekeeping’ force in the Sinai:

“The 400 US soldiers coming to Egypt as mentioned in the media are part of the periodical renewal routine for the US faction of the 13-state multinational force deployed in Sinai since the peace treaty. They are not armed with military operations gear,” spokesman of the Egyptian military Ahmed Ali said Saturday.

A Washington Times report on Friday carried a similar message, focusing on the role the soldiers will play guarding checkpoints and enforcing Egypt’s ‘peace’ treaty with Israel.

Yet, the deployments are generating concern on independent media websites after the Egyptian military chief warned Sunday that it will ‘intervene’ if the country’s ‘unrest’ continues.

The threat comes just days before planned June 30th mass protests against President Mohamed Morsi’s regime. Al Jazeera reports:

Opposition groups are planning a major protest on June 30 to mark the one-year anniversary of Morsi’s inauguration and demand his resignation.

There are widespread fears that the demonstrations could turn violent: At a pro-government rally on Friday, several speakers threatened to “crush” the opposition. Two people have already been shot dead in clashes over the weekend.

The U.S. is a major backer of the Egyptian military and government, continuing from Mubarak-era support, and Secretary of State John Kerry recently announced that $1.3 billion in annual Egyptian military aid will continue.

The support persists despite documented government and military human rights abuses, including violent crackdown on demonstrations and political dissent and closed-door military trials for civilians.

_____________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Global 'Bully': Critics Blast US for Manhunt Asylum Seeking Snowden

0

As Edward Snowden’s quest for political asylum plays out as a global cat-and-mouse chase, defenders of international law say the US is acting the bully as it scrambles to locate and gain custody of the 30-year-old NSA whistleblower.

Though his whereabouts remained unknown Monday, supporters of Snowden say that the US government’s aggressive pursuit of the confessed NSA whistleblower–and the mainstream media’s fixation on him and not the information he has delivered to the global public regarding a “massive worldwide surveillance system”–is what should most trouble those concerned about privacy, international law and civil liberties.

“The US is doing everything they can do to interfere with [Snowden’s effort to gain asylum],” said Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a lawyer with expertise in international law, during a press call with journalists on Monday. “They’re bullying countries all over the world, even where they have no basis for doing so… Bullying them essentially so that they can get Ed Snowden rendered to the United States where he can be prosecuted.”

Pushing back against government statements characterizing Snowden as a “criminal” “traitor” or “fugitive of justice,” Ratner said the whistleblower “is not a fugitive in any sense of the word” and that there is “an important and legal basis for Ed Snowden’s application for asylum” abroad.

“The Obama administration was not given a mandate by the people of the US to hack and spy upon the entire world, to abridge the US constitution or the laws of others nations.” -Julian Assange, Wikileaks

Responding to comments made by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the White House warning others countries to hand over Snowden, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange blasted the Obama administrations response to the situation.

“The US secretary of state is wrong in law,” said Assange. And added, “The Obama administration was not given a mandate by the people of the US to hack and spy upon the entire world, to abridge the US constitution or the laws of others nations.”

“It reflects poorly on the U.S. administration, and no self-respecting country would submit to such interference or such bullying by the U.S. in this matter,” he said.

Though many in the corporate US news media have been quick to follow the US government’s line that Snowden should be considered a “traitor” for his release of documents that expose details of the NSA’s vast spying apparatus to the US and global public, Ratner said that Snowden’s actions were underpinned by a clear political motive and should be protected under international law.

Ratner stressed that when it comes to international law, “asylum trumps extradition” meaning that even if Russia, Ecuador, or some other nation have a bilateral extradition agreement for criminal offenders, it does not necessarily mean that those countries are obligated to hand over a person seeking political asylum, especially one who has reasonable fear to assume he will not be treated equitably or fairly by his home country’s justice system.

“There’s no international arrest warrant that we know of,” said Ratner, arguing that Snowden’s alleged crimes “are classic political crimes under the extradition treaty” and that the US’ efforts should be seen as a “big country to bully other countries to say ‘Send him here’ when there’s actually no legal basis for it.”

The ongoing attempt to extradite Snowden, added Assange, “further demonstrates the breakdown in the rule of law by the Obama administration.”

Under the United Nations’ Refugee Convention, Snowden would qualify for protection as someone who fears “being persecuted for political opinion,” said Ratner.

“What we should be discussing, unlike what seems the attention primarily in the media right now–Where’s Ed Snowden? What country is he going to?–is the massive surveillance system being carried out by the US, the UK, and perhaps other countries all over the world and the violations of rights of people all over the world.” -Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights

From a press conference in Hanoi, Vietnam on Monday, Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino read from Snowden’s asylum application letter in which Snowden himself discussed why we was taking such lengths to avoid US authorities

“I have been accused of being a traitor” and “there have been calls for me to be executed or imprisoned,” the letter from Snowden said. In addition, he said it would be “unlikely” that he would receive “a fair trial or humane treatment” if returned to the US.

Because the US is charging Snowden under the Espionage Act, says law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s Marjorie Cohn, Snowden has “a well-founded fear of persecution in the U.S.”

And citing the treatment of another well-known whistleblower, Pfc. Bradley Manning, Cohn suggests Snowden can “probably make a good case for political asylum in Ecuador.”

Norman Solomon, whose group Roots Action is circulating a petition calling the Obama administration to keep its “hands off” Snowden, decried the diplomatic bullying described by Ratner.

“The same government that continues to expand its invasive dragnet of surveillance, all over the United States and the rest of the world,”Solomon wrote on Common Dreams, “is now asserting its prerogative to drag Snowden back to the USA from anywhere on the planet. It’s not only about punishing him and discouraging other potential whistleblowers. Top U.S. officials are also determined to–quite literally–silence Snowden’s voice, as Bradley Manning’s voice has been nearly silenced behind prison walls.”

He continued, “Those at the top of the U.S. government insist that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have betrayed it. But that’s backward. Putting its money on vast secrecy and military violence instead of democracy, the government has betrayed Snowden and Manning and the rest of us.”

In addition to the petition effort by Roots Action, more than 110,000 people as late Monday had signed a petition on the White House website calling for President Obama to pardon Snowden.

“To charge Snowden with espionage is a severe form of political persecution.” -Mark Weisbrot, CEPR

“Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs,” the petition read.

Though the petition received a large enough number of signers to mandate an official response from the White House, the president is not likely to heed its urging.

That leaves Ecuador the most likely candidate current candidate to offer asylum to Snowden.

Mark Weisbrot, an expert on Latin America and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, was pointed in why supporters of the public’s right to know should support both Snowden and the country–whether Ecuador or another–if and when they grant Snowden political asylum.

“It is important that everyone who believes in freedom to defend Ecuador from Washington’s threats, which are very likely if the Ecuadorean government grants asylum to Snowden,” said Weisbrot. “Other governments around the world — whose citizens’ rights have been violated by NSA surveillance overreach — should stand behind Ecuador if it chooses to grant Snowden asylum, as should NGO’s. To charge Snowden with espionage is a severe form of political persecution.”

In the end, while the intrigue over Snowden’s whereabouts and the question over whether or not he is captured by the US or receives safe passage to a country willing to protect him, Ratner was among the many commentators in the progressive community on Monday who were concerned that the focus on Snowden as an individual was partially thwarting the bigger and more important story about the contents of what Snowden’s actions have revealed.

“What we should be discussing, unlike what seems the attention primarily in the media right now–Where’s Ed Snowden? What country is he going to?–is the massive surveillance system being carried out by the US, the UK, and perhaps other countries all over the world and the violations of rights of people all over the world,” Ratner said.

Ratner blasted the media’s fixation on Edward Snowden–his whereabouts, whether he’s a “traitor” or not, and other aspects of his personal life that were a distraction to the real story which according to Ratner is the existence of a “massive worldwide surveillance system.”

________________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

Egypt PM slams killing of Shia Muslims

0

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Qandil has strongly condemned a recent deadly attack on Shia Muslims that left at least four people dead and several others injured in a village south of the capital Cairo.

Qandil deplored the incident as a Å“heinous” attack against Shia Muslims in a statement issued on Monday, and pledged to bring the perpetrators to justice.

“This heinous crime is incompatible with the principles and teachings of all heavenly religions, and contrary to the nature of religious tolerance in Egypt,” the premier said in the statement.

The Egyptian prime minister also expressed his “categorical rejection of hate speech and incitement to violence” and said investigations were underway, adding that those responsible would be held accountable.

On Sunday, four Egyptian Shia Muslims were killed in an attack carried out by Salafi extremists when a crowd of several hundred assailants attacked a home and then set it on fire in the village of Abu Mussalam in Giza province.

After the brutal incident, Egyptâ„¢s security forces were sent to the village to disperse the crowds and contain the situation.

Shias, who make up only one percent of Egyptâ„¢s population of 84 million people, are often under attack by extremist groups in the North African country.

MT/JR/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

Egypt PM slams killing of Shia Muslims

0

Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Qandil has strongly condemned a recent deadly attack on Shia Muslims that left at least four people dead and several others injured in a village south of the capital Cairo.

Qandil deplored the incident as a Å“heinous” attack against Shia Muslims in a statement issued on Monday, and pledged to bring the perpetrators to justice.

“This heinous crime is incompatible with the principles and teachings of all heavenly religions, and contrary to the nature of religious tolerance in Egypt,” the premier said in the statement.

The Egyptian prime minister also expressed his “categorical rejection of hate speech and incitement to violence” and said investigations were underway, adding that those responsible would be held accountable.

On Sunday, four Egyptian Shia Muslims were killed in an attack carried out by Salafi extremists when a crowd of several hundred assailants attacked a home and then set it on fire in the village of Abu Mussalam in Giza province.

After the brutal incident, Egyptâ„¢s security forces were sent to the village to disperse the crowds and contain the situation.

Shias, who make up only one percent of Egyptâ„¢s population of 84 million people, are often under attack by extremist groups in the North African country.

MT/JR/AS

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

400 US troops to deploy to Egypt

0

More than 400 US soldiers are preparing for their deployment to Egypt in anticipation of violent protests, riots, and the possibility of having to protect the country’s border with Israel.

Training at Fort Hood for a nine-month deployment in the “near
future” concluded on June 20, KCEN-TV reports, noting that the
soldiers encountered Molotov cocktails and “other dangerous
items” in their training.

“Just what I’ve seen over the course of the past week, this
unit is already far more ready for this type of threat than we
were last week,”
Lt. Matthew Wilkinson told the television
station. According to KDH News, the training lasted about six
months. 

“We want to be as professional as possible so that whatever
situation we may encounter, [so] the opposing force knows that we
mean business and we know what we’re doing,”
said PFC Perez
Alexander.

Troops from 13 nations, including the 400 from the US, will man
posts and security checkpoints along the Sinai Peninsula, report
any peace treaty violations between Egypt and Israel, and be
prepared to respond to threats.

A spokesman of the Egyptian armed forces on Saturday
confirmed that 400 US troops will be deployed to Egypt, Ahram
Online reports.

“The 400 US soldiers coming to Egypt as mentioned in the media
are part of the periodical renewal routine for the US faction of
the 13-state multinational force deployed in Sinai since the
peace treaty. They are not armed with military operations
gear,”
said spokesman Ahmed Ali on behalf of the Egyptian
military.

“We are providing this clarification as we respect the right
of the great Egyptian people to know the truth from its original
sources and to prevent distortion of information by any
instigators,”
he added.

Anti-government protests calling for the removal of Egyptian
President Mohamed Morsi are scheduled to occur on June
30
. Since the 2011 uprising that removed former president
Hosni Mubarak from power, the Sinai Peninsula has suffered
growing unrest and disorder, but Egypt’s military presence there
is limited under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. The treaty
required that Israel’s armed forces withdraw from the Sinai
Peninsula, which the Jewish state had captured in 1967. Egypt was
required to keep the area demilitarized, but in during widespread
2011 protests, Israel agreed to allow several hundred Egyptian
troops into the region.

The Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), which is made up of
international peacekeepers from 13 countries, ensures that Israel
and Egypt abide by the treaty and avoid a military build-up along
the border. The MFO operates checkpoints, observation posts, and
patrols the border. The observers also verify the terms of the
peace treaty at least twice a month, and ensure free marine
navigation in the Strait of Tiran. 

This article originally appeared on: RT

Obama Comment on Ireland's "Segregated" Schools Still Rankles in U.S., U.K.

0

One week after President Barack Obama made his controversial remarks about religiously “segregated schools” in Northern Ireland, the comments continue to draw sharp rebukes on both sides of the Atlantic. “His call for an end to separate Protestant and Catholic educational institutions does not generate widespread public approval,” wrote former North Carolina congressional candidate Bill Randall in Sunday’s Washington Times.” Obama’s comments would have caused less consternation if he’d been looking in his own American back yard and made a conscious effort to mend the divisions he and his administration have caused,” Randall wrote.

Obama, while in Northern Ireland for the G-8 economic summit last week, made the comment during what the White House billed a “Town Hall” meeting with “the youth of Northern Ireland.” While praising the contributions Irish immigrants and their descendants have made to American life, Obama also praised the “just and hard-earned peace” of a “thoroughly modern Northern Ireland,” after centuries of violence and religious strife among Catholic and Protestant factions. Noting there are “still wounds that haven’t healed, and communities where tensions and mistrust hangs in the air,” he urged the Irish youth to “continue your courageous path toward a permanent peace,” saying that would benefit not only Ireland, but people in other parts of the world who could profit from that example. “We need you to get this right,” Obama said, praising the compromises and cooperation he said nurtured peace and progress in today’s Northern Ireland.

“Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity – symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others – these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it,” he said. “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”

The use of the word “segregated” in describing religious schools seems odd since the word is usually used in reference to an enforced separation of people based on racial or ethnic differences, rather than a choice by families and religious communities to educate children according to their own faith. The claim that the religiously “segregated” schools contribute to “fear or resentment” and a hardening of prejudices brought a swift rebuke from the Scottish Catholic Observer in an editorial response to the U.S. president’s “alarming call for an end to Catholic education.”

“President Barack Obama repeated the oft disproved claim that Catholic education increases division in front of an audience of 2000 young people, including many Catholics,” the publication noted, while pointing out that the U.S. president’s “unfounded claim” came only two days after a top Vatican official had praised the work of Catholic schools in a speech in Glasgow, Scotland. During a lecture at Glasgow University, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, said Catholic education brings “intellectual training, moral discipline and religious commitment” together. During Mass the previous evening, the archbishop called Catholic schools “a critical component of the Church,” providing Catholic youth the opportunity to “grow up with Jesus.”

Criticism in the United States was sharper and more disparaging in its assessment of the president’s view of the impact of religious education on civic life.

“President Obama’s anti-faith, secular agenda was shamefully on full display yesterday when he told the young people of Northern Ireland that Catholic education and other faith-based schools were divisive and an obstacle to peace,” according to a statement issued by American Catholics for Religious Freedom. “All Americans of faith should be outraged by these comments which clearly telegraph the President’s belief system and are in fact at their core even anti-American.” The president’s comment, the group declared, “demonstrated just how dangerous this administration is to eroding the rights of all people of faith.” 

In Italy, Father John Zuhlsdorf, a priest in the diocese of Velletri-Segni, weighed in on Father Z’s blog, comparing Obama’s comment about Catholic and Protestant schools with the deference he has shown to other religions: “Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a foreign visit to a Islamic nation where he told people on his arrival that they shouldn’t have madrasas. Can you?” he asked, referring to Islamic seminaries in Pakistan that train students to be Muslim clerics. “Did he when visiting, say, Israel, say ‘You Jews shouldn’t have synagogue schools and you Muslims shouldn’t have mosque schools.’ I can’t remember. Did he?”

Surprisingly, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights President William Donohue, frequently a sharp critic of Obama on matters on touching religion, dismissed the hostile response to the president’s comments as “simply insane.”

“Never did Obama say he wants ‘an end to Catholic education,'” Donohue said in a Catholic League press release. “Indeed, he never said anything critical about the nature of Catholic schools. It makes me wonder: Have any of his critics bothered to actually read his speech?”

Donohue is correct in saying the president did not call for “an end to Catholic education,” but Obama did say the “segregated schools” – both Catholic and Protestant – are among the factors that encourage division, and he implied the schools are incubators of “fear or resentment.” In his Washington Times commentary, Randall argued the comment fits a pattern of statements and actions by the Obama administration that have “marginalized Christian and Jewish organizations” in the United States. He cited, among other examples, the ObamaCare health insurance program that requires religious institutions to provide coverage for abortion and contraceptive services, and U.S. Army Reserve training materials – based on a report by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center – that labeled Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, and the Jewish Defense League as examples of extremism in a long list that included the Ku Klux Klan and the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

“It is not the president’s place to lecture another nation on religious liberty and religious divisions within its borders,” Randall wrote. “The best thing that he can do for religious liberty and peaceful relations between faiths in the rest of the world is to set an example in the United States.”

Photo of President Barack Obama: AP Images

This article originally appeared on: The New American

80% of Pre-Packaged Foods in America Are Banned in Other Countries

2

Yahoo! Shine
June 24, 2013

If you or your kids enjoy pre-packaged convenience foods commonly found in grocery stores across the U.S. such as Froot Loops, Swanson dinners, Mountain Dew, and frozen potato and bread products, you may think twice before purchasing them after hearing what they contain: dangerous chemicals that other countries around the globe have deemed toxic to the point that they’re illegal, and companies are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for including them in food products.

In a new book Rich Food, Poor Food, authors Mira and Jason Calton provide a list of what they term “Banned Bad Boys” — ingredients commonly used in up to 80% of all American convenience food that have been banned by other countries, with information about which countries banned each substance and why.

And though it might not surprise you to hear that Olestra — commonly used in low/no-fat snack foods and known to cause serious gastrointestinal issues for those who consume it (understatement) — is on that list, having been banned in both the United Kingdom and Canada, you may be shocked to hear that Mountain Dew, Fresca and Squirt all contain brominated vegetable oil, a substance that has been banned in more than 100 countries “because it has been linked to basically every form of thyroid disease — from cancer to autoimmune diseases — known to man.”

Way to go, FDA! Woot!

 You might also be upset to hear that the food coloring used to make your kid’s delicious Mac & Cheese dinner visually appealing – yellow #5 and yellow #6, namely – is made from coal tar, which among other things is an active ingredient in lice shampoo and has been linked to allergies, ADHD, and cancer in animals. And gaaaaah.

 Then there’s azodicarbonamide – commonly found in frozen dinners and frozen potato and bread products – which is used make things like bleach and foamed plastics like those found in yoga mats (tasty!). Azodicarbonamide has been banned in most European countries because it’s known to induce asthma, and is in fact deemed so dangerous that in Singapore its use carries a hefty $500,00 fine and up to 15 years in prison.

Yet, according to the FDA, it’s SO TOTALLY FINE for us to keep shoveling it into our kid’s faceholes: “[Azodicarbonamide] is approved to be a bleaching agent in cereal flour and is permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption.”

Oooookay then.

Finally, there’s butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) – found in Post, Kelloggs and Quaker brand cereals – which is made from petroleum and is a known cancer-causing agent. It’s been banned in England and Japan, but those of us in the U.S. can keep right on serving up to our children for breakfast, because AMMURICA. And FREEDOMZ.

 Anyone else find all of this, ohhhh I don’t know, more than a tad bit disturbing? I’m not ashamed to say I have love for the blue box Mac & Cheese, and to think that chemicals known and recognized world-wide as completely toxic are included in that – a product openly marketed as being a meal FOR KIDS – makes me more than a little ragey. I mean, those chemicals can’t be what makes it taste so good, right? So can’t we, umm, just use something else instead? (PLEEEASE DON’T MAKE ME GIVE UP THE MAC & CHEESE, PLEEEASE.) Sigh.

-By Tracey Gaughran-Perez

Reform the Border Patrol, Too

0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/reform_the_border_patrol_too_20130624/

Posted on Jun 24, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

Is the Government Spying On You Through Your Own Computer’s Webcam Or Microphone?

0

Government — Or Private Individuals — May Be Watching and Listening

We documented earlier today that – if you are near your smart phone — the NSA or private parties could remotely activate your microphone and camera and spy on you.
This post shows that the same is true for our computer.

Initially, the NSA built backdoors into the world’s most popular software program — Microsoft Windows — by 1999.

And a government expert told the Washington Post that the government “quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type” (confirmed).

Reuters documented last year that the U.S. and Israeli governments can remotely turn on a computer’s microphone:

Evidence suggest that the virus, dubbed Flame, may have been built on behalf of the same nation or nations that commissioned the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran’s nuclear program in 2010 [i.e. the U.S. and Israel], according to Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cyber security software maker that took credit for discovering the infections.

Kaspersky researchers said they have yet to determine whether Flame had a specific mission like Stuxnet, and declined to say who they think built it.

Cyber security experts said the discovery publicly demonstrates what experts privy to classified information have long known: that nations have been using pieces of malicious computer code as weapons to promote their security interests for several years.

***

The virus contains about 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which caused centrifuges to fail at the Iranian enrichment facility it attacked. It has about 100 times as much code as a typical virus designed to steal financial information, said Kaspersky Lab senior researcher Roel Schouwenberg.

Flame can gather data files, remotely change settings on computers, turn on PC microphones to record conversations, take screen shots and log instant messaging chats.

Kaspersky Lab said Flame and Stuxnet appear to infect machines by exploiting the same flaw in the Windows operating system and that both viruses employ a similar way of spreading.

***

“The scary thing for me is: if this is what they were capable of five years ago, I can only think what they are developing now,” Mohan Koo, managing director of British-based Dtex Systems cyber security company.

PC Magazine tech columnist John Dvorak writes:

From what we know the NSA has back door access into Apple, Microsoft [background], and Google. What kind of access we don’t know, but let us assume it is similar to what they did about 7 years ago to AT&T. They had a secret room at Fulsom St. in San Francisco and the AT&T engineers had no control and no access to a room full of NSA equipment that had direct access to everything AT&T could do.

Microsoft is the source of the operating system for Windows and Windows cell phones. Apple controls the OS for Macs, iPhones, and iPads. Google controls the Chrome OS, Chrome Browser, and Android cell phones. The companies regularly push operating system upgrades and security updates to users on a regular basis.

Imagine however that the NSA has access to these updates at the source and has the ability to alter these update in order to install some sort of spyware on your phone, tablet, or computer. The software could turn on your camera or microphone remotely, read all your private data, or erase everything and brick your phone or computer.

Moreover — as documented by Microsoft, Ars Technica, cnet, the Register, Sydney Morning Herald, and many other sources — private parties can turn on your computer’s microphone and camera as well.

Cracked noted in 2010:

All sorts of programs are available to let you remotely commandeer a webcam, and many of them are free. Simple versions will just take photos or videos when they detect movement, but more complex software will send you an e-mail when the computer you’ve installed the program on is in use, so you can immediately login and control the webcam without the hassle of having to stare at an empty room until the person you’re stalking shows up.

The bottom line is that — as with your phone, OnStar type system or other car microphone, Xbox, and other digital recording devices — you shouldn’t say or do anything near your computer that you don’t want shared with the world.

Postscript: You could obviously try to cover your webcam and microphone when you don’t want to use them.

But if you really want privacy, take a lesson from spy movies: Go swimming with the person you want to speak with … since electronics can’t operate in water.

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Obama Prepares to Wage Offensive, First-strike Strategic Nuclear Warfare against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Syria

2

I have now had the chance to read Obama’s recently released Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States, (June 21, 2013). The critical passage can be found on page 5:

“The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review established the Administration’s goal to set conditions that would allow the United States to safely adopt a policy of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Although we cannot adopt such a policy today, the new guidance re-iterates the intention to work towards that goal over time.”

In other words, “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has not been the policy of the Obama administration going back to and including  their 2010 Nuclear Posture Review as well. Since “nuclear deterrence” is not now and has never been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons  policy from the get-go, then by default this means that offensive first-strike  strategic  nuclear war fighting is now and has always been the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy. This policy will also be pursued and augmented by means of  “integrated non-nuclear strike options.” Id.

Therefore the entire 2013 NPR and Obama’s recent nuclear arms “reduction”  proposals must be understood within this context of the United States pursuing an offensive, strategic first-strike  nuclear war-fighting capability as augmented by non-nuclear strike forces:

“After a comprehensive review of our nuclear forces, the President has determined that we can ensure the security of the United States and our Allies and partners and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear weapons from the level established  in the New START Treaty.” Id. at 6.

And we know now for sure that all the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)  systems that Obama is currently in the process of deploying in Europe, Asia, and the United States, on land, at  sea and perhaps in Outer Space are designed to provide the United States with a strategic,  offensive, first strike nuclear war fighting capability against Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Syria  for starters. The latter three because the United States has taken the position that they are not in compliance with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: “…the United States has relied increasingly on non-nuclear elements to strengthen regional security architectures, including a forward U.S. conventional  presence and effective theater ballistic missile defenses…” Id. at 9.

 So  the United States government  is currently preparing to launch, wage and win an offensive,  first-strike strategic nuclear war against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Syria. All the rest is just palaver. Including by our Dissembler-in-Chief. An “honors”  graduate of Harvard Law School.

Professor Francis A. Boyle, Author, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence (Clarity Press: 2002)

This article originally appeared on: Global Research

Hours before death, Hastings claimed the FBI was on his tail

1

The death of journalist Michael Hastings is raising new questions after an email he sent hours before last week’s fatal car crash has surfaced showing a possible FBI probe into the reporter.

KTLA News in Los Angeles received an email on Friday that was
forwarded to them by a friend of the 33-year-old reporter.

Hastings, who wrote for Rolling Stone and the website BuzzFeed,
perished after an auto wreck in L.A. early Tuesday last week.

According to an email Hastings sent Monday afternoon to a handful
of friends, he believed his colleagues could be visited by
Federal Bureau of Investigation officers due to an article he was
working on.

“Hey [redacted}, the Feds are interviewing my ‘close friends
and associates
,’” Hastings wrote, before recommending to his
colleagues that they seek legal advice if approached by
investigators.

“Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the rada[r]
for a bit
,” he added. “All the best, and hope to see you
all soon
.”

Hastings was reportedly working on an article about Florida
socialite Jill Kelley at the time of his death. Kelley made
headlines last year after she became entangled in a high-profile
scandal involving then-CIA Director David Petraeus and Gen.
George Allen, who then commanded US troops in Afghanistan. A
federal probe of suspicious emails sent to Kelley later unearthed
an extramarital between Gen. Petraeus and his biographer, Paula
Broadwell, which led to the CIA director’s resignation.

Before taking the helm as CIA director, Petraeus commanded US
troops in Afghanistan – the same role that later went to Gen.
Allen. Petraeus had inherited that role from Gen. Stanley
McChrystal. On his part, McChystal resigned from that position
after a 2010 Hastings-penned article from Afghanistan raised
questions about the commander’s remarks about the Obama
administration. He was forced to apologize for comments he made
in the article that led to his resignation, and Hastings was
presented with a Polk journalism award for his report.

Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs, who met Hastings when the journalist was
embedded in Afghanistan in 2008, said he received the email less
than a day before the auto accident and told KTLA it sounded
“very panicked.”

“It alarmed me very much,” Biggs said. “I just said it
doesn’t seem like him. I don’t know, I just had this gut feeling
and it just really bothered me
,” he said.

“He was a good friend of mine,” Biggs wrote in a tweet
sent after Hastings’ death.

According to the soldier, Biggs was blind-copied on the email
sent mid-day Monday, which was addressed to a handful of
Hastings’ colleagues. He died around 15 hours after the email was
sent.

One week after his death, speculations continue to surround
Hastings’ death. The other recipients of the email obtained by
Higgs have yet to address the correspondence, but the soldier
said it’s unlikely because others are worried of what will happen
next.

“The reason I released the email is because those people were
too scared. I’m not
,” Higgs tweeted over the weekend.

“I won’t let a man die in vein [sic] because I’m too scared of
what will happen to me. If I sent that email to Mike he wouldn’t
rest
,” Higgs wrote, “He would fight.”

On the eve of Hastings’ funeral this Monday in Vermont, Higgs
said the deceased journalist’s wife thanked him for releasing the
email.

“She’s vowing to take down whoever did this. She’s a
fighter
,” he wrote.

The Los Angeles Police Department says they do not suspect foul
play in Hastings’ death, and the FBI said he was not the target
of an investigation.

Appearing on Fox News on Monday, Ali Gharib, a journalist and
friend of Hastings, said “I don’t think he was a reckless a
person
.”

“That doesn’t mean he might not have been driving excessively
fast
,” added Gharib, who said it wouldn’t be “a wild
situation
” to imagine Hastings driving quickly through Los
Angeles late last week.

Speaking to Yahoo News last week, eyewitness Michael Carter wrote
that he was nearby at the time of impact and “saw a giant
fireball at the base of one of the palms that line the
medians
” on the road Hastings’ Mercedes was traveling down.
“It was surreal. Even from as far away as I was, I could see
how violent an impact it had been
.”

This article originally appeared on: RT

Sectarian Killings Erupt in Egypt As Anti-Morsi Rallies Loom

0

Patrick Goodenough
cnsnews.com
June 24, 2013

Hours after Egypt’s army chief on Sunday warned that the military was ready to intervene if necessary in the face of dangerous divisions in Egyptian society, a mob led by Salafist Sunni sheikhs attacked a group of Shi’ites, killing four.

Eyewitnesses told the Al-Ahram newspaper that up to 3,000 people attacked Shi’ites’ houses in a village near Cairo, following weeks of incitement by Salafist preachers. Police put the size of the mob at several hundred.

The killings come at a time of heightened sectarian tensions across the region, fueled in part by the Syrian conflict.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:16 pm






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Benefits Available for 9/11 Toxin Exposure

0

CBS News
June 24, 2013

Time is running out for people exposed to toxins from the Sept. 11 terror attacks to register for health benefits.

As WCBS 880′s Peter Haskell reported, a deadline of Oct. 3 is looming for those who are sick or might become sick because of 9/11.

“After that date, you cannot sign up for the Victims Compensation Fund,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney told Haskell at a press conference at 7 World Trade Center on Monday.

Read more

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Tags: ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

U.S. Soldiers Trained in Riot Control to Deploy to Egypt

0

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

U.S. soldiers train in Ft. Hood, Texas for a deployment to Egypt (Photo: KCNTV)The U.S. military is quietly deploying to Egypt more than 400 U.S. soldiers trained in riot control.

[field_image_caption-raw]

read more

This article originally appeared on: Common Dreams

So When Will Dick Cheney Be Charged With Espionage?

1

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/so_when_will_dick_cheney_be_charged_with_espionage_20130624/

Posted on Jun 24, 2013

This article originally appeared on: TruthDig

Obama's Africa trip will cost taxpayers $100 mln

1

President Barack Obama’s trip to Africa is estimated to cost American taxpayers $100 million — a hefty travel expense that has sparked criticism as the federal government is dealing with its sequester-related budget cuts.

The president is traveling to sub-Sahara Africa with his family
from June 26 to July 3. The Obamas will be
accompanied by hundreds of Secret Service agents and staff, which
stack up transportation and accommodation costs. Military cargo
planes will bring 56 vehicles including 14 limousines and three
trucks loaded with bulletproof glass to cover the windows of the
hotels where the Obamas will stay. Fighter jets will fly in the
air space above the first family to provide round the clock
protection.

“For the cost of this trip to Africa, you could have 1,350
weeks of White House tours,”
Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.)
said on the House floor last week. “It is no secret that we
need to rein in government spending, and the Obama administration
has regularly and repeatedly shown a lack of judgment for when
and where to make cuts… The American people have had enough of
the frivolous and careless spending.”

Holding reminded lawmakers of the $16 trillion debt the US
carries on its shoulders, and scrutinized the administration work
spending an estimated $100 million on a weeklong visit. Holding
said that while it is important to have security for the first
family, the costs for this particular trip are “excessive”.

“The numbers don’t lie: either the administration is bad at
math, or they simply don’t see a problem with their excessive
spending,”
he added.

And while $100 million is a hefty price for a week of travel, the
Obamas initially planned to spend even more: the first family had
plans to go on a safari tour that would have included the expense
of a sharp-shooting team to protect them against wild animals.
But the Obamas cancelled the Tanzania safari to avoid bringing
the counterassault teams. 

Although many presidents come under scrutiny for their travel
expenses, Obama’s Africa trip has been heavily criticized because
he is incurring the costs at a time when the national debt is at
its highest, government budget cuts have led to nationwide
furloughs, and Americans continue to struggle in today’s economy.
The president has already been criticized for his lavish beach
vacations in Hawaii, which have racked up significant
transportation costs due to the island’s flying distance from
Washington. 

President Bill Clinton was also criticized for the expenses of
his 1998 Africa trip, but the costs only racked up to $42.7
million at the time.

But the White House alleges that Obama’s trip is a good deal,
since he is providing invaluable attention to a region that is
too often ignored.

“Frankly, there will be a great bang for our buck for being in
Africa, because when you travel to regions like Africa that don’t
get a lot of presidential attention, you can have very
long-standing and long-running impact from the visit,”
deputy
national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The Hill.

The president and his family will travel to South Africa, Senegal
and Tanzania, which will mark Obama’s first official trip in
which he solely visits Africa.

This article originally appeared on: RT

NASA, global warming and Transhumanism

0

Al Whitney
AntiCorruption Society
June 24, 2013

IN 2001 NASA AND THEIR ‘CORPORATE PARTNERS’ PRESENTED THEIR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE OF MANKIND

NASA is responsible for promoting man-made global warming and the false reporting of global temperatures.

NASA and its corporate partners are not friends of the people. It is very important that we all understand that. NASA — The Future of War (presented in 2001) is really grim. Our future depends on us understanding: who is looking out for our welfare and who is seeking to exploit and/or harm us.

Which part of climate change can be attributed to intentional weather modification? The public so far has had no oversight regarding these ‘programs’. Rosalind Peterson (very reliable source) exposed this 4 years ago:
Experimental Weather Modification Coming to Your Neighborhood, Soon (Nov, 2007)

What is it called when Congress passes legislation by stealth without informing the public? HAARP was ‘classified’ in 1987. HAARP is an ionospheric heater. Did you know HAARP was approved just prior to the Club of Rome’s report in 1991 that proclaimed global warming is a real threat and blamed humanity (not corporations or the globalist’s WAR MACHINE) for it? The Club of Rome was founded by eugenicist Rockefeller. [1]

NASA is heavily engaged in the Transhumanism movement (as the Future of War presentation demonstrates) and in the Frankenscience creation of a ‘brave new world’. Did you know about it, folks? But yet it is up and running and somehow being funded. Some are calling it bioconvergence.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

NASA’s Bio, Nano, and Robo (AI)
At least NASA admitted (back in 2001) they had particular concerns about their high-tech (non) solutions.

Their concerns were justified.

  • (Bio) The negative consequences of their GMO experiments have already materialized.
  • (Nano) And their geo-engineering is also having bad impacts on trees and other vegetation. In 2005: “NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter that increasingly persistent contrails forming man-made clouds and haze are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA goes on to note that: “…Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate.”
  • (Robo) As far as artificial intelligence (Robo) is concerned . . . I have my suspicions. But what they are now working on is just more Frankenscience and completely amoral.

This is not science fiction, it is really going on across the country.

This is the new techno-science that is is supposed to save us from global warming and/or resource depletion (peak oil being another globalist/Rockefeller fabrication) using GMO crops, lab created species, clones, borgs, “tele everything” and a vast array of new high tech really nasty weapons to get us all to comply. These creeps are in the process of ‘evolving mankind’ into a Post-Human state. How did you vote in the techno-human evolution election? Apparently the decision was made prior to 2000 and NASA announced it in 2001. This is being done by stealth. Obviously many humans would strongly oppose this insanity.

Knowing about and understanding The Age of Transitions ( . . . total reconstruction of the human mind, body and spirit from the inside out) is crucial for our species. We are at a critical crossroads. Just when we are discovering new and amazing facts about natural humans and their DNA, the ‘controllers’ are seeking to alter us into bio-techno-man.

It is time to weigh in
Do you wish to remain an amazing natural human or be turned into part man part machine Borg? You need good information to make that choice. Once you accept a microchip implant or human augmentation, the choice is no longer yours. Everyone needs to educate themselves and their families about the Age of Transitions. They also need to educate themselves about what what is really means to be a fully empowered human: In Defense of Humanity

This is so important. Us humans have been demonized and blamed for the nightmare The Corporations and profiteers have created. The mainstream media that ‘they control’ could have been used to promote lots of great solutions. They could have stopped pursuing globalization and started promoting conservation and free birth control in 1971 after the Limits to Growth report came out. Where were the public service announcements? Why weren’t the corporations put under strict control and all their monopolies busted up? The ‘controllers’ could have stopped suppressing amazing new technology solutions. Instead the media has been used to make the population brain dead consumers. Incidentally, NASA announced their plan to use heavy Psywar on the public and that is exactly what they are doing. Take note of the current TV ‘programming’.

Us ‘natural’ humans
(some think we will be called ‘legacy’ humans)
who chose to remain natural humans, can then work together to stop privatization and pollution and use Reduce-Reuse-Recycle as our solution . . . not Frankenscience. Moral humans are needed to evaluate all new technology. Dr Strangelove needs to be permanently retired. Think how much pollution would be reduced and how much fuel would be saved if we could get Dr Shiva’s solution implemented: grow food staples locally and just import the fancy spices.

Youtube: Dr Shiva interview

Relocalization is the solution . . . not Frankenscience, bizarre technology and the creation of the Post-Human. The Transhumanism issue has been framed Bio-Conservative versus Techno-Progressive. Don’t let ‘them’ frame this issue. It is really pro-human versus anti-human.

Let’s not forget ‘natural mankind’ is not responsible for the endless wars . . . TheMoneyMasters are. They have been fomenting (and profiting from) wars for hundreds of years — if not longer.

The Transhumanists should take the globalists and TheMoneyMasters off to a island somewhere and experiment on transforming each other — to something more human.

Good site: Institute for Responsible Technology exposes the risks and failures of GMO biotechnology

Related

Computer modeling and sustainability

Why science when astray

Frankenscience

Biotechnology and “The Corporation’s” race to own nature

This article was originally posted at the AntiCorruption Society.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Tags: , , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars

Meet the Press host: ‘Why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?’

0

The Edward Snowden debate took a new turn over the weekend when reporters Glenn Greenwald and David Gregory got into a heated discussion about the journalism involved behind the scenes of the saga surrounding the NSA leaker.

Greenwald, the writer who interviewed Snowden for The Guardian
newspaper earlier this month, was asked to answer about his own
actions during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday
after a question was raised about the whereabouts of the leaker.
Snowden was thought to be in Hong Kong until news erupted over
the weekend that he had arrived in Moscow en route to perhaps
another locale.

When the conversation turned toward what information if any
Greenwald knew about Snowden’s location, The Guardian journalist
declined to provide Meet the Press host Gregory with any details.

“To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even
in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be
charged with a crime
?” Gregory asked.

Glenn Greenwald (Image from wikipedia.org )

“If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every
investigative journalist in the United States who works with
their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal,
and it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that
has become so menacing in the United States
,” Greenwald
replied.

Gregory responded that “the question of who is a journalist
may be up to a debate with regard to what you are doing
,” but
later had to defend his actions when Greenwald took the argument
to Twitter.

“Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism
when you have David Gregory to do it
,” Greenwald tweeted
shortly after.

On his part, Gregory incorporated the tweet in a later broadcast
on Sunday. “This is the problem from somebody who claims that
he’s a journalist who would object to a journalist raising
questions, which is not actually embracing any particular point
of view
,” Gregory said.

“There’s a question about his role in this, The Guardian’s
role in all of this. It is actually part of the debate
,”
Gregory said. “Rather than going after the questioner, he
could take on the issues. And he had an opportunity to do that
here on Meet the Press
.”

An indictment against Mr. Snowden was unsealed on Friday,
signaling the seriousness of the Obama administration’s
prosecution of the former intelligence contractor who’s admitted
to leaking National Security Agency documents to The Guardian.
Snowden faces potentially decades in prison, and his whereabouts
as of Monday remain unknown. That morning, WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange told reporters that Snowden “is in a safe place
and his spirits are high
,” but added, “Due to the
bellicose threats coming from the US administration we cannot go
into further detail at this time
.”

If Greenwald indeed assisted in arranging for the transportation
of a known fugitive, the White House may be more inclined to
press charges against the journalist. According to federal law,
not just the communication of privileged intelligence is a crime,
but the publishing of it too.

In a profile of Greenwald earlier this month, the New York Times
portrayed the reporter as a blogger whose work has border-lined
on legitimate journalism while straddling the tendency to
“intensely, even obsessively” focus on surveillance within
the United States.

“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” Greenwald, a
trained attorney, told the paper. “People say things, you
assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove
it.” He
also described himself to the paper as an activist and an
advocate.

That isn’t to say, though, that Gregory isn’t let off the hook
for the ethics involved in his own journalistic organization. NBC
News is owned by General Electric, whose CEO sits on President
Obama’s economic advisory board. GE Capital also received a $139
loan guarantee via the Wall Street bailout.

This article originally appeared on: RT

UK employees suffer 'health time bomb'

0

A study has found that poor lifestyles among workers in Britain are creating a Å“health time bomb”.

A study has found that poor lifestyles among workers in the UK are creating a Å“health time bomb” leading to premature ageing and lower life expectancies.

Some 10,000 members of staff were surveyed in Britainâ„¢s first Healthiest Company Index, which was intended to deliver companies a better understanding of their workersâ„¢ health and lifestyles.

The research discovered that 86 percent of employees suffer with Vitality Age of 4.1 years older than their real age because of their unhealthy lifestyles, which reduces life expectancy.

Vitality Age estimates years of life lost or gained by taking the presence or absence of certain risk issues into consideration.

Chief executive of the health insurer Neville Koopowitz, said the higher Vitality Age of so many of Britainâ„¢s workers is Å“creating a time bomb for UK Plc”, and said British companies will have to pick up the increasing cost of sick pay.

Factors taken into consideration include Body Mass Index (BMI), cholesterol levels and blood pressure, blood glucose levels, smoking, alcohol, nutrition, exercise, stress and well-being.

Nearly a third (31.2 percent) of UK workers have three or more risk factors, putting them at serious risk of unhealthiness, while the biggest contributing factors for a higher Vitality Age are lack of exercise and obesity.

Men aged between 40 and 49 are the group most likely to have a higher Vitality Age.

BGH/MOL/HE

This article originally appeared on: Press TV

“Pardon Edward Snowden” Petition Reaches Threshold for White House Response

0

Obama administration will again be forced to address NSA spying revelations

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
June 24, 2013

A petition calling for the pardon of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has surpassed the threshold set by the White House for an official response on the matter.

The petition, titled simply “Pardon Edward Snowden”, states:

“Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs.”

It was posted to the WhiteHouse.gov website on June 9th, and within two weeks has easily reached over 111,000 signatures, meaning that the Obama administration will be required to issue a formal response.

Back in January, the Obama administration raised the threshold for the number of signatures needed on petitions before they are deemed to merit a response.

The White House decided to quadruple the number of signatures required from 25,000 to 100,000 on its We the People website, after a surge in its popularity saw the number of users more than double in the last two months of 2012.

Nevertheless, the Pardon Snowden petition has still sailed passed the new threshold, following sustained media attention and debate on the treatment of the man many are either calling a hero or a traitor.

A similar petition, started by Infowars, demanding the resignation of the president over NSA wiretapping revelations and the violation of the Fourth Amendment has surpassed the old threshold, but still requires a significant number of signatures before July 7th in order to trigger a White House response.

Please sign the petition if you have not done so already. You can read the full article on the petition here.

Today Snowden hit yet more headlines after failing to show up on a flight from moscow to Havana. The whistleblower was expected to take the trip and eventually end up in Ecuador, but seemingly gave journalists the slip as a way of staying undetected.

Immediate fears that Snowden had been seized by Russian authorities at the behest of the US government were somewhat allayed by a statement from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. According to Assange, himself afforded sanctuary by Ecuador, Snowden is “healthy and safe” and waiting to hear whether he’ll receive asylum in the country.

Assange told reporters that Snowden’s application for asylum was being “carefully considered” by the Prime Minister of Ecuador. and that the whistleblower had “possibly” also submitted requests to other countries. The US State Department has issued a directive to several nations, warning them not to take Snowden in.

“Today we have seen a range of extreme bellicose statements from the U.S. administration attempting to bully Russia and other nations from facilitating Mr. Snowden’s asylum,” Assange said in a phone call from the Embassy in London that he has been unable to leave for a year.

“Every person has the right to seek and receive political asylum…it is counterproductive and unacceptable for the Obama administration to try and interfere with those rights,” he added. “It reflects poorly on the U.S. administration and no self-respecting country would submit to such interference or bullying.”

“This morning the U.S. Secretary of State [John Kerry] called Edward Snowden a traitor,” Assange continued. “Edward Snowden is not a traitor. He is not a spy. He is a whistleblower who has told the public an important truth.”

“The Obama administration was not given a mandate by the people of the United States to hack and spy upon the entire world, to breach the U.S. constitution and the laws of other nations in the manner it has,” he said. “To now attempt to violate the international asylum law by calling for the rendition of Edward Snowden further demonstrates the breakdown of the rule of law by the Obama administration.”

The Obama administration has instituted one of the most extreme under the radar crack-downs on dissenters and whistleblowers in history.

It is a well documented fact that Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama’s top Justice Department official, has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act during his tenure than all of his predecessors combined. The ongoing case of Bradley Manning has provided the exclamation point on this vicious crack down.

In a very informative piece back in September, London Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, the man who broke the Snowden revelations, noted:

“In 2008, candidate Obama hailed whistleblowing as “acts of courage and patriotism,” which “should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration.”

“President Obama, however, has waged the most aggressive and vindictive assault on whistleblowers of any president in American history,” Greenwald clarifies.

In addition, as journalist Peter Van Buren has pointed out,

“Obama’s zeal in silencing leaks that don’t make him look like a superhero extends beyond the deployment of the Espionage Act into a complex legal tangle of retaliatory practices, life-destroying threats, on-the-job harassment, and firings. Lots of firings.”

In addition to secret warrantless spying, at the heart of Obama’s war on whistleblowers is protection of his continued undeclared and unauthorized secret drone war.

The revelation last week that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings was working on a story about the CIA before his death and had contacted a Wikileaks lawyer about being under investigation by the FBI hours before his car exploded into flames has bolstered increasingly valid claims that the 33-year-old was also targeted as part of the crack down on those who are intent on exposing government secrets.

Before his suspicious death, Hastings had been all over the alternative and national media talking about Obama’s “war on the press”:

Other journalists who have proven to be a thorn in the side of the establishment have met the same fate, from Andrew Breitbart who was about to release damaging pre-election information about Barack Obama before he collapsed and died in strange circumstances, to Gary Webb, the Pullitzer prize-winning author who exposed the CIA’s involvement in the drug trade and subsequently committed “suicide” after apparently shooting himself in the head — twice.

–––––––––––––––––––––-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

<!–

–>

This article was posted: Monday, June 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Tags: , ,






<!– this is where we need to show the related articles

–>

This article originally appeared on: Infowars