Saturday, February 15, 2025
Home Search

1% - search results

If you're not happy with the results, please do another search

Brodsky’s Thompsonesque Trip Into The World Of Monetary Idiots Vs Krugman’s Barbarians

Submitted by Paul Brodsky of QBAMCO,

Speaking of monetary abstractionism, there has been recent talk of a fiscal gimmick called “The Trillion Dollar Coin,” in which a platinum coin valued at $1 trillion would be created by the U.S. Mint for the Treasury Department. Treasury would then rid itself of its pesky fiscal deficit in one fell swoop by simply keeping the coin on deposit at the Fed.

The TDC idea is a marvel of political imagination and public ignorance (and so it seems to have legs!). As with most clever illusions, the TDC is based on sound logical footing, one in fact we have argued in favor of: asset monetization. But there is a fundamental difference separating the Fed monetizing Treasury’s gold to devalue the dollar, followed by a re-pegging of dollars to gold at the higher fixed exchange rate (our idea), and assigning an arbitrary value to an asset no one else is allowed to own.

After declaring the coin to be worth $1 trillion there would be no market-based discipline. In its aftermath, twice or half the amount of global platinum could not be exchanged in the marketplace for double or half the amount of dollars. (It is reminiscent of the Weimar Germany scheme to back Papiermarks with agricultural land. Brilliant! Er, but how do its users exchange the money for the land?) Not only would it be difficult to value extant platinum, it would be almost impossible to value anything in the world (at least in dollars).

Once the coin were struck, it would become obvious to the global marketplace – producers, consumers, savers, investors and trade partners – that future global purchasing power would be left exclusively in the hands of the US Treasury. Treasury would be able to simply outbid everyone on the planet for everything.

We suspect the Japanese Ministry of Finance would soon mint a ¥100 trillion pair of chopsticks and put them on deposit with the BoJ. They could then purchase most if not all of the oil on the market today for future consumption! We are confident oil exporters would not raise their prices because they would have the magic chopsticks as collateral. And why wouldn’t all the world’s treasury ministries simply create priceless flux capacitors and use them to create all the taxes needed to self-fund their governments? (To do so Ben Bernanke would have to hand over its proprietary technology – the Fed “has a technology called a printing press…”)

Obviously, the TDC idea is a political ploy with a targeted mission: to rid the US Treasury of its debt ceiling, which is an increasingly frequent and embarrassing public reminder of government ineptitude. Everyone knows government-led de-levering is not a serious threat. However, the irony of the scheme and its MMT (Modern Money Theory, is espoused by imaginative economists technically proficient in double-entry bookkeeping and deficient in confidence that free marketplaces can provide accurate valuations) / liberal Keynesian promoters could not be more delicious. The scheme exposes the forty year-old charade, otherwise known as the global monetary system, better than any mind-exercise we have been able to come up with.

As we considered the plan, Hunter S. Thompson’s observation sprang to mind: “in a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Though the TDC idea would work from an accounting standpoint, it seems awfully unlikely Americans and the rest of the world would let the US Treasury enjoy a very visible monopoly on fraudulent monetary accounting.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Russian “Black Money” Threatens To Boot Cyprus Out Of The Eurozone

Wolf Richter   www.testosteronepit.com   www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

German Bailout Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is trying to avoid any tumult ahead of the elections later this year, has a new headache. Cyprus, the fifth of 17 Eurozone countries to ask for a bailout, might default and exit the Eurozone under her watch. Using taxpayer money or the ECB’s freshly printed trillions to bail out the corrupt Greek elite or stockholders, bondholders, and counterparties of decomposing banks, or even privileged speculators, is one thing, but bailing out Russian “black money” is, politically at least, quite another.

Cyprus is in horrid shape. Particularly its banks. Their €152 billion in “assets” are 8.5 times the country’s GDP of €17.8 billion. “Assets” in quotation marks because some have dissipated and because €23 billion in loans, or 27% of the banks’ entire credit portfolio, are nonperforming. That’s 127% of GDP! And then there are the Russian-owned “black-money” accounts.

A “secret” report by the German version of the CIA, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) was leaked last November, revealing that any bailout of Cyprus would benefit rich Russians and their €26 billion in “black money” that they deposited in the now collapsing banks. The report accuses Cyprus of creating ideal conditions for large-scale money laundering, including handing out Cypriot passports to Russian oligarchs, giving them the option to settle in the EU. Much of this laundered money then reverses direction, turning minuscule Cyprus into Russia’s largest foreign investor [read...  The Bailout of Russian “Black Money” in Cyprus].

Now Cyprus needs €17.5 billion—just about 100% of its GDP—of which €12 billion would go directly to the murky and putrid banks. The package should be wrapped up and signed on February 10 at the meeting of the European finance ministers.

“I cannot imagine that the German taxpayer will save Cypriot banks whose business model is to abet tax fraud,” grumbled Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the opposition SPD that has been a supporter of euro bailouts; and Merkel, hobbled by opposition within her own coalition, had relied on them to get prior bailouts passed. “If Mrs. Merkel wants to have the approval of the SPD, she must have very good reasons,” he said. “But I don’t see any....”

The Greens are resisting the Cyprus bailout for the same reasons. And 20 members of Merkel’s own coalition are categorically opposed to it. For the first time, Merkel has no majority to get a bailout package passed. The opposition smells an election advantage.

Before the German finance minister can vote in the Euro Group of finance ministers for disbursement of bailout funds, he must seek parliamentary approval. The German Constitutional Court said so, inconveniently. But without his yes-vote, which weighs 29%, the qualified majority of 73.9% cannot be reached. The bailout disbursement crashes. That’s what Cyprus is contemplating.

Fearing defeat, sources within the government now made it known that they wouldn’t even present a bailout package unless Cyprus agreed to “radical reforms,” including massive privatizations of the bloated state sector—precisely what communist President Dimitris Christofias has ruled out.

The Russian “black money” is so unpalatable that even the bailout-happy President of the EU Parliament, Martin Schulz, got cold feet. Before a bailout package could be put together, he said, “it must be disclosed where the money in Cyprus is coming from.”

Markus Ferber, head of Merkel’s coalition partner CSU, demanded a guarantee that “we help the citizens of Cyprus and not the Russian oligarchs.” In addition, he wants Cyprus to reform its naturalization law. If Cyprus wants to get bailed out, he mused, it must make sure “that not everyone who has a lot of money can get a Cypriot passport.”

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (FDP), who is no Eurosceptic, hammered home that the Cyprus won’t get special treatment. The European community is “ready for solidarity, but only in return for real structural reforms,” he said. “Greece didn’t get a blank check, Cyprus won’t either.” And those reforms included “banking transparence.” They’re all out there now, griping about German taxpayers bailing out Russian “black money.”

Having learned a lesson from Greece, Cyprus has gone on a charm offensive to persuade the other 16 Eurozone countries that its “black money” problem has evaporated and that more reforms aren’t necessary. On Monday, Central Bank President Panicos Demetriades invited the finance ministers to a dog and pony show that would explain the banking sector and the perfectly legit activities of the Russian funds.

If Greece is any guide, Merkel will vociferously demand more reforms and transparence in the banking sector. The February 10 deadline might pass. Cyprus will come up with a list of promises. Gradually the rhetoric will change. Words like “progress” will show up. “Black money” will disappear from the media. This might even culminate with a heartwarming meeting in Berlin between Merkel and Christofias. And suddenly, voting against the Cyprus bailout, once a safe bet, will become politically risky. It worked before. It might work again. If not, Cyprus with all its “black money” might become the first Eurozone country to go bust.

The European Commission issued its report on bank bailouts, the “2012 State Aid Scoreboard.” Turns out, the amount that the 27 EU states had handed to their banks amounted to €1.6 trillion. 13% of GDP—to bail out bank stockholders, bondholders, and counter parties, and enrich privileged speculators. Read.... The EU Bailout Oligarchy Issues A Report About Itself.

Your rating: None

Manager of YouTube Gun Video Channel Found Shot to Death

Evidently there are some corners of the Internet I haven't discovered, because if I had, I'd know all about the guys behind the FPS Russia YouTube channel, which is one of the top-viewed channels on the Internet these days.

The guy in front of the camera in that video lives on. But the guy who handled the business side of the videos, Keith Ratliff, was killed with a single gunshot sometime last week. Via Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

One of the operators of a popular YouTube channel promoting high-powered guns and explosives was found shot to death last week in northeast Georgia.

Keith Ratliff, 32, was found dead at 5:45 p.m. Thursday at his business on Hayes Road in Carnesville, said Franklin County Sheriff Steve Thomas in a press release.

Ratliff, of Frankfort, Ky., had been shot once in the head, and his death is a homicide. He had been dead for some time when the body was discovered, Thomas said. He was last seen alive Wednesday around 7 p.m.

The GBI has been called in to assist in the investigation, and Ratliff’s body was taken to the GBI Crime Lab in Atlanta for an autopsy.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Ratliff was either working for or a partner in FPS Industries Global, LLC. In April, 2012, Ratliff appeared before the local planning commission to request a zoning change for the company's property in order to allow for a work area to develop prototypes for accessories for firearms. That request was granted with some restrictions on the land use, such as a ban on live firing outdoors.

This story is made for conspiracy theorists to run wild with it, and they are already picking up that ball and running with it, speculating that he was tied to a chair and shot once through the head as a "leftist plot", among others. Evidently another high-profile gun gear guy, John Noveske, died in a vehicle accident on January 4th. This has sparked speculation that the left is somehow picking off people who are at best peripheral to the gun industry in their efforts to take away their guns pass reasonable gun control laws.

Testing this story against the theory that if he had been armed, the outcome might have been different yields a predictable result:

Ratliff’s body was sent to the GBI Crime Lab in Atlanta for autopsy. Thomas said Ratliff was found inside his FPS Industries business and there were multiple firearms inside. He would not say if the weapon relating to the homicide was recovered.

My condolences to his wife and 2-year old son. It's a terrible loss, and one I wish they hadn't had to suffer.

7 Theories Why Obama Keeps Getting Burned (Or Doesn’t!) Negotiating with Republicans

Obama's presidency still tends to divide progressives.

January 9, 2013  |  

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/spirit of america

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Barack Obama has negotiated deals with the Republicans four times since they won the House in the 2010 midterms. In late 2010, he extended the Bush tax cuts in exchange for extended unemployment benefits and aid to cash-strapped states; in early 2011 they haggled over a threatened government shut-down; that summer we had the first round of debt ceiling shenanigans and this month over the phony “fiscal cliff” that came out of those earlier negotitations. We'll have another round – or rounds -- in the next few months as the budget resolution expires, the debt limit comes up again and the automatic budget cuts known as a sequester looms.

For the most part, progressives have not been terribly happy with the results of these negotiations. Few doubt the president's political acumen, but the conventional wisdom has become that while he can win elections, he tends to get rolled by the GOP. And there are a number of theories for why that is -- and there are also people who argue that it's simply not true.

We rounded up some of the possibilities progressive analysts have offered to explain this dynamic.

1. Obama Hasn't Been Rolled Because He's Really a Closet Republican

According to this line of thinking, Obama has only been thwarted in the sense that he hasn't been able to realize his deeply held ambition of gutting the social safety net. FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher is one of the proponents of this theory, pleading last December for progressives to "please stop pretending Obama is 'capitulating' on Social Security.”

Everywhere you look, the media narrative is that President Obama is “capitulating” to Republicans by agreeing to cuts in Social Security benefits.

And I have to ask, where is this collective political amnesia coming from?

Obama has made a deliberate and concerted effort to cut Social Security benefits since the time he took office.

Hamsher offers into evidence a paper laying out possible cuts to “entitlements” that was co-authored by former OMB director Peter Orszag when he was at the Brookings Institution, Obama's creation of the Simpson-Bowles commission, and statements like this one, from a report in the Washington Post:

Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. “We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road,” he said.

Hamsher concludes:

But it’s clear that he did not arrive at the decision to “reform” Social Security and cut benefits because he is a poor negotiator, or because of Republican arm twisting. It defies all logic and reason to look at his actions over the years and think that the President is now “capitulating” on Social Security.

2. Say What You Like About the Tenets of National Socialism, Dude, At Least It's an Ethos

Another theory is that the White House recognizes that House Republicans aren't bound by ordinary usual political constraints. Many lawmakers in the Republican party's tea party wing come from safe districts and worry more about a primary from their right than what the polls say Americans want to see happen.

Jonathan Chait likens it to the nihilists in the Coen brothers' classic film, The Big Lebowski. After the latest deal was struck, Chait wrote: “The big reveal from the negotiations is that, as the clock ticked down, the administration feared the consequences of a stalemate and feared the power of nihilistic House Republicans.”

Chris Matthews Thumps Dick Armey for Pretending GOP is the Party of Limited Government

Chris Matthews actually tried to get a coherent response out of now ex-chairman of the astroturf FreedomWorks about why Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they can't seem to keep themselves from inserting government into women's reproductive health or from hating on gay people and insisting that they can't get married. Armey's response was to basically fling as much poo as he could find in the direction of the other party and say "but the Democrats...":

Armey acknowledged there had been several “foolish mistakes” the GOP made during the campaign season, including Mitt Romney’s remarks about the 47%. He insisted the party was trying to “rediscover its relationship” with constitutional limitations on big government and fiscal responsibility.

Host Chris Matthews asked why, if the Republicans are really the party of limited government, does the party have its candidates trying to get rid of contraception, and outlaw gay marriage and abortion. “Why don’t you stay out of people’s lives if you really wanted limited government?” asked Matthews.

The former lawmaker insisted that there were simply a few bad apple candidates, just like the Democrats have “had a few rather strange people,” too. When Matthews pointed out the GOP platform includes items about personhood and contraception, Armey insisted the Democrats also have “unusual” and “strange” items in their platform.

“Name one,” Matthews challenged.

“Homosexual marriage, all right. Abortion on demand,” Armey shot back. “These issues are in your platform. You don’t think it’s strange for these issues to be in your platform pointing in one direction, but you consider it outrageous that the other party has the same issues pointing in the another direction in their platform.”

Matthews responded, “The Democratic party generally supports Roe vs. Wade. It does not support ‘abortion on demand,’” adding the issue of gay marriage is going to be decided state by state, not nationally.

Matthews tried to get Armey to dish on FreedomWorks a bit more, now that he's taken the $8 million golden parachute of a retirement they paid so they could be rid of him, but Armey didn't have much to say on that front and was still trying to pretend that they're some grassroots movement -- and not a rebranding effort to get the Bush-stink off the word Republican. Driftglass has more on that and Dick Armey from back in 2010 here.

U.S. Banks Win Mortgage Fraud Settlement, Borrowers Lose

bankster

Ten major U.S. banks settled charges of illegally kicking people out of their homes for pennies on the dollar, under two agreements with the government announced this week. The biggest beneficiary is Bank of America which will win a get-out-of-jail free card for selling fraudulent loans to two government-sponsored mortgage finance companies.

Bank of America sold bad mortgages that led to numerous foreclosures via subprime mortgage lenders Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. that it acquired in 2008. “Through a program aptly named ‘the Hustle,’ Countrywide and Bank of America made disastrously bad loans and stuck taxpayers with the bill,” said Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York when he sued the company for $1 billion on behalf of the government last October.

Under the new settlement Bank of America will buy back $6.75 billion in residential mortgage loans sold to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and give the government an additional $3.6 billion in cash. The other banks – which include Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo – will pay out $3.3 billion in direct payments to people who lost their homes plus another $5.2 billion to others who are threatened with possible eviction for not being able to pay their loans. This is in addition to the $26 billion that many of the same banks agreed to pay out last February under a separate deal with 49 state attorneys general, the Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Despite the large sums involved, most consumer advocates say that the settlements are far too little for those who lost the most. “Communities of color were particularly hard hit by abusive mortgage practices,” said Debby Goldberg, special project director at the National Fair Housing Alliance. “The $8.5 billion and other settlements are not comparable to the trillions of dollars in wealth sucked from communities,” added Sasha Werblin, senior program manager at the Greenlining Institute.

The two new settlements were drawn up after the effective failure of the Independent Foreclosure Review  – a 2011 program set up by the banks to review bad mortgages and compensate those who were eligible. Only about one in ten of the potential 3.8 million beneficiaries signed up for the program because they were skeptical of the effort that was widely perceived as biased towards the lenders. They were probably not wrong – the consultants running the program was billing as much as $250 an hour for 20 hours for each case, according to the New York Times.

“It has become clear that carrying the process through to its conclusion would divert money away from the impacted homeowners and also needlessly delay the dispensation of compensation to affected borrowers,” said Thomas Curry, the federal Comptroller of the Currency. “Our new course of action will get more money to more people more quickly.”

But the activists say that the government had bungled the whole process. “If the reviews had been done right the first time, banks would have been on the hook to pay far more to homeowners,” said Alys Cohen, staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center.

David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times put the numbers in context – he estimates that the average amount that most borrowers will get is just $2,000.  On the other hand, Lazarus notes that the banks have done quite a bit better in 2011 – the year covered by the settlement: “Citigroup pocketed $11.3 billion in profit. JPMorgan Chase saw record profit of $19 billion. Wells Fargo posted almost $16 billion in profit. (Bank of America) was the poor relation of the family. It earned only $1.4 billion in profit.”

New Boss at the CIA: Brennan’s “Legal Framework” for Drone Killings

cia

As the majority of Washington’s political and media establishments concentrate their firepower on Senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination for U.S. Defense Secretary, John Brennan is doing what he does best and slipping through the shadows. Rumored since President Barack Obama secured his second term in office, Brennan has finally received a formal nomination to replace the scandalized David Petraeus and advance his work at the CIA. Disturbingly but not surprisingly, many American pundits have welcomed Brennan’s promotion as a logical choice for the CIA’s Directorship and expect a smooth confirmation.

They generally avoid real discussions over the areas of operations affected (and afflicted) by U.S. counter-terrorism, instead preferring the glamorous statistics of high-profile kills and Brennan’s alleged construction of a “legal framework” for drones – as recently claimed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

Brennan’s positives are easy to list: “More al Qaeda leaders and commanders have been removed from the battlefield than at any time since 9/11.” He has applied his extensive influence to “literally building” and leading the National Counterterrorism Center, which entailed the coordination of various military, intelligence and civilian departments across the globe. In the process Brennan has become one of Obama’s most trusted advisers, so close that, “I don’t think we’ve had a disagreement.”

“For the last four years,” Obama announced from the East Room, “as my Adviser for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, John developed and has overseen our comprehensive counterterrorism strategy – a collaborative effort across the government, including intelligence and defense and homeland security, and law enforcement agencies.”

However this fantasy hits a steel wall in Yemen, where Brennan and U.S. Ambassador Gerald Feierstein may be the most despised Americans to touch its soil. The immediate reaction to Brennan’s promotion has been overwhelmingly negative for good reason, as he reinforces the single-mindedness and unaccountability that drives an assortment of U.S. counter-terrorism platforms being constructed around the nation. Brennan now inherits Petraeus’s “secret” agreement with Yemen’s former dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and was even deployed to Sana’a on multiple occasions during the country’s ongoing revolution; he would assist Feierstein in facilitating the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) unpopular power-sharing agreement when a drone strike didn’t require overseeing.

Brennan told the Wilson Center in April 2012, “Yemen was fortunate that they do – did have a degree of political pluralism there, Ali Abdullah Saleh in fact allowed certain political institutions to develop, and we were very fortunate to have a peaceful transition from the previous regime to the government of President Hadi now.”

A known intimate of Saudi Arabia’s royal circle, Brennan’s promotion also corresponds to recent investigative reporting on Saudi bombings in Yemen. Now he’s promoted less than a week later, highlighting the obvious favoritism and imperialism that assisted his rise atop the CIA.

Given that Brennan has been nominated, in part, to embed the CIA deeper into Yemen, his presence is ultimately counterproductive to defeating al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and improving relations with Yemen’s people. “Traveling through the Arabian Peninsula where he camped with tribesmen in the desert” has done little to promote their human rights and dignity, which are trampled on daily by the national government and its foreign partners. Victims of drone strikes have no recourse, and Yemen’s revolution has been blocked by opportunistic relations with the ruling General People’s Congress (GPC) and oppositional Joint Meeting Parties (JMP).

Washington’s Pakistani “model” has been improved by establishing better relations with the transitional government, led by Saleh’s former VP Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, but the same hostility is repeating within those who serve as the real front lines against AQAP.

A “keen understanding of a dynamic world” is noticeably absent from Yemen’s counterterrorism operations. During a prolonged defense of the CIA’s targeted killings, orchestrated throughout 2012 and Yemen’s emerging bombardment, Brennan claimed that drones don’t cause as much resentment as commonly believed. He never acknowledged a revolution amid the Obama administration’s micromanaging of a “political crisis,” and has no relationship with the people that are needed to stop AQAP at its roots.

What Brennan will ensure is that AQAP’s status remains viable, and that Yemen remains under the firm grip of Washington and Riyadh.

To overrule these “results,” as Obama calls them, flattery and hyperbole are piled onto Brennan’s shoulders in an effort to democratize him, so to speak. Instead of a calculated killer that has taken his share of civilian life, Brennan is heralded as a “legendary, tireless patriot” and a model of American “integrity.” Ethics and values are stressed as a counterweight to the perceived constitutional violations that drone warfare entails.

“There’s another reason I value John so much, and that is his integrity and his commitment to the values that define us as Americans. He has worked to embed our efforts in a strong legal framework. He understands we are a nation of laws. In moments of debate and decision, he asks the tough question and he insists on high and rigorous standards. Time and again, he’s spoken to the American people about our counterterrorism policies because he recognizes we have a responsibility to be [as] open and transparent as possible.”

The SDNY recently refused to address the killing of 16-year old U.S. citizen Abdulahman al-Awlaki, son of AQAP cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, on the grounds that the Obama administration never released information on his killing. Unlike his father, whose droned body was held aloft as a trophy by Brennan and company, Abdulrahman’s murder was first denied, then silenced and finally labeled an “outrageous mistake” by an anonymous official more than a year later.

His or her statements were planted within a glowing profile of the CIA veteran.

Brennan was incapable of bringing a shred of peace to Yemen as Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and remains helpless at the CIA – he can only deliver death and destruction. His tireless drone fleet will always kill civilians in between terrorists and the process will stay classified to Americans and Yemenis alike. The Predator and its sole purpose of killing serves as a permanent symbol of U.S. imperialism, and lacks the ability to build relationships at the local level. Mere flyovers cause terror. This policy violates America’s morals, the spirit of the Nobel and the strategic essence of counterinsurgency all at once. A plan that fails to kill more militants than it creates doesn’t qualify for counter-terrorism or counterinsurgency – expedient recklessness is a more accurate definition.

“What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world,” retired general Stanley McCrystal told Reuters in a new interview, coincidentally implicating Brennan himself. “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes… is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”

Until U.S. policy undergoes a radical shift in fundamentals, a change unlikely to occur under Brennan, America has already lost its small war in Yemen.

James Gundun is a political scientist and counterinsurgency analyst. His blog, The Trench, covers the underreported areas of U.S. foreign policy. Follow him on Twitter @RealistChannel.

Why Isn’t Obama Meeting With Poor People Over His Budget?

The Nation's Greg Kaufmann points out something that he shouldn't have to point out to the White House: namely, why aren't the president and his advisors meeting with actual poor people who will be affected by any budget agreement he makes? We hear about the middle class ad nauseum, but nothing at all about the most vulnerable among us:

Throughout these budget talks, the Obama Administration has projected an image that it is open to good ideas from anyone, and interested in the prosperity of everyone.

So Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein had his day at the White House along with thirteen other corporate heads. The same is true for a group of small business owners as well as some labor leaders and progressive groups. And certainly President Obama has surrounded himself with middle class families throughout these fiscal negotiations.

But there is an omission from the President’s rounds—one that is all the more glaring since this group of people is arguably more vulnerable than anyone to any final budget decisions: low-income Americans who are struggling to climb up from the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

When is their White House meeting? Where is their place at the table?

Surely, this Administration wants to send a message that this White House is open to all Americans. More importantly, it no doubt recognizes that lower-income Americans are working just as hard at their jobs, trying just as hard to create opportunities for their children, and wanting just as much to improve their communities, as are Americans who have more resources.

It is one thing for the President to meet with advocates—and I have the greatest respect for antipoverty advocates and believe in the depth of their knowledge and the ideas they have to offer. But giving lower-income people the opportunity to tell their own stories—in their own words—can lead to insights and ideas that aren’t necessarily reached through secondhand accounts, and rarely permeate the inside-the-beltway bubble.

It really irks me to hear all these overpaid news clowns on cable news, yakking away about how we need to cut Social Security and make working people wait to get Medicare. Why don't they try working for a living?

David Cameron Would Be ‘Cowardly’ To Dodge TV Debates, Voters Say

Voters think David Cameron would show himself to be a "coward" if he dodged televised leaders debates at the next election, a poll published today has found.

A ComRes survey for the Daily Express found 67% of those asked agreed the prime minister "would look like a coward if he declined to take part in leader debates in 2015”, and just 12% disagree.

Cameron has insisted he was "in favour" of the TV debates and would work to make them happen after being accused by Labour of "running scared" from the head-to-head clashes

Last year the prime minister told journalists he felt the TV debates had taken “all the life” out of the election campaign.

In a boost for Ukip the ComRes poll also found 54% of people believe Nigel Farage “should be offered the opportunity to take part alongside the other main party leaders” and only one in five – 20% - disagree.

Andrew Hawkins, ComRes chairman, said of the poll: "By agreeing to the debates in 2010 the main parties created an expectation among voters for future clashes which could backfire badly if they try to wriggle out of them. This genie is well and truly out of the bottle.”

Prior to the publication of the poll a Ukip spokesman told The Huffington Post UK that the party was “not stupid” and recognised the argument for including the party in any debate held today would be hard to win as it does not have any MPs.

However he said Ukip would have a much stronger case after the European elections in 2014, in which it expects to come first or second.

“If we get 20-25% in the European elections then we believe that the argument over whether or not we should be in speaks for itself.

“Of course we think he [Farage] should be involved, we are besting the Lib Dems in polls.”

Jon Stewart Lays Into the Right for Opposition to Gun Control and Fear of...

Jon Stewart was still on fire his second night back from vacation, despite having some trouble with his voice due to a cold and he laid into the right for their staunch opposition to any new regulations or form of gun control, even though we're constantly hearing them say that "everything should be on the table" to deal with the problem.

No one was spared from NRA head Wayne LaPierre, to Fox News, to GOP politicians to you name it. After playing some footage of Fox "news" and wingnut Glenn Beck and their fearmongering on the topic, Stewart pulled out an assault rifle on the set in reaction:

STEWART: I'm not sure what happened. I'm sorry. I blacked out in the middle of that and woke up with an AK in my... I don't know... or whatever this is. I'm sure I'll get letters about what this really is, which is plastic is what it really is.

It was nice to see him get in a not so thinly veiled swipe at the wingnuts who went crazy after David Gregory held up something that appeared to be a magazine on the set of Meet the Press. There is a mile long list of why I'd like to see Gregory off of the air, but that stupidity isn't one of them.

Stewart got a shot in on LaPierre for his solution to the problem with our mental health system failing us not doing anything to actually improve taking care of those with mental health problems, but a national database of the "lunatics" out there instead. After asking what someone might have to do to be added to that list, Stewart recommended that LaPierre be put on it for this:

LAPIERRE: Americans, don't want to be added to that pile of dead people that have been left defenseless by the U.N. policies.

STEWART: LaPierre with two r's is a run.

Next up was HuckaJesus saying we don't have a gun problem, but a sin problem instead, to which Stewart responded that he didn't realize that his masturbating had risen to the level of a national crisis. He wrapped up the first segment with Fox's Eric Bolling saying it's not the right time to talk about gun control and that he'd have to wait until the next segment to continue his conversation about it.

In part two, Stewart did a great job talking about all of the other things we are willing to regulate in the United States other than guns, and the list of reasons we're given by the politicians and the talking heads for not regulating them, along with all of the legislation that's been passed to make sure that the gun manufacturers are never held liable for their products, unlike every other industry out there which manufacturers products which might harm or kill people.

After playing some of wingnut Rep. Louie Goehmert's response to that, where he said that hammers could be outlawed under the assault weapons ban because they kill massive numbers of people just like guns do, Stewart got his knocks in on him as well:

STEWART: Okay, if you want to regulate hammers, we could try that. Would it be possible also to regulate bags of hammers, or anyone as dumb as that?

After laying into all of them for their lack of common sense to even consider any form of gun control, Stewart got to the real problem with the debate out there, which is the wingnuts like the guy Fox decided to give some air time to, who was comparing Democrats to the Third Reich over a potential assault weapons ban that hasn't happened yet. And then we've got the publicity hound that CNN should have never given an ounce or air time to, Alex Jones and his little stunt this week to get himself some attention on Piers Morgan's show.

Stewart wrapped things up by stating the obvious about how that type of fearmongering is really driving the lack of a rational debate about our gun laws and regulations.

STEWART: No one's taking away all the guns. But now I get it. Now I see what’s happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.

Panic In California As Thousands Of Food Stamps Cards Suffer Brief Outage

This past weekend, as part of a system update to the CalWIN software of California's Social Services department, HP accidentally cancelled EBT cards for some 37,000 Californians. We can only imagine the resulting panic and the scramble by all these Ca...

VIX Breaks Losing Streak As Everything Bought Except Apple

VIX rose majestically (by a mere 0.25 vols and still below 14%) for the first time in seven days (but the term structure steepened a little more) and while stocks did not like that, they still managed to pull off the lows, close green, and remain in a...

Rick Scott Used Fake Medicaid Numbers To Veto ACA Expansion – Updated

Memo to Rick Scott: Of all the wingnut governors, you are the most evil, corrupt, and disgusting. Your latest nonsense proves it.

Via ThinkProgress:

Internal email messages uncovered by Health News Florida reveal that Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) is knowingly citing inaccurate cost estimates to justify his refusal to expand Florida’s Medicaid program. Though the governor’s office is fully aware that the numbers are wrong, Scott continues to use them anyway, the documents show.

Yes, that shoots right up to the top of the wingnut hit parade list. At this point, Gollum ranks higher on my list than you do, Governor Scott. After robbing Medicare the way you did, you're the least credible when it comes to health care costs, but damn if you don't keep after it, anyway.

Here's how it works: Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid reimbursements go way up for the first few years, up to 90 percent of the total cost of new insureds covered under the Medicaid expansion. The only reason states wouldn't receive those funds would be because they decide they're not going to accept Medicaid funding under the ACA.

With that in mind, this could possibly be the lamest excuse I've ever heard for using numbers that are quite simply incorrect, because they assume that only 58 percent is reimbursed by the federal government:

But Michael Anway, Scott’s new coordinator for health policy and budget, sent an e-mail Friday to the others saying he will submit the original estimates as an “alternative forecast” when the revised AHCA report comes before the next budget estimating conference.

Anway said he doesn’t believe the federal funds will come through. “The federal government has a $16 trillion national debt, must borrow 46 cents of every dollar it spends, and in 2011 had its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history,” he wrote in explanation.

That's just right-wing crap. The real reason these contemptible trolls don't want to budget for the expansion is because they want to rebel against anything that might help poor and needy people. In fact, this is probably more likely to happen:

Two other recent studies, by Georgetown and University of Florida researchers, found a net gain to the state from Medicaid expansion.

This is the state governed by the man who bilked so much from Medicare that his company was forced to agree to a $1.7 billion fine, which represented only a fraction of what he actually stole. Yet, voters elected him, and now they're stuck with Governor Gollum, who thinks it's just too expensive to cover poor people in his state and would rather leave them in a gutter to die.

There is a tiny glimmer of hope for Florida. I see where his approval ratings are sagging in key areas. Democrats should get their act together and get a viable candidate in there to challenge him sooner rather than later. Whether it's Crist or someone else, time is of the essence.

Update: Oh, NOW the strategy emerges. Via Mother Jones, news that Ricky wants to make a deal.

Last June, after the Supreme Court decision making the Medicaid expansion optional for the states, Scott said he won't take the money. But when Florida hospitals realized Scott's decision could cost them about $650 million a year in other federal payments, they started lobbying furiously to get him to change his mind. So now, after two years suing, demonizing and otherwise attacking President Barack Obama and the Democrats' health care bill, Scott wants to negotiate. He came to Washington saying that he'd like to "work with the administration to reduce the cost of health care." But that doesn't mean he's changed his mind.

Instead, what Scott wants from Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's secretary of health and human services, is something that might actually make Florida’s dismal insurance situation—nearly 4 million Floridians are uninsured—even worse. Scott wants the Sebelius to give him official permission, called a waiver, to hand over the entire existing Medicaid program to private managed care companies. Don't count on that happening.

[...]

He's also asked Sebelius to allow Florida to charge all Medicaid patients unprecedented co-pays, such as $100 for emergency room visits not deemed an emergency, plus $10 monthly premiums. The Georgetown Health Policy Institute concluded that such a change would prompt about 800,000 poor parents and children to leave the program, an outcome that flies in the face of the administration's goal of extending Medicaid in the first place. After Monday's meeting with Sebelius, Scott said he was optimistic that he'd get what he wanted, or at least another meeting. Given his track record, he probably shouldn't hold his breath.

I'd like to imagine Secretary Sebelius laughing a loud, long belly laugh as Ricky left the building. What a cynical, moneygrubbing goon he is.

Guest Post: America Meet Your New Slumlord: Wall Street

Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

- Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

Well they aren’t really your “new” slumlord in the sense you have been debt slaves to the financials system for decades.  What I really mean is that it is now becoming overt and literal.  Literal because financiers are now the main players in the real estate market and are buying all the homes ordinary citizens were kicked out of over the past few years.  Yep, we bailed out the financial system so that financiers with access to cheap credit can buy up all of America’s real estate so that they can then rent it back to you later.

Of course, my opinion is that this will ultimately backfire on all the private equity buyers once they find out multiple generations will start living together and a weak economy will not provide the rental income they envision going forward.  Particularly once we have another severe slowdown…which always happens eventually.  Incredibly, Blackstone has spent $1.5 billion to buy homes in the last 2-3 months alone!

From Bloomberg:

Blackstone has spent more than more than $2.5 billion on 16,000 homes to manage as rentals, deploying capital from the $13.3 billion fund it raised last year, said Jonathan Gray, global head of real estate for the world’s largest private equity firm. That’s up from $1 billion of homes owned in October, when Blackstone Chairman Stephen Schwarzman said the company was spending $100 million a week on houses.

“The market is moving much faster than anybody thought possible,” Gray said during an interview in Blackstone’s New York headquarters. “Housing is much stronger than people anticipated.”

Of course the market is improving.  Not because citizens are buying, but because financiers with access to cheap credit are in a bidding war to become America’s slumlords.

The firm, along with Thomas Barrack’s Colony Capital LLC and Two Harbors Investment Corp., is seeking to transform a market dominated by small investors into a new institutional asset class that JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimates could be worth as much as $1.5 trillion.

No more small banks, only mega banks.  No more small real estate investors, only mega real estate investors.  Get the joke?

It’s bought so quickly it’s “warehousing” more than half of the homes it’s acquired as it completes the purchase and hires staff and contractors to renovate and rent the properties, Gray said. It takes about 30 days to fix each home and then as much as 30 days to lease the property, he said.

“While leverage is currently limited, potential financing options include secured credit lines, lending syndicates, high- yield debt, government sponsored enterprise-provided financing, and securitization,” Jade Rahmani, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. in New York, wrote in a note yesterday.

In the case of the single-family business, Blackstone will rent and manage the homes through Invitation Homes, which it founded last year with Riverstone Residential Group, an apartment management company based in Dallas.

Oh and so next time you go to rent a home or apartment and the leasing company is called “Invitation Homes” don’t be fooled.  It is actually Blackstone; your Wall Street slumlord.

Full article here.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Blaming Movies and Video Games for Gun Violence

Bob Cesca points to this interview Chris Christie gave about gun control.

Christie was asked about specific gun control measures, and instead talked about violent video games. “We don’t allow those games into our house…we think it desensitizes children to all the effects of violence,” and added that all of the issues related to gun violence needed to be dealt with.

When pressed on why he couldn’t answer whether he supports a ban on assault weapons, he said that it depends. “These are complicated issues,” he said. “I’m willing to have that conversation.”

As Bob says, it sure sounds like Christie is toeing the NRA line.

But how good is that line?

Yesterday marked the two-year anniversary since a member of Congress was shot. Gabby Giffords, along with 19 other people, were shot on that day, leaving six dead, including a federal judge. In the days following the shooting there was a lot of finger-pointing going on. Some of that came from the left. They pointed to gun violence in political ads as a possible motivator, including this map Sarah Palin had posted on her website that includes a target over Gifford's district.

sarahpalin-giffords.png

Quickly the right went into defensive mode, calling it "crazy" that anything could influence someone to do something so horrendous. They launched into the "personal responsibility" meme to defend Palin and any other political ads that portray violence. It's much the same as we hear when someone is arrested for planning or executing a serious crime and we find out their reading list was Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity. They believe it's not them influencing the person, but just the person themselves.

So how does the same not apply to video games and movies? Are we to believe that video games and movies can create violent people, yet the images and words used by our leaders, both political and media, can't? If there was ever a definition of hypocrisy, it would be right here.

And speaking of hypocrisy, let's talk about a video game. The one I want to talk about is where you play a brave Christian soldier charged with the mission of ridding the world of non-believers. How do you do that? Well, by shooting them, of course! Here's the trailer from the game.

And did the right start condemning this video game for its violence and say it would provoke our people to go out and kill? Absolutely not. Instead, they went into a full force embrace of the game. Even the Department of Defense, under George Bush, was linked with sending the game to soldiers in Iraq. And you thought that war had something to do with religion!

Then there's the red herring of this argument. Our nation holds some sort of patent on these mass shootings, yet these games and movies are available in other countries as well. Ever wonder why something might be released in Japan or the UK and then take a couple of months before we get it here? That's because they are cleaning it up, removing language, sexual content and violence. They have to censor it for Americans.

So with more violent games and movies appearing overseas, why don't we see the shootings over there like we do here? Sure, you can point to tougher gun laws, but I thought gun laws didn't work. So why is it Americans are so influenced by this kind of media, yet no one else in the world is? That's a serious question that should be asked of the NRA.

All Christie, the NRA and the right in general is doing here is creating a straw man. They hope we will take our focus off their promotion of looser gun regulations and more guns in society and place that focus where it isn't due. Hopefully we can have some logic surface, and more people will realize that blaming movies and video games just doesn't add up.

Dan Loeb: “Herbalife’s Shares Are Worth $55-$68” Or Even “Well Above”

One guy (whose positive P&L in 2012 was primarily thanks to the gap lower in HLF in the last two weeks of 2012, since filled entirely and then some), says $0. Another guy, whose nearly $10 billion hedge fund was up 30% in 2012, says over $60. Whom do you trust? As far as we are concerned, the second Tilson goes long, we dump everything.

From the NYT:

The pyramid scheme is a serious accusation that we have studied closely with our advisors. We do not believe it has merit. The short thesis rests on the notion that the FTC has been asleep at the switch, missed a massive fraud for over three decades, and will shortly awaken (at the behest of hedge fund short seller) to shut down the Company. We find this thesis to be preposterous, particularly since the FTC has been sensitive to frauds of this kind. Since 1997, the FTC has brought 13 separate cases against alleged pyramid schemes.

While the short seller’s presentation was lengthy, it presented no evidence to show that Herbalife has crossed a line that would compel regulators to shut it down. Indeed, there was very little “new” news in the presentation and when pressed in later interviews, even the short seller conceded that the FTC was not looking at Herbalife’s practices. In our experience, expert regulators like those at the FTC do not respond to sudden pressure from hedge fund whistleblowers by acceding blindly to their demands. Finally, even if there were some regulatory intervention that changed how the company does business, we are comforted by the fact that 80% of Herbalife’s revenues come from overseas.

If management were to deploy its existing $950 million buyback authorization in the $40-45 range (only taking leverage to approximately 1.5x), we estimate that run-rate EPS for 2013 could be $5.50-5.70 using the reduced share count. Applying a modest 10-12x earnings multiple suggests Herbalife’s shares are worth $55-$68, offering 40-70% upside from here and making the company a compelling long investment for Third Point. Given that the Company has historically traded more in the 12-14x range (and traded at 16-20x earnings through much of 2011 and early 2012), the opportunity for the Company to tell its side of the story tomorrow at its Analyst Day in New York, and the significant short interest, we believe shares could even trade well above our current price target.

So.... who is short and sweating profusely? These guys:

Fulll Loeb letter:

h/t MarketFolly

Your rating: None

They Are Getting Ready: “No Obvious Reason” For Why China Is Massively Boosting Stockpiles...

If there were ever a sign that something is amiss, this may very well be it.

United Nations agricultural experts are reporting confusion, after figures show that China imported 2.6 million tons of rice in 2012, substantially more than a four-fold increase over the 575,000 tons imported in 2011.

The confusion stems from the fact that there is no obvious reason for vastly increased imports, since there has been no rice shortage in China. The speculation is that Chinese importers are taking advantage of low international prices, but all that means is that China’s own vast supplies of domestically grown rice are being stockpiled.

Why would China suddenly be stockpiling millions of tons of rice for no apparent reason? 

Perhaps it’s related to China’s aggressive military buildup and war preparations in the Pacific and in central Asia.

If a 400% year-over-year increase in rice stockpiles isn’t enough to convince you the Chinese are preparing for a significant near-term event, consider that in Australia the country’s two major baby formula distributors have reported they are unable to keep up with demand for their dry milk formula products. Grocery stores throughout the country have been left empty of the essential infant staple as a result of bulk exports by the Chinese.

A surge in sales of one of Australia’s most popular brands of infant formula has led to an unusual sight for this wealthy nation: barren shelves in the baby aisle and even rationing of baby food in some leading retail outlets.

We’d be more apt to believe the Chinese were panic-buying baby formula had the Chinese milk scandal occurred recently. The problem is that it happened four years ago. Are we to believe the Chinese are just now realizing their baby food may be tainted?

In addition to the apparent build-up in food stocks, the Chinese are further diversifying their cash assets (denominated in US Dollars) into physical goods. In fact, in just a single month in 2012, the Chinese imported and stockpiled more gold than the entirety of the gold stored in the vaults of the European Central Bank (and did we mention they did this in one month?).

Their precious metals stockpiles have grown so quickly in recent years that Chinese official holdings remain a complete mystery to Western governments and it’s rumored that the People’s Republic may now be the second largest gold hoarding nation in the world, behind the United States.

We won’t know for sure until the official disclosure which will come when China is ready and not a moment earlier, but at the current run-rate of accumulation which is just shy of 1,000 tons per year, it is certainly within the realm of possibilities that China is now the second largest holder of gold in the world, surpassing Germany’s 3,395 tons and second only to the US.

But the Chinese aren’t just buying precious metals. They’re rapidly acquiring industrial metals as well.

Spot iron prices are up to an almost 15-month high at $153.90 per tonne. The rally in prices, which started in December 2012, is mainly due to China’s rebuilding of its stockpiles as the Asian giant gears to boost its economy, which in turn, could improve steel demand.

The official explanation, that China is preparing stockpiles in anticipation of an economic recovery, is quite amusing considering that just 8 months ago Reuters reported that China had an oversupply, so much so that their storage facilities had run out of room to store all the inventory!

When metals warehouses in top consumer China are so full that workers start stockpiling iron ore in granaries and copper in car parks, you know the global economy could be in trouble.

At Qingdao Port, home to one of China’s largest iron ore terminals, hundreds of mounds of iron ore, each as tall as a three-storey building, spill over into an area signposted “grains storage” and almost to the street.

Further south, some bonded warehouses in Shanghai are using carparks to store swollen copper stockpiles – another unusual phenomenon that bodes ill for global metal prices and raises questions about China’s ability to sustain its economic growth as the rest of the world falters.

Now, why would China be stockpiling even more iron (and setting 15 month price highs in the process) if they had massive amounts of excess inventory just last year?

Something tells us this has nothing to do with an economic recovery, or even economic theory in terms of popular mainstream analysis.

Why does China need four times as  much rice year-over-year? Why purchase more iron when you already have a huge surplus? Why buy gold when, as Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke suggests, it is not real money? Why build massive cities capable of housing a million or more people, and then keep them empty?

It doesn’t add up. None of it makes any sense.

Unless the Chinese know something we haven’t been made privy to.

Is it possible, in a world where hundreds of trillions of dollars are owed, where the United States indirectly controls most of the globe’s oil reserves, and where super powers have built tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and spent hundreds of billions on weapons of war (real ones, not those pesky semi-automatic assault rifles), that the Chinese expect things to take a turn for the worse in the near future?

The Chinese are buying physical assets – and not just representations of those assets in the form of paper receipts – but the actual physical commodities. And they are storing them in-country. Perhaps they’ve determined that U.S. and European debt are a losing proposition and it’s only a matter of time before the financial, economic and monetary systems of the West undergo a complete collapse.

At best, what these signs indicate is that the People’s Republic of China is expecting the value of currencies ( they have trillions in Western currency reserves) will deteriorate with respect to physical commodities. They are stocking up ahead of the carnage and buying what they can before their savings are hyper-inflated away.

At worst, they may very well be getting ready for what geopolitical analyst Joel Skousen warned of in his documentary Strategic Relocation, where he argued that some time in the next decade the Chinese and Russians may team up against the United States in a thermo-nuclear showdown.

Hard to believe? Maybe.

But consider that China is taking measures now, in addition to their stockpiling, that suggest we are already in the opening salvos of World War III. They have already taken steps to map our entire national grid – that includes water, power, refining, commerce and transportation infrastructure. They’re directly involved in hacking government and commercial networks and are responsible for what has been called the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. Militarily, the PRC has been developing technology like EMP weapons systems, capable of disabling our military fleets and the electrical infrastructure of the country as a whole, and has been caught red-handed manufacturing fake computer chips used in U.S. Navy weapons systems.

If you still doubt China’s intentions and expectations, look to other governments, including our own, for signs that someone, somewhere is planning for horrific worst-case scenarios:

Perhaps there’s a reason why former Congressman Roscoe Bartlett has warned, “those who can, should move their families out of the city.”

As Kyle Bass noted in a recent speech, “it’s just a question of when will this unravel and how will it unravel.”

Given how similar events have played out in history, we think you know how this ends.

It ends through war.

Governments around the world are stockpiling food, supplies, precious metals and arms, suggesting that there is foreknowledge of an impending event.

Should we be doing the same?

How To Shut Down Retail Trading

Via Nanex, On January 8, 2013 there were two separate events where an exchange stopped disseminating quotes, which caused the last quote sent from that exchange to lock (bid price equals ask price) or cross (bid price is greater than ask price) the NB...

Corporate America: A Whale in a Fish Tank

Sticking a whale in a fish tank is a bad idea. With its fat body pressed up against all four glass walls, there's no room for any of the other fish – goldfish, zebra fish, sucker fish – to swim about or even eat since, of course, the whale will eat all the fish food and likely the fish themselves.

Eventually all the other fish will die. Then, all you're left with is a whale, alone, in a fish tank. And what good is that?

The point is whales don't belong in fish tanks any more than giant transnational monopolies or oligopolies belong in our economy.

Nature has a way of restricting the size of animals in their ecosystem making sure they don't get too big and cause problems for the other animals and organisms that call the same ecosystem home. Similarly, our economy must have mechanisms to restrict the size of corporations to make sure they don't become too big and cause problems for other businesses trying to make a living.

This was the intent of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed in 1890 during the height of the Gilded Age (also known as the long depression), when there were a bunch of whales in our fish tank economy.

But, the last great break-up of a monopoly happened in the 1970's and 80's when Richard Nixon's Justice Department went after AT&T, which at the time was the largest corporation in the world, for violating anti-trust laws. After a settlement, AT&T agreed in 1984 to break up its Bell System into seven different companies known as "Baby Bells."

That left the market open for new players to jump in offering new services and new prices. The AT&T whale was taken out of the fish tank, and in the end, it was good to all the investors involved. In fact, the value of AT&T and all its former subsidiaries tripled after the break-up.

Breaking up monopolies is good for the economy. Whether it's the break-up of Standard Oil and American Tobacco in the early 20th Century, or more recently the break-up of AT&T, removing the whale from the fish tank always leads to more competition in the market, which, to quote Conservatives, means lower prices and better products.

Unfortunately, there haven't been many success stories since the break-up of AT&T. That's because, in response to the AT&T break-up, Ronald Reagan stopped enforcing the Anti-Trust Act, and the monopolies and oligopolies have since returned. Even the "Baby Bells" began merging together again forming bigger and bigger telecom companies.

This week, Robert Reich warned that future bailouts of Wall Street are inevitable. Why? Because there's too many dang whales in the Wall Street fish tank.

As Reich points out, "The biggest Wall Street banks are now far bigger than they were four years ago when they were considered too big to fail. The five largest have almost 44 percent of all US bank deposits. That's up from 37 percent in 2007, just before the crash. A decade ago they had just 28 percent."

That means our entire banking system relies on just a few whales that must be saved at all costs from going belly up, or else, the entire system goes belly up.

While banking is the most notorious example of whales in a fish tank, it's not the only example.

Consider our food industry. According to Tom Philpott at Mother Jones magazine, agriculture oligopolies exist from farm to shelf. Just four companies control 90% of the global grain trade. Just three companies control 70% of the beef industry. And just four companies control 58% of the pork and chicken industry.

On the retail side, Walmart controls a quarter of the entire U.S. grocery market. And just four companies produce 75% of our breakfast cereal, 75% of our snack foods, 60% of our cookies, and half of all the ice cream sold in supermarkets around the nation.

And then there's the health insurance market. Just four health insurance companies – UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, and Humana – control three-quarters of the entire health insurance market. And as a 2007 study by the group Health Care for America Now uncovered, in 38 states, just two insurers control 57% of the market. In 15 states, one insurer controls 60% of the market.

Since there's no competition in this market, prices continue to get higher and higher while the profits for these whales skyrocket, too.

In the cellular phone market, just four companies – AT&T Mobile, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and Sprint Nextel – control 89% of the market. And in the internet market, just a handful of corporations – AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon – control more than half of the market.

Also, from newspapers to television, radio to movies, oligopolies – or whales – dominate the markets.

If we were to give the internet oligopolies the same treatment Richard Nixon gave AT&T in the 1970's, then maybe we Americans could enjoy the same super-fast internet speeds and super-cheap rates that most of the rest of the developed world, which have kept the whales out of the tanks, enjoys. For example, South Koreans get internet speeds 200-times faster than what most American get. Yet, they only pay $27 a month for their service. And similar success stories can be found all across Europe.

Rising healthcare, food, and energy costs can all be traced back to the whale in the fish tank problem of oligopoly in America.

Recently, we unveiled the #NoBillionaires Campaign to draw attention to the parasitic effect billionaires have on our economy. You can check out the website at www.NoBillionaires.com.

But trillionaire transnational corporations are just as harmful to our economy. And we need lawmakers willing to stand up to these corporate whales and get back to enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act once again.

Let the fish swim freely.

What Chutzpah! AIG Wants to Sue the Govt After Taking $25 Billion from Them...

The insurance giant AIG would like to thank you, America, for the kindly bailout money you handed over in 2008. It would also like another $25 billion.

January 9, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

The insurance giant AIG would like to thank you, America, for the kindly bailout money you handed over in 2008. It would also like another $25 billion.

This week, in a bait-and-switch feat that could only be accomplished by a corporation with a massive PR budget, AIG continued to release a series of “Thank You” videos and threatened the federal government with a $25 billion lawsuit, alleging that the corporation received the short end of the stick during the 2008 bailouts.

First, let’s examine the company’s outrageous public message:

Shots pan through the storm-ravaged town of Joplin, Missouri. The narrator makes promises about helping rebuild New York City after Hurricane Sandy. Everyone stresses that the bailout money has been paid back in full—with a profit!—a claim that Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi viciously debunks. And smiling people repeats over and over again: Thank you, America.

But behind the glossy PR stunt, AIG isn’t, really, all that grateful. In fact, the insurance giant—which nearly collapsed in 2008 under the weight of the terribly bad decision to insure predatory mortgages worth (supposedly, but not really) trillions of dollars— is still fuming over the terms of this voluntary bailout.

In 2008, the U.S. taxpayers gave AIG $182 billion in bailout money. But AIG isn’t satisfied because, compared to other bailed-out banks, it claims that the government exacted harsher penalties and terms. In fact, AIG is going as far as to claim that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment, which bans the government from taking private property without “just compensation.”

This claim is literally absurd, rail government officials.

Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn’t generous enough,” said Elizabeth Warren. Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks — tax breaks that Congress should stop.”

AIG isn’t the only bitter over the aftermath of the bailout.

As Taibbi writes:

Even worse was the incredible episode in which bailout recipient AIG paid more than $1 million each to 73 employees of AIG Financial Products, the tiny unit widely blamed for having destroyed the insurance giant (and perhaps even triggered the whole crisis) with its reckless issuance of nearly half a trillion dollars in toxic credit-default swaps. The "retention bonuses," paid after the bailout, went to 11 employees who no longer worked for AIG.

Meanwhile, earlier this week the New York Times reported that the banks reached a highly favorable settlement (favorable for Wall Street, that is) with regulators, another significant step in precluding anyone from facing criminal prosecution for crimes committed in the lead-up to 2008. Oh, and Bank of America plans to pay out out another $10 billion to cover its now-subsidiary Countrywide’s crimes of lying to Fannie Mae and generally screwing up the mortgage market. And no one from HSBC, which was recently found guilty of laundering money for Mexican drug cartels and breaking a whole host of banking laws, celebrated New Year’s behind bars.

Happy 2013.

Laura Gottesdiener is a freelance journalist and activist in New York City.

What Chutzpah! AIG Wants to Sue the Govt After Taking Huge Bailout Money —...

The insurance giant AIG would like to thank you, America, for the kindly bailout money you handed over in 2008. It would also like another $25 billion.

January 9, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

The insurance giant AIG would like to thank you, America, for the kindly bailout money you handed over in 2008. It would also like another $25 billion.

This week, in a bait-and-switch feat that could only be accomplished by a corporation with a massive PR budget, AIG continued to release a series of “Thank You” videos and threatened the federal government with a $25 billion lawsuit, alleging that the corporation received the short end of the stick during the 2008 bailouts.

First, let’s examine the company’s outrageous public message:

Shots pan through the storm-ravaged town of Joplin, Missouri. The narrator makes promises about helping rebuild New York City after Hurricane Sandy. Everyone stresses that the bailout money has been paid back in full—with a profit!—a claim that Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi viciously debunks. And smiling people repeats over and over again: Thank you, America.

But behind the glossy PR stunt, AIG isn’t, really, all that grateful. In fact, the insurance giant—which nearly collapsed in 2008 under the weight of the terribly bad decision to insure predatory mortgages worth (supposedly, but not really) trillions of dollars— is still fuming over the terms of this voluntary bailout.

In 2008, the U.S. taxpayers gave AIG $182 billion in bailout money. But AIG isn’t satisfied because, compared to other bailed-out banks, it claims that the government exacted harsher penalties and terms. In fact, AIG is going as far as to claim that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment, which bans the government from taking private property without “just compensation.”

This claim is literally absurd, rail government officials.

Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn’t generous enough,” said Elizabeth Warren. Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks — tax breaks that Congress should stop.”

AIG isn’t the only bitter over the aftermath of the bailout.

As Taibbi writes:

Even worse was the incredible episode in which bailout recipient AIG paid more than $1 million each to 73 employees of AIG Financial Products, the tiny unit widely blamed for having destroyed the insurance giant (and perhaps even triggered the whole crisis) with its reckless issuance of nearly half a trillion dollars in toxic credit-default swaps. The "retention bonuses," paid after the bailout, went to 11 employees who no longer worked for AIG.

Meanwhile, earlier this week the New York Times reported that the banks reached a highly favorable settlement (favorable for Wall Street, that is) with regulators, another significant step in precluding anyone from facing criminal prosecution for crimes committed in the lead-up to 2008. Oh, and Bank of America plans to pay out out another $10 billion to cover its now-subsidiary Countrywide’s crimes of lying to Fannie Mae and generally screwing up the mortgage market. And no one from HSBC, which was recently found guilty of laundering money for Mexican drug cartels and breaking a whole host of banking laws, celebrated New Year’s behind bars.

Happy 2013.

Laura Gottesdiener is a freelance journalist and activist in New York City.

Is This Why VIX Is On The Rise Today?

After record-breaking compression and six consecutive drops in VIX (along with a morning full of further compression) spot VIX is bleeding higher now. Having caught 'down' to stocks' ebullience yesterday, it appears the hedgers are either covered or r...

Obama Taps Anti-Gay Preacher for Inaugural Benediction (with Shocking Quotes)

Pastor Louie Giglio, a proponent of discredited "ex-gay" treatment, will deliver the benediction for the president's second inauguration.

January 9, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

The Presidential Inauguration Committee  announced Tuesday that the President Obama has selected Pastor Louie Giglio of the Georgia-based Passion City Church to deliver the benediction for his second inauguration. In a mid-1990s sermon identified as Giglio’s, available online on a  Christian training Web site, he preached rabidly anti-LGBT views. The 54-minute sermon, entitled “In Search of a Standard – Christian Response to Homosexuality,” advocates for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, references a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impels Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society. Below are some of the most disturbing views in the sermon.

Christians must fight against LGBT-equality:

(2:40) We must not just sit quietly by and stick our heads in the sand and let whatever happens happen in our country. We’ve got to respond to the world that we live in. That is the mandate that comes to us as people of God. And this issue is coming more and more to the forefront every day.

(31:45) We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community. … Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive moment. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family.

Homosexuality is a sin:

(9:20) [God] says very clearly in [Leviticus], verse 22, after he talks about a lot of different kinds of relationships, he says in verse 22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” Now if you would look forward into the New Testament context, to the passage that most of us know most commonly with this issue, into chapter one of the book of Romans, let’s read a few verses together beginning in verse 18. If you’re taking notes tonight, you might make this the note of Leviticus 20:13 and the book of Jude, we won’t look at those passages but there is some support and encouragement there to this topic.

(17:37) Men, women, I can’t say anything other to you tonight than this, that if you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle… homosexuality is not just a sexual preference homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God. You come to only one conclusion: homosexuality is less than God’s best for his creation. It is less than God’s best for us and everything in our lives that is less than God’s best for us and his plan for us and his design for us, is sin. That’s God’s voice. If you want to hear God’s voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear.

People aren’t born gay — but even if they are, it’s still a choice like giving into alcoholism, addiction, and overeating:

(28:20) I would refer you maybe just to the article “Born gay?” by Joe Dallas, who is the president of a ministry that helps with homosexuals in “recovery.” It was found in Christianity Today in June of 1992. It really unfolds for us that the evidence that they say is there, that the media wants to tell us is there really isn’t there at all. But I want to tell you this tonight. Even if it was there… How do you respond to that? How do you respond to the news reports that we’re hearing in the last few months that there is a genetic tendency to be an over-eater and it’s been supposedly proved by the scientists? That there is a genetic tendency to addictive behavior. Alcoholics by and large have a genetic tendency to addictive behavior. I predict in our lifetimes and not a very long period of time from now, scientists and geneticists will have found a way to prove a gene theory for every malfunction in sinful society. And do you know why? We talked about it the very first week—because we do not want responsibility for our choices.

Anti-Gay Preacher Tapped for Obama’s Inaugural Benediction Withdraws After Firestorm of Public Outrage

Pastor Louie Giglio, won't be delivering the benediction for the president's second inauguration, after all.

January 9, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Update: Louis Giglio, the anti-LGBT pastor who had been announced to perform the benediction at President Obama’s second inauguration, has been  removed from the program, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl reported Thursday.

The move came after ThinkProgress  reported Wednesday that in the 1990s, Giglio had given a lengthy sermon in which he advocated for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, referenced a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impelled Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society.

***

Original article: The Presidential Inauguration Committee  announced Tuesday that the President Obama has selected Pastor Louie Giglio of the Georgia-based Passion City Church to deliver the benediction for his second inauguration. In a mid-1990s sermon identified as Giglio’s, available online on a  Christian training Web site, he preached rabidly anti-LGBT views. The 54-minute sermon, entitled “In Search of a Standard – Christian Response to Homosexuality,” advocates for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, references a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impels Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society. Below are some of the most disturbing views in the sermon.

Christians must fight against LGBT-equality:

(2:40) We must not just sit quietly by and stick our heads in the sand and let whatever happens happen in our country. We’ve got to respond to the world that we live in. That is the mandate that comes to us as people of God. And this issue is coming more and more to the forefront every day.

(31:45) We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community. … Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive moment. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family.

Homosexuality is a sin:

(9:20) [God] says very clearly in [Leviticus], verse 22, after he talks about a lot of different kinds of relationships, he says in verse 22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” Now if you would look forward into the New Testament context, to the passage that most of us know most commonly with this issue, into chapter one of the book of Romans, let’s read a few verses together beginning in verse 18. If you’re taking notes tonight, you might make this the note of Leviticus 20:13 and the book of Jude, we won’t look at those passages but there is some support and encouragement there to this topic.

(17:37) Men, women, I can’t say anything other to you tonight than this, that if you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle… homosexuality is not just a sexual preference homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God. You come to only one conclusion: homosexuality is less than God’s best for his creation. It is less than God’s best for us and everything in our lives that is less than God’s best for us and his plan for us and his design for us, is sin. That’s God’s voice. If you want to hear God’s voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear.

Andrew Breitbart’s Legacy: Butthurt Breitbots

AndrewBreitbart_fury_CPAC_022010_credibilitylost.jpeg
The right wing is especially good at the art of projection, that special thing where they pin their own behavior on others. Let's all cry for the persecuted Breitbots. Big, drippy salt tears.

Breitbrat Ben Shapiro, who has been with the Breitbart site for awhile and represents the Young Turk-style Smartass Breitbot, has written a book all about mean lefty bullies.

Evidently it's not bullying to intentionally edit videos to make it look like people who did things right actually did them wrong. Someone should ask Shirley Sherrod, or the ACORN folks, or even Nadia Naffe how the Breitbots stand up against the bullies.

Nay, nay, it's all the meanies on the left. What a bunch of whiners. From Shapiro's article:

Obama isn’t against bullying. Neither is the left more broadly. After all, when someone stands up to a bully – say, Israel standing up to Islamic terrorists, or even George Zimmerman standing up to a young bully pounding his head into the pavement – the left goes berserk.

Actually, the American left has become the greatest purveyor of bullying during the last half-century. That’s the dirty little secret: buried beneath all of the left’s supposed hatred for bullying is a passionate love for bullying—the use of power to force those who disagree to shut up, back down, or face crushing consequences up to and including loss of reputation, career destruction, and even death.

In order to accomplish their bullying tactics, however, the left has to portray itself as the defender of victimized groups. Those who oppose their political agenda are then portrayed as oppressors of those victimized groups, morally deficient folks who deserve to be run out of town on a rail. The agenda supposedly starts with anti-bullying. It ends with bullying the hell out of everyone on the other side of the aisle.

The left’s goal is to shut down the political debate by decrying their opponents as victimizers. They label their opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, benighted, backwards bitter clingers. They liken them to Nazis, KKK members, terrorists. Then they cast them out like lepers from the political debate. Because who would bother debating a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a terrorist?

Yes, because our founding fathers clearly thought it was fine to call someone a slut on national radio. Not once, not twice, but over and over and over again. That's not bullying. Not at all. No, that's liberty, by Breitbot standards. Liberty, my ass.

This, more than anything is what makes me sick. Shapiro ends his little book promo/rant by claiming that the LEFT has divided the country.

Because the left decided Obama should be a one-term president?

Because the left told uninsurable people to STFU, sit down and die?

Because the left blocks every single thing, no matter how trivial, no matter how small it might be?

Because the left nearly blew up the economy and the recovery in 2011 over something routine and is threatening to do it again?

No, the LEFT did not do this, Ben Shapiro, you little twerp. The day Barack Obama was inaugurated you TeaBirchers crawled out from under your rocks in the form of Breitbots and wingers and decided you were going to drive everyone in the country onto one side or the other. Pick sides? Oh hell, yes. The day you all told me to shut up and die with your umpty-zillion attempts to repeal Obamacare you forced me to pick one side, and so it is with me, and with many, many others.

My spouse gave up hating four years ago, which is why he also gave up conservatism as a political philosophy. He was tired of the hate and the vitriol and the lies, which the right wing relies on as the grist for their hate mill. Right-wing hate is destroying conservatism and rendering it irrelevant. Shapiro is reacting to that, not any real bullying.

Ben Shapiro will probably sell a few copies of his book, and the wingnut welfare fairies will buy up a lot more so they can push it up the bestseller lists. But it doesn't change the fact that it's nothing more than a self-indulgent whine which is a waste of the paper used to print it.

Conservatism and libertarianism fail because they do not understand the concept of living in a society where people act for the good of that society. Witness the meltdown at FreedomWorks, and subsequent dirty laundry airing, including the wingnut welfare for Rush and Beck. When everyone serves no one but themselves, there is no loyalty to anyone else, and so Dick Armey felt perfectly justified in doing damage to the organization he helped to create.

As for Ben Shapiro, one day he will probably discover that "I" is a lonely state. It's achingly selfish and banal. At that point, perhaps he'll understand what it means to have a government of, by, and for the people. Also? Learn the definition of bullying before you try and write a book about it.

Military Judge Refuses to Toss Out Charges Against Bradley Manning: Calls His Pretrial Punishment...

United States Army photograph of Bradley Manning. United States Army photograph of Bradley Manning. (Photo: US Army)The nine months Pfc. Bradley Manning spent in a windowless cell in Quantico, Virginia - at times without any clothing - amounted to illegal pretrial punishment, a military judge ruled Tuesday.

But Col. Denise Lind refused to dismiss charges against the 25-year-old Army Intelligence analyst, and instead decided that any sentence Manning receives if he is convicted should be reduced by a little more than three months.

Manning was arrested in May 2010 and charged with leaking thousands of diplomatic cables and classified documents to WikiLeaks, an online organization that publishes secret information from anonymous sources.

The veteran of the Iraq war is currently being held at Fort Leavenworth, charged with espionage, aiding the enemy and 20 other counts that could, if convicted, land him in prison for life. His trial is scheduled to begin March 6.

Manning's attorney David Coombs notified Lind in November that his client may plead guilty to at least some of the charges. But on Tuesday, he asked for a dismissal of all charges.

"Dismissal of charges is not appropriate," Lind said, except in the case of "outrageous" conduct.

Lind also noted Manning's pretrial detention was "more rigorous than necessary" and the conditions "became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests."

Still, there was "no intent [to] punish the accused by anyone on the brig staff," Lind concluded, according to a report published by blogger Kevin Gosztola of Firedoglake, who has been covering Manning's pretrial hearings. The intent of brig officials was to ensure Manning "did not hurt or kill himself and was present for trial."

The Washington Post reported that while Manning was incarcerated, he became "so bored and starved for companionship that he danced in his cell and played peekaboo with guards and with his image in the mirror - activity his defense attorney [David Coombs] attributed to 'being treated as a zoo animal.'"

He was barred from exercising in his cell and slept on a mattress with a built-in pillow. He had no sheet, only a blanket designed so that it could not be shredded.

Manning testified that he thought about committing suicide after his arrest and later sought to assure prison guards that he was not a danger to himself, but he was unsuccessful as the conditions of his confinement worsened.

"Forensic psychiatrists who saw Manning testified last month that there was no medical reason for him to be on suicide watch," the Washington Post reported.

The government admitted last month that Manning was improperly kept on suicide watch for about a week.

Last year, Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture concluded the United States government subjected Manning to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment after he was arrested in Iraq.

In an addendum to a report presented to the UN General Assembly on the protection of human rights, Juan Méndez wrote that "imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence."

Mendez, himself a survivor of torture during Argentina's "Dirty War," spent 14 months investigating Manning's treatment. He accused US officials in a December 2010 letter of using harsh tactics, like solitary confinement, against Manning "in an effort to coerce him into 'co-operation' with the authorities ... allegedly for the purpose of persuading [Manning] to implicate others."

Méndez stressed in his UN report that "solitary confinement is a harsh measure that may cause serious psychological and physiological adverse effects on individuals regardless of their specific conditions."

According to the Mendez report:

To the Special Rapporteur's request for information on the authority to impose and the purpose of the isolation regime, the [US] government responded that the prison rules authorized the brig commander to impose it on account of the seriousness of the offense for which [Manning] would eventually be charged.

Additionally, "[d]epending on the specific reason for its application, conditions, length, effects and other circumstances, solitary confinement can amount to a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and to an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention Against Torture."

The US government countered, according to Méndez's report, that Manning was not subjected to "solitary confinement," rather he was under "prevention of harm watch," a point Col. Lind highlighted during Tuesday's hearing at Fort Meade.

Méndez told Truthout during an interview in December 2011 that he had "frank conversation[s] with the [Department of Defense] about the conditions of [Manning's] incarceration" and requested that he be permitted to visit and speak with the soldier confidentially.

"I was allowed to see him, but with no guarantees of confidentiality, terms that I could not accept," said Méndez, who highlighted this point in his report. "I offered to see Manning nonetheless, through his lawyer, if he wanted to see me, but he preferred not to waive his right to a truly private conversation."

Col. Lind did not find anything unusual about Mendez being denied a private visit with Manning and said brig officials were well within their rights to deny the UN official an unmonitored visit with Manning.

Lind spent more than 90 minutes reading from each page of her ruling. She did this because, as Gosztola noted, "there is no ruling for the public to read."

According to Gosztola, as reported in Firedoglake:

The reading of the ruling today was a prime example of why a challenge against secrecy in the court martial proceedings brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights to grant the press and the public access to court filings, such as government motions, court orders and transcripts of proceedings is critical.

Truthout filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last year with the Department of the Army to gain access to the court documents in Manning's case. Last September, we received a response stating that "it has been recommended by our Legal Office to withhold any information pertaining to this case."

Austerity Creates Highest Unemployment Rise In EuroZone

So how's that austerity been working for you, Mr.Cameron?

Unemployment in the euro zone rose to a new high in November, according to data released Tuesday that also showed that the troubles in the 17-nation currency bloc were straining its strongest member, Germany.
The euro zone jobless rate rose to 11.8 percent in November from 11.7 percent in October, according to Eurostat, the statistical agency of theEuropean Union.

Eurostat estimated that 18.8 million people in the euro zone were unemployed in November, two million more than a year earlier.Germany has provided momentum to the European economy over the past three years, as strong exports protected the country from the crisis.But on Tuesday, the Federal Statistics Office in Berlin said that German exports declined 3.4 percent while imports slid 3.7 percent in November from a month earlier. The weakness narrowed Germany’s trade surplus to €14.6 billion, or $19 billion.German factory orders also fell in November amid weak demand from outside the euro area, the Economy Ministry said Tuesday. Orders, adjusted for seasonal swings and inflation, slid 1.8 percent from October, when they jumped 3.8 percent.

You don't say! But the Beltway Villagers and teaBirchers are demanding the same policies for America. And you've probably read about the new IMF mea-culpa while admitting to really fuc*&ng up on their austerity projections.

The International Monetary Fund is revising its metrics on how fast governments should cut their budgets, with the IMF’s top economist making the case that Europe’s fiscal diets were too severe.In a new paper published Thursday, IMF Economic Counsellor Olivier Blanchardand research-department economist Daniel Leigh show the IMF recommended slashing budgets too fast early in the euro crisis, starving many economies of much-needed growth.

In “Growth Forecast Errors and Fiscal Multipliers,” Messrs. Blanchard and Leigh calculate IMF and European economists underestimated the euro-for-euro effect of cutting government budgets. While economists expected that cutting a euro from the budget would cost around 50 cents in lost growth, the actual impact was more like 1.50 per euro.

Republicans like Goober Graham repeatedly fret over the US becoming Greece and call for raising retirement ages and slashed benefits for our entitlements, but the policies they are trying to force us into will actually pave the way to a Greek-like state of mind.

As my friend Georgia Logothetis writes:

In Greece, which has implemented draconian austerity measures at the request of the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank in order to receive bailout funding, the results are seen on the streets where a middle class has plummeted into poverty. One out of three Greeks now lives in poverty and average salaries have been slashed to just several hundred net euros a month. Homelessness, which was rarely seen in that country, is now endemic in certain parts of Athens. The unemployment rate has reached a record 26 percent, with more than 50 percent of Greece's youth out of a job.

Greece received billions of euros in bailout funds, but a large part of why austerity didn't work in Greece is because it wasn't offset by any growth strategy. In a shocking example of how twisted reality became, Greece's bailout funds at one time were simply wired into an escrow account that the government couldn't touch and then wired back for debt service to European banks just days later (read the NYT report here). In other words, not only were there painful cuts, but any money coming into the country was spent almost exclusively on debt reduction rather than on stimulating the economy.

Here's Goober:

I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get serious about keeping the country from becoming Greece, saving Social Security and Medicare [sic]. So here’s what i would like: meaningful entitlement reform — not to turn Social Security into private accounts, not to take a voucher approach to Medicare — but,adjust the age for Social Security, CPI changes and means testing and look beyond the ten-year window. I cannot in good conscience raise the debt ceiling without addressing the long term debt problems of this country and I will not.

Graham brings up Greece almost every time he goes on TV.
The evidence is overwhelming that turning to austerity during a down economy only destroys it further and turns us into Greece.

That is what has been happening with a vengeance in Greece, where fund forecasters, as part of the country’s first bailout program in 2010, predicted that the nation could cut deeply into government spending and pretty quickly bounce back to economic growth and rising employment.Two years later, the Greek economy is still shrinking and unemployment is at 25 percent.Of course no two circumstances are alike. Shut out of international bond markets, Greece had little choice but to begin bringing its public finances into line or face a catastrophic default. Financing wasn’t available to sustain prior spending levels. For an economy that has been reeling for several years, however, a billion or two in extra government programs or investment could have kept a few small businesses open and kept a few more families employed and spending.

When will they all get the message? Portugal's President is fighting back against the draconian cuts now. Only Keynesian philosophies can save us.

Does President Obama get this, too?

“So Many People Died”. The American System of Suffering, 1965-2014

vietnam

Pham To looked great for 78 years old. (At least, that’s about how old he thought he was.) His hair was thin, gray, and receding at the temples, but his eyes were lively and his physique robust — all the more remarkable given what he had lived through. I listened intently, as I had so many times before to so many similar stories, but it was still beyond my ability to comprehend. It’s probably beyond yours, too.

Pham To told me that the planes began their bombing runs in 1965 and that periodic artillery shelling started about the same time. Nobody will ever know just how many civilians were killed in the years after that. “The number is uncountable,” he said one spring day a few years ago in a village in the mountains of rural central Vietnam. “So many people died.”

And it only got worse. Chemical defoliants came next, ravaging the land. Helicopter machine gunners began firing on locals. By 1969, bombing and shelling were day-and-night occurrences. Many villagers fled. Some headed further into the mountains, trading the terror of imminent death for a daily struggle of hardscrabble privation; others were forced into squalid refugee resettlement areas. Those who remained in the village suffered more when the troops came through. Homes were burned as a matter of course. People were kicked and beaten. Men were shot when they ran in fear. Women were raped. One morning, a massacre by American soldiers wiped out 21 fellow villagers. This was the Vietnam War for Pham To, as for so many rural Vietnamese.

One, Two… Many Vietnams?

At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for years after, reporters, pundits, veterans, politicians, and ordinary Americans asked whether the American debacle in Southeast Asia was being repeated. Would it be “another Vietnam”? Would it become a “quagmire”?

The same held true for Afghanistan. Years after 9/11, as that war, too, foundered, questions about whether it was “Obama’s Vietnam” appeared ever more frequently. In fact, by October 2009, a majority of Americans had come to believe it was “turning into another Vietnam.”

In those years, “Vietnam” even proved a surprisingly two-sided analogy — after, at least, generals began reading and citing revisionist texts about that war. These claimed, despite all appearances, that the U.S. military had actually won in Vietnam (before the politicians, media, and antiwar movement gave the gains away). The same winning formula, they insisted, could be used to triumph again. And so, a failed solution from that failed war, counterinsurgency, or COIN, was trotted out as the military panacea for impending disaster.

Debated comparisons between the two ongoing wars and the one that somehow never went away, came to litter newspapers, journals, magazines, and the Internet — until David Petraeus, a top COINdinista general who had written his doctoral dissertation on the “lessons” of the Vietnam War, was called in to settle the matter by putting those lessons to work winning the other two. In the end, of course, U.S. troops were booted out of Iraq, while the war in Afghanistan continues to this day as a dismally devolving stalemate, now wracked by “green-on-blue” or “insider” attacks on U.S. forces, while the general himself returned to Washington as CIA director to run covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen before retiring in disgrace following a sex scandal.

Still, for all the ink about the “Vietnam analogy,” virtually none of the reporters, pundits, historians, generals, politicians, or other members of the chattering classes ever so much as mentioned the Vietnam War as Pham To knew it. In that way, they managed to miss the one unfailing parallel between America’s wars in all three places: civilian suffering.

For all the dissimilarities, botched analogies, and tortured comparisons, there has been one connecting thread in Washington’s foreign wars of the last half century that, in recent years at least, Americans have seldom found of the slightest interest: misery for local nationals. Civilian suffering is, in fact, the defining characteristic of modern war in general, even if only rarely discussed in the halls of power or the mainstream media.

An Unimaginable Toll

Pham To was lucky. He and Pham Thang, another victim and a neighbor, told me that, of the 2,000 people living in their village before the war, only 300 survived it. Bombing, shelling, a massacre, disease, and starvation had come close to wiping out their entire settlement. “So many people were hungry,” Pham Thang said. “With no food, many died. Others were sick and with medications unavailable, they died, too. Then there was the bombing and shelling, which took still more lives.

They all died because of the war.”  Leaving aside those who perished from disease, hunger, or lack of medical care, at least 3.8 million Vietnamese died violent war deaths according to researchers from Harvard Medical School and the University of Washington. The best estimate we have is that 2 million of them were civilians. Using a very conservative extrapolation, this suggests that 5.3 million civilians were wounded during the war, for a total of 7.3 million Vietnamese civilian casualties overall. To such figures might be added an estimated 11.7 million Vietnamese forced from their homes and turned into refugees, up to 4.8 million sprayed with toxic herbicides like Agent Orange, an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million war orphans, and 1 million war widows.

The numbers are staggering, the suffering incalculable, the misery almost incomprehensible to most Americans but not, perhaps, to an Iraqi.

No one will ever know just how many Iraqis died in the wake of the U.S. invasion of 2003. In a country with an estimated population of about 25 million at the time, a much-debated survey — the results of which were published in the British medical journal The Lancet — suggested more than 601,000 violent “excess deaths” had occurred by 2006. Another survey indicated that more than 1.2 million Iraqi civilians had died because of the war (and the various internal conflicts that flowed from it) as of 2007. The Associated Press tallied up records of 110,600 deaths by early 2009. An Iraqi family health survey fixed the number at 151,000 violent deaths by June 2006. Official documents made public by Wikileaks counted 109,000 deaths, including 66,081 civilian deaths, between 2004 and 2009. Iraq Body Count has tallied as many as 121,220 documented cases of violent civilian deaths alone.

Then there are those 3.2 million Iraqis who were internally displaced or fled the violence to other lands, only to find uncertainty and deprivation in places like Jordan, Iran, and now war-torn Syria. By 2011, 9% or more of Iraq’s women, as many as 1 million, were widows (a number that skyrocketed in the years after the U.S. invasion). A recent survey found that 800,000 to 1 million Iraqi children had lost one or both parents, a figure that only grows with the continuing violence that the U.S. unleashed but never stamped out.

Today, the country, which experienced an enormous brain drain of professionals, has a total of 200 social workers and psychiatrists to aid all those, armed and unarmed, who suffered every sort of horror and trauma. (In just the last seven years, by comparison, the U.S. Veterans Administration has hired 7,000 new mental health professionals to deal with Americans who have been psychologically scarred by war.)

Many Afghans, too, would surely be able to relate to what Pham To and millions of Vietnamese war victims endured. For more than 30 years, Afghanistan has, with the rarest of exceptions, been at war. It all started with the 1979 Soviet invasion and Washington’s support for some of the most extreme of the Islamic militants who opposed the Russian occupation of the country.

The latest iteration of war there began with an invasion by U.S. and allied forces in 2001, and has since claimed the lives of many thousands of civilians in roadside and aerial bombings, suicide attacks and helicopter attacks, night raids and outright massacres. Untold numbers of Afghans have also died of everything from lack of access to medical care (there are just 2 doctors for every 10,000 Afghans) to exposure, including shocking reports of children freezing to death in refugee camps last winter and again this year. They were among the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who have been internally displaced during the war. Millions more live as refugees outside the country, mostly in Iran and Pakistan. Of the women who remain in the country, up to 2 million are widows. In addition, there are now an estimated 2 million Afghan orphans. No wonder polling by Gallup this past summer found 96% of Afghans claiming they were either “suffering” or “struggling,” and just 4% “thriving.”

American Refugees in Mexico?

For most Americans, this type of unrelenting, war-related misery is unfathomable. Few have ever personally experienced anything like what their tax dollars have wrought in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia in the last half-century. And while surprising numbers of Americans do suffer from poverty and deprivation, few know anything about what it’s like to live through a year of war — let alone 10, as Pham To did — under the constant threat of air strikes, artillery fire, and violence perpetrated by foreign ground troops.

Still, as a simple thought experiment, let’s consider for a moment what it might be like in American terms. Imagine that the United States had experienced an occupation by a foreign military force. Imagine millions or even tens of millions of American civilians dead or wounded as a result of an invasion and resulting civil strife.

Imagine a country in which your door might be kicked down in the dead of night by heavily-armed, foreign young men, in strange uniforms, helmets and imposing body armor, yelling things in a language you don’t understand. Imagine them rifling through your drawers, upending your furniture, holding you at gunpoint, roughing up your husband or son or brother, and marching him off in the middle of the night. Imagine, as well, a country in which those foreigners kill American “insurgents” and then routinely strip them naked; in which those occupying troops sometimes urinate on American bodies (and shoot videos of it); or take trophy photos of their “kills”; or mutilate them; or pose with the body parts of dead Americans; or from time to time — for reasons again beyond your comprehension — rape or murder your friends and neighbors.

Imagine, for a moment, violence so extreme that you and literally millions like you have to flee your hometowns for squalid refugee camps or expanding slums ringing the nearest cities. Imagine trading your home for a new one without heat or electricity, possibly made of refuse with a corrugated metal roof that roars when it rains. Then imagine living there for months, if not years.

Imagine things getting so bad that you decide to trek across the Mexican border to live an uncertain life, forever wondering if your new violence- and poverty-wracked host nation will turn you out or if you’ll ever be able to return to your home in the U.S. Imagine living with these realities day after day for up to decade.

After natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy or Katrina, small numbers of Americans briefly experience something like what millions of war victims — Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, and others — have often had to endure for significant parts of their lives. But for those in America’s war zones, there will be no telethons, benefit concerts, or texting fund drives.

Pham To and Pham Thang had to bury the bodies of their family members, friends, and neighbors after they were massacred by American troops passing through their village on patrol. They had to rebuild their homes and their lives after the war with remarkably little help. One thing was as certain for them as it has been for war-traumatized Iraqis and Afghans of our moment: no Hollywood luminaries lined up to help raise funds for them or their village. And they never will.“We lost so many people and so much else. And this land was affected by Agent Orange, too. You’ve come to write about the war, but you could never know the whole story,” Pham Thang told me. Then he became circumspect. “Now, our two governments, our two countries, live in peace and harmony. And we just want to restore life to what it once was here. We suffered great losses. The U.S. government should offer assistance to help increase the local standard of living, provide better healthcare, and build infrastructure like better roads.”

No doubt — despite the last decade of U.S. nation-buildingdebacles in its war zones — many Iraqis and Afghans would express similar sentiments. Perhaps they will even be saying the same sort of thing to an American reporter decades from now.

Over these last years, I’ve interviewed hundreds of war victims like Pham Thang, and he’s right: I’ll probably never come close to knowing what life was like for those whose worlds were upended by America’s foreign wars. And I’m far from alone. Most Americans never make it to a war zone, and even U.S. military personnel arrive only for finite tours of duty, while for combat correspondents and aid workers an exit door generally remains open. Civilians like Pham To, however, are in it for the duration.

In the Vietnam years, there was at least an antiwar movement in this country that included many Vietnam veterans who made genuine efforts to highlight the civilian suffering they knew was going on at almost unimaginable levels. In contrast, in the decade-plus since 9/11, with the rarest of exceptions, Americans have remained remarkably detached from their distant wars, thoroughly ignoring what can be known about the suffering that has been caused in their name.

As I was wrapping up my interview, Pham Thang asked me about the purpose of the last hour and a half of questions I’d asked him. Through my interpreter, I explained that most Americans knew next to nothing about Vietnamese suffering during the war and that most books written in my country on the war years ignored it. I wanted, I told him, to offer Americans the chance to hear about the experiences of ordinary Vietnamese for the first time.

“If the American people know about these incidents, if they learn about the wartime suffering of people in Vietnam, do you think they will sympathize?” he asked me.

Soon enough, I should finally know the answer to his question.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author most recently of Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books). Published on January 15th, it offers a new look at the American war machine in Vietnam and the suffering it caused. His website is NickTurse.com. You can follow him on Tumblr and on Facebook.

West angry with PressTV truth coverage

A political commentator says the West attacks Press TV because the channel focuses on the truth and the topics that the world’s mainstream media tends not to cover.

“Iran’s 24/7 English-language international news channel hit the airwaves in 2007. Press TV appeared on TV screens around the world to cover the story - with a focus on topics that the ‘free’ world’s mainstream media tends not to cover. From revealing the real faces of democracy-looking dictatorships in Europe to divulging covert ties between the West and terror rings in Syria and highlighting the plight of women and children in war-torn countries, Press TV has sought to be a voice for the voiceless,” wrote Hamid Reza Emadi in an article on Press TV’s website.

“Press TV has established a distinctive discourse that communicates the message directly to the audience like no other,” he noted.


Emadi further explained that Press TV has raised several fundamental questions in the minds of its audience, posing a serious challenge to the West which has controlled the flow of information via its mainstream media ever since the first television program was aired.

“And the West has realized the extent of this challenge and has decided that it needs to be contained. And just like that, satellite companies are ordered to take Press TV off the air in a desperate attempt to stop the message reaching its global audience,” he added.

Referring to the removal of Press TV from several European platforms, the political commentator stated that EU is not the only organization behind the all-out war against Press TV.

Emadi pointed out that the pro-Israeli lobby group, American Jewish Committee, AJC, issued a celebratory statement on its website after Spanish satellite group Hispasat pulled the plug on Press TV and Hispan TV on December 20, 2012.

“But why are Israelis so angry with Press TV?...The answer lies in the fact that Press TV was the only international news channel with four correspondents on the ground in Gaza when Israel launched its deadly war on the besieged Palestinian coastal strip at the turn of 2008-2009.”


“They do not want Press TV to enlighten television viewers around the world. But what they just don’t seem to get is that their all-out war on Press TV only serves to show how successful the channel has been. And since it is literally impossible to silence a media outlet in the information age, the channel will continue to do what it's been doing over the years despite the bumps and bruises,” Emadi concluded.

TNP/SS

‘Full And Frank’: Has The Coalition’s Audit Had A Polish?

The government's much anticipated mid-term audit has been criticised for failing to provide the "completely unvarnished" assessment of the coalition the prime minister had promised.

The 119 page document details the government's pledges and what it has done to fulfil them - but the document seems to have had some Ronseal added, with the government breezing over U-turns such as its failure to implement House of Lords reform.

The document merely notes: "The Government took the decision not to proceed with the Bill following second reading in the House of Commons and the lack of support for the necessary timetabling motion."

david cameron and clegg

The government published an audit of the coalition government's first two-and-a-half years in office


The audit was released after Number 10 adviser Patrick Rock was seen carrying a "restricted" document warning of "broken pledges" in the coalition agreement, which suggested the government had delayed publication to avoid overshadowing the favourable media coverage they expected to receive from Monday's mid-term review.


Tom McTague

Looks like Mr Cameron has applied a bit of Ronseal to his unvarnished Coalition audit. Funny that.


Rob Merrick

That so-called audit...only 'failings' I can find Cam/Clegg admitting to are per-passenger APD and Post Office card account discounts?

The self-assessment also notes that the badger cull to help control bovine TB has been "postponed" and a free vote on repealing the hunting ban has "not yet been taken forward."

The Labour party has released its own "audit of broken promises", listing 40 areas in which it said the coalition had failed to live up to its pledges.


Robert Hutton

No10 has just explained to me the significance of the different colours of boxes on the audit. It's hard to type fast when laughing,


John Ashmore
I am taking a break from tweeting due to being overwhelmed by the sheer candour of the Coaliton's mid-term audit. #zzzzz

Top of the list of broken promises identified by Labour was the failure to balance the nation's books within five years - something which is not now expected to happen until 2018 at the earliest.

On deficit reduction, the government say it is their "most urgent priority", failing to note borrowing has risen since they came to power.

Michael Dugher MP said: "It turns out that the document David Cameron tried and failed to cover up is now itself a cover-up.

"There's no mention of his government's failure on growth, of the double-dip recession or of £212 billion extra borrowing. It tries to gloss over David Cameron's broken promises on the £3 billion NHS reorganisation and 7,000 fewer nurses, and doesn't even mention his tax cut worth £107,000 for 8,000 millionaires while millions of hard-working families on low and middle incomes are paying more.

"This is a government that lurches from failure to fiasco. They promised change but things are getting worse, not better, and they stand up for the wrong people."

The audit said that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility had confirmed the government was "on course to meet our fiscal mandate" of balancing the books, which was based on a rolling five-year period and not on the fixed target date of 2015.

The government on: NHS reform

Promise: We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust (PCT). The remainder of the PCT’s board will be appointed by the relevant local authority or authorities, and the Chief Executive and principal officers will be appointed by the Secretary of State on the advice of the new independent NHS board. This will ensure the right balance between locally accountable individuals and technical expertise.

Audit: In light of the abolition of PCTs, we are ensuring greater democratic legitimacy in healthcare through the transferral of responsibility for public health to local authorities. We are also introducing Health and Wellbeing Boards (within local authorities), which will set the overall strategies for healthcare in their localities.

READ: The full coalition audit

Obama Appoints Dr. Drone to Head the CIA

cia

Pres. Obama just made a hideous appointment.

He replaced the disgraced David Petraeus at the CIA with John Brennan, Dr. Drone.

This is a hideous appointment.

Brennan, as Obama’s counterterrorism czar, has overseen the massive proliferation of our drone warfare.

He’s called it “ethical and just,” and he even went so far as to say that the United States hadn’t killed a single civilian in over almost a year’s span of drone attacks.

That might be because he and the Administration claimed that any adult male killed by a drone was de facto a member of a terrorist group.

In any event, the drone attacks actually have killed hundreds and hundreds of innocent people – and not just men — in Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, enflaming hatred against us. The next issue of The Progressive is carrying an article by a reporter who went to North Waziristan and actually talked to family members who lost loved ones to drones.

One man, Wakil Khan, lost his wife and three children. “May God curse the U.S.A. because they don’t differentiate between the innocent and the guilty,” he said.

One of the leading opposition figures in Pakistan, Imran Khan, the cricketer turned politician, bases much of his campaign on opposition to drones.

In Yemen, the effect of drones is similarly counterproductive.

“Testimonies from Qaeda fighters and interviews I and local journalists have conducted across Yemen attest to the centrality of civilian casualties in explaining Al Qaeda’s rapid growth there. The United States is killing women, children and members of key tribes,” wrote Gregory D. Johnsen in an op-ed in The New York Times in November.

Johnsen, the author of “The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia,” quoted one Yemeni as saying: “Each time they kill a tribesman, they create more fighters for Al Qaeda.”

“Living Under Drones,” a recent report by Stanford Law School and NYU Law School, “provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.”

It cites one journalistic source as saying that U.S. drones have killed 176 children in Pakistan alone.

And the report concludes that drone attacks “undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.”

One dangerous precedent is the killing of U.S. citizens by our own government, which Brennan justifies. He saw nothing wrong with the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the alleged Al Qaeda propagandist and conspirator, in a drone strike that also killed another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, a young editor of an allegedly pro-Al Qaeda publication. But Brennan has no justification for the killing of Al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, an American citizen who loved the Simpsons. A U.S. drone wiped out young Abdulrahman two weeks after his father and Khan were killed. The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights have a case pending against the U.S. government simply to get an accounting of its actions in these three American deaths.

And as Glenn Greenwald pointed out shortly after Obama won the Presidency the first time,

Brennan “was an ardent supporter of torture and one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom immunity.”

John Brennan is a liar, and he’s a dangerous man. And now he has only more power to be dangerous.

Shared Hardships and Concerns Bind the Fates of Indigenous Peoples in Canada and Haitians...

A social and political rights movement of Indigenous people is rising across Canada and making international headlines. Protests by the ‘Idle No More’ movement began last month and continue to grow.

The movement has rallied daily across the country in shopping malls, at U.S. border crossings and on major railway lines. Three days ago, it compelled Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to climb down from his refusal to meet with Indigenous leaders to discuss the very deep concerns of Indigenous people. He has agreed to meet a delegation on Friday, January 11. It remains to be seen if anything will issue from this gathering, but it is a significant political victory nonetheless. Protests will continue in the meantime, including an international day of solidarity action called for the day of the planned meeting. (See the Facebook event here.)

The social conditions and concerns that have given rise to this movement in Canada are strikingly similar to those in Haiti. In both cases, a long history of political interference, violations of national sovereignty and failed or harmful social policies are sparking firestorms of protest.

Omnibus Legislation Bulldozes Democratic Consultation

Two overriding concerns have sparked the Idle No More movement. One is the “omnibus” federal budget legislation, Bill C-45, that was approved by the Conservative Party-controlled Parliament and Senate last month.

Bill C-45 significantly amends laws in ways that further degrade sovereign and social rights of Indigenous peoples as well as the natural environment. The amended laws include the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canada Labour Code.

“Bill C-45 will not be enforced or recognized by First Nations,” declared a December 14 statement by the Chiefs of Ontario Political Confederacy. The statement echoes Indigenous opinion right across the country. The Confederacy includes the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Anishinabek Nation, Grand Council Treaty No. 3, Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians and Independent First Nations. These sovereign bodies represent 250,000 people.

Ontario Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Stan Beardy, a signator of the statement, commented on the adoption of C-45 in saying, “The Canadian government just gave birth to a monster.”

Indigenous leaders are also sounding the alarm about a further wave of legislated changes that the federal government is pressing forward. These would deeply alter the funding and management of education and fundamentally degrade communal property laws and traditions on Indigenous territories.

Housing and Social Rights Uprising

The second spark to the Indigenous uprising is the calamitous social conditions on most Aboriginal territories. One community in northern Ontario, Attawapiskat, has come to symbolize the calamity. It blasted into national news headlines more that one year ago when its leaders declared a state of emergency over the chronic lack of housing, potable water, economic development and other social woes. Years of failure by the federal government to adequately fund social services in that community created conditions where some individuals and families were living year-round in tents or in construction trailers converted into single room dormitories.

One member of Parliament as well as national media undertook to report and publicize the deplorable conditions at Attawapiskat. The emergency declaration and resulting publicity galvanized similar, unresolved grievances right across the country.

Notwithstanding government promises one year ago to begin to address the concerns at Attawapiskat, next to nothing was done. So last month, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence began a hunger strike in Ottawa that has made national and international headlines.

The key demand of her hunger strike has been that the federal government undertake meaningful discussion with Indigenous leaders to address longstanding and deepgoing concerns. She will be in attendance at the January 11 meeting but has warned there may not yet be enough pressure on the government to bring about meaningful policy changes, the problems are so widespread and long-standing. That’s why protests are continuing unabated.

For example, more than 2,000 people from north-central Manitoba are still living in makeshift housing in the city of Winnipeg, capital of Manitoba, almost two years after their communities were deliberately flooded in order to divert spring, snow melt water from the capital.

In a 2006 report, the International Housing Coalition cited estimates by the Assembly of First Nations that 80,000 housing units are needed in Canada’s 630 Indigenous communities. According to the 2001 Canadian census, 54 per cent of housing units on Indigenous territories were substandard. Many of those were a danger to human health.

According to the National Aboriginal Housing Association (NAHA), one in five non-reservation, Aboriginal households are in core need of housing, compared to one in eight in the general population. In 2006, Aboriginal people made up 0.5 per cent of the population of Toronto but 26 per cent of its homeless. In Edmonton in 2008, the corresponding figures were five per cent and 40 per cent.

NAHA represents non-reserve Aboriginals. According to the 2006 census in Canada, 60 per cent of the Indigenous and Metis population of some 1.2 million (four per cent of the population of the country) are urban residents. Many have moved to urban settings to escape the dire poverty prevalent on most Indigenous territories.

Drinking water contamination and proper sanitation are also critical concerns in many Indigenous communities. In November 2011, CBC News reported on a federal government-commissioned assessment of water and sewer services on reserves that was released in April 2011. It looked at the water and sewer systems of 571 First Nations with 112,836 dwellings and a total population of 484,321. Thirty nine per cent of systems examined were deemed “high risk” to human health.

Mirror of Haiti

The parallels between Canada’s failure to adequately assist in housing its Indigenous population and the inadequacies and failings of its post-2010 earthquake aid to Haiti are striking. In Haiti, too, popular demands for a meaningful housing policy and for clean water and sanitation systems have been ignored and, as a result, protests are on the rise. Close to 400,000 Haitians are still living in harsh, displaced person tent camps with next to no services. Hundreds of thousands more have crammed into damaged buildings, into the homes of friends and relatives, or into informal shelter settlements, including very large settlements on the outskirts of Port au Prince.

In both circumstances, millions and billions of dollars are thrown at the problems and nothing seems to get done. Poor understanding of the plight of the victims and why the aid efforts fail, and the weakness or absence of advocacy on victims’ behalf opens space for prejudicial and racist interpretations of the problems to fester.

Racism is on the rise against the Idle No More movement as opponents of Indigenous rights and sovereignty strike back. Accusations of corruption, favoritism and incompetency against Indigenous communities and leaders are tossed about in ways that mislead and miseducate about the real sources of the policy failures in Indigenous communities.

Haiti received a dose of this treatment last Thursday from none other than Canada’s Minister of International Cooperation, Julian Fantino. Using his brief and only visit to Haiti last November as his prop, the minister blamed Haitians for their plight in an off-the-cuff, telephone interview with a journalist at the Montreal daily La Presse. The minister was newly appointed last year and has no international development experience.

Minister Fantino said Haitians can’t be bothered to organize themselves to clean up their cities and neighbourhoods. They can’t get a national government in place to get meaningful economic development going. They are simply looking for international handouts to solve their problems. “We [Canada] are not a charity foundation,” he said.

The minister used the interview to announce that Canada will freeze all new aid projects in Haiti. The Haitian government learned about the announcement through subsequent news reports.

Fantino’s comments join a string of recent, damaging decisions by Canada concerning Haiti, including sending more Canadian police and soldiers to the country, issuing a travel advisory warning just as Haiti is trying to launch tourism initiatives, and announcing that henceforth, international aid spending will serve first and foremost to promote Canadian business interests.

In Haiti as in Canada’s Indigenous communities, much of the millions and billions of dollars that are said to have been directed toward needy recipients have in fact remained entirely in the control of the donors, be they foreign governments or outside aid agencies. The funds could not be misspent by the recipients because they were never in their hands in the first place. Furthermore in Haiti’s case, half of the funds that were raised or promised for earthquake aid and recovery have not been spent and are not committed to future projects.

The failings or absence of housing and other social policy in Haiti and in Aboriginal territories in Canada can be traced to the deliberate and systematic weakening of political sovereignty and democratic institutions of the affected peoples. The fight to regain that sovereignty is a growing struggle that links the fate of the peoples of the two countries and is a key to their survival and progress. •

Watch a one and a half minute video of the Idle No More march at the U.S.-Canada border at Cornwall, Ontario (Akwesasne) on January 5, 2013. Listen to an informative, 20-minute interview on CBC Radio on January 7 with Idle No More spokesperson Pam Palmateer and former vice-president of United Native Nations in British Columbia, Ernie Crey.

CHAN statement: “Three years after Haiti’s earthquake.”

Roger Annis is a coordinator of the Canada Haiti Action Network. He can be reached at rogerannis@hotmail.com. This article first published on the rabble.ca website.

Financial Manipulation? Hedge Fund Operations Are Affecting the Gold Market

The price of gold has been kept down by hedge fund redemptions. These redemptions will end in a week and after that a nasty hand that has been holding the price of gold down will be lifted. As we begin this new year news is starting to trickle out demonstrating that hedge funds as a whole have had a horrid performance last year.

According to incoming data nine out of ten hedge funds failed to beat the S&P 500 last year. According to a recent report by Goldman Sachs their average return was 8% while the S&P 500 posted a 13% gain for 2012.

What is worse is that the third worst fund tracked by HSBC was the Paulson Advantage Fund. This fund of 19 billion dollars lost 19% last year due to bets that the European euro crisis would continue and that gold would rise. It is one of the largest holders of the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSE: GLD) and has been forced to meet investor redemptions.

These redemptions have undoubtedly caused selling in GLD in the past few weeks and will probably continue to hold gold prices down for another week. John Paulson also runs a gold fund that gave its investors a negative 25% return last year too. Paulson is not the only hedge fund manager facing big losses being forced to sell to meet investor redemption requests.

Most funds though didn’t generate huge losses, their program trading algorithms simply failed to beat the market. Ironically a few funds did beat the market last year by investing in places others wouldn’t. Dan Loeb’s Third Point hedge fund posted a 21% gain in 2012 by betting big on Yahoo and by buying Greek bonds. Pine River Capital Management also made 30% by holding depressed mortgage securities.

If you are a gold investor I do not think you should worry. Gold prices peaked out in the Fall of 2011 and since then have been consolidating in what I believe is a mere pause in a long-term secular bull market. The price of gold now has resistance at 1800 and support in the 1550-1600 zone. I think it will likely break out above its 1800 resistance level later this year, probably in the summer, and then begin a new bull run.

I know it’s easy to get anxious and worried when you see gold just slug around. I want you to know that much of the recent selling from hedge funds will soon be over. That will take one force of selling in gold out of the market. For disclosure purposes I have a position in GLD. We have seen several similar periods of consolidation in this secular gold bull market that have lasted well over a year. This one will come to an end the same way they did – with gold prices reigniting and leaving those that doubt the power of gold behind.

Hagel and Brennan Nominations: The Empire’s Agenda is Covert Warfare, Targeted Assassinations and “Counterterrorism”

Senate confirmation on both is required. Expect little opposition to Brennan. More on him below.

Republicans will challenge Hagel. At issue is political opportunism more than who serves. Questions about Obama’s nominee are exaggerated. More on that below.

Rarely ever are presidential nominations rejected. Expect nothing different this time. Candidates are carefully vetted. Selection depends on full support for US policies.

Hagel is a reliable imperial supporter. His Senatorial voting record offers proof. The Peace Majority Report rated him highly. The lower the score, the higher the rating. He scored 5%. John McCain got 4%, Joe Lieberman 26%, and Bill Clinton 74%.

The American Conservative Union called him solidly Republican. It gave him a lifetime 84% rating.

In 1996, Hagel suspiciously defeated Nebraska’s popular Democrat governor Ben Nelson.

At stake was a US Senate seat. Polls suggested a close race. Hagel won by 15 points. Few Nebraskans knew about Hagel’s ties.

He was part owner, chairman and CEO of Election Systems & Software (ES&S). It’s an electronic voting machine company.

At the time, it was called American Information Systems. AIS’ parent company founder, Michael McCarthy, was Hagel’s campaign treasurer. His easy victory made winning suspect.

He never disclosed his business ties. A Senate Ethics Committee investigation was requested. It was rejected. Nothing followed. Expect little or nothing said now.

Hagel serves as chairman of the Atlantic Council (ACUS). In 1961, former Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter established it. It was done to support NATO.

It’s headquartered in Washington. It supports Washington’s global agenda. Past and current members include a rogue’s gallery of reliable American imperial supporters.

Among others, they include Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Schlesinger, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Jones, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Susan Rice, and an array of current and former top military officials.

Frederick Kempe is president and CEO. He’s a former Wall Street Journal correspondent, editor and associate publisher. He’s a regular major media commentator.

Damon Wilson is executive vice president. Formerly he served on George W. Bush’s National Security Council. He’s committed to strengthening NATO. Like all past and current ACUS members, he supports America’s imperial project.

The Washington Post listed other Hagel credentials. Past and current ones include:

  • US senator (Nebraska-R.) from 1997 – 2009;
  • chairman of the US Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee;
  • co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and Defense Policy Board member;
  • Private Sector Council president and CEO;
  • Vanguard Cellular Systems co-founder, director and executive vice president;
  • Communications Corporation International LTD chairman;
  • Hagel & Clarke co-founder, director and president;
  • president McCarthy & Co,;
  • Veterans Administration deputy administrator;
  • Firestone Tire & Rubber government affairs director; and

He’s no dove. He’s solidly right-wing. He supported Bush’s war on terror. He backs it now. He voted for every National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He endorsed NATO’s 1999 Yugoslavia war.

At the time he said: “When you’re in a war, you’re in a war to win.” He called Slobodan Milosevic “a butcher loose in the backyard of NATO.” He viewed Kosovo as a “goal-line stand.”

He said if America doesn’t respond, “we will be tested every day for the next who knows how many years.” He favored sending US forces to Kosovo. He said “never….take any military option off the table.”

He voted for the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. He endorsed an “urgent need” for missile defense. He called the 1972 US/Soviet Russia Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) “obsolete.”

He said “We can’t hold America’s national security interests hostage to any threats from some other nation.”

After Bush withdrew from ABM in December 2001, he said “What the president did was responsible. I support it. I think it was the right thing to do.”

He accused North Korea of being “on the verge of fielding a ballistic missile capable not only of striking my home state of Nebraska, but anywhere in the United States.”

He supported the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

The Afghanistan war followed. It rages. It shows no signs of ending. It’s America’s longest war. It was lost years ago.

Hagel supported the 2003 Iraq war. When it was too late to matter, his tone got more dovish.

He favors lawless warrantless surveillance. He opposes habeas and due process rights for Guantanamo detainees.

On January 7, the Washington Post headlined “On Israel, Iran, and spending, Chuck Hagel looks a lot like Robert Gates,” saying:

His opponents claim he’ll dramatically change defense spending and America’s position on Israel and Iran. Reality suggests otherwise.

“The bottom line is that” Hagel and Gates “are remarkably similar and appear to share a number of policy preferences.” They include drawing down in Iraq and arguing against Libyan intervention.

Both men differ somewhat on Iran. Gates is more hardline. Hagel tried having it both ways. On the one hand, he claimed sanctions are counterproductive. At the same time, he said they’re “working.”

In his first post-nomination interview, he said critics “completely distorted” his record.

“I have said many times that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism,” he stressed. “I have also questioned some very cavalier attitudes taken about very complicated issues in the Middle East.”

Nonetheless, he favors “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.”

He called for direct Hamas/Hezbollah engagement. In 2008, he endorsed direct talks with Syria and North Korea.

There’s “not one shred of evidence” that he’s anti-Israeli, he said. “Israel is in a very, very difficult position. No border that touches Israel is always secure. We need to work to help protect Israel so it doesn’t get isolated.”

He calls “distortions about (his) record….astonishing.” During Senate confirmation hearings, he welcomes “an opportunity to respond” to critics.

At the same time, Politico quoted him saying “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator. I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for the Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.”

Politico added that:

“In 2006, (he) used the term ‘Jewish Lobby,’ ” saying:

“The political reality is….that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel.”

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) head Abe Foxman responded, saying:

“What I find more troubling is, he had sufficient time to distance himself from the ‘Jewish lobby’ quote, to explain, and he hasn’t.”

“He let it stand. I find that more troubling than the original statement. He sees it out there. He sees it being seen as this truly conspiratorial view, that the Jewish lobby controls foreign policy, and there’s no comment.”

AIPAC withheld comment. The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) said:

“While we have expressed concerns in the past, we trust that when confirmed, (Hagel) will follow the president’s lead of providing unrivaled support for Israel – on strategic cooperation, missile defense programs, and leading the world against Iran’s nuclear program.”

On January 8, the right-wing Jerusalem Post headlined “Ayalon: Hagel sees Israel as ‘true and natural’ ally,” saying:

Ayalon is Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister. He’s positive on Hagel’s nomination. “I have met him many times,” he said, “and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural US ally.”

Netanyahu withheld comment. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin expressed concerns. “Because of his statements in the past, and his stance toward Israel, we are worried,” he said.

He added that Washington’s ties to Israel don’t depend on “one person.”

The New York Times commented on Hagel and Brennan. Obama chose “two trusted advisers,” it said.

Expect Senate hearings for Hagel to be “bruising,” it added. Confirming both will likely follow.

John Brennan is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. He’s Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor.

He heads the administration’s Murder, Inc. agenda. He chairs a panel of National Security Council officials. CIA, FBI, Pentagon, State Department, and others are involved.

America’s war on terror is wide-ranging. It includes direct and proxy wars. Special Forces death squads operate in 120 or more countries. CIA agents are virtually everywhere. They’re licensed to kill.

US citizens are fair game. They’re vulnerable at home and abroad. Obama’s kill list picks targets. Brennan advises on who next to assassinate. Victims are a closely held secret.

Anyone can be targeted anywhere in the world. Ordinary people, distinguished ones, or officials are fair game. Their crime is opposing US imperialism.

Drone wars are prioritized. Human lives don’t matter. Rule of law principles are spurned. Summary judgment overrides them.

Obama usurped diktat authority. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. He and Brennan meet regularly. Eliminating America’s enemies matter most.

Washington calls innocent victims “terrorists.” Names go on kill lists. It’s called America’s “disposition matrix.” Brennan’s in charge of global assassinations. Prioritizing them made him top CIA director choice.

Expect drone wars to expand. So will targeted assassinations. Summary executions will be prioritized. Rule of law principles, standards, and protocols won’t matter. Counterterrorism takes no prisoners.

Russia’s inflationary bogey remains attractively low in 2012

Inflation in Russia keeps on touching its historic lows, standing at 6.6% in 2012. The Central Bank of Russia is now saying a turning point has been passed, with prices ‘doomed’ to follow a downward motion in 2013.

Prices grew at an even slower annual pace in 2011, when the inflation rate was 6.1%, according to the official data of Russian Statistic Service (Rosstat).

In 2012, food prices underpinned the largest part of the overall increase, as they were up 7.4% year on year. Meat, fish, eggs and milk – the basics of most people’s daily diet – gained the most. Among non – food items the cost of tobacco products jumped the highest – by 21.2% in 2012.

While a bad crop in 2012 forced the Russian Government to abandon initial plans to keep inflation below 6%, such fundamental factors as a slowing economy, de – facto floating of the rouble, coupled with budget constraints did their part and kept the final figure sound, says Kommersant daily.

Russians increased their saving at the end of 2012, as the Deputy Head of the Ministry for Economic Development commented then, which was coupled with increased deposit rates. Though lower spending could eat into the pace of economic growth in 2013, price stability seems to remain a priority for the monetary authorities in Russia.

“Starting from 2Q of next year we’ll be back to our target of between 5% and 6% for the index of consumer prices, if we don’t commit a lot of follies or anything extreme happens in the world,” the first deputy head at CBR told Interfax in December 2012.

Pensions ‘plunge over £3,000 in five years’

People planning to retire this year expect to be living off the lowest average incomes recorded in six years, it is claimed.

This year's retirees expect to have a typical annual income of £15,300, making them around £3,400 a year worse off than workers who retired in 2008, according to the Prudential.

The gap becomes much worse when taking into account the effects of inflation's erosion of people's household budgets.

Someone who retired last year would have needed an annual income of £21,400 to have the same spending power as an average person who entered retirement in 2008 on a typical income of £18,700, the Prudential said.

However, the average amount private employees retired on last year was £15,500, leaving them £5,900 worse off in real terms than workers who retired in 2008.

Across Britain there is also a £5,700-a-year difference between the regions with the highest and the lowest anticipated incomes for people retiring this year.

Londoners expect to retire on an annual income of around £18,200 this year, while retirees in the West Midlands have the lowest anticipated incomes, at £12,500.

Post-financial crash, annuity rates have dropped 33% and wiped thousands of pounds off retirees' incomes in recent years, while pensioners have faced a perfect storm of high living costs and low returns on their savings.

Experts also warned that possible changes to the way that Retail Price Index (RPI) is worked out could lead to more people being forced to put their retirement on hold due to the squeeze on their incomes.

Tom McPhail, head of pensions research at financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "For people approaching retirement, that is a huge blow to their expectations at a time when it is probably too late for them to do anything about it."

Hargreaves Lansdown said that a 65-year-old man with a £100,000 pension pot could have secured an annual income of £7,855 by buying an annuity in the summer of 2008 but if he was doing so in December 2012, that figure would have fallen to £5,338.

Quantitative easing (QE) has been blamed for pushing down annuity rates which set the size of someone's retirement income for life.

QE makes it cheaper for companies to borrow by pushing down the yield on government bonds, but annuity incomes are also based on these yields, meaning that new pensioners see their incomes reduced.

The Office for National Statistics has also been consulting on changes to the RPI and the recommendations from this will be announced on Thursday.

This trend downward is set to continue as baby boomers pass the age of 65, with 55% of 55 to 64-year-olds drawing a salary, compared with 41% in February 2010, Aviva has said.

PMQs: David Cameron, Pest Control And NOT Breaking The Law

After attempting to show strength in the stumbling coalition government by drawing comparisons between his leadership and a can of DIY varnish, David Cameron struggled to paint an impression of an 'in control' leader as PMQs kicked-off for 2013.

Sure, he was punchy, confident, even (well, sometimes) likeable in his Flashman-style distain – we expect all of that from Cameron. But it’s less what he said and more how he reacted which revealed what the PM is really thinking right now.

“The only little red pests I pursue these days are in this House,” said Cameron in answer to a question on fox hunting, rage bubbling under the surface.

pmqs

Commentators noted the PM's anger on this first encounter of the year

Miliband had plenty of ammo to fire at the PM including details of how Patrick Rock, Mr Cameron’s political adviser, was seen carrying a “restricted” document warning of “broken pledges” in the coalition.

Maybe it was the tired, but effective, accusations from Miliband of Cameron heading up the “nasty party” or Ed’s claim the PM is ‘just a PR man who can’t even do a relaunch’ or the questions about whether the PM rated women or not – either way, Dave wasn’t on his game.

He spent most of the session as puce as Ed Balls’ tie.

pmqs

Eds Balls and Miliband found a reason to smile - how long will that last?

The comment he made right at the end that “I’m closer to all Conservatives than I am to anyone from any other party” probably tells us all we need to know about how the next few years of the Ronseal coalition will go.

Neither man landed a killer blow. Instead today was more a case of running off the Festive season flab.

Yet it was Cameron’s bizarre comment “I’ve never broken the law” mid-way through the session which had most people talking afterwards.

There’s plenty of people on social networks who seem to think they can prove differently.

VERDICT: Draw


QUOTE OF PMQs
This goes to the PM, who often makes his most revealing comments when trying to swipe his way out of a corner in a fit of rage. When quizzed about fox hunting he responded: “The only little red pests I pursue these days are in this House.” Boom.


WORST OUTFIT OF PMQs
Without a shadow of doubt it was Theresa May – that 1970s Clothkits look must end.

may

Harlequin gone wrong: What is Mrs May wearing? Suggestions below, please


WEIRD QUESTION DELIVERY OF PMQs
Chris Evans MP *purses lips* hmmmmmmmm

chris evans

You had one chance, young man, ONE CHANCE! And you fluffed it!

‘Syria unrest, result of West meddling’

No Operation
The requested page was not found.
Please visit the PressTV homepage Here

© Copyright 2010 Press TV. All rights reserved.

Government’s Drive To Expel Foreign Students Is ‘Damaging UK Economy’

Calls to crackdown on bogus foreign students have driven large numbers of genuine overseas applicants to competitor countries, damaging not only universities but also the UK economy, a university chief has warned.

Chief executive of Universities UK, Nicola Dandridge, said repeated statements by ministers to be tougher on immigration had made international students feel unwelcome.

She said universities are reporting a significant drop in the number of students applying from overseas, particularly from India, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia,

"These are countries that send large numbers and also they are important countries in terms of international engagement, so we want to be promoting and fostering relations with them, not erecting barriers," she told The Guardian.

Any fall in foreign applicants will impact not only universities but also on the economy and international relations, she warned.

"They bring connections that reap dividends in financial and cultural and social terms way into the future," she said.

"We are concerned about the language and the atmosphere being created, not least because it plays very, very badly internationally.

"Whatever the intentions of the politicians are ... every time these sorts of comments are made by the Home Secretary or others it does have a potentially very damaging impact internationally."

LIKE HUFFPOST UK STUDENTS ON FACEBOOK | FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

In November, Boris Johnson issued a warning over prejudice against foreign students in the UK, saying new visa rules introduced by ministers sent out the "wrong signal".

Following the London Mayor's visit to India, a private Indian university announced its plans to open a campus in London for 15,000 foreign students.

Overseas students are estimated to be worth £8bn a year to the British economy, a figure projected to rise to £16.8bn by 2025, according to a study by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Home Secretary Theresa May last month announced the introduction of face-to-face interviews for 100,000 applicants for student visas a year.

She said the government's success in closing down bogus colleges and cutting student visa numbers by 74,000 (26%) last year as part of a drive to reduce overall net migration but insisted that there was no cap on legitimate students from outside the EU.

Dandridge said politicians need to portray the UK as being open and welcoming to international students without compromising immigration laws.

Mark Harper, the immigration minister, added: "The UK's education system is one of the best in the world but to maintain this reputation it is vital that we tackle the abuse of the student route, while making sure Britain remains open for business."

Check out the HuffPost UK international students section for up to date news on foreign students

SEE ALSO:

Ban Creates 'Appalling Image' Of Britain

Students Fear Deportation

2,600 Students Face Being Shipped Back Home

London Met Students 'Couldn't Speak English' Insists Immigration Minister

South Africa police attack farm workers

No Operation
The requested page was not found.
Please visit the PressTV homepage Here

© Copyright 2010 Press TV. All rights reserved.

EU court fines Italy for overfull jails

No Operation
The requested page was not found.
Please visit the PressTV homepage Here

© Copyright 2010 Press TV. All rights reserved.

‘Attack on Iran huge mistake for West’

No Operation
The requested page was not found.
Please visit the PressTV homepage Here

© Copyright 2010 Press TV. All rights reserved.

Ed Miliband Says ‘Door Is Open’ For Brother David To Return

Ed Miliband says "the door is open" for his brother David to join the Labour front benches. Speculation in Westminster that the former foreign secretary may be preparing the way for a return to frontline politics was reignited when he made a barnstorm...

Don’t focus on settlements: Israel

No Operation
The requested page was not found.
Please visit the PressTV homepage Here

© Copyright 2010 Press TV. All rights reserved.

Miliband Accuses Cameron Of Attempting To ‘Divide And Rule’ Over Welfare Bill

Ed Miliband has accused Cameron of attempting to "divide and rule" after the House of Commons voted in favour of legislation to impose real-terms cuts on welfare.

Wednesday's vote exposed tensions between the coalition parties, with four Liberal Democrat MPs - including ex-minister Sarah Teather - rebelling by voting against the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill, while former leader Charles Kennedy abstained.

Mr Kennedy said he wanted to see changes to the legislation, which caps benefit rises at a below-inflation 1% for the next three years, before it becomes law.

miliband

Miliband accused Cameron of attempting to divide and rule

Charities which work with poor families voiced dismay at the outcome of last night's vote, which saw MPs give the Bill a second reading by a majority of 56, clearing the way for more detailed scrutiny in committee.

But Mr Cameron insisted the cap - branded a "strivers' tax" by Labour - was "fair" at a time when wages are increasing only slowly.

In a message on Twitter, the Prime Minister said: "The Commons vote to limit benefit rises to 1% while pay is only rising at 1% is fair. Labour have the wrong priorities."

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told MPs that benefit levels had grown by 20% since the beginning of the recession, while incomes for those in work have risen by just 10%.

"What we are trying to do over the next few years is get that back to a fair settlement and then eventually it will go back onto inflation," he said.

cameron

Cameron branded it a 'strivers' tax

The cap, announced by Chancellor George Osborne in his Autumn Statement last year, is aimed at slashing £5 billion from the welfare bill over the next five years.

Mr Osborne has previously justified it by asking: "Where is the fairness... for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?"

But Mr Miliband said the benefits debate marked "a fork in the road for the country", citing figures showing that almost 70% of those who will lose out from the changes are in employment.

"It's now clear what the government's strategy is: it's a divide and rule strategy," the Labour leader told the Daily Mirror.

"They haven't succeeded in the first two-and-a-half years so they want to point the finger of blame at someone else so it doesn't get pointed at them. And therefore they are trying to divide and rule.

"They are cutting taxes for millionaires while hitting low-paid people, those people whose curtains are open when George Osborne gets up and still open when he goes to bed."

Mr Kennedy, who voted in both the Yes and No lobbies to register his abstention, said he was now "looking now to work with like-minded Lib Dems to amend the bill in its later stages".

Ms Teather, who lost her job as children and families minister in September last year, hit out at Tory ministers' characterisation of the measure as a division between "shirkers and strivers", warning it would have "long-term impacts on public attitudes, on attitudes of one neighbour against another".

She was joined in the No lobby by fellow Liberal Democrats David Ward, John Leech and Julian Huppert. Andrew George also abstained by voting in both lobbies and a further three Lib Dems who had earlier voted against a Labour amendment were absent for the key division.

Labour former foreign secretary David Miliband said the "rancid" bill was motivated by "the politics of dividing lines".

"The enemy within is not the unemployed, the enemy within is unemployment. I don't want to live in a society where we pretend that we can enjoy the good life while our neighbours lose their life chances," he said.

But Mr Duncan Smith accused the last Labour administration of "spending taxpayers' money like drunks on a Friday night" and "buying votes" by increasing handouts.

Labour had tied increasing numbers of households into the benefit system and created a "ridiculous nonsense" which made nine out of 10 families with children eligible for tax credits, he said.

Barnardo's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie warned that MPs risked condemning children in Britain's poorest families to "growing up stuck in the poverty trap, as their parents struggle to cover basic costs of living".

And Oxfam's director of UK poverty, Chris Johnes, said working-age benefits which poor families rely upon were being made to bear the brunt of Government cuts.

"Already, compared to average earnings, benefits are at their lowest levels since the welfare state was founded," said Mr Johnes

"On top of this, inequality will deepen as the proposed changes in the bill are undoubtedly going to hit poor families hardest."

Could David Miliband Come Back To The Labour Frontbench?

Ed Miliband has said "the door is open" for his brother David to join the Labour front benches, amid speculation he may be preparing to come back after making a barnstorming Commons speech attacking the Government's "rancid" policy on benefit cuts.

Miliband attacked the coalition from the left, saying the government's "rancid" legislation that would see benefits rise below inflation at 1% - a real terms cut.

"We all know the style. Invent your own enemy. Spin your campaign to a newspaper editor short on facts – or high on prejudice. 'Frame' the debate," he said.

ed miliband and david miliband

Ed Miliband has said "the door is open" for his brother David to join the Labour front benches


Ed Miliband has accused David Cameron of pursuing a "divide and rule strategy" by trying to pitch low-paid workers against the unemployed.

Westminster rumours have suggested that David Miliband may have his eye on the job of shadow chancellor, and Ed Miliband declined to guarantee that Ed Balls would keep the post up to the 2015 general election.

He said that time had healed some of the bruises from the 2010 leadership election in which he defeated David by a wafer-thin margin, but told the Daily Mirror that this should not be seen as an indication that his brother was about to join the shadow cabinet.

Ed has always said he would like to have his brother in his top team, while David has made clear over the past two-and-a-half years that he wants to stay away from the front line.

Speaking to the Mirror, Ed Miliband said: "Of course it was a bruising leadership contest and as time goes on that sort of recedes and that's good for our relationship.

"But I wouldn't take it as indication about a change in his view he's not coming back to the shadow cabinet, but the door is open."

Asked if Balls was guaranteed to hold the shadow chancellor's post up to the election, Miliband said: "I have the same rule for everybody across the shadow cabinet. And it's a very principled position.

"I am going to do nothing that's about measuring the curtains. It's the measuring the curtains thing - you start naming your Cabinet two and a half years before the election? Honestly.

"I think Ed Balls is doing a great job but I am not going to get into that."

Miliband also revealed that he and David had a family get-together during the Christmas break.

He and Justine gave David and wife Louise some wine "and other gifts". David gave him a book on the Boston Red Sox.

India calls in Pak envoy over attack

No Operation
The requested page was not found.
Please visit the PressTV homepage Here

© Copyright 2010 Press TV. All rights reserved.

Council Parking Charge Profits Attacked By IAM

Councils are making huge profits from parking charges while cutting road safety spending, according to new figures.

Councils in England took more than £411m in parking charges in 2011/12 - an increase of almost 15% on 2010/11, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) said.

Yet at the same time, the amount spent by councils on road safety, education and safe routes to schools, decreased by 18% to £105m, the IAM said.

It added that overall revenue spending on highways and transport reduced by 6% between 2010/11 and 2011/12, while capital expenditure (on construction, tarmac etc) reduced by an estimated 13%.

Peter Box, a councillor and chairman of the Local Government Association's economy and transport board, said: "With the number of cars on our roads increasing, it's more crucial than ever that parking is properly managed.

"Councils spend billions of pounds a year on transport services and are currently facing general budget cuts of up to 33% and a £442m reduction in their highways maintenance budget.

"This means they have far less to spend on roads and transport initiatives."

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said: "The analysis by the Institute is wrong.

"Income from on-street and off-street parking only rose by 3.7% in the last year, which is lower than the prevailing rate of inflation.

"The Institute have failed to adjust for the fact that councils have cut costs through efficiency savings."

The IAM said the top council "earners" from parking in 2011/12, all in London, were:

:: Westminster - up 8.7% from 2010/11 to £38m

:: Kensington and Chelsea - up 31% to £27.5m

:: Camden - up 18% to £25m

Outside London the biggest earners were:

:: Brighton and Hove - up 18.9% to £13.7m

:: Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire - up 9.3% to £6.5m

:: Newcastle upon Tyne - up 51% to £6.2m

Mehdi’s Morning Memo: The Poor Get Poorer Next Up, Pensioners

The ten things you need to know on Wednesday 9th January 2013...

1) THE POOR GET POORER. NEXT UP, PENSIONERS

Surprise, surprise - from the Huffington Post UK:

"The Government’s controversial plans for a real-terms cut in working-age benefits have cleared their first Commons hurdle by 324 votes to 268, majority 56.

"...The vote followed a tempestuous five-hour debate in parliament in which senior Tory and Labour MPs clashed over the benefits bill.

"Some four Liberal Democrats, including former minister Sarah Teather, rebelled against their leadership to vote against the below-inflation cap, while former leader Charles Kennedy and backbencher Andrew George voted in both lobbies - the traditional way of registering an abstention."

Much was made ahead of yesterday's debate - by Lib Dem rebels such as Sarah Teather and even Tory MPs such as Sarah Wollaston - of the crude and divisive rhetoric of 'strivers vs shirkers', of 'scroungers' and 'skivers'. The morning after the vote, little has changed - consider the splash headline on the front of today's Daily Express:

"Party Is Over For Benefit Skivers"

Charming. The harsh truth, hoever, is that benefits are now at their lowest levels since the founding of the welfare state more than 60 years ago. And as the economist Stewart Lansley has written, the government's Benefit Uprating Bill "marks a new low in the post-war history of welfare in the UK... it is unprecedented since the war. The last deliberate political move to lower the real incomes of the poorest members of society was more than eighty years ago in 1931."

Speaking after the vote, Barnardo's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said: "By voting to break the link between benefits and inflation today, MPs have risked condemning children in Britain's poorest families to growing up stuck in the poverty trap, as their parents struggle to cover basic costs of living."

But onwards and upwards, eh? Or should that be downwards? The Times and the FT both splash on news that the coalition may be turning its attention to pensioners' benefits next; from the Times:

"David Cameron is being urged by senior Conservatives to scrap benefits paid to richer pensioners as part of an overhaul of the welfare system.

"Ministers are pressing Mr Cameron to ensure that payments such as the £300-a-year winter fuel allowance are withheld from wealthy pensioners."

The FT says:

"Wealthy pensioners will no longer be insulated against the full force of austerity measures after the next election... Tory strategists said it was time to stop shielding better-off pensioners from cuts.

"In a sign of things to come, Iain Duncan Smith is looking at stopping winter fuel payments to pensioners living in Spain, Greece and other warm countries by applying a 'temperature test'."

No mention in any of these reports that means-testing tends not to work, or that Britain has one of the worst rates of pensioner poverty in the European Union.

Still, let's not forget that it was benefit claimants and the elderly who caused the crash with their dastardly credit default swaps and excessive bonuses. Oh wait...

2) '70 MISSED PLEDGES'

From the Telegraph:

"David Cameron and Nick Clegg will on Wednesday publish a candid assessment of the Coalition’s successes and failures that was excluded from its Mid-term Review, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

"The Deputy Prime Minister declared last month that the Government would provide voters with an audit of which targets it had missed and which it had achieved alongside the official review.

"But the annex, which consists of about 100 pages, was not published on Monday. Its existence emerged only when one of Mr Cameron’s senior advisers was photographed in Downing Street on Tuesday carrying a document that discussed the advantages and disadvantages of releasing it. The audit is understood to concede that the Coalition has missed dozens of pledges covering pensions, road building and criminal justice.

"... However, its existence was unknown to many ministers and advisers.

"It is understood that the Coalition has missed more than 70 pledges."

Oh dear. But to be fair to the coalition, that's 70 out of the 480 measures in the 2010 coalition agreement, i.e. less than 15%. Then again, to be unfair to the coalition, didn't they just mark their own answer papers? How is that credible?

3) LABOUR'S DAVID BOWIE

More news from DavidMilibandWorld. Let's begin with Ann Treneman's Times sketch, which focuses on David Miliband's impressive and impassioned intervention in yesterday's welfare debate in the Commons, in which the former foreign foreign secretary denounced the coalition's benefit uprating bill as "rancid":

"It seems that Bowie is not the only David making a comeback these days. Mr Milibanana, as he will always be to me, has made it clear that he is a man chafing in the confines of the cell that he has made for himself. Yesterday was a David Bowie moment and he was loving every moment of the attention."

"... He sat down, a man in search of applause. David Bowie's new single is called Where Are We Now?. In Mr Milibanana's case, though, the real question is, where is he heading?"

Well, the Mirror's Jason Beattie might have an answer for us. He begins his 'exclusive' interview with the Labour leader today with this paragraph:

"Ed Miliband today paves the way for his brother's political comeback by revealing time has healed their bitter rift. In his first major interview of 2013, the Labour leader fuels speculation David could return to the Shadow Cabinet by also refusing to guarantee that Ed Balls will stay on as Shadow Chancellor until the 2015 general election."

Beattie adds:

"Although they did not spend Christmas Day together, they did have a family get together to exchange presents.

"[Ed] and Justine gave David and Louise some wine 'and other gifts'. David gave his brother a book on the Boston Red Sox baseball team.

"'Look, of course it was a bruising leadership contest and as time goes on that sort of recedes and that's good for our relationship,' says Ed..."

Meanwhile, the Telegraph's James Kirkup notes how the elder Miliband took a bit of a dig at "the political tactics of Gordon Brown":

"Mr Miliband, who quit the Labour front bench in 2010 when his brother Ed beat him to the leadership, said trying to use the [welfare] issue against the Opposition showed ministers were taking a similar approach to the former prime minister.

"'This rancid Bill is not about fairness or affordability,' he said. 'It reeks of politics, the politics of dividing lines that the current Government spent so much time denouncing when they were in opposition in the dog days of the Brown administration. It says a lot that within two years it has fallen into the same trap.'"

Ouch.

4) PRIVATISE, PRIVATISE, PRIVATISE

Oh look: yet more privatisation of bits of the public sector. So much for the coalition staying on 'the centre ground'.

From the Guardian:

"The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, will today outline plans for the wholesale outsourcing of the probation service with private companies and voluntary sector organisations to take over the rehabilitation of the majority of offenders by 2015.

"The public probation service is to be scaled back and 'refocused' to specialise in dealing only with the most dangerous and high-risk offenders and public protection cases. The majority of services will be contracted out on a payment by result basis."

According to Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation union: "This move is purely ideological. It is being rushed through without proper thought to the consequences. It will be chaotic and will compromise public protection."

Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust isn't impressed, either:"Why not build on the success of joint work by probation, police and voluntary organisations, rather than break up the probation service and put the public at risk?"

5) LORDS-A-LEAPING

From the Sun:

"Trade Minister Lord Marland last night became the second Tory peer to quit in two days.

"The blow to David Cameron came just 24 hours after Lord Strathclyde said he was resigning as Leader of the House of Lords.

"Lord Marland told the PM he felt his ministerial responsibilities were making it difficult for him to sell British business around the globe.

"...Friends of the former businessman said he shared Lord Strathclyde's frustrations with being in a Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats."

Oh dear.

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR...

Watch this video of a bird (!) dancing to Dubstep.

6) SO HOW 'LIBERTARIAN' IS UKIP?

The UK Independence Party's critics on the left and the right were rubbing their hands with glee last night.

From blogger Sunny Hundal's Liberal Conspiracy website:

"UKIP is facing a backlash tonight from its own members after the chair of Young Independence (the party’s youth wing), Olly Neville, was abruptly ousted from his role.

"His offence? Stating his opinion in the media that Cameron was right to pursue the legalisation of same sex marriage. So much for the party’s dedication to libertarianism.

"Olly Neville himself published emails on Twitter that recounted his removal as chair."

Former Tory MP Louise Mensch weighed in from New York, via - where else? - Twitter:

"So #UKIP show themselves to be every bit the bunch of loons we thought they were - sacking a youth leader for supporting gay marriage."

Meanwhile, Ukip spokesman Gawain Towler tweeted:

"@OllyNeville removed as YI Interim Chair for misrepresenting UKIP policy (not marriage views)."

Hmm...

7) THE PRO-EU FIGHTBACK BEGINS...

...with - what else? - a letter to the Financial Times:

"British business leaders have warned David Cameron that the UK premier risks damaging his country's economy by taking it out of the EU, if he seeks 'wholesale renegotiation of ... membership'. Mr Cameron will this month set out, in a speech in the Netherlands, his plan to renegotiate Britain's membership and put the outcome to a referendum in the next parliament.

"But leading business figures, including Sir Richard Branson, Virgin Group chairman, and Chris Gibson-Smith, chairman of the London Stock Exchange, warned, in a letter to the Financial Times, that Mr Cameron's renegotiation plan could fail.

"'...To call for such a move in these circumstances would be to put our membership of the EU at risk and create damaging uncertainty for British business, which are the last things the prime minister would want to do,' the letter said.

"Other signatories are Roland Rudd, chairman of the Business for New Europe campaign group; Sir Roger Carr, CBI president; Lord Davies of Corsair Capital; Gerry Grimstone of TheCityUK; Jan du Plessis of Rio Tinto; Sir Michael Rake of BT; Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP; and Malcolm Sweeting of Clifford Chance."

8) WATCH OUT! THE CYBER ATTACKERS ARE COMING

From the BBC:

"The UK is at risk of an attack in cyberspace because of government "complacency", MPs have warned.

"The Defence Select Committee said the threat that cyber attackers posed could 'evolve at almost unimaginable speed', and called for rapid action to protect national security.

"The committee also said the British military's reliance on technology could leave it fatally compromised."

9) 'TROLLING', UNIONIST-STYLE

There's been violence on the streets of Belfast for six nights in a row, with 60 police officers injured and the police bill soaring to more than £7 million.

So how best to calm things down? Why not fly the Union Flag to mark Kate Middleton's birthday?

Eh?

From the HuffPost UK:

"[P]olice are gearing up for a tense day as the Union Flag is flown for the first time since the controversy over its use, to mark the Duchess of Cambridge's birthday.

"The occasion of Kate's birthday is one of the United Kingdom's official 'flag days.'"

This won't end well.

10) CONGRESS VS COCKROACHES

You think our elected politicians in Westminster are unpopular? Check out the US Congress's latest approval ratings over in the United States. According to a new report from Public Policy Polling:

"Our newest national poll finds that Congress only has a 9% favorability rating with 85% of voters viewing it in a negative light. We've seen poll after poll after poll over the last year talking about how unpopular Congress is but really, what's the difference between an 11% or a 9% or a 7% favorability rating? So we decided to take a different approach and test Congress' popularity against 26 different things.

"And what we found is that Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and even Nickelback... Now the news isn't all bad for Congress: By relatively close margins it beats out Lindsey Lohan (45/41), playground bullies (43/38), and telemarketers (45/35)."

Hurrah!

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From the Sun/YouGov poll:

Labour 44
Conservatives 32
Lib Dems 10

That would give Labour a majority of 120.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@OwenJones84Desperately waiting for coherent, confident opposition to Tories' onslaught on working poor and the unemployed from Stephen Timms #newsnight

@Mike_Fabricant I regret to admit that instead of listening to @owenjones84 on #newsnight , I was mesmerised by a zit on his forehead.....#

@BorowitzReport AIG suing the US government is like a drowning man who's been pulled from the ocean kicking the lifeguard in the balls.

900 WORDS OR MORE

Mary Riddell, writing in the Telegraph, says: "Labour believes George Osborne will be snared by his own welfare benefits trap."

Daniel Finkelstein, writing in the Times, says "Cameron holds the aces": "In the struggle between Europhiles, Eurosceptics and Europhobes, the middle ground is stronger than people think."

Seumas Milne, writing in the Guardian, says: "This economic model isn't delivering jobs or decent wages. The real scroungers are greedy landlords and employers."


Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

The U.S. and the Privatization of El Salvador

As much of Latin America braces itself for the possibility of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s death, observers around the world would do well to note the stark contrasts that exist within the region. On the one hand, there are the ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) countries, united by Chavez in their rejection of US imperialism and neoliberal capitalism. On the other hand, there are those countries which are still very much living under the hegemony of the United States.

In El Salvador, this means subservience to Washington and international investors who seek nothing less than total control of that nation’s economic destiny. This attempt at economic monopolization can be summed up with one word: privatization. It is precisely this strategy with all the union-busting, wage gouging, and propaganda disinformation that it entails, that is rearing its ugly head in El Salvador.

Public-Private Partnership (P3) Law

privatization-img1.jpgThe corporate-financier drive to privatize the Salvadoran economy has taken the form of the proposed Public-Private Partnership law which, if approved, would grant the government the right to sell off national resources, infrastructure and services to foreign multinationals. In effect, it would allow for the privatization of those sectors of the economy traditionally controlled by the state. As Gilberto Garcia of the Salvadoran Center for Labor Study and Support stated, “Essentially, they want to take a strategic service from the state in favor of a multinational.” [1] The ultimate goal of this legislation is not merely to cede control of state institutions to private interests, it is also to subvert and ultimately eliminate the power of organized labor and thereby reduce wages and the standard of living of working people in the country.

Public sector workers in El Salvador earn a minimum wage of $300 per month while their private sector counterparts earn anywhere between $187 and $219 per month.[2] The drive to privatize is, at least in part, aimed and driving down the wages of industrial workers while maximizing profits for foreign investors. However, the law is aimed not only at lowering wages, but weakening the public sector unions on a fundamental level in order to prevent mass resistance to the implementation of the neoliberal policies that have been so destructive in other parts of Latin America and the developing world. Many of the public sector unions have mounted effective resistance to these sorts of policies in the past, therefore making them high-priority targets for corporate bosses seeking to transform the economy for their own benefit.

This transformation of the economy affects the working class and the poor most acutely. Not only is access to vital social services and resources reduced, but the prices are increased dramatically. One clear example of this is the privatization of much of the electrical distribution system in El Salvador back in 1996 which resulted in an average increase in price of 47.2% for the lowest-level consumers.[3] Essentially then, the poor and working class of the country have to pay to subsidize the selling off of their own resources and services to powerful multinational corporations. It is for this reason that tens of thousands have begun mobilizing against this legislation and in support of organized labor. However, in order to fully appreciate the vast scope of this issue, one must understand the larger framework within which the P3 law was created.

The US and the “Partnership for Growth”

The Public-Private Partnership legislation is merely an outgrowth of the Obama Administration’s so-called “Partnership for Growth” bilateral agreement, signed with the Funes government in 2011. This agreement “embodies a key administration policy of seeking to elevate broad-based economic growth as a top priority of our development assistance, ensuring that our investments and policies are guided by rigorous assessments of how countries can achieve higher levels of growth,”[4] according to Mark Feierstein, assistant administrator for the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean. Despite the innocuous diplomatic rhetoric, the bilateral agreement intends to create a climate conducive to foreign exploitation of the resources and services of a country that is, in many ways, entirely dependent upon the United States for its economic survival. It should be noted here that, on more than one occasion, the Obama administration ambassador to El Salvador, Mari Carmen Aponte, has threatened to withhold crucial aid if the Public-Private Partnership law is not enacted.[5] In effect, the Partnership for Growth lays the foundation for a dependent relationship in which the United States, acting as the benefactor, controls the direction and type of development that El Salvador is allowed to have.

It is essential to understand the foundations of the Partnership for Growth in order to fully appreciate its far-reaching implications. One of the primary mechanisms by which the substance of this agreement is enacted is a so-called “Growth Council” whose goal is to create a business-friendly environment conducive to foreign corporations.[6] Made up of five wealthy capitalists and five government bureaucrats, the council acts as a sort of advisory board to the President, speaking on behalf of business interests and promoting the agenda of private business at the highest levels of the Salvadoran government. This council is, for all intents and purposes, the mouthpiece of international finance capital, collaborating with foreign interests to destroy the labor movement and reduce the standard of living for the working class and the poor while enriching themselves.

The Partnership for Growth recently had its first annual review in which delegates from the US and the Growth Council met to discuss the progress made in implementing the agreement. The delegates “gave a positive evaluation of the progress made on the PFG’s (Partnership for Growth’s) 20 goals and actions for achieving them…the delegation cited new bilateral security initiatives, programs to train youth for jobs with US fast food restaurants, hotels, and Wal-Mart; and new laws presented to the Salvadoran legislature to incentivize foreign investment.”[7] What should be evident from this is the fact that, in the minds of these representatives of corporate interests, growth can be understood as improving the investment climate while training young people to work in low-wage sectors in the service of multinational corporations, rather than promoting young people to work in the interests of their own country. This falls directly in line with the goal of the Partnership, namely furthering the interests of the wealthy while stifling the progress of the working class and the poor.

Another key player in this “partnership” is USAID. Promoting itself as an institution “extending a helping hand to those people overseas trying to make a better life,”[8] it is in fact merely an extension of the imperialist ruling class of the United States. USAID is intimately linked to this drive toward privatization in El Salvador. In fact, USAID works in close collaboration with the Millennium Challenge Corporation to disburse funds to countries that follow the prescribed neoliberal reform formula. As James Parks, Deputy Vice President for Policy and Evaluation at Millennium Challenge Corporation was quoted on USAID’s own website, “”El Salvador’s economic growth can be increased by enacting sound policies that enhance the ability of Salvadoran businesses to compete in the global economy…A more competitive El Salvador can create new jobs on the basis of a stronger private sector and more foreign investment. The key goal of the partnership is to help unlock the country’s full economic potential.”[9] What becomes clear is that USAID is instrumental in transforming the Salvadoran economy, using the leverage of conditional aid and other economic incentives to bend the government to the will of international capital. However, it is essential to understand that even the definition of the “challenges to prosperity” is purely propaganda.

The Propaganda of “Prosperity”

One of the central aspects of the “Partnership for Growth” campaign is a sustained propaganda assault directed at the people of El Salvador. The attempt is to convince citizens, the middle class especially, that by simply addressing a few key “bottlenecks” in production, the country will be on its way to a brighter economic future. These main “constraints to growth” are crime and low productivity. Those of us in the United States should be familiar with this sort of terminology which is always used as a rhetorical smokescreen to refer to the poor and organized labor. When the Partnership for Growth committee, led by American “advisors” described these twin problems as the central obstacles to growth, it was essentially a declaration of war on the unions and the poor. Moreover, it further legitimizes the abhorrent so-called US drug war and the union-busting policies of neoliberalism.

The attempt is to convince the people of El Salvador that, rather than corrupt puppet governments and a disgraceful and exploitative economic system beholden to multinational corporations, the problems in that country are of their own making. This same logic has been applied to countless other countries in the region for decades and is the root cause of much of the conflict and internal strife in Latin America. One need only look to Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador and elsewhere to find examples of countries that, despite tremendous pressure and international demonization campaigns, have been able to take control of their own economic systems, becoming the masters of their own destiny. In this time of uncertainty in Latin America, one must examine how El Salvador is really a microcosm for the United States and the world more broadly both in terms of the assault by corporations on workers and the way in which it represents the class struggles we see throughout the world. By seeing this issue in its broadest possible context, peace-loving anti-imperialists around the world can stand in solidarity with the people of El Salvador and all working people struggling to be free.

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is a regular contributor to Russia Today, Press TV, GlobalResearch.ca, and other media outlets. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

Notes
[1] http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/01/us-intervention-el-salvador-privatization-time
[2] http://www.cispes.org/blog/workers-mobilize-for-higher-wages-in-private-sector/
[3] http://www.cispes.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/APPFactSheet.pdf
[4] http://transition.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_mar12/FL_mar12_LAC_El_SALVADOR.html
[5] http://www.cispes.org/blog/us-ambassador-ransoms-aid-for-passage-of-public-private-partnerships-law/
[6] http://photos.state.gov/libraries/elsavador/92891/octubre2011/Joint_Country_Action_Plan.pdf
[7] http://www.cispes.org/blog/partnership-for-growth-pushes-privatization-as-development-in-el-salvador/
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAID
[9] http://transition.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_mar12/FL_mar12_LAC_El_SALVADOR.htm

La destitución social, guerras sin fronteras y mentiras cautivadoras

chossu2

EN ENTREVISTA CELESTE SÁENZ DE MIERA CON EL INVESTIGADOR MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY

Director de Global Research con sede en Canadá y en exclusiva para voces del periodista, realizó un análisis sobre lo que él llama la destitución social, guerras sin fronteras y mentiras cautivadoras, a partir del debate sobre el fin del mundo.

A continuación transcribimos en forma íntegra la opinión y el análisis de Chossudovsky.

CSM

Profesor, ¿cuáles son las lecturas sobre la distorsión de  las profecías Mayas, acerca del fin del mundo?

MC

Es cierto que en Estados Unidos, Canadá, Europa, Asia y Oceanía es el fin del mundo, aunque no para todos, hay un porcentaje elevado de la población que piensa que es el fin del mundo.

Además no conocen el pensamiento Maya, que en realidad esto no es el fin del mundo, es el comienzo de un nuevo ciclo en el calendario es un renacimiento.

En México, ya se conoce este pensamiento, pero lo que está sucediendo es que la prensa, los medios masivos de comunicación, lo están utilizando como un mecanismo para distorsionar la crisis global, la caída del nivel de vida, la guerra sin fronteras; es decir, es un mecanismo que manipula la realidad.

El debate sobre la guerra en medio oriente, la caída del nivel de vida, el empobrecimiento de personas, simplemente no llega a la primera página.

En realidad vivimos una situación que es un poco el fin del mundo para mucha gente, esto en sentido figurado.

Michel1

No es una cuestión de pobreza, es un mecanismo de destitución social, donde la gente pierde todo: su empleo, su casa, su familia; situación que se ve en distintos países.

En la India donde el campo rural vive una crisis por la falta de subsidios, ha llevado a los campesinos a la bancarrota.

En Siria donde hay una guerra, llevada a cabo por los Estados Unidos y la OTAN, en contra de un pueblo, de una nación. Creando una situación que la prensa lo llama: “Guerra Civil”, no es una guerra civil, es una invasión, una agresión.

Se está fabricando “Un fin del mundo”, catástrofes, crisis; pero la verdadera crisis es la globalización de la pobreza y la guerra sin fronteras, no son un motivo de debate.

Al mismo tiempo, cuando hablamos de soluciones a las crisis económica son medidas de austeridad, que es la medicina del Fondo Monetario Internacional, de tal manera, que la solución a la crisis, se vuelve a la causa de las crisis, esto es, porque la austeridad no va solucionar, al contrario lo va a profundizar.

CSM

Profesor nos ha hablado sobre austeridad y de ahí a la destitución social; que impacta a los que menos tienen; también sobre mentiras cautivadoras que se crean, además de la sofisticación de la mentira que provoca violencia y sobre los medios de comunicación, que se han convertido en armas de cuarta generación, que son además armas de destrucción masiva, armas que destruyen la ética y que promueven pensamientos mágicos, en fin que estupidizan, destruyen y bombardean sistemáticamente la inteligencia emocional.

Como bien lo dices el fin del mundo es una mala interpretación, no son los mayas los que se equivocaron porque ellos hablan de los cambios. Nos hablas además del verdadero fin del mundo para muchos seres humanos en Siria, ese país, que tiene un gobierno secular, y del que tanto se tergiversa, cuando el fin del mundo es el que crean quienes depredan, ¿cómo entender las alianzas de quienes públicamente dicen que son enemigos pero que finalmente son aliados?, que están por escondidos y camuflados pero que son la raíz de esta problemática. Abordabas el tema sobre destitución social.- ¿qué pasa en éste mundo al revés? Siria que es un país que no tiene deuda con ningún organismo financiero, no tiene deudas con el FMI, ni con el banco mundial, punto que es tremendamente positivo, pero que a quienes dominan e invaden no les parece.

MC

Es cierto que Siria, es una civilización antigua: la Mesopotamia, fuente de la civilización, de la urbanización, de la agricultura. Es un país, donde los cristianos y musulmanes conviven juntos desde hace muchos siglos. Aunque no podemos decir, que es una sociedad ideal, desde el punto de vista de derechos humanos, pero de todas formas, existe un gobierno secular, con un modo de pensar, de actuar muy civilizado, muy por encima de lo que he visto en muchos de mis viajes a otras ciudades del mundo.

Lo que sucede en Siria, con la guerra, se está destrozando a un país, se crean condiciones de derrumbe de las instituciones, da imposibilidad de que funcionen, no es una guerra convencional.

Los Estados Unidos dicen, que ellos aplican la guerra no convencional, la guerra no convencional es reclutar a mercenarios islamistas, formados por fuerzas especiales de la OTAN y de la CIA, con metodología establecida.

Michel2

A estos los llaman rebeldes, son personas ligadas a Al Qaeda, ellos pueden tener en su posesión armas químicas, son grupos controlados por Washington. Aunque también las fuerzas especiales de la OTAN o de la CIA, les faciliten las armas químicas y que utilicen en contra de la población siria y en la lógica de la desinformación mediática, se va a decir que el gobierno es el responsable de matar a su propio pueblo.

En las últimas noticias se está hablando del hecho de que los terroristas tienen en su posesión armas químicas, lo que me da la impresión de que los Estados Unidos quieren desencadenar una crisis humanitaria por el uso de estas armas químicas, por parte de los rebeldes. Aunque hay que aclarar que estos no son los que deciden, la decisión se toma en el pentágono.

Recordaran que el pretexto para invadir Irak, se había utilizado incluso a la ONU, en el que se decía que Saddam tenía armas de destrucción masiva. Colín Powell presento ante el consejo de Seguridad un informe donde se decía que Irak tenía armas de destrucción masiva, lo que fue mentira.

Bush y Blair, dijeron nos equivocamos, esto se dijo después de la guerra, de la invasión.

El caso de Siria es un poco distinto, la alianza militar de occidente no quiere utilizar el hecho de que las fuerzas armadas sirias tienen armas químicas, todos los países tienen armas, pero estas están bien resguardadas. El gobierno sirio ha dicho que no tiene intensión de utilizarlas.

La estrategia mediática de occidente, es decir que los rebeldes pueden tomar esas armas. Están creando un escenario donde los terroristas las tomen y utilizarlas en contra de la población, para provocar una crisis humanitaria.

Al parecer en la ciudad de Alepo ya hubo un caso de utilización de armas químicas, lo que motivo noticas a nivel internacional y local.

CSM

Profesor, vemos en los medios masivos de información, como se sacan de contexto, incluso los discursos como el que dio Vladimir Putin, ¿qué significa dinos Rusia para Siria, como  interés estratégico de  un equilibrio económico?

MC

Putin ha dado conferencias de prensa, sin embargo subrayo en cuanto a la desinformación cada vez es mayor. Cada vez que Moscú hace un planteamiento la prensa de occidente dice lo contrario.

Michel4

Hubo un rumor de que Moscú estaba apoyando a los Estados Unidos y la OTAN, la prensa de occidente cita a un ministro del exterior, quien decía que la situación es muy grave, sin fijar su postura, y finalizaba diciendo que apoyaban a Siria.

Al inicio de diciembre Siria tomo las previsiones, al obtener misiles rusos, los más avanzados con la capacidad de defender a su país de cualquier peligro posible de un enfrentamiento. Por otra parte, la OTAN ha instalado misiles Patriot en la frontera con Turquía; lo que está en riesgo de una escalada de enfrentamientos y desencadenar una guerra regional y hasta una tercera guerra mundial.

CSM

¿Qué tanto debemos estar alerta y qué tanta, responsabilidad podemos tener en nuestro análisis? Porque finalmente somos más los que somos  receptores de estas mentiras ¿Cómo podemos entender estas realidades que creíamos lejanas? Pero que los financieristas nos traen de vuelta desde el oscurantismo total? ¿Qué opinas sobre el que y él como ya se les desgastó el discurso de su  justificación en pro de una supuesta democracia?, mismo que ya no pega , y que además  valdría la pena analizar sobre los diferentes conceptos de  democracia en un lugar y en otro. Y que mas allá de la razón ahora inoculen  odio a partir de fomentar lo que son los dogmas, la fe  y que la gente así  sea manipulada por la religión de manera fanática en donde ya no hay espacio para argumentar desde bases de razón sino de creencias.

MC

Dos puntos. El primero, la creación del islamismo radical, no es un proyecto de la sociedad musulmana, es un proyecto de los servicios de inteligencia de los Estados Unidos; es un instrumento que la CIA creo para usarlos como combatientes.

El segundo, el contexto del discurso mediático es invertir lo que es mentira y la verdad. La mentira viene a ser la verdad. La guerra es una operación humanitaria. La austeridad es prosperidad. El estado policial, es democracia. Los que quieren la democracia, son verdaderos terroristas. La riqueza es un indicador de progreso, de desarrollo. Toda una serie de conceptos invertidos.

Michel6

No admiten ningún debate porque no permiten saber la verdad. La guerra es una operación humanitaria, porque es a través de esta que se llega a la paz y a la democracia. Estos conceptos invertidos, forman parte de los medios de comunicación.

En realidad el objetivo primordial es provocar confusión total y obediencia a un orden político, no permiten el derecho a preguntar. La manipulación del fin del mundo, todo es un proceso de esconder la crisis real del capitalismo, que está afectando a la humanidad, la gran depresión del siglo XXI y la posibilidad de una tercera guerra mundial, que no aparece en los diarios.

CSM

Profesor, dices que la verdad es un instrumento de combate ¿qué hacemos con esta sofisticación mundial y deliberada de utilización de la mentira? Y por otra parte vemos la vergüenza de lo que pasa en ese mundo que se ha erigido como súper policía y res guardador de la “justicia”, el que determina qué y quién es “el bueno y el malo”, cuando en sus propias entrañas vemos que son asesinados niños de 6 y 7 años además de algunas profesoras, por la venta de armas. ¿Qué capacidad tenemos de reflexionar? ¿Ya la habrán asesinado también? Qué opinión tienes respecto a las reacciones desde las cúpulas visibles del poder sobre la tragedia en Connecticut además de otras más, cuando se pasa primero por el tamiz del interés económico y como segundo el interés de la vida.

MC

El culto a la violencia, a la matanza que está presente en Hollywood, es cierto es un elemento y por otro lado hay casos más graves que en la escuela de Newtown.

Lo que puedo observar es el fenómeno de la criminalización no solamente en el aparato estatal, ustedes ya conocen eso en México.

Es la criminalización de la economía, del sector financiero, de la prensa. Los criminales están protegidos por un sistema de justicia, que es a su vez criminalizado.

Cuando el jefe de Estado es un criminal según el derecho Internacional, todo el aparato de justicia lo es.

Cuando HSBC tiene vínculos con los cárteles de la droga en México, los verdaderos criminales son la banca, porque la banca está utilizando a los criminales como instrumento, hay una cierta jerarquía. Pero la droga esta manejada por los bancos no tanto por los criminales, que también tienen su responsabilidad.

Es la criminalización del aparato financiero, del aparato jurídico, del sistema de gobierno, donde hay criminales que ocupan un lugar en el gobierno.

El caso de Monsanto, que producen semillas transgénicas, la Unión Europea lo apoya. De tal manera, que cuando una sociedad, donde los grupos financieros actúan de manera criminal, la sociedad está en crisis, porque no puede haber ningún estado de derecho, no existen más.

CSM

Cuando vemos tan evidentemente ese doble discurso desde las esferas del poder donde se dice que su prioridad es combatir al terrorismo y toda forma de crímenes, pero que por otro lado imponen multas que lavan con 1920 millones de dólares, un lavado mucho mayor y del que fue señalado el HSBC así como otros más y no hay evidencia más clara que este y otros casos sobre lavado de dinero, en el que además y detrás de este blanqueo se tejen hechos de sangre, de pauperización de la dignidad humana, secuestros, tráfico de personas, etc. En donde, han cosificado al ser humano. Citando al doctor Cesar Garizurieta recordemos como existen crímenes que para las grandes empresas no se configuran como delitos y en cambio para individuos los mismos crímenes si se califican como delito, ¿Qué nos dices sobre eso?

MC

Los verdaderos criminales, tienen que tener en la base de la sociedad gente que comete delitos, para justificar el hecho de que ellos no son los criminales, esta criminalización es a nivel estructural, de la sociedad en su conjunto.

Ofcom To Boost Hunt for Nuisance Call Firms

The telecoms watchdog is to boost efforts to hunt down companies behind nuisance calls to householders.

The move was prompted after Ofcom said a study found almost half of all adults were subjected to silent or abandoned calls within a six-month period.

The regulator announced a plan to tackle the growing problem after its own research suggested the number of those affected had increased from 24% in 2011 to 47% in 2012.

An abandoned call is one that ends when it is picked up while a silent call is where the receiver hears nothing and has no way of knowing whether there is anyone at the other end of the line.

The figures, released in the regulator's annual Consumer Experience Report, also reveal that 71% of landline customers received a live marketing call, while 63% received a recorded marketing message over the same six-month period.

Ofcom said its plan to help tackle nuisance calls would include a new study to build a clearer picture of the problems consumers experience.

It has also pledged to work closely with the industry to identify ways to trace companies behind nuisance calls when they try to hide their identity.

Ofcom issued fines totalling more than £800,000 within the last year to HomeServe and npower over silent or abandoned calls. TalkTalk is currently under investigation.

The watchdog has also received numerous complaints from consumers who have been pestered by callers acting on behalf of firms looking to payment protection insurance mis-selling compensation claim firms.

Ofcom's consumer group director Claudio Pollack said: "Nuisance calls can cause annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety to consumers.

"This is a complex and challenging area, but Ofcom is determined to work with industry and other regulators to help protect consumers. Our new research will help to understand the root cause of the problem."

Govt Wins Vote On Capping Rise In Benefits

MPs have voted to back the Government's plans for a 1% cap on annual rises in working-age welfare payments and tax credits.

After heated exchanges during a Commons debate, politicians voted in favour of the legislation at a second reading by 324 to 268 - a majority of 56.

The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill limits rises in most working-age benefits to 1% in 2014/15 and 2015/2016 instead of linking them to inflation. Similar measures for 2013/14 will be introduced separately.

The plan is aimed at slashing £5bn from the welfare bill over the next five years.

Ministers say the cap is needed because it is unfair that state handouts have been rising twice as fast as wages during recent years of austerity.

Labour voted against the move to end inflation-linked rises and branded it a "strivers' tax" as 68% of households caught by the below inflation rise in benefits were in work.

But Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith accused Labour of tying working families into the benefits system and "buying votes" by increasing handouts.

He claimed the previous government had created a system in which nine out of 10 families with children could claim tax credits, including those on £70,000-a-year.

He said: "They (Labour) think that helping people is about trapping more and more people in benefits. What is really interesting is that under the tax credit system, nine out of ten families with children were eligible for tax credits.

"This went in some cases up to over £70,000 in earnings. What a ridiculous nonsense they have created."

Former Liberal Democrat minister Sarah Teather rebelled and warned attacks on the poor could lead to the "fragmentation" of society.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated seven million working families will be £165 worse off a year, compared to £215 for the 2.5 million workless households.

Mr Duncan Smith says the £165 figure only reflects the benefits cap and claims working families will actually be £125 better off each year due to the rise in the income tax threshold.

He said that since the beginning of the recession incomes for those in work have risen by about 10%, while for those on benefits they have risen by about 20%.

He said: "What we are trying to do over the next few years is get that back to a fair settlement and then eventually it will go back on to inflation."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne claimed the Bill was a "hit and run on working families" who were paying the price for the Chancellor's economic failure.

Will America Ever Grapple with the Atrocities It Committed in Vietnam?

There has been one connecting thread in Washington’s foreign wars of the last half century -- misery for local nationals.

January 8, 2013  |  

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Hudyma Natallia

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.

Pham To looked great for 78 years old.  (At least, that’s about how old he thought he was.)  His hair was thin, gray, and receding at the temples, but his eyes were lively and his physique robust -- all the more remarkable given what he had lived through.  I listened intently, as I had so many times before to so many similar stories, but it was still beyond my ability to comprehend.  It’s probably beyond yours, too.

Pham To told me that the planes began their bombing runs in 1965 and that periodic artillery shelling started about the same time.  Nobody will ever know just how many civilians were killed in the years after that.  “The number is uncountable,” he said one spring day a few years ago in a village in the mountains of rural central Vietnam.  “So many people died.”

And it only got worse.  Chemical defoliants came next, ravaging the land.  Helicopter machine gunners began firing on locals.  By 1969, bombing and shelling were day-and-night occurrences.  Many villagers fled.  Some headed further into the mountains, trading the terror of imminent death for a daily struggle of hardscrabble privation; others were forced into squalid refugee resettlement areas.  Those who remained in the village suffered more when the troops came through.  Homes were burned as a matter of course.  People were kicked and beaten.  Men were shot when they ran in fear.  Women were raped.  One morning, a massacre by American soldiers wiped out 21 fellow villagers.  This was the Vietnam War for Pham To, as for so many rural Vietnamese. 

One, Two… Many Vietnams?

At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for years after, reporters, pundits, veterans, politicians, and ordinary Americans asked whether the American debacle in Southeast Asia was being repeated.  Would it be “ another Vietnam”?  Would it become a “ quagmire”? 

The same held true for Afghanistan.  Years after 9/11, as that war, too, foundered, questions about whether it was “ Obama’s Vietnam” appeared ever more frequently.  In fact, by October 2009, a majority of Americans had come to believe it was “ turning into another Vietnam.”

In those years, “Vietnam” even proved a surprisingly two-sided analogy -- after, at least, generals began reading and citing revisionist texts about that war.  These claimed, despite all appearances, that the U.S. military had actually won in Vietnam (before the politicians, media, and antiwar movement gave the gains away).  The same winning formula, they insisted, could be used to triumph again.  And so, a failed solution from that failed war, counterinsurgency, or COIN, was trotted out as the military panacea for impending disaster. 

Debated comparisons between the two ongoing wars and the one that somehow never went away, came to litter newspapers, journals, magazines, and the Internet -- until David Petraeus, a top COINdinista general who had written his doctoral dissertation on the “lessons” of the Vietnam War, was called in to settle the matter by putting those lessons to work winning the other two.  In the end, of course, U.S. troops were booted out of Iraq, while the war in Afghanistan continues to this day as a dismally devolving stalemate, now wracked by “ green-on-blue” or “insider” attacks on U.S. forces, while the general himself returned to Washington as CIA director to run covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen before retiring in disgrace following a sex scandal. 

Still, for all the ink about the “ Vietnam analogy,” virtually none of the reporters, pundits, historians, generals, politicians, or other members of the chattering classes ever so much as mentioned the Vietnam War as Pham To knew it.  In that way, they managed to miss the one unfailing parallel between America’s wars in all three places: civilian suffering. 

Canada’s First Nations: A History of Resistance

idle no more

Much has been said recently in the media about the relationship between the inspiring expression of Indigenous resurgent activity informing the #IdleNoMore movement and the heightened decade of Native activism that led Canada to establish the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in 1991. I offer this short analysis of the historical context that led to RCAP in an effort to get a better sense of the transformative possibilities in our present moment of struggle.

The federal government was forced to launch RCAP in the wake of two national crises that erupted in the tumultuous “Indian summer” of 1990.

Elijah Harper’s filibuster

The first involved the legislative stonewalling of the Meech Lake Accord by Cree Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper. The Meech Lake Accord was a failed constitutional amendment package negotiated in 1987 by then prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, and the ten provincial premiers. The process was the federal government’s attempt to bring Quebec “back in” to the constitutional fold in the wake of the province’s refusal to accept the constitutional repatriation deal of 1981, which formed the basis of the The Constitution Act, 1982. Indigenous opposition to Meech Lake was staunch and vocal, in large part due to the fact that the privileged white men negotiating the agreement once again refused to recognize the political concerns and aspirations of First Nations. In a disruptive act of legislative protest, Elijah Harper initiated a filibuster in the days immediately leading up to the accord’s ratification deadline, which ultimately prevented the province from endorsing the package. The agreement subsequently tanked because it failed to gain the required ratification of all ten provinces within three years of reaching a deal.

The Oka conflict

The second crisis involved a 78-day armed “standoff” beginning on July 11, 1990 between the Mohawk nation of Kanesatake, the Quebec provincial police (SQ), and the Canadian armed forces near the town of Oka, Quebec. On June 30, 1990 the municipality of Oka was granted a court injunction to dismantle a peaceful barricade erected by the people of Kanesatake in an effort to defend their sacred lands from further encroachment by non-Native developers. The territory in question was slotted for development by a local golf course, which planned on extending nine holes onto land the Mohawks had been fighting to have recognized as their own for almost 300 years. Eleven days later, on July 11, one hundred heavily armed members of the SQ stormed the community.

The police invasion culminated in a 24 second exchange of gunfire that killed SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay. In a display of solidarity, the neighbouring Mohawk nation of Kahnawake set up their own barricades, including one that blocked the Mercier Bridge leading into the greater Montreal area. Galvanized by the Mohawk resistance, Indigenous peoples from across the continent followed suit, engaging in a diverse array of solidarity actions that ranged from leafleting to the establishment of peace encampments to the erection of blockades on several major Canadian transport corridors, both road and rail.

Although polls conducted during the stand-off showed some support by non-Native Canadians outside of Quebec for the Mohawk cause, most received their information about the so-called “Oka Crisis” through the corporate media, which overwhelmingly represented the event as a “law and order” issue fundamentally undermined by Indigenous peoples’ anger and resentment-fuelled criminality.

For many Indigenous people and their supporters, however, these two national crises were seen as the inevitable culmination of a near decade-long escalation of Native frustration with a colonial state that steadfastly refused to uphold the rights that had been recently “recognized and affirmed” in section 35 (1) of the The Constitution Act, 1982. By the late 1980s, this frustration was clearly boiling over, resulting in a marked rise in First Nations’ militancy and land-based direct action. The following are some well-documented examples from the time:

The Innu occupation and blockade of the Canadian Air Force/NATO base at Goose Bay, Labrador

The occupation was led largely by Innu women to challenge the further dispossession of their territories and the destruction of their land-based way of life by the military industrial complex’s encroachment onto the Innu peoples’ homeland of Nitassinan;

The Lubicon Cree struggle against oil and gas development on their traditional territories in present day Alberta

The Lubicon Cree have been struggling to protect a way of life threatened by intensified capitalist development on their homelands since at least 1939. Over the years, the community has engaged in a number of very public protests to get their message across, including a well-publicized boycott of the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics and the associated Glenbow Museum exhibit, The Spirit Sings;

First Nations blockades in British Columbia

Throughout the 1980s, First Nations in B.C. grew extremely frustrated with the painfully slow pace of the federal government’s comprehensive land claims process and the province’s racist refusal to recognize Aboriginal title within its its borders.  The result was a decade’s worth of very disruptive blockades, which at its height in 1990 were such a common occurrence that Vancouver newspapers felt the need to publish traffic advisories identifying delays caused by First Nation roadblocks in the province’s interior. Many of the blockades were able to halt resource extraction on Native land for protracted periods of time;

The Algonquins of Barriere Lake

By 1989, the Algonquins of Barrier Lake were embroiled in a struggle to stop clear-cut logging within their traditional territories in present day Quebec because these practices threatened their land and way of life. Under the leadership of customary chief, Jean-Maurice Matchewan, the community used blockades to successfully impede clear-cutting activities affecting their community.

The Temagami First Nation blockades of 1988 and 1989 in present-day Ontario.

The Temagami blockades were set up to protect their nation’s homeland from further encroachment by non-Native development. The blockades of 1988-89 were the most recent assertions of Temagami sovereignty in over a century-long struggle to protect the community’s right to land and freedom from colonial settlement and development.

From the vantage point of the colonial state, by the time the 78-day standoff at Kanesatake had begun things were already out of control in Indian Country. If settler-state stability and authority are required to ensure “certainty” over lands and resources to create a climate friendly for expanded capitalist accumulation, then the barrage of Indigenous practices of disruptive counter-sovereignty that emerged with increased frequency in the 1980s was an embarrassing demonstration that Canada no longer had its shit together with respect to managing the so-called “Indian Problem.” On top of this, the material form that these expressions of Indigenous sovereignty took on the ground – the blockade, explicitly erected to impede constituted flows of racialized capital and state power from entering and/or leaving Indigenous territories — must have been particularly troubling to the settler-colonial elite.

All of this activity was an indication that Indigenous people and communities were no longer willing to wait for Canada (or even their own leaders) to negotiate a just relationship with them in good faith. There was also growing concern that Indigenous youth in particular were no longer willing to play by Canada’s rules – especially regarding the potential use of political violence – when it came to advancing their communities’ rights and interests. As then national chief of the Assembly of the First Nations, Georges Erasmus, warned in 1988: “Canada, if you do not deal with this generation of leaders, then we cannot promise that you are going to like the kind of violent political action that we can just about guarantee the next generation is going to bring to you.” Consider this “a warning,” Erasmus continued: “We want to let you know that you’re playing with fire. We may be the last generation of leaders that are prepared to sit down and peacefully negotiate our concerns with you.”

In the wake of having to engage in one of the largest military operations since the Korean War, the federal government announced on Aug. 23, 1991 that a royal commission would be established with a sprawling 16-point mandate to investigate the abusive relationship that had clearly developed between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state. Published two years behind schedule in Nov. 1996, the 58 million dollar, five-volume, approximately 4,000 page Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples includes 440 recommendations which call for a renewed relationship based on the core principles of “mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing and mutual responsibility.” The material conditions that informed the decade of Indigenous protest that led to the resistance as Kanesatake created the political context that RCAP’s call for recognition and reconciliation was supposed to pacify — namely, the righteous anger and resentment of the colonized transformed into an insurgent reclamation of Indigenous difference that threatened to unsettle settler-colonialism’s sovereign claim over Indigenous people and lands.

The power of economic disruption

With respect to the emergent #IdleNoMore movement, although many of the conditions that compelled the state to undertake the most expensive public inquiry in Canadian history are still in place, a couple of important ones are not. The first condition that appears to be absent is the clear threat of political violence that was present in the years leading to the resistance at Kanesatake. #IdleNoMore is an explicitly non-violent movement, which accounts for its relatively wide spectrum of both Native and non-Native support at the moment.

However, if the life of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence continues to be recklessly put in jeopardy by a prime minister who negligently refuses to capitulate to her reasonable demands, I predict that the spectre of political violence will re-emerge in Indigenous peoples’ collective conversations about what to do next. The responsibility for this rests solely on the state.

The second condition that differentiates #IdleNoMore from the decade of Indigenous activism that lead to RCAP is the absence (so far) of widespread economic disruption unleashed by Indigenous direct action. If history has shown us anything, it is this: if you want those in power to respond swiftly to Indigenous peoples’ political struggles, start by placing Indigenous bodies (with a few logs and tires thrown in for good measure) between settlers and their money, which in colonial contexts is generated by the ongoing theft and exploitation of our land and resource base. If this is true, then the long term efficacy of the #IdleNoMore movement would appear to hinge on its protest actions being distributed more evenly between the shopping malls and front lawns of legislatures on the one hand, and the logging roads, thoroughfares, and railways that are central to the accumulation of colonial capital on the other. For better and for worse, it was our peoples’ challenge to these two pillars of colonial sovereignty that led to the recommendations of RCAP: the Canadian state’s claim to hold a legitimate monopoly on use of violence and the conditions required for the ongoing accumulation of capital.

In stating this I don’t mean to offer an unqualified endorsement of these two approaches, but rather a diagnosis of our present situation based on an ongoing critical conversation about how these differences and similarities ought to inform our current struggle.

Postscript

On January 4, 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office issued an official statement saying that Prime Minister Stephen Harper, along with Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan, have agreed to participate “in a working meeting with a delegation of First Nations leaders coordinated by the Assembly of First Nations on January 11, 2013.” “This working meeting,” the statement continued, will focus on two areas emphasized in the “historic” meeting between First Nations and the Crown last January 11: “the treaty relationship and aboriginal rights, and economic development.” Although the PMO statement doesn’t explicitly indicate that Harper’s decision came as a direct result of pressure placed on his administration by the explosion of activism associated with #IdleNoMore and Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike, it clearly indicates a change of direction in the federal government’s approach to managing the fallout of these events.

My prediction is that this ostensible gesture of inclusion and dialogue is too little and too late. In the ever delicate balancing act of having to ensure that one’s social conservative contempt for First Nations doesn’t overwhelm one’s neoconservative love of the market, the Prime Minister erred by letting the former outstrip his commitment to the latter. This is a novice mistake that Liberals like Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin learned how to manage decades ago. As a result, the federal government has invigorated a struggle for Indigenous self-determination that will continue to challenge both colonial racism and free-market fundamentalism in a way that will not be easily co-opted by offering scraps of recognition and the cheap gift of inclusion.

Glen Coulthard is a member of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation and an assistant professor in the First Nations Studies Program and the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia, traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam First Nation.

Benefits Bill Passes First Commons Vote

The Government’s controversial plans for a real-terms cut in working-age benefits have cleared their first Commons hurdle by 324 votes to 268, majority 56.

The proposals, which will limit annual increases in working-age benefits to 1% for the next three years, passed despite Labour calls to stop the bill, and threats from several Lib Dem MPs to vote against the coalition, including former minister Sarah Teather.

ids

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith speaking during the second reading of the Bill

The move is aimed at slashing £5 billion from the welfare bill over the next five years, however many have argued that the cuts will "punish the poorest".

The vote followed a tempestuous five-hour debate in parliament in which senior Tory and Labour MPs clashed over the benefits bill.

More to follow...

MPs back benefits capping Bill

Public support for a real-terms cut in most working-age benefits is based on ignorance of who will suffer, opponents of the welfare squeeze claimed as MPs prepared for a key vote.

Trade union leaders said polling showed most voters only backed the Government's proposed 1% annual increase because they believed the jobless were the main target.

Ministers say the cap is needed because it is unfair that state handouts have been rising twice as fast as wages during recent years of austerity. It is projected to slash £3.7 billion from the welfare bill.

But Labour is opposing legislation ending inflation-linked rises, pointing to analysis showing seven million working households will lose out by an average £165 per year, while children's campaigners warn it will push many more youngsters into poverty.

The vote will also expose tensions within the coalition over the issue, with Liberal Democrat former minister Sarah Teather intending to vote against the Government. In a reflection of the concerns of many Lib Dem activists, the ex-children's minister said the cap would make already serious levels of child poverty "significantly worse".

Ms Teather also hit out at Conservative ministers for seeking to make the issue one of "scroungers" versus "strivers" - accusing George Osborne of indulging in "playground politics". The Chancellor sparked Lib Dem anger after announcing the change with a direct appeal to people angered by neighbours' closed curtains when they set off for work in the morning.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said on Monday that it was unhelpful "to try and portray that decision...as one which divides one set of people off against another". But, standing beside David Cameron at a Downing Street press conference to launch the coalition's mid-term review, he said it was right to cap benefits when pay was frozen or rising slowly.

Analysis of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill by the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found half of working-age households with someone in work would be affected in some way. The average loss would be £165 a year for seven million families - compared with around £215 for the 2.5 million workless households hit by the cap, it said.

Children's Society chief executive Matthew Reed said a nurse with two children would lose £424 a year by 2015 and an Army second lieutenant with three children £552 a year. He said: "Many more will struggle to pay for food, heat their homes, and provide other basics for their children as they find it increasingly difficult to keep up with rising prices. The Government needs urgently to reconsider this bill."

TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said its polling showed that people who knew most about benefits were opposed to the squeeze and accused ministers of exploiting public "ignorance". A survey by YouGov showed overall support for the 1% cap by 48% to 32% but also that a much bigger majority (64% to 21%) that it would mainly affect the jobless. Once told that it would affect low-paid workers, the move was opposed by 40% to 30%.

Benefits Cap Vote On George Osborne’s Plans

Nick Clegg has defended the 1% benefits cap as he faced opposition from some of his own MPs ahead of a Commons vote on the move.

The Deputy Prime Minister reacted angrily when Labour's Harriet Harman warned the cap would make "millions of families worse off".

Mr Clegg admitted it would hit "people both in and out of work" but insisted it was essential to make savings.

"The challenge for her and her party is firstly to explain in this house and to the British people why she can support a 1% pay limit to doctors, nurses and teachers in the public sector and not back this approach," he said.

"And where is she going to find the £5bn that the measures are going to save in the next three years?"

At least two Lib Dem MPs, including a former Government minister, have vowed to rebel in the vote on severing the link between benefits and inflation later.

Another has warned that a "large number" are against the measure, which will see a real-terms cut in most working age welfare payments and tax credits.

Ministers say the cap is needed because it is unfair that state handouts have been rising twice as fast as wages during recent years of austerity.

Labour opposes the legislation, pointing to analysis showing seven million working households will lose out by an average £165 per year.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "While millionaires get a tax cut, seven million striving working families are paying the price for David Cameron and George Osborne's economic failure.

"The best way to get the benefits bill down is to get the economy growing and people back to work, not hit striving families."

The Opposition has now tabled an amendment calling for the Bill not to get a second reading and pushing its own plan for a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith condemned its stance as "pathetic", "unrealistic" and "ridiculous".

"We have to still continue to try and tackle the deficit left for us by Labour which is fuelling huge borrowing and will cost taxpayers enormously unless we get it under control," he said.

"It is also about trying to do it in a way that is fair to those who are in work and are paying the taxes for those who are on welfare.

"The reality is they have seen their welfare payments rise far faster over the last six or seven years than anybody in work."

Labour was "a pathetic opportunistic group who spend their time trying to pretend to people there are soft options out there", he added.

Anti-poverty campaigners have warned that families will increasingly struggle to properly feed children if benefits fail to keep pace with rises in the cost of living.

Former children's minister Sarah Teather has already broken ranks, warning the the measure would make poverty "significantly worse" and accusing Mr Osborne of "playground politics".

She has now been joined by South Manchester Liberal Democrat MP John Leech, who said the found the Tories' language "objectionable".

"I strongly support raising the tax threshold for low paid workers, but this cut will wipe out much of that good work," he said ahead of this evening's Second Reading division.

Meanwhile, the Tories are trying to distance themselves from the "skivers against strivers" rhetoric sparked by Mr Osborne's original announcement.

Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston insisted that the "vast majority" of her party did not use those terms and it was not how they "feel generally".

The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated seven million working families will be £165 worse off a year, compared to £215 for the 2.5 million workless households.

Mr Duncan Smith says the £165 figures only reflects the benefits cap and claims working families will actually be £125 better off each year due to the rise in the income tax threshold.

Tar Sands Blockade: Growing Opposition to Keystone XL Pipeline

So far, the Canadian pipeline corporation has faced and overcome opposition all along the way – from protestors, blockaders, and court challenges – and as of January 4, TransCanada reported that the 485 mile construction project was roughly a third complete and pretty much on schedule for completion before the end of 2013.

Despite setbacks as recently as January 3, when a police-supervised cherry picker collected a tree-sitter from the pipeline right-of-way, the Tar Sands Blockade and other opposition groups kept their actions going with a non-violence training camp over the weekend.

This led to the Tar Sands Blockade’s largest demonstration so far, on January 7, when about 100 protestors occupied the lobby in the TransCanada office building. After about an hour, police cleared the building almost peacefully, with little more than some pushing and shoving. There were few arrests. Most of the evicted demonstrators gathered in a green space across the street, where they performed street theater featuring a “pipeline dragon,” as some 40 police looked on, some on horseback quietly drinking their Starbucks.

A potentially much more important struggle goes on mostly out of sight in Washington, DC, where the Secretary of State is officially responsible for accurately assessing the environmental impact of the whole Keystone XL, all 1,100-plus miles of it. This assessment was ordered almost a year ago, when President Obama resisted Congressional pressure, and denied the pipeline a permit to cross from Canada into the U.S. until the evaluation was done – making the final decision a clear indicator of the president’s seriousness about climate change.

Redford Speaks Politely to Power

This was the subtext of environmentalist and movie makes Robert Redford in a recent piece that doesn’t mention President Obama by name, but calls in quietly measured tones for his government to deny the pipeline a permit:

“This is a time for climate leadership. So, instead of a shoddy Keystone XL environmental review, the first major climate action for this Administration’s second term should be to set limits on climate change pollution from power plants. That is the kind of action that makes sense.

“And then it will make sense to reject this dirty energy project. With extreme weather taking its toll on communities all over America, we can’t afford another major dirty energy project such as the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.”

The Alberta tar sands in Canada, like tar sands everywhere, do not contain oil. The near-solid bitumen in tar sands can be turned into a high-sulfur content oil by treatment with toxic chemicals, heat, and pressure. The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to transport over 700,000 barrels of hot tar sands oil under pressure every day, from Canada across the heartland of the United States to Gulf Coast refineries, from whence it will mostly go to overseas markets, especially China.

In contrast to Redford’s polite demurrer, NASA scientist James Hansen has looked at the very same set of facts and concluded that Canadian tar sands “contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history” – and that exploitation of this “resource” would mean, effectively, “game over for the climate.”

Hansen was critical of President Obama for taking the attitude that the Canadians would exploit their tar sands no matter what the U.S. does. Redford suggests this may not be true, that:

 “Canadians know better – they haven’t let new tar sands pipeline be built yet to either of their own coasts. In fact, the proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline to the west coast is considered dead by many.”

 Resistance Continues to Grow and Spread

With completion of Keystone XL, this would become irrelevant. With Keystone blocked, it could be wishful thinking. There is already serious resistance in British Columbia and Nebraska and Vermont as well as Texas and other points along likely pipeline routes. And resistance appears to continue to grow, as noted in CounterPunch in discussing the rise of Idle No More, a coalition of indigenous people in Canada in recent months, who are now joining the tar sands protest in Texas:

“In the coming days a new blockade will be set up in Texas as the resistance to Tar Sands grows. Plans are a foot across the country and the world for solidarity actions with Idle No More movement and direct actions targeting these industries and governments that continue to push our health, the environment and the existence of future generations aside for the profits of the transnational corporations defining the global political regime.

 “Let’s hope that 2013 brings a needed awakening in the United States and that the Obama liberals and progressives shake off their shackles to a system that is plodding along in the wrong direction and decide to be Idle No More!!!”

 The Lufkin Daily News posted a video of a non-violent but nevertheless odd arrest on January 3 of a man asking for an explanation of why he had to move out of a public right of way. Tar Sands Blockade described the sheriff’s behavior this way:

 “Escalated police harassment of supporters along public highway continues:

“Angelina County sheriffs continue to push the limits of their legal authority with their harassment of supporters trying to observe the blockade from the side of a public highway. Supporters have been detained under the pretense that they were ‘witnesses to a felony investigation’ and ordered to produce ID.”

Later the group reported that 6 blockaders were being held in jail, with bail set at $10,000 each. To deal with one person of color who was arrested without ID, the sheriff’s department called immigration authorities.

David Miliband Makes Not-So-Subtle Attack On Gordon Brown

David Miliband made a not-so-subtle attack on Gordon Brown in the Commons on Tuesday, as he railed against the coalition's plan to cut benefit payments.

The former Labour foreign secretary, who lost out on the leadership of his party to his younger brother in 2010, attacked the government's "rancid" legislation that would see benefits rise below inflation at 1% - a real terms cut.

"This rancid Bill is not about fairness or affordability. It reeks of politics, the politics of dividing lines that the current government spent so much time denouncing when they were in Opposition in the dog days of the Brown Administration. It says a lot that within two years it has fallen into the same trap," he told MPs.

He added: "We all know the style. Invent your own enemy. Spin your campaign to a newspaper editor short on facts – or high on prejudice. 'Frame' the debate."

Miliband's attack on the Bill was on the surface an assault on David Cameron and George Osborne, however the target was really, or at least equally, the former Labour prime minister.

Brown was often criticised for creating "dividing lines" as part of his electoral strategy while in office.

Miliband had strained relations with Brown while serving in his government, and is widely seen to have bottled his chance to seize Downing Street when the then prime minister was weak.

The now backbench MP made the intervention in the debate as rumours fly around Westminster that he is prepared to make a return to the Labour front bench under his brother's leadership.

SEE ALSO: Sarah Teather To Rebel, Attacks Rhetoric Of Benefit Debate

Prescott Offer Boxing Prowess To Piers

Under fire from America's gun lobby, Piers Morgan found himself on the receiving end of a bizarre rant from conspiracy theorist and radio DJ Alex Jones. Appearing with Morgan on CNN, the shock-jock descended into a farcical diatribe over gun ownership...

Sarah Teather Says Benefit Cuts Will Hasten ‘Broken Britain’

Former Lib Dem minister Sarah Teather has warned the rhetoric surrounding the debate over welfare payments will set "neighbour against neighbour", as she prepared to vote against her party. On Tuesday evening MPs will vote on government's Benefits Up-...

Welfare Uprating Bill Will ‘Punish The Poorest’

As MPs gather to vote on plans to cap benefits and slash a further £5 billion from the welfare bill, a single mother affected by the cuts told the Huffington Post UK: "I don't know how I will survive."

The Welfare Uprating Bill proposes a 1% cap on most working age benefit payments and tax credits, ending inflation-linked rises and introducing what will be a real-terms benefits cut.

Ministers say the cap is needed because it is unfair that welfare payments have been rising twice as fast as wages during recent years of austerity.

However charities and campaign groups have slammed the 'indefensible' legislation, saying it will punish the most disadvantaged, deepen inequality and increase child poverty.

Sarah Easterbrook, 39, has a 16 hour contract at a large supermarket chain. She'd like more hours but they don't have them at times which would fit around her childcare. She brings home around £1000 a month with her tax credit.

She told the Huffington Post UK it is a daily struggle to make ends meet and that if her benefits were to be capped it would be devastating.

"By the time I’ve paid for fuel, gas bills, council tax and rent I’m left with £50 a month and I’m meant to clothe and feed my child with that.

"My mum was paying for my daughter’s packed lunches for a while because I just couldn’t afford to pay it. I don’t qualify for school meals because I work part time and they cost around £40 a month," she said.

"There's never enough at the end of the week. You think to yourself 'I’m working so why am I in this situation?'

"Family and friends tell me to give up work but I don’t think that would solve anything. I’ve worked all my life and I just couldn’t sit at home all day.

easterbrook

Sarah and her daughter

Sarah's daughter is five years old. Her daughter’s father has stopped making child support payments and the Child Support Agency are unable to trace him. She said she's noticed food prices increasing over the past year, and is worried as she is already having to cut back on food.

"I don’t know how I will survive if any benefits are capped. At the moment the grocery shop seems to be the one taking the cut because I’ve already cut back as much as I can.

"I struggle most days just making ends meet. I buy bits and pieces of food every day and if I’m lucky I can do a big shop every two months. That’s to buy things like detergent, maybe put some tins of food in the cupboard and putting some stuff in the freezer.

"There’s just not any more hours available for me to do at work: I’m restricted over times because I need to take my daughter to school and back."

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said the decision to cap some benefits was not taken lightly but was necessary to tackle the deficit.

"Reducing the deficit is the number one priority for the government because, if we don't, what happens is borrowing rises and you have to pay for that, so low-paid taxpayers will pick up a massive bill if you don't resolve that," he said

Clegg has also defended the bill, saying the three-year-squeeze was necessary to stop schools and the NHS from suffering.

However Ms Eastbrook said that the government didnt understand how the cuts were really affecting people.

Her story of a working woman still struggling on benefits is at odds with the 'strivers and shirkers' rhetoric by the Conservative party which has also come under fire.

"It really annoys me because they don’t understand what it is like to struggle. There’s not a lot you can do; it’s just the way this government seems to be.

"People who are working part time will soon have to do cash in hand jobs just to get by. The government will push them to it and that’s not right."

Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, criticised Iain Duncan Smith in a statement, quoting comments he made in November that "this government will always stand by its commitment to tackle child poverty".

"But the impact assessment does nothing to explain how he can square that statement with this poverty-producing bill,” she said.

“The truth, of course, is that the main impact of this bill will be to make life much more difficult for millions of ordinary families, whether they are surviving on meagre benefits or relying on tax credits to make work pay."

Analysis of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found half of working-age households with someone in work would be affected in some way.

The average loss would be £165 a year for seven million families - compared with around £215 for the 2.5 million workless households hit by the cap, it said.

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children's Society, said the bill will hit families across the board, adding "From a nurse with two children losing £424 a year by 2015, to the army second lieutenant with three children losing £552 a year, this will hit children and families from all walks of life.

At least two Liberal Democrat MPs have said they will rebel tonight by opposing the cap, with another warning that a "large number" were opposed to the measure.

Labour is voting against the legislation too, pointing to analysis showing seven million working households will lose out by an average £165 per year.

In Commons clashes ahead of the debate - deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman said the government had "failed on compassion".

What Obama’s Nominations Mean: The Military Is Being Downsized, But CIA Covert Operations Are...

persiangulf

The CIA Is Taking Over the Dirty Work in Fighting America’s Wars

Obama has nominated a veteran – not a chickenhawk – to serve as Secretary of Defense.  The Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel:

… was deputy director of the Veterans Administration during the Reagan administration and later served as president of the United Service Organizations.

U.S. News and World Report notes:

The Vietnam War veteran and the recipient of the purple heart, Hagel would be the first enlisted soldier in the military to rise to the ranks of defense secretary.

Indeed, while all of the neocon warmongers are chickenhawks who dodged service to their country, many veterans and active-duty service men are opposed to the endless wars, which only weaken our national security and increase terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

 What Obamas Nominations Mean: The Military Is Being Downsized ... But Covert Operations Are Gearing Up

No wonder Hagel is more moderate than those who want to start conflagrations all over the world.

U.S. News and World Report  continues:

While Hagel is a Republican, his views on foreign policy alarm some of his GOP colleagues. During his time in the Senate, Hagel was verbose in his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he voted against sanctioning Iran on multiple occasions and has suggested Israel should negotiate with Hamas directly. Republicans and Democrats alike worry he’s not a strong enough friend to Israel …

The Washington Post reports:

Last year, Hagel endorsed a report by the advocacy group Global Zero that called for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuclear-weapons arsenal. Such a cut could save $100 billion over 10 years, the group estimated.

On the other hand, Obama’s nominee for CIA director – John Brennan – endorsed torture, assassination of unidentified strangers without due process, and spying on all Americans. As Glenn Greenwald writes:

Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush’s programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program.

***

Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser…. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama’s drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden “engaged in a firefight” with Navy SEALS and had “used his wife as a human shield”. Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama’s most controversial and radical policies, including “signature strikes” in Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.

What do these two nominations tell us?

That the Obama administration doesn’t plan on fighting as many conventional wars with men in uniform – soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines – but does plan to crank up assassinations, drone strikes and other covert operations worldwide.

Turning Realities Upside Down: The Western Media’s War on Syria

On January 6, Assad called for “comprehensive national dialogue in the near future.” He rules out negotiating “with a puppet made by the West.”

He advocates responsibly engaging opposition elements and other political parties.

“Syria wants peace and reconciliation,” he stressed.

“(A)rmed groups must halt terrorist acts.”

Since early 2011, Washington waged war on Syria. Proxy deaths squads are used. They’re recruited abroad. They’re heavily armed, funded, trained and directed. They infiltrate across borders.

Syria was invaded. Nothing civil reflects protracted conflict. Syrians depend on Assad for protection. He’s vilified for doing his job. He’s blamed for death squad crimes.

Propaganda wars target him. Media scoundrels are merciless. They march in lockstep with imperial US policy. They turn truth on its head. Doing so violates fundamental journalistic ethics.

They do it anyway. They’re paid liars. They mock legitimate journalism. Their reports and commentaries don’t rise to the level of bad fiction. They embarrass themselves shamelessly. More on their comments below.

Assad’s speech was comprehensive, thoughtful, and responsible. He addressed what needs to be said. He correctly called foreign death squads “armed criminals, terrorists, enemies of God, and puppets of the West.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland lied. She turned truth on its head. She ignored Washington’s responsibility for nearly two years of conflict.

She accused Assad of “yet another attempt by the regime to cling to power and does nothing to advance the Syrian people’s goal of a political transition.”

“His initiative is detached from reality, undermines the efforts of Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, and would only allow the regime to further perpetuate its bloody oppression of the Syrian people.”

She called legitimate self-defense “brutaliz(ing) his own people.” He “lost all legitimacy,” she claimed. He “must step aside to enable a political solution and a democratic transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people.”

She ignored rule of law principles. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others. America’s Constitution prohibits it.

She denied reality. Most Syrians support Assad. They condemn foreign invaders. They deplore Western meddling. They alone should decide who’ll govern.

The Syrian National Coalition for the Forces of the Opposition and the Revolution (SNC 2.0) said Assad’s speech:

“confirms his incompetence as a head of state who realizes the grave responsibilities he carries during this critical time in Syria’s history.”

“Furthermore, it demonstrates that he is incapable of initiating a political solution that puts forward a resolution for the country’s struggle and an exit for his regime with minimum losses because he cannot see himself and his narrow based rule except as remaining in power despite being rejected by his people and his traditional allies.”

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called his speech “just repetitions of what he’s said all along.”

He “no longer has the representative authority over the Syrian people.”

Davutoglu and likeminded Turkish officials are imperial tools. They’re lead Washington attack dogs. They shamelessly betray their own people. They violate international law in the process.

EU foreign affairs head Catherine Ashton is no better. She insists that “Assad has to step aside and allow for a political transition.”

UK Foreign Minister William Hague called Assad’s speech “hypocritical. Deaths, violence and oppression engulfing Syria are his own making. Empty promises of reform fool no one.”

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle claimed Assad’s speech contained “no new insights.”

Robert Fisk called Assad’s speech his “most important” one. He addressed his people, Syria’s army, and fallen martyrs. He praised supportive nations.

He stressed Syrian unity. “I will go one day, but the country stays,” he said. He wants independence from foreign control. It matters most.

Conflict nonetheless continues. Syria may end up entirely ravaged when it ends. Body count totals may rise exponentially. Washington takes no prisoners.

Patrick Seale told Al Jazeera:

“If the fighting continues – and it shows no sign of stopping – then I fear my predictions are very, very gloomy.”

“Syria, a major Arab country after all, faces the possibility of dismemberment, fragmentation, (and) partition.”

The possibility is very real. Syria may replicate Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It may be entirely destroyed. Hundreds of thousands may die. Washington bears full responsibility.

Ahead of Assad’s speech, the Washington Post condemned Obama’s failure to intervene. It’s “one of his greatest failures,” it said.

Post writer David Ignatius is a reliable imperial ally. On January 4, he proposed a “way out of” aggressive war he called “civil.” Aggression is aggression is aggression. Nothing “civil” reflects it.

He wants Assad ousted. He supports foreign death squads. He equates them with freedom fighters. Doing so betrayed his readers.

“As with everything affecting Syria, time is running out before the country collapses into an anarchic failed state.”

“What Syria needs urgently is a path to a new government based on the rule of law.”

Syrians alone should choose their government. Outside interference is illegal. Washington prioritizes it. So does Ignatius. He supports imperial lawlessness. He, like America, spurns rule of law principles at home and abroad.

Assad prioritizes peaceful conflict resolution. He wants all nonviolent parties engaged responsibly. Media scoundrels claim otherwise.

On January 6, The New York Times headlined “Defiant Speech by Assad Is New Block to Peace in Syria,” saying:

He sounded “defiant, confident and, to critics, out of touch with his people’s grievances.”

Ignored was strong Syrian backing. The longer conflict continues, the greater his internal support. The Times didn’t explain.

Assad “sounded” like he did in winter 2011, “dictating which opposition groups were worthy and labeling the rest terrorists and traitors.”

He called a spade a spade. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Western-recruited death squads ravage the country. Syrians deplore them. They depend on security forces to rout them.

The Times left core issues unaddressed. It ignored reality. It pointed fingers the wrong way. It blamed Assad for death squad crimes. It falsely claimed most Syrians “demand change.”

It quoted the usual anti-Assad sources. Propaganda substituted for truth and full disclosure. Times editors prioritize it.

The Washington Post was no better. On January 6, it headlined “Syria’s Assad is defiant in rare speech,” saying:

Assad “dashed hopes that a negotiated settlement to the nation’s civil war would be feasible anytime soon.”

His speech “offered no hint that he is prepared to surrender power, negotiate with his opponents or halt his crackdown on armed rebels.”

So-called “rebels” are Western-recruited assassins. They’re foreign invaders. They’re death squad terrorists.

Assad prioritizes peaceful conflict resolution. Claiming otherwise turns truth on its head.

Calling his position “uncompromising” belies reality. Propaganda substitutes for full and accurate disclosure. It’s typical Washington Post. Media scoundrels prioritize it.

They march in lockstep with imperial lawlessness. They point fingers the wrong way. The entire Post article was disingenuously duplicitous and hypocritical.

Assad made fair-minded responsible proposals. The Post called them “vague.” He “put the onus on Western power.” He did what had to be done.

His 50-minute speech was described as “outbursts of noisy acclamation.” His “defiant tone cast a shadow (over) diplomatic activity.” He “derived the entire opposition as lacking in ideology.”

He did no such thing. He supports engaging nonviolent opponents. He correctly refuses to negotiate with Western-recruited foreign invaders.

“(A)t no point did he suggest that his reform package was intended to lead to a more democratic system of government.”

His constitutional and parliamentary reform prioritizes it. The vast majority of Syrians support it. The Post stopped short of explaining.

It quoted illegitimate SNC 2.0 officials saying he has to go. He’s “incapable of initiating a political solution.”

Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal echoed similar sentiments. On January 6, it headlined “Defiant Assad Rules Out Talks with Rebels,” saying:

He “issued a defiant call to war to defend the country against what he called a foreign-inspired rebellion, ruling out talks with rebels and rejecting international peace efforts for a political plan of his own that keeps him in power.”

Murdoch’s world features demagoguery, managed news, scandal, sleaze, and warmongering. He represents the worst of right-wing extremism.

Famed Chicago columnist Mike Royko (1932- 1997) once said “no self-respecting fish would (want to) be wrapped in a Murdoch paper….”

He’s a malevolent force. He’s a leading global villain. He has final say on editorial content. He demands going along with his views or leave.

The Journal regurgitated the usual canards. It falsely said Assad “won’t cooperate.” He’s “determined to fight.”

He “ruled out a political settlement except on his own, specific terms. Critics viewed his comments as the harshest declaration of war against the opposition yet.”

False! He was conciliatory, responsible and reasonable. He prioritizes peaceful conflict resolution. Journal editors did what they do best.

They turned truth on its head. Anti-Assad sources were quoted. Andrew Tabler is a Washington Institute for Near East fellow. WINEP is a right-wing pro-Israeli front group.

Tabler’s a featured AIPAC Annual Policy Conference speaker. He endorses imperial war. He wants Assad ousted. He supports death squad proxies. “Assad must go at all costs,” he stresses.

He’s “repeating an old, ruthless pattern: escalating defiantly to test exactly where the red line is, and forcing the international community to give concessions in its desire for a political settlement.”

Israel is part of the anti-Assad coalition. Mossad-connected DEBKAfile had its say. It headlined “Bolstered by 16 Russian warships, Assad nixes dialogue with ‘Western puppets,’ ” saying:

He “called on Syrians to defend the country against ‘a war fought by only a handful of Syrians and many foreigners. He rejected dialogue with” foreign invaders.

He did the right thing. He called for national mobilization against “outside forces.”

DF said his strategy reflects “a long-term insurance policy for bolstering his regime’s survival.” He believes Russian naval forces in Syrian waters “deter the West from deploying ground forces to Syria.”

Their presence serves as “counterweight” against offensive Patriot missiles near Syria’s border.

He was conciliatory. He urged dialogue with “those who have not betrayed Syria.” He offered more constitutional reform, new government representing all Syrians, and amnesty to end conflict.

He rejects Western puppets. He offered conflict resolution hope. He reached out responsibly to nonbelligerent opposition forces.

Washington, key NATO partners, Israel, other regional allies, and illegitimate SNC 2.0 puppets spurn him. Peaceful conflict resolution remains a distant hope.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and 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 and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays 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/western-media-war-on-syria/

Old and New Wars: “Dehumanizing” War. Armies facing Armies no longer happens?

drone

Do we want a generation of veterans who return without guilt? Prof. Jonathon Moreno

Last November global governance expert Professor Mary Kaldor gave a lecture at the Imperial War Museum*, London.  Her theme was Old and New Wars – how the nature of warfare and the organisation of its participants have changed. Old wars, she said, were essentially a battle of wills between two states or leaders. A war of two sides, two armies, can be vicious as it progresses but sooner or later one side wins, one loses, and some kind of treaty is negotiated.  In a literal sense the war ends but, as any good historian knows, each war has carried and planted the seeds of the following war.

However, armies facing armies no longer happens.  There is a halfway stage between old and new wars – such as happened in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan – where an invading army finds itself at a loss as to how to fight what is essentially a guerrilla war fought by people trying to rid their country of a force that has come in from outside and is trying to impose its own solution on their state’s difficulties.  But when, politicians having realised they are never going to ‘win’ this war, the invading troops are pulled out, the fighting goes on.  It morphs into a ‘new’ war.  Afghanistan does not have a good outlook, and Iraq is still at war with itself, where no such divisions existed before the invasion.  Nor does the imported heavy battlefield equipment do that well against insurgents with roadside bombs or hand-held rocket launchers – which must be a sore disappointment to those who love big machines.

There is no clear way to end new wars, something which we should take account of.  They are far more complicated in the make-up of combatants, but all are seeking some form of power.  And money (or more accurately, profit) plays a large part. Nor is it easy to tell who is raising money to fund the war, or who is fighting the war to raise money to further their aims.  There are too many actors – soldiers in uniform, freedom fighters, religious fighters, Mujahideen, war lords, mercenaries and. of course, men who simply love killing and migrate from country to country, conflict to conflict.  They went to Iraq and now they are part of the Syrian Free Army.  Foreign passports proliferate in modern conflicts.  So – too many competing interests, with scant attention paid to those who are truly ‘on the ground’, the little people living in little villages, growing little amounts of food for their little families and sadly fertilising their fields with their blood.

How many of these combatants have a natural right to be there, in that country or that province?  How many are interfering in someone else’s conflict?  How many are making the situation worse while justifying their actions by claiming they are there to sort things out?  How many are fighting for power and control over their countrymen?  How many are fighting because they have a particular vision of their country and are trying to force that vision on others?  For each and every one of these fighters one has to ask: what is that one trying to gain?  It is a far cry from the old wars with kings or politicians deciding to go to war to protect their ‘interests’ and sending off hapless soldiers to do the killing and dying.  Or is it?  Is the difference between the old wars and the new simply that the old wars were mostly fought by national armies, not coalitions of convenience like ISAF and not splinter groups representing different interests?  The desire for power, control and profit never alters.

All soldiers, across all time, can and often do act in an inhumane way, committing appalling acts of cruelty.  One only has to read some of the evidence given at the Baha Mousa Inquiry to understand that war insists that other people are ‘the enemy’ and that soldiers feel, as they did in Iraq, that they have the right to torture and beat those whose only crime is to live in the invaded country.  But now soldiers are taking that one step further, too far, treading beyond the line.  The tools and training of modern warfare are dehumanising them.  Take drones.

It is hard to believe that the first armed drones were used in Afghanistan in 2001.  In less than ten years they have become an essential part of fighting war.  They are controlled from half a world away by people who have never been to the country they are targeting; who have no knowledge of the way of life, the culture of the little blobs of humanity they track in their monitors; who have no understanding of the political and corporate background to the ‘war’ they are fighting; and, most importantly, by people who are in no danger of having their own blood spilt.  The deaths they cause are meaningless to the hand that presses the button.  They have meaning enough for the people on the ground, gathering what they can of shattered bodies for burial, and unsurprisingly their use creates more so-called terrorists.

Killing at a distance dehumanizes those doing it – it is not killing but a computer game.  Scoring a ‘hit’ that involves no blood, no entrails, no broken lives brings no guilt, no remorse and no proper awareness of the hurt inflicted on others.  But with the physical damage being inflicted on Western forces (in the US Army alone 73,674 soldiers have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and 30,480 soldiers have returned from combat with traumatic brain injury).  This in itself is a good enough reason to use nothing but drones, and if both sides use them then the only casualties will be absolutely guaranteed to be civilian.  It is bad enough that the US thinks it is fighting a global war on terror, so all the world is a battlefield.  What price the world if another state takes that attitude thinking, quite rightly, that the US drones are a form of terrorism?

Using drones also dehumanizes the people they kill.  These are not fellow humans but terrorists, not civilians but collateral damage, not 8-year-old boys or old men of eighty but potential combatants.  The enemy becomes nothing more than a fly to be swatted, a worm to be stepped on.  President Obama has to personally authorise US drone strikes, more than 300 of them in his first four years of office.  That many of the deaths were of children cannot be disputed, regardless of the fact that the US insists that only ‘combatants’ are killed.  But at the beginning of December last year a senior US army officer speaking to the Marine Corp Times said that troops in Afghanistan were on the lookout for “children with potential hostile intent” – in other words, children could be deliberately targeted.  Yet a few days later, there was Obama weeping on camera over the shocking deaths of the Connecticut school children.  Afghan children obviously don’t rate tears.

Having gone past the old form of war of charging into battle against another army, it is inevitable that soldiers should be expected and trained, when fighting ‘terrorists’ – aka: freedom fighters, resistance fighters, insurgents, supporters of ‘regimes’, religious fundamentalists (non-Christian of course) – to operate in the same way as drones, with targeted assassinations, raids on homes or farmers out in fields.  We are told – and oh, am I tired of this being parroted by politicians justifying murderous actions by their forces – that the terrorists are ‘hiding’ in civilian areas,  using women and children, even their own families as human shields.  If they are not regular soldiers but people resisting occupying forces, they are not using their families as human shields; the houses are their homes, where they live, where they and their families belong.  They are all civilians.  And in much of the Middle East the prevailing culture is that most men, particularly in rural areas, own guns.  Before the West visited so much war upon them, the guns appeared mostly to be used for firing shots into the air at weddings and other celebrations.  But they own guns therefore they must be terrorists.  By that logic, many US citizens are also terrorists.

And now we have the possibility of super-soldiers, the ultimate killing machines.  Not satisfied with the vulnerability of soldiers to fatigue, stress, madness, drug addiction and worse, a sudden sense of morality, the Pentagon and others are researching ways of bypassing all that humanity.  According to bioethicist Professor Moreno, the military co-option of neuroscience is now the fastest growing area of science.  Millions of dollars are being spent in researching the soldier’s brain, testing drugs that will wipe out unpleasant memories of dark deeds done, quell the fatigue, mask pain and eliminate feelings of guilt.  It is not so much using robots (which in one sense is what drones are) as turning humans into unfeeling robots.

But if armies become mere operators of drones, or the ‘super soldier’, guilt-free and heartless, becomes reality, then there really is no end to war.  For the publics’ reaction to damaged soldiers coming back home and being a drain on families’ emotions and the public purse because of PTSD or multiple disablements will be the only thing that just might finally persuade the politicians that war is not worth the fighting.

* This was the annual Remembrance Day Lecture for the Movement for the Abolition of War (MAW)

Lib Dems Uneasy About Benefit Cuts Ahead Of Key Commons Vote

Liberal Democrat MPs are likely to march through the voting lobbies with their Tory colleagues to support the real-terms cut in welfare benefits on Tuesday evening - but there is deep unease within the party over the measure.

In the Commons this morning, Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman told Nick Clegg that if he voted for the Benefits Up-rating Bill, which restricts the rise in benefits and tax credits to a below inflation 1% for the next three years, he would make "millions of low income families worse off".

Harman also attacked the rhetoric surrounding the debate, depicting those out of work and claiming benefits as "people lying in bed with the curtains drawn", as "no way to talk about unemployed people".

Clegg defended his decision to sign up to the cut, arguing that Labour should explain why it voted in favour of restricting public sector pay rises to 1% but was not prepared to do the same for benefits.

"Where is she going to find the £5bn this measure would save?" the deputy prime minister asked. "Would she take it from schools? Would she take it from social care?"

Clegg has insisted that the Lib Dems were instrumental in preventing the Tories from imposing a wholesale freeze on benefits in the Autumn Statement. However, he is under pressure from party activists and some of his backbench MPs over the compromise deal reached - as well as the language used by Tory ministers to sell it to the public.

Yesterday former Lib Dem schools minister Sarah Teather announced she planned to vote against the Bill. "We have a huge problem with in-work child poverty and we're only going to make this significantly worse," she said.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One programme, Teather added: "I feel deeply anxious about the policy and I will be voting against the Bill tomorrow very reluctantly and with a very heavy heart."

South Manchester Lib Dem MP John Leech also pledged to vote against the Bill today.

"I voted against the welfare reform bill, and I find it objectionable that the Tories are using 'skivers vs strivers' rhetoric to justify a cut to seven million working families," he said.

"I strongly support raising the tax threshold for low paid workers, but this cut will wipe out much of that good work."

Teather's public opposition was welcomed by Naomi Smith, the co-chair of the left-leaning Lib Dem pressure group, the Social Liberal Forum, who told the Huffington Post UK that she would "almost certainly" want Lib Dem MPs who were not part of the government to vote against the Bill at its final reading in the Commons.

"My own view is that the welfare cuts are unacceptable when accompanied by tax cuts for the rich," she said.

"If the government so loathes state supported 'scroungers' why not start by cutting the civil list, if indeed we are supposed to all be 'in this together'.

She added: "I'm pleased that Lib Dems have curbed some of the worst excesses of this Bill, but am deeply concerned about the cumulative effect on the most vulnerable of further cuts the Tories will doubtless call for in Comprehensive Spending Review 2.0 and potential spikes in inflation.

"Those most vulnerable to price shocks are going to face real fuel and food poverty if we see further energy price and commodity price rises."

Other Lib Dem MPs have been more circumspect about how they will vote, with Cambridge MP Julian Huppert telling HuffPost UK that he would wait to hear "how the debate goes".

"I would never decide before the vote actually happens how to vote on anything. The whole point of having a debate is to listen to it," he said.

‘Incompetence At The Heart Of Government’

Any political row about redundancies and the future of the Army would "signal an incompetence at the heart of government", Labour said on Tuesday.

Government cuts mean 5,000 posts will go this month and a further 9,500 over the next two years although some fear move could be rushed through to shorten the trauma, reports the Times.

Commanders however, have voiced fears that accepting voluntary rather than compulsory redundancies is leading to a loss of control over which posts lose manpower.

Crucial roles such as combat medics, linguists and interrogators are experiencing what the Army refers to as "gapping".

Jim Murphy MP, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said: "The future shape of the Army is a critical national issue and any political row would signal an incompetence at the heart of government.

"There are now serious skills shortages in essential areas which could threaten our operational capability.

"We must be told if there is or will be an impact on operations in Afghanistan."

The government hopes that Territorial Army (TA) reservists can be used to fill the gaps, doubling the number available to 30,000.

General Sir Michael Rose, in a report from the UK National Defence Association (UKNDA), said over reliance on the TA "could prove fatal".

He wrote: "Given the past run-down of the TA including the closure of TA centres, the reduction in man training days and lack of funding for recruitment campaigns, it is clearly not possible to increase the trained manpower of the Reserves in time to compensate for regular soldiers being made redundant."

Speaking to the Guardian last week, US ambassador to Nato, Ivo Daalder, warned of the long-term consequences of military budget cuts.

He said: "If we don't start soon in investing in those capabilities then the gap between the US and the rest is going to grow. And if it is bad now, then it will be worse.

"If we have problems, they will be even worse."

‘Standing Up For Hardworking People’

Ahead of Tuesday's Commons vote on benefits uprating, the Conservatives have launched an in-your-face poster campaign across London. Grant Shapps, the Conservative chairman told The Independent: "The benefits system has needed attention for a long tim...

‘The Revolution Will Come If You Take Our Guns, Piers’

Megabanks, China, "murder pills", communists, the US government and Piers Morgan are all conspiring to take away America's guns in order to destroy its people - according to a bizarre pro-gun rant by radio shock jock Alex Jones on CNN.

Jones, who runs Infowars, began the petition to deport Morgan for his anti-gun campaigning in the wake of the massacre of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Throughout the debate, Jones roared over the top of Morgan, blaming "suicide and murder pills" and "megabanks who control the planet" for the violence in America, and claiming the UK had a higher violent crime rate since the government "took away the guns".

piers morgan

Piers Morgan is an avid campaigner for gun control


Morgan pointed out the UK's annual gun murder rate of 35, compared to more than 11,000 deaths caused each year by guns in the States, but Jones said he was unconcerned by Morgan's "little factoids".

"They've taken everybody's guns, but the Swiss and the American people," he said. "True, we have more gun violence, but you have more muggings, deaths, stabbings.

"That woman [in India] was raped to death with a four-feet iron rod, you can't ban the iron rods.

"Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Castro took the guns, Chavez took the guns and I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our guns!

"It doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out their on the street, begging you to take their guns! We will not relinquish them, do you understand?!

"The republic will rise again if you try to take our guns!"


Piers Morgan
Comforting that personally owns 50 firearms, isn't it.....

Blaming many of the murders on "gangbang violence" and drugs like Prozac, Jones yelled: "The US number one killer is suicide because they give people mass murder pills. I want to blame the real culprit! Suicide pills! Mass murder pills!"

Jones was skewered by Morgan in the second half of the debate on his views on 9/11, which he believes was a plot by the military and the US government. Answering Morgan in a mocking, high-pitched, faux British accent, Jones said: "Hitler burnt down his own Reichstag didn't he?"

alex jones

Shock jock Alex Jones, who was on Morgan's show

Jones also took Morgan to task for his editorship of the Daily Mirror and attempted to link him to the News International hacking scandal. He said: "They arrest people in England if they defend themselves, that’s on record. My God, you have a total police state.

"Everybody is fleeing the country because — you’ve had to flee, bud. Yeah, you fled here. Why don’t you go back and face the charges for the hacking scandal?

"Why did you get fired from the Daily Mirror for putting out fake stories?

"You think you’re a tough guy? Have me back with a boxing ring and I’ll wear red, white, and blue, and you’ll wear your Jolly Roger."

Shortly after the interview on Piers Morgan tonight, Politco reported the White House's response to the petition, which gained more than 100,000 signatures, well over the 25,000 required to warrant an official White House response.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said: "The White House responds to all petitions that cross the threshold and we will respond to this one.

"In the meantime, it is worth remembering that the freedom of expression is a bedrock principle in our democracy."

Swan song: NHL greats make waves on their last week at home (VIDEO)

SKA player Ilya Kovalchuk. (RIA Novosti / Vladimir Fedorenko)

(10.3Mb) embed video

With the NHL lockout over, some of Russia's biggest hockey stars are to return overseas soon. But Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk and Datsyuk still produced key performances for their teams in the KHL this week.

­The New Year has brought the KHL new leaders, SKA Saint Petersburg.

Game Week 16 saw the Armymen victorious in both of their games, with nine goals scored. And two shut-outs for their netminder, Semyon Bobrovsky.

The Saint-Pete side went top of the league on Friday after thrashing Lokomotiv 4-0 on home ice.

Ilya Kovalchuk has got an empty-netter in that one as well as his 40th point in 34 games in the KHL.  

And after outclassing Neftekhimik 5-0 away, SKA are now four points clear of Cup holders, Dynamo Moscow.

Ovechkin and Co hosted Torpedo and it was the visitors who opened through Ruslan Zaynullin.

But it wasn’t enough to shake Dynamo’s confidence as the Blue-and-Whites stormed back after the first intermission to win it 3-1, with Alex the Gr8 scoring the winner and his 19th goal.  

Evgeny Malkin's has netted his second KHL hat-trick, helping Metallugh Magnitogorsk to a 3-0 win against Traktor Chelyabinsk.  

CSKA also topped Traktor this week, with in form Pavel Datsyuk bringing the Muscovites a 3-2 shootout victory.

Mehdi’s Morning Memo: Dave Won’t Win

The ten things you need to know on Tuesday 8th January 2013...

1) DAVE WON'T WIN

Last March, I penned a column which was entitled: "Why the odds are against a Tory majority."

Almost a year later, I can't help but notice that some shrewd Tory politicians are lining up to agree with me. Former Tory MP Paul Goodman wrote last week: "Two years out from 2015, one fact is already evident: David Cameron will not win an overall majority."

Today, the influential Tory peer and pollster Michael Ashcroft joins the fray. From the Huffington Post UK:

"David Cameron's chances of winning the next election are 'remote', top Tory donor and election strategist Lord Ashcroft has warned.

"Writing on the ConservativeHome website this morning, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party cited bookmakers' views that an overall majority for Labour is the most likely result in May 2015.

"'With the polls as they are, and political prospects as they currently seem, it would be hard to argue that the bookmakers are seriously misguided. Any realistic survey of the political landscape surely shows the odds are against the Tories metaphorically as well as literally,' he said.

"Ashcroft added: 'The odds on a Conservative majority look comparatively remote.'

"The peer concludes that the combination of traditional Labour voters and disaffected Lib Dems means Ed Miliband 'ought to be able to put together 40 per cent of the vote without getting out of bed' at the next election."

"Without getting out of bed"? Uh-oh.

2) DIVIDE AND RULE

Ahead of today's Commons vote - on the below-inflation 1% rise in benefits and tax credits announced in George Osborne's Autumn Statement last month - the Guardian splashes on Nick Clegg's attack on "Conservative efforts to single out the 'undeserving' poor":

"With the debate over welfare savings likely to form one of the central political battlegrounds of 2013, the deputy prime minister, speaking at a joint press conference with David Cameron at Downing Street, said: 'I don't think it helps at all to try and portray that decision as one that divides one set of people against another, the deserving and the undeserving poor, people in work and out of work.'

"It is understood Clegg is also involved in a backstage battle on how to ensure that coalition plans for childcare will particularly help the working poor, rather than offer reliefs to the middle class.

"... In a sign that the Lib Dem indiscipline may spread to the Commons as the pressure of the election nears, the former children's minister Sarah Teather announced she would be rebelling in Tuesday's vote to formally break the link between benefits and inflation."

As the FT's Jim Pickard observed on Twitter: "Anyone would think Teather has a tiny majority in a not very affluent London seat."

Meanwhile, Labour MPs will be delighed to see the latest report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. From the Telegraph:

"Seven million working families will lose money under Coalition plans to cut the value of benefits payments, economists have estimated.

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the changes set out in legislation to be debated in the Commons today will affect far more working households than workless ones.

"... The average loss will be £165 per year, the IFS calculated."

My own take - "Strivers vs Shirkers? Ten Things They Don't Tell You About the Welfare Budget" - is published online here.

Oh, and Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has just been on the Today programme, defending the 1% squeeze on benefits and tax credits and claiming no benefit claimants have been "demonised" on his "watch". Er, okay...

3) RONSEALED WITH A RESIGNATION

Downing Street spin doctors won't be too pleased with this morning's headlines, in the wake of yesterday's Dave&Nick show in Number 10.

The FT front page headline reads:

"Strains crack coalition show of unity"

The Times front page headline reads:

"Coalition heads for new rift as Tory quits Cabinet"

The paper reports:

"David Cameron is ready to open a new split with Nick Clegg over Tory-friendly boundary changes, as a departing Cabinet minister laid bare the tensions at the top of the coalition.

"Lord Strathclyde, who resigned as Leader of the House of Lords yesterday, conceded that his 'irritation' with the Liberal Democats had prompted him to complain that the coalition in the Upper House was broken. He also criticised Mr Clegg for changing his mind on the boundary review, an issue over which he feels betrayed by the Lib Dems, The Times understands.

"Mr Cameron signalled yesterday that he was ready to confront Mr Clegg again over the issue. The Prime Minister regards it as very much alive, despite Lib Dem efforts to kill it off."

As for the actual 'performance' delivered by the two men inside their wood-panelled room in Number 10, well, to be blunt, it was pretty dull - and the sketchwriters weren't particularly impressed, either. Writing in the Times, Ann Treneman picks up on the PM's bizarre analogy ("To me it's not a marriage," he told reporters, "it is, if you like, it's a Ronseal deal, it does what it says on the tin"):

"Nick's face had that expression that married couples will recognise as one of carefully constructed blankness. Dave had just compared their relationship — the most powerful crucial relationship in the nation — to a tin of wood preserver. Surely this took winter gardening tasks, not to mention product placement, to an entirely new realm. After all, what Ronseal Shed and Fence Preserver actually says on the tin is: 'Colours, Waterproofs and Preserves Against Rot and Decay.' It says nothing about boundary changes and House of Lords reform."

Writing in the Mail, Quentin Letts says:

"As a work of drama, the two men gave performances that were controlled rather than inspiring.

"It was really just a PR exercise, something to stick in the Downing Street diary, something they could all point to when asked, on getting home to their better halves, 'so what did you do today, dear?' Was it perchance a little flat? Possibly. As flat as publican's ullage? Less fizzy than week-old taramasalata? That might be a touch harsh."

But here's a question: why on earth did David Cameron allow Lord Strathclyde, the veteran leader of the Tories in the Lords, to announce his resignation from the Cabinet on the same day that the coalition was doing its very public self-assessment? Where's Andy Coulson when you need him, eh?

The Independent's splash headline sums it up:

"Resignation of top Tory lord leaves a stain on PM's 'Ronseal' relaunch"

4) DEBATING DAVE

So what else did we discover from the Downing Street presser? My colleague Ned Simons reports:

"David Cameron has insisted he is in favour of TV election debates, but refused to commit himself to taking part in 2015.

"Speaking at a joint press conference in Downing Street on Monday, Cameron was challenged over whether he would sign up to the head-to-head clashes at the next election.

"'On TV debates, I'm in favour of them, I think they are good and I think we should go on having them, and I will play my part in trying to make that happen,' he said."

There's a simple solution that would force Dave to commit to participating in pre-election debates with Clegg and Miliband in 2015 - the broadcasters should just threaten to replace him with Nigel Farage.

5) 'CALL CLEGG'

Forget TV debates - talk radio is what it's all about. Nick Clegg's decision to moonlight as a 'presenter' on LBC has upset the Sun:

"The Deputy PM stunned Westminster by announcing he will appear on Call Clegg every Thursday morning.

"Critics branded the decision a desperate attempt by the Lib Dem leader to win back voters.

"Some Lib Dems fear the show is a gamble that could backfire, with Mr Clegg facing a torrent of abusive calls.

"The new half-hour slot at 9am will be part of Nick Ferrari's morning show on LBC and will be aired across London — and online for other parts of the country."

Set your alarm clocks!

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR...

Watch this video of 'Hard of Hearing' Darth Vader, the rather wonderful creation of comedy writer Jon Friedman.

6) TORTURE? THAT'S OLD NEWS

Yesterday, this Memo reported on the row in the United States over President Obama's decision to nominate Vietnam veteran and former two-term Republican senator Chuck Hagel to be his new defence secretary. The neoconservatives in Washington DC don't like the fact that the plain-speaking and independent-minded Hagel doesn't seem too keen on bombing Iran or giving a pass to Israel in the occupied territories.

So shouldn't the real 'row' be over Obama's other national-security team nomination? The decision to nominate the torture-tainted White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan - also the architect of Obama's drone policy - to be the new director of the CIA?

The Guardian reports:

"To replace the disgraced general David Petraeus at the CIA, Obama picked his counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan. That choice attracted criticism because of Brennan's involvement with the Bush administration's backing for harsh interrogation techniques that many have described as torture, although Brennan denies he supported their use."

The FT adds:

"Mr Brennan's tenure at the agency during Mr Bush's presidency drew criticism from liberals when Mr Obama considered naming him CIA director after the 2008 election. Mr Brennan denied being involved in the Bush administration''s much-criticised interrogation techniques but still withdrew his name from consideration."

Yet the paper concludes:

"White House officials say they do not expect Mr Brennan to face similar trouble this time, given his four years of service in the Obama administration."

Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald makes the case against Brennan, and reminds us of his actual record, here.

7) AUSTERITY WATCH, PART 412

From the Times splash:

"Downing Street was accused of playing politics with soldiers’ jobs last night, as commanders voiced fears that thousands of Army redundancies were leaving critical roles unfilled.

:Documents seen by The Times show how No 10 has leant on military chiefs to accept voluntary rather than compulsory redundancies when 5,000 posts are due to be cut this month.

8) PLEBGATE VS...ORDINARY CRIMES?

Is the Met's investigation into the 'Plebgate' row distracting the police from tackling more mainstream crimes? That seems to be a real concern for the Home Affairs select committee chair.

From the Mirror:

"An MP yesterday raised concerns over the number of police working on specialist operations — including the 'Plebgate' investigation.

"Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz asked Theresa May if the Met had enough people to deal with 'bread and butter' policing in London.

"Last week The Mirror revealed how more than 800 diplomatic protection group officers will be quizzed about Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' row.

Later today, the committee will grill Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on Mitchell, plebs and the Downing Street coppers. Watch this space.

9) 'WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER'

From the Mail's splash:

"The boss of an energy giant that has doubled its prices in just seven years could pocket a £13million payoff.

"Phil Bentley, who is to leave British Gas within months, has presided over above-inflation hikes that have pushed average bills past £1,300 a year.

"The latest punishing rise of 6 per cent comes as millions endure the greatest squeeze on living standards since the 1920s."

10) SORRELL'S STRIKER

My favourite story of the day, via the Guardian front page:

"Ronaldo, the World Cup winner and highest scorer in the tournament's history after spells at Inter and AC Milan as well as Real Madrid, plans to spend several months in London from next month studying advertising at the global ad firm WPP, run by Sir Martin Sorrell. He retired from football in 2011.

"'Eighteen years have passed and I've hardly studied at all; I feel a great need to become a student again,' Ronaldo told Brazil's Meio & Mensagem newspaper. 'I've learned a lot in life, travelling, living abroad, just in the school of life. But I also have to immerse myself in something.

"'Learning from Martin Sorrell will be perfect. I won't leave him alone, I'll be asking him questions the whole day, just like a striker. He's going to have to tell me everything.'"

You wouldn't want to take on WPP's lunchtime five-a-side team from now on, would you?

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From the Sun/YouGov poll:

Labour 41
Conservatives 32
Lib Dems 11

That would give Labour a majority of 96.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@PickardJE Coalition mid-term review. 75 per cent what they've done; 20 per cent what we already knew they said they would do next. 5 per cent new-ish

@Labourpaul The 'Ronseal deal' line is all over the media - but was it scripted or an ad lib?

@PeterHain Labour voting tonight against cuts of up to £1300 for 4.6m women, half working. Two thirds hit by tax credit and benefit cuts are women

900 WORDS OR MORE

Rachel Sylvester, writing in the Times, says: "The austerity Government’s pledge to do what it says on the tin beyond 2015 shifts the centre of political gravity."

Steve Richards, writing in the Independent, says: "Forward, say Cameron and Clegg. But to where?"

Aditya Chakrabortty, writing in the Guardian, produces an "obituary" for the welfare state: "After decades of public illness, Beveridge's most famous offspring has died."


Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

Fukushima “Decontamination” Measures Are Making Things Worse

We’ve previously noted:

In a series of essays called “Crooked Cleanup”, leading Japanese news source Asahi shows the level of corruption and incompetence.

372497 Fukushima Decontamination Measures Are Making Things WORSE

For example:

Cleanup crews in Fukushima Prefecture have dumped soil and leaves contaminated with radioactive fallout into rivers. Water sprayed on contaminated buildings has been allowed to drain back into the environment. And supervisors have instructed workers to ignore rules on proper collection and disposal of the radioactive waste.

***

The decontamination work witnessed by a team of Asahi Shimbun reporters shows that contractual rules with the Environment Ministry have been regularly and blatantly ignored, and in some cases, could violate environmental laws.

***

In signing the contracts, the Environment Ministry established work rules requiring the companies to place all collected soil and leaves into bags to ensure the radioactive materials would not spread further. The roofs and walls of homes must be wiped by hand or brushes. The use of pressurized sprayers is limited to gutters to avoid the spread of contaminated water. The water used in such cleaning must be properly collected under the ministry’s rules.

***

From Dec. 11 to 18, four Asahi reporters spent 130 hours observing work at various locations in Fukushima Prefecture.

At 13 locations in Naraha, Iitate and Tamura, workers were seen simply dumping collected soil and leaves as well as water used for cleaning rather than securing them for proper disposal.

Photographs were taken at 11 of those locations.

The reporters also talked to about 20 workers who said they were following the instructions of employees of the contracted companies or their subcontractors in dumping the materials. A common response of the workers was that the decontamination work could never be completed if they adhered to the strict rules.

Asahi reporters obtained a recording of a supervisor at a site in Naraha instructing a worker to dump cut grass over the side of the road.

Moreover:

Workers involved in cleaning up the radioactive fallout from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant disaster expressed concerns. One even apologized for what he did.

But they were on the bottom employment levels in the decontamination process, and their words apparently meant nothing to their supervisors.

***

The supervisor from Dai Nippon Construction told the 30 or so workers under his watch to dump whatever would not fit into the bags or to throw materials down the slope outside of the line marked by the pink tape. Whenever the supervisor was not present, the person taking his place gave similar instructions.

The man questioned if the work could actually be called decontamination. He confronted the supervisor about his instructions on Nov. 27 and recorded the conversation.

The man can be heard asking, “Is it all right to just dump the stuff?”

The supervisor replied: “Yeah, yeah, it’s OK. It can’t be helped.”

***

“Even though I was following an order, I am sorry for polluting the river,” the man said.

Indeed, “clean-up measures” often make the radiation ariborne … making it more dangerous:

The airborne radiation level near the gutter before the cleaning water flowed in was 0.8 microsievert per hour. The radiation level near the cleaning water hovered between 1.9 and 2.9 microsieverts. The larger figure is close to the cutoff point in determining if residents should evacuate.

***

In some cases, radiation levels at homes have even increased after decontamination, leading some workers to suspect that radioactive materials were blown into the area by wind.

The only actual decontamination work which was done appears to have been right around radiation monitors, to create false low readings:

We were told to clean up only those areas around a measurement site.

Even worse, Japan is spreading radioactivity throughout Japan – and other countries – by burning radioactive waste in incinerators not built to handle such toxic substances.

One of our main themes is that trying to cover up problems only makes them worse. Japan is once again proving that this is a bad strategy …

5 Bizarre Facts About America’s Crazy Gun Culture

U.S. gun policy is set by both state and federal law. We previously published an explainer on the ways states have eased gun restrictions. But federal policy, too, has become more gun friendly in recent years — and we're not just talking about the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that  struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and held that people have a right to keep guns in their homes.

Here, we outline five federal policies relating to guns you may not have known about:

1. A federal firearms trace database is off-limits to the public.

How often do federally licensed gun dealers sell guns that are then used in crimes? It's hard to know, because for nearly a decade such gun trace data has been hidden from the public. Even local law enforcement had been, until recently, barred from accessing the database for anything but narrow investigations.

Under the  Gun Control Act of 1968, licensed dealers are required to record certain information about a buyer and the gun's serial number at the point of sale. These records go into a database  maintained by The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A tool to catch criminals, the database in the early 2000s became a political flashpoint, as the  Washington Post details. Outside research tying seized guns to a small handful of dealers spurred the federal government to impose tougher sanctions and inspections on gun retailers and manufacturers.

But those sanctions sparked a backlash: Since 2003, the  Tiahrt Amendments, so named after the former Kansas Republican congressman who introduced the measures, have concealed the database from the public. Prior to 2010, local police could access the database only to investigate an individual crime but not to look for signs of broader criminal activity.

Despite the  relaxing of some restrictions, parts of the original Tiahrt Amendment remain in place. The ATF can't require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns; records of customer background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours if they are clean enough to allow the sale; and trace data can't be used in state civil lawsuits or in an effort to suspend or revoke a gun dealer's license.

2. The military can't impose additional regulations on service members who own guns.

Following the November 2009  shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others, the Department of Defense proposed guidelines that included, among other things, a new policy around private firearms. (The semiautomatic pistol used by accused gunman Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was  purchased at a store off-base.)

Consideration of tighter gun regulations, such as the registering of non-military guns, sparked at least one new piece of federal legislation.

Less than a year after the shooting, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced a bill prohibiting new regulations on Defense Department personnel's private guns. It also prohibited commanders from inquiring into private gun ownership. At the time, Inhofe stated that the measure would "prevent current and potential Second Amendment violations for those serving and employed by the Department of Defense."

There has been a recent revision: In the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by Congress, a new provision does allow military commanders to  ask about private firearms if there is reason to believe a service member is at high risk of committing suicide.

"It codifies the ability of military commanders to have a conversation with someone they feel is suicidal. This is all about conversation, not confiscation," said John Madigan, senior director of public policy at The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which pushed for the measure.

David Cameron’s Chances Of Winning Next Election ‘Remote’, Says Lord Ashcroft

David Cameron's chances of winning the next election are "remote", top Tory donor and election strategist Lord Ashcroft has warned.

Writing on the ConservativeHome website this morning, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party cited bookmakers' views that an overall majority for Labour is the most likely result in May 2015.

"With the polls as they are, and political prospects as they currently seem, it would be hard to argue that the bookmakers are seriously misguided. Any realistic survey of the political landscape surely shows the odds are against the Tories metaphorically as well as literally," he said.

Ashcroft added: "The odds on a Conservative majority look comparatively remote."

The peer concludes that the combination of traditional Labour voters and disaffected Lib Dems means Ed Miliband "ought to be able to put together 40 per cent of the vote without getting out of bed" at the next election.

However he said rather than listening to his "recalcitrant backbenchers" who want to see the party shift to the right in order to win back votes, the prime minister should press ahead with the "incomplete" modernisation of the Conservative Party.

Ashcroft said of the Conservative Party: "Too many people whose support it needs mistrust its motives, do not think it shares their priorities, and do not think it embodies the values it says it does."

"This applies particularly to those who thought about voting Tory in 2010 but decided against it. While they trust Cameron and Osborne more than Miliband and Balls to manage the economy, they do not think the Conservatives stand for fairness or opportunity."

Many Tory backbenchers, alarmed by the apparent rise in support for Ukip, have urged Cameron to take a stronger eurosceptic line and drop his more liberal plans including gay marriage.

However Ashcroft said that while Ukip is a danger, it would be even more dangerous for the party to think it could win people back through a greater emphasis on Europe combined with signals it shared "the disgruntlement with modern Britain that motivates many of Ukip’s supporters".

Coalition’s ‘Silly’ Claim Over Scottish Independence Leaves PM ‘Floundering’

David Cameron has come under fire for negative campaigning over the case for Scottish independence after the Treasury produced figures claiming that Scots would be £1 worse a year off outside the United Kingdom.

At a joint press conference with his deputy Nick Clegg to mark the Westminster coalition's mid-term review, the prime minister said that winning the emotional battle over the ties that bind Scotland to the rest of the UK will be as crucial as the economic arguments in the independence referendum contest

Mr Cameron said there were "arguments of both the head and the heart" that needed to be made as he claimed Scotland would be worse off on its own.

But as well as the economic argument, he insisted that the campaign to preserve the union must also win the fight for the hearts of Scottish voters by showing "we are stronger together".

The £1 analysis, using an analysis of oil revenues over the course of devolution and produced by Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander was intended to expose the SNP claim that people would be £500 better off a year as a "myth" but independence campaigners seized on the £1 cost as being a "price worth paying".

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson condemned the PM's comments.

"As the UK coalition's botched relaunch shows, the No campaign has started the New Year firmly on the back foot," he said.

"Danny Alexander's silly claim that an independent Scotland would cost people in Scotland £1 over a whole year had David Cameron floundering, and resorting to the old fears and smears that Scotland would be worse off with independence - even though the UK Treasury are no longer saying this.

"In the space of 24 hours, the No campaign has broken the Scottish Labour deputy leader's promise that they would fight a positive campaign.

"The reality is the latest figures show that Scotland is financially stronger than the UK as a whole to the tune of £2.7bn - or over £500 per person in Scotland."

cameron scotland

The PM insisted that financial considerations were only a part of the decision facing Scots

Mr Cameron said he expected that the No campaign would be able to show "categorically" that Scotland would be worse off.

He said: "I think there are important arguments of both the head and the heart that need to be made in this great debate about the future of our United Kingdom and I profoundly hope that Scotland will vote to stay in the United Kingdom.

"I think when it comes to the arguments of the head, things like would Scotland be better off, I think we will be able to show, categorically, that Scotland would be worse off, would be less well off."

He said there would be a changing pattern as North Sea oil runs down and also said there would be uncertainty over jobs in the defence and financial services sectors if Scots voted for independence.

But Mr Cameron insisted the financial considerations were only a part of the decision facing the Scottish people.

"There are arguments of the head, but I profoundly believe we must win not only the arguments of the head but also of the heart: that we are better off together in the United Kingdom, there's a solidarity that we show each other, if different parts of the United Kingdom have a difficult time we are all there ready to stand behind those parts of the United Kingdom.

"We are stronger together, we are better off together, we are safer together.

"So those heart arguments will also, I think, win the day."

Mr Cameron praised Labour former chancellor Alistair Darling, who is leading the No campaign, for doing a "fantastic job".

But Mr Robertson mocked the PM for failing to remember wich campign he was backing.

"Embarrassingly, the prime minister couldn't remember the name of the No campaign - first calling it the 'Yes campaign', and then 'Alistair Darling's campaign'," he said.

"Since David Cameron and Nick Clegg's infamous rose garden media appearance, the Westminster government's promises on issue after issue lie in tatters.

"Pledges on meeting borrowing reduction targets, on reversing years of decline to Scotland's defence footprint and on reforming the House of Lords - to name but a few - have all been abandoned.

"The coalition's track record has been an appalling one and people are understandably fed-up of decisions on key issues affecting Scotland being made by a Westminster Government that has been rejected by people in Scotland.

"Decisions affecting Scotland should be made by people in Scotland, who by definition care most about getting them right.

"Only a Yes vote in next year's referendum will give us that opportunity and ensure that Scotland is no longer paying the price of being tied to a failing Westminster system."

The Wicked Brew That Would Be Transported in the Keystone XL Pipeline

The pipeline isn't for oil, it's for a toxic fossil fuel cocktail called “DilBit.”

January 7, 2013  |  

Photo Credit: Will Wysong / Flickr

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

This article was published in partnership with  GlobalPossibilities.org.

The massive exploitation of Alberta tar sands may be the biggest environmental crime in history and a new benchmark for sacrifice of public health to corporate profit.

It's so much more than converting an area of boreal forest the size of England into a cankerous and lifeless open sore bleeding tar. It's more than decimating some of the world’s last wild forests—home to 35% of Canada’s wetlands. And it's more than attacking Earth’s biosphere with a carbon weapon of mass destruction.

How far has corporate depravity driven corporate disregard for life on Earth? The exploitation of the Alberta tar sands goes the distance with the Keystone XL pipeline.

In December 11, 2012 an L.A. Times article by Molly Hennessy-Fiske revealed that Jack Sinz, Texas County Court at Law Judge, lifted his restraining order that delayed a portion of TransCanada’s Keystone XL running through eastern Texas. The restraining order resulted from landowner Michael Bishop filing suit to halt pipeline construction on his property because TransCanada fraudulently promised that Keystone XL would transport “crude oil”.

TransCanada lawyers convinced Judge Sinz that Michael Bishop “...understood what he was doing when he signed off on an easement agreement with the company three weeks ago.”

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard stated: “TransCanada has been open and transparent with Mr. Bishop at all times.” Then Mr. Howard further illuminates the howler of TransCanada being open and transparent: “Since Mr. Bishop signed his agreement with TransCanada, nothing about the pipeline or the product it will carry has changed. While professional activists and others have made the same claims Mr. Bishop did today, oil is oil.”

Problem is, oil is exactly what Keystone pipeline does not pipe.

Raw bitumen diluted with up to 50% natural gas liquids (condensates) at 1,440 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure, and temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit—that’s what Keystone XL pipes, a wicked brew called, “DilBit”.

What's DilBit?

That depends.

TransCanada’s spokesman, Shawn Howard, said, “...oil is oil”. But that's hardly the case. The massive exploitation of Alberta tar sands (MEATS) and Keystone XL advocates cultivate public misconception of DilBit being “crude oil”. A dangerous ruse spanning pipeline safety regulations to pipeline technology and leak detection...back to public awareness. Pawning off DilBit as crude oil is TransCanada’s public-relations Job Number One—except when it comes to the IRS.

The oil industry pays an eight-cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil produced in or imported to the U.S., proceeds earmarked for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that covers cleanup costs for oil spills. But in 2011, at the request of a company whose identity is kept secret, an exemption was made that frees DilBit from this tax because, as the secret company made clear: “oil” from Canada’s tar sands is so different (chemistry, behavior, how it’s produced) that it should not be considered crude oil.

Texas, and federal statutory codes define crude oil as "liquid hydrocarbons extracted from the earth at atmospheric temperatures”. Simple enough, DilBit is not crude oil.

Alberta bitumen is strip-mined and steam-melted from sands and silts; it takes two tons of earth, three barrels of water, and lots of natural gas to extract one barrel of raw bitumen , which is almost a solid.

MEATS currently consumes, per day, enough natural gas to heat 3 million Canadian homes, and fouls 400 million gallons of water. Wastewater is pumped into immense tailing ponds rich in arsenic, cyanide, ammonia, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc -- not to mention the biocidal gumbo of hydrocarbons -- sixty-five square miles of tailing ponds, so far.

Guatemalans Resist Invasion of North American Mines

mayanicon

In November we traveled to Guatemala to study Spanish and learn about the lives of the indigenous Maya people.  Guatemala is an amazingly beautiful country, with countless mountains and valleys, and 22 volcanoes, the most in Central America. The people are very friendly and good humored. Traditional Mayan culture, mostly observed in the colorful dress of the Mayan women, lives side by side with modernity. Picture a traditionally dressed indigenous peasant woman tending her cattle and sheep on a hillside pasture. Now watch her pull a cell phone out of her skirt to call her children.

We are not just Spanish students and certainly not “tourists” in the usual sense. We are active members of Veterans For Peace, and we are very concerned about the U.S. role in Central America. The legacy of the 36-year war waged by the Guatemalan military against its indigenous people is everywhere. A peace agreement was signed in 1996, but many people we met, especially in the mountainous Mayan communities, told us the war continues – through discrimination, poverty, lack of voice in government, and now the systematic destruction of their communities in favor of gold and silver mining, hydroelectric dams, cement plants and oil exploration.

We learned again about the CIA engineered coup that overthrew the progressive, democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954. Sponsored by the Eisenhower administration at the behest of the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita), the coup led to a 36-year long war of “scorched earth” genocide.  More than 440 Mayan villages were destroyed and over 200,000 people died in massacres by the Guatemalan military, with aid and encouragement from the United States government.

An unjust order prevails to this day. Most of the land and wealth is in the hands of only eight families. To make matters worse, between 2000 and 2004 the Guatemalan government granted over 400 mining and extraction licenses to U.S. and Canadian mining companies who seek gold, silver and other precious metals that are right under the feet of the poor Mayan communities in the mountains. With massive profits to take away from Guatemala, the mining operations are carrying out a “scorched earth” policy of their own.

Huehuetenango

After studying Spanish for two weeks at San Pedro Laguna on Lake Atitlan (highly recommended), we stayed with a family in Huehuetenango, close to Chiapas, Mexico, which used to be part of Guatemala.  We visited the small mountain town of Jacaltenango, where we met Bernardo Masariegos, a community leader who told us of the struggles in the department (state) of Huehuetenango against mines, hydroelectric dams, and petroleum extraction.  The people of Huehuetenango, the most indigenous and rural department of Guatemala, adamantly oppose such exploitation.

In successful opposition to a hydroelectric dam on the Mesté River, a grassroots movement of 9,000 to 14,000 people maintained a three year long nonviolent occupation (rotating about 100 people at a time) at the main square of Jacaltenango, swelling to more than 6,000 for every protest event.   “All of the people who protest have no education,” Bernardo told us, “Only ten to twelve people in the movement were teachers and two to three were university teachers.  They were the real people, the poor people.”

Indigenous peoples have an international and national constitutional right not to have their natural resources used without their knowledge and informed consent.  This is called theconsulta comunitaria de buena fe, or good faith community referendum.  Twenty six of the 32 municipios (counties) in Huehuetenango voted against the mines in local referendums.

Our visit to the Marlin mine and affected communities

The huge Marlin Gold Mine is near the town of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, high in the rugged mountains of the department of San Marcos.   It is operated by Montana Exploradora , a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian company Goldcorp.  It is both an open pit and tunneling mine.   This region is already damaged by decades of war.


The massive destruction of Goldcorp’s Marlin Gold Mine can be seen in this immense open pit.

On December 6, 2012, accompanied by community organizer Aniseto López, we visited people affected by the Marlin Mine, adjacent to several indigenous communities in the department of San Marcos.  According to Amnesty International, in February 2011, protesters in north-western Guatemala’s San Marcos region were attacked after speaking out against the Marlin Mine.  Aniseto López was taken to the local mayor’s office, where officials beat him and threatened to kill him if he continued to speak out against the mine.

In San Marcos, we visited:

  • The community of Ágel and a group called FREDEMI “Frente de Defensa Miguelense, San Miguel Ixtahuacán” (Front for the Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán).  They have been resisting the mining activities since 2007.  In February 2010FREDEMI organized a protest in which 700 people blocked the entrance to the mine for 13 days.


Women of FREDEMI meet with Helen Jaccard and Gerry Condon of Veterans For Peace.

  • Diodora Hernandez, who was shot in the eye for refusing to sell her land to Goldcorp.
  • Solomon, who worked for Goldcorp for two years.  He said, “They arrived in 1996 to explore and in 2003 started to settle in with machines – now people are starting to realize how serious the situation is.  There are four problems – water (contamination, dead animals, skin rashes and hair loss), cracks in the houses, explosives rocking the land, and the earth.”

Our visit to the Community Occupation at La Puya

On December 10 – 12 we visited a proposed mining project, El Tambor, about an hour’s bus ride from Guatemala City.  Kappes, Cassiday & Associates of Reno, Nevada owns the license.  Between the towns of San Jose del Golfo and San PedroAyampuc is an area called La Puya, and the entrance to the mining area.  Hundreds of residents of local communities have maintained a successful nonviolent occupation here since March 2, 2012.


Helen Jaccard interviewed some of the community leaders at the La Puya occupation.

We arrived late and spent the first night sleeping on a wooden platform in the middle of the occupation. This and having Spanish language flyers handy to explain who we are helped us to be welcome here.

Company and police violence meets nonviolent resistance

Only days before we arrived at La Puya, on Friday, December 7, 2012, the police violently attacked the La Puya occupiers with tear gas and batons.  Nearly 2,000 members of the National Police from all over Guatemala descended on the encampment.  In the morning, there were only 20 people from the community – they lay down in front of the police and discreetly made phone calls – soon the church bells in the nearby town rang the alarm.  By the afternoon 1,500 community members had come to support the occupiers.

Paola Aquino Gutierrez’ 12 year old daughter was severely beaten by the police.  “My 12 year old daughter was beaten Friday – she is still sore physically but more so psychologically,” Aquino told us five days later.  “I have never beaten my daughter and now a police woman did.  Many people still have sore throats from the tear gas that was used against us.  We were on the ground when the tear gas was thrown right over our heads.  My daughter and I are even more determined than ever to continue this struggle.”

Two women and a girl required medical attention after being sprayed with tear gas and four resistance leaders were arrested.

”The police captured four of us in order to scare the others, but they weren’t scared, they were even more brave, so they started calling people for help”, said Jorge López.  “We are here to defend our water, our life and our territory.”  In police custody, after two hours of lying in the hot sun with no food, water, or even a chance to pee, the captives were taken to two courts that refused to hear the case because of lack of charges or evidence, and released.

This is a completely nonviolent resistance, which, according to organizers, was key to preventing deaths when the police attacked with tear gas and batons.


Nonviolent resistance may have saved the lives of many people.  Prensa Libre photo.

Water shortage and being forced off of the land

The climate has become drier here.  The rainy season used to start in May,but now it is dry.  Lack of rain is causing crop failure in many areas of Guatemala this year.  On top of that, communities that had barely enough water to survive are seeing the mining companies steal their water for processing ore.  Wells, springs, and streams near mines are drying up.

The Marlin mine had a mechanical well, but it’s already dry.  They are building another well closer to the spring.  The people are afraid that they will soon have no water.  Cristana Pérez said, “We tried to talk to the manager where they are building the mechanical well, but security people come instead and said that if we continue to fight them, they will prosecute us.  The manager is saying that the well is built in consultation with the local community – it is not.”

Solomon told us, “In 1987 the community bought the spring, which gave water until last year – now it is dry.   The human rights commission told the company to provide water, but we got none.”


Solomon turns on the spigot at his house near the Marlin mine, but there is no water.

The Marlin mine has also displaced communities.  For example, there were at least 60 homes on the hillside that is now a hole in the ground.

At the El Tambor site, people are also concerned about lack of water and being forced off of their land.

“For me, the motivation is life – life itself.  I’ve been here for 71 years and managed to live a tranquil life.  I’ve been able to live my life being happy, so I want my children also to be able to live a happy life.  If we don’t have water, if we don’t have trees, and all of that, it’s just going to be a desert,” said one man, “We struggle for life, water, and peace.  If we don’t have this gold, we’ll still be able to live.  But if we don’t have water, we’ll die.”

Milton Carrera explained about the water shortage, “We are fighting because if they come here, we won’t have water.  We are very, very short on water.  Some communities only have water maybe one hour a week.  Other communities, like the big town, we only have water for one hour a day. The company is located where all of the wells are – right here.  The water for the town, the wells are close to here.  So what’s going to happen for us, if in 5 or 10 years we don’t have water?

Water contamination, health problems, dead animals

Mines also contaminate the water.  The Marlin mine has a tailing pond containing the acidic mixture of cyanide, arsenic, heavy and radioactive metals, explosives, and other chemicals – normal for a mine using cyanide to extract gold.  On September 23, 2010 at night, this contaminated water was discharged into the Quivichil River, which runs into Mexico.


Tailing ponds at the Marlin Mine contain cyanide, arsenic, heavy metals and explosives.

Crisanta Pérez told us, “On Nov 29, 2012 we went to look at the spring and found pipes from the mine discharging into the river that goes through the community – it is now a contaminated river.”

Both FREDEMI and Solomon told us about a lot of skin problems and hair loss.  According to Solomon, “In 2008-09 various people have had skin problems – two of them died.  Their bodies were covered with painful rashes, and then they died.”

Cattle have been dying from drinking the water from the river.  Diodora Hernandez told us, “The mother of a calf was poisoned.  The water was pure white, like milk.”  Her horse also died from the poisoned water.  There are many other reports from shepherds whose cattle have died after drinking water downstream from the mine.

Division and Conflict

When mining companies start their propaganda campaign near a mining site, they cause divisions – in families and in communities.  Aniseto López told us, “In the community, they are always in conflict – the environment is so thick with conflict that you can breathe it – conflict between those that support and those that are against the mine.”

“We were peaceful communities before all of this”, said one 71 year old man at La Puya, referring to the mining license.

Among 75 local men who work at the Marlin mine, many have left their wives and children for other women, without paying anything to help support their original family – something they would not do had they not had more money in their pockets, said Crisanta of FREDEMI. “We are really sorry about this, because a long time ago it was better – we went to the farms – men and women worked together to pick the coffee – there was no division between families.”

Many of the miners and affected community members turn to heavy drinking and drug use, Solomon told us. “There had been only 4 bars/liquor stores – now there are 100.”

At a Health Tribunal held at San Miguel Ixtahuacán on July 14-15 2012,one man testified:  “There is prostitution, crime, pollution of Mother Earth.  The workers, the Cocodes (local authorities), have beaten me up.  When they are under the influence of alcohol, they come to my home and threaten me”

Intimidation, violence and corruption

The Marlin mine bosses will stop at nothing and have an arrogant attitude toward the Mayan people whose land they are destroying.  They force entire villages to leave their land and pay very little for the land they buy, according to FREDEMI.  When met with resistance, they falsely accuse people of crimes, and even shoot and kill them.  They intentionally poison animals – dogs, horses, cows, and chickens.

The mining explosions rock the area.  Together with tunneling and the constant traffic of heavy trucks, over 100 homes have been severely damaged with big cracks.  The big trucks drive fast and run over the chickens and dogs.  People are pressured to sell their land, and to stop talking about the effects of the mine.  The police are bought off by the mine, so do not prosecute these crimes.  The Minister of the Environment, in charge of making a report about the contamination, was being hosted by Goldcorp.

On March 12, 2007 Alvaro Sánchez, a Mayan villager living near the Marlin mine was murdered by mine workers during a heated discussion.

Diodora Hernandez refused to sell her land to the company and in 2010 two mine employees came and shot her in the eye.  “I won’t sell my land – never.  If I sold, where would I put my animals?”  In another incident, she went to a meeting and a man threatened to kill her with a machete.


Diodora Hernandez in her pasture, telling us about the struggle to keep her land and animals

Solomon worked for the company for two years, and then started speaking out against it when he saw the problems.  He said that the company comes to his home – sometimes at night – to intimidate him. He has been falsely accused of five crimes, a common tactic against mine resisters.

Crisanta Pérez of FREDEMI was also falsely charged her with a crime.  “Because of the arrest warrant, I left my family and moved from place to place, hiding out for six months.  When I returned home, they captured me – but by that time, people were more aware, and they blocked the police car and freed me after two hours.”  Another man in the community was beaten to death.

Milton Carrera at La Puya said, “We used to have a little goat farm.  They killed all my animals – about two months ago.  Another of my family has a fish farm and a few months ago they put poison into the fish pond and they killed about 2,000 fish.  Another lady had chickens at her house and they threw in poisoned corn.

“They shot one lady June 13…she still has the bullet, only two inches from her spine…  Only God knows how she’s still walking.  She has nerve problems, but she’s a very strong lady.  She stopped the confrontation last Friday – if it wasn’t for her, there would have been a bunch of people killed here.”

We spoke with Yolanda “Yoli” Oquely Veliz, 33 years old, the community leader who survived the assassination attempt of June 13, 2012 after receiving death threats.  She was shot three times while leaving the La Puya resistance occupation.

Communities are fighting for their survival

There are seven communities within 700 meters of the proposed mine.  The Environmental Impact Study proposes removing these communities.  The people have been living here for 300 or 400 years.  “How can they expect us to move, when we don’t even know where we would go?”

Deodora Oliva lives about 700 meters from the mine.  “See that hill there?”  She points to a hill about 100 yards from the camp.  “I live on the other side of that hill and they’re going to disappear that hill.  I’m afraid that my village is going to disappear eventually, because the hill is right in front of my village.”  In just two of the closest villages there are about 150 houses, about 1,000 people.

Milton Carrera told us, “We told the government they have to kill us.  The government has to kill us in order to go inside.  A lot of people decided, if they have to die, they will, to save the land for the next generation.  Please tell your government that we’re humans, not animals and should have our rights respected.”

Being killed for this struggle is no idle concern.  On October 4, 2012 at least seven people were killed and more than 30 injured by soldiers of the Guatemalan army near Totonicapán, about 90 miles west of Guatemala City.  Unarmed indigenous people there were blockading the Inter-American highway to protest against changes in the constitution, changes to education laws that make teaching careers impossible for poor people, increasing energy prices, inadequate services, and being forced to pay for street lighting that doesn’t even reach them.  According to Al Jazeera, “The indigenous community in Totonicapán is well organized, widely respected, and has historically pursued a strategy of engagement and negotiation with the government to resolve disputes. That the state would respond with violence on such a scale sparked fears about its willingness to brutally suppress protest and flout human rights.”  Fortunately, a colonel and eight soldiers have been arrested and President Otto Perez Molino, former general, who was trained at the School of the Americas, has said that he will no longer deploy the army to protests.  It was the National Police, not the Army, who recently attacked the people at La Puya.

Neoliberal trade agreements:  intervention by other means

According to “Open Doors to Resource Extraction” by Guatemala’s Pastoral Commission for Peace and Ecology (COPAE), translated by Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala (NISGUA):

“In 1524, the pillaging of the natural wealth of Guatemala and Central American began with the arrival of the imperial interests of Spain. Today, the United States is intervening in a similar fashion, although more discretely, by way of imbalanced neoliberal trade agreements such as the Central and North American Free Trade Agreements (CAFTA, NAFTA).

Throughout the long history of the exploitation of Central America, among the only challenges to this system were the ones implemented during the 10-year period in Guatemala known as the “October Revolution” (1944-1954). At that time, two social-democrat presidents enacted laws in favor of the nation and the people of Guatemala. During that period, resource extraction by foreign-owned companies was banned. Part of the “development” strategy designed by the United States and implemented as part of the counterrevolution throughout Guatemala’s 36-year internal conflict (1960-1996), involved strengthening the private business sector and promoting foreign investment, which served to lay the groundwork for the all-out exploitation that we are facing today.

With CAFTA, Central American countries are essentially concessioned off for 50 years, rendering governments effectively powerless, without the right to supervise or regulate foreign companies. Chapter 10 of CAFTA, the chapter related to foreign investment, sets an unequal legal playing field– it is very difficult for a state to take legal action against a multinational company, while investor companies can sue the state as they please for loss or potential loss of profit caused by any change in regulation, law, or policy.

The Mining Law in Guatemala, implemented by the neoliberal government of President Alvaro Arzu (1995-1999), dictates that 99% of revenues be repatriated by multinational companies, leaving royalties in Guatemala of only 1%, a reform based on the neoliberal ideology that aims to attract foreign investment by creating favorable conditions for investors at the expense of the benefit to the population.”


La Puya Community in Resistance to the El Tambor mine

La Lucha Continua

Clearly, imperialism’s war against Guatemala and its indigenous people has not ended. U.S. and Canadian mining corporations, aided by unfair trade agreements and collaborators in the Guatemalan government, are systematically destroying Mayan communities, while taking 99% of the enormous profits back to North America.

The resistance of Mayan and other Guatemalan communities also continues. It is no longer an armed resistance, but it is strong, deep and broad. Rural communities, such as at La Puya, are employing nonviolent strategies, while the government prefers to portray their resistance as violent and to meet it with violence.

The government is frantically attempting to isolate community leaders, accusing them of being manipulated by NGOs and funded by foreigners. Apparently, the government and the communities in resistance agree on one thing. International solidarity strengthens the resistance movement.

Toronto based Rights Action and Oakland-based NISGUA, which maintains an office in Guatemala City, provide regular updates, action alerts, organize solidarity delegations and even provide nonviolent “accompaniment” for community organizers whose lives are at risk. Solidarity actions are also aimed at culpable corporate executives and shareholders in Canada and the U.S.   Another organization, Guatemala Human Rights Commission (GHRC-USA) based in Washington, D.C. has been working since 1982 to support asylum seekers and to defend the rights of women and indigenous people in Guatemala.

For the last four decades, many members of Veterans For Peace have taken bold actions in solidarity with the peoples of Central America, and we will continue to do so. We look forward to returning to Guatemala. In the meantime, there are many mining companies to visit in North America.

The 1954 coup against Guatemala’s fledgling democracy was organized in order to halt land reform and to guarantee that a U.S. company would be the primary beneficiary of Guatemala’s fertile earth and ideal growing climate. The CIA coup was also meant as a warning to governments in the region who might be so reckless as to put the needs of their own people first. Apparently however, the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador did not heed the message, and neither have the people of Guatemala.

Thirty-six years of genocide has not put an end to deep-rooted resistance in Mayan communities who wish to live free and healthy lives. Riding through the beautiful countryside, we often saw signs along reading “No a la mineria. Guatemala no se vende.” No to the mines. Guatemala is not for sale. Perhaps that was our best Spanish lesson of all.

Canada’s First Nations Confront Ottawa: “Expect Resistance”

canadaleaf

“Respect Existence or Expect Resistance”, chant First Nations as a showdown 11 January loams with Prime Minister Harper.

Sparked by Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike on tiny ‘Victoria’ Island near Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, now in its third frigid week, the native uprising across Canada is in fact the latest manifestation of the world’s colonized peoples trying to throw off the shackles of imperialism. An exciting moment, one of vital import for us all.

Their warrior path brings to mind Egyptian Muslims fighting their westernizers and Mubarakite old guard since the revolution in January 2011, or the struggle by Palestinian natives against Israeli theft of their land. It is a continuation of the Iranian people’s struggle in the face of unrelenting subversion from the West. It’s no coincidence that Cairenes were some of the demonstrators at Canadian embassies, or that native activist-leader Terrance Nelson recently was offered support in Tehran for his efforts to gain a seat at the OPEC table for the real owners of Canada’s oil and gas resources.

This struggle has been going on for more than two centuries. In Canada, it really got underway in the 19th century, as the trickle of colons became a deluge and the theft of native lands accelerated. In Egypt it began in 1798, when Napoleon invaded, and crescendoed in 1875 when British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli ‘brought’ the Suez Canal — built by endentured labor at the cost of tens of thousands of Egyptian lives. In Iran, it also began in the early 19th century, when Russia seized northern Iran (present day Azerbaijan), and picked up steam when Reuter and other western businessmen bribed the Shah to grant them lucrative economic concessions. Palestine has been at the center of the anti-imperial struggle since the western powers imposed illegally a Jewish state at the heart of the Muslim world.

Canada’s natives fought for their land, but were overwhelmed by the wiley and land-hungry colons, and today represent only 3% of Canada’s population, living for the most part short, bleak lives in dire poverty on the dregs of land allotted them by the victors.

But resistance is alive and well. “Idle No More” has swept Canada since Spence pitched her tent near Parliament Hill. Egyptians have risen up four times since Disraeli’s coup, eventually taking back the Canal and today are fashioning a new political order inspired not by western imperial dictates, but by the Quran. Iran finally had its revolution in 1979 and has been affronting the imperial monster ever since, telling truth to the world’s would-be masters.

The ploys of the imperialists were all variations on the program to steal others’ lands, and tie their economies to a world order policed by imperial guns and money. There are many weapons in the imperial arsenal, including nuclear weapons capable of destroying all life on Earth many times over, the latest being the armed drone, deploying ‘depleted’ uranium bunker-buster bombs (guaranteed to ‘keep on giving’ for hundreds of thousands of years).

Postmodern imperialism, the latest fashion, cloaks itself in ‘human rights’ and the fight against WMDs and terrorism. That this is mere subterfuge is revealed by the invasion of Iraq (and planned invasions of Iran and Syria) on the pretext of WMD eradication. Instead, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed by US-led invasions, with no one guilty, no WMDs and no end in sight.

Israel’s flagrant violation of all international norms similarly goes unpunished, indeed is subsidized by the US and and enthusiastically endorsed by Canada.

Imperialism is alive and all too well, and Canada is fortunate to at last have a clear voice shouting this grim truth to other Canadians and the world. The alarm went off for Harper last year when native activist-leader Terrance Nelson went to Tehran, defying the Conservatives’ unprovoked cutting of diplomatic relations with Iran last November. Nelson was pilloried as a traitor, though it should be clear by now to Canadians who is trading away Canada’s sovereignty and our reputation.

Attawapiskat Chief Spence was inspired by four native women in Saskatoon who began a hunger strike also last November, protesting the Harper government’s omnibus bill C-45, which: *abrogates the Indian Act, ending native sovereignty,

*gives band councils greater municipal powers,

*makes reserve lands “fee simple property” (which can be bought and sold, not only leased),

*allows taxes to be charged and collected by the new Native governments.

The battle lines are drawn. The Harperite status quo is now being mobilized to push through his agenda. Commenting on the 1905 treaty governing Attawapiskat, the National Post’s Jonathan Kay wrote: “The whole basis of the treaty was destroyed as soon as traditional native hunting life came to an end. This is the fundamental reason that the Idle No More message on treaties is irrelevant: The great challenge of native policy in the 21st century will be to integrate natives into the larger economy that is based in Canadian population centers. You can’t turn the clock back to 1905, or even to 1930.” The only answer, the assimilationists claim, is to push the remnants of the natives into urban ghettoes, where they can live like other Canadian poor on welfare handouts.

The Globe and Mail‘s Jeffery Simpson lectures natives for “living intellectually in a dream palace”, built on “mythology about environmental protection and the aboriginals’ sacred link to their lands”. Harper was correct in refusing a face-to-face meeting with the native chief, since a prime minister should not be “blackmailed” into doing what any lobby group or individual wants.

As a First Nations chief devoted to her people, it is the “lobbyist” Spence who has the creds as a Canadian leader, not the scheming power-hungry Harper, who clawed his way to the top of the Reform/ Conservative Party over broken promises and lies.

The “scattered incidents” Simpson sneers at are taking place spontaneously from coast-to-coast by First Nations protesters, closing rail lines, roads, flashdancing in malls, even disrupting and closing several bridge border crossings with the US. Demonstrations have been held around the world — Palestine, Cairo, London, the US, Aotearoa (New Zealand).

Despite media disdain, there has been an outpouring of sympathy from Canadians native and non-native. NDP MP Charlie Angus visited Spence in her tent, as did Justin Trudeau: “It was deeply moving to meet Chief Theresa today. She is willing to sacrifice everything for her people. She shouldn’t have to.”

The struggle has quickly been taken up by band leaders trying to co-opt the protests. Shawn Atleo, head of the Assembly of First Nations, has called for a renewed campaign of civil disobedience beginning 16 January with “country-wide economic disruptions” and “breach of treaty” declarations. This should climax with the proposed Crown-First Nations Summit 24 January, a repeat of last year’s meeting, when the appalling housing conditions on the Attawapiskat reserve first hit the media.

Idle No More may well act as a catalyst and ignite a broader struggle against Harper’s agenda, his hollowing out of environmental protection laws and Canada’s declining record on human rights. Perhaps Harper’s grudging agreement to meet with native leaders 11 January is too late for him. Starving a native women leader at the heart Canada’s democracy, at Christmas no less, is not conducive to good PR for a leader whose hold on power is shaky. Spence agreed to attend but refused to end the hunger strike she began 11 December until she is convinced this isn’t just another PR stunt. She insisted that Governor Geneneral David Johnston and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty be at the meeting.

Canada is at last redeeming itself in the world’s eyes after seven humiliating years of kowtowing to the US-Israeli agenda both abroad and at home, and we have the First Nations people to thank, their resolve “a conduit for the pain of the world”, comments Naomi Klein. Idle No More speaks for all Canadians against the 1% who so eagerly sell out Canada’s resources and smirch its reputation in the world. “The greatest blessing of all is indigenous sovereignty itself. If Canadians have a chance of stopping Harper’s planet-trashing plans, it will be because these legally binding rights – backed up by mass movements, court challenges, and direct action will stand in his way.”

Not only do Canada’s natives empower all Canadians against the 1%, they also help us understand Canada’s actions in Palestine and Iran, countries whose people love Canada and rout for our natives, whose struggle against the imperial order is their struggle too. Victory against Canada’s Mubarak helps Egyptians shake off the legacy of neoliberalism, helps Palestinians in their struggle against Jewish colons in Israel, and Iranians dying in hospitals for lack of medicines due to the embargo intended to crush their independence.

Eric Walberg is author of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games http://claritypress.com/Walberg.html. You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
A version of this appeared at http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/07/282238/canadas-first-nations-expect-resistance/

David Cameron ‘In Favour’ Of TV Debates, But Does Not Commit

David Cameron has insisted he is in favour of TV election debates, but refused to commit himself to taking part in 2015.

Speaking at a joint press conference in Downing Street on Monday, Cameron was challenged over whether he would sign up to the head-to-head clashes at the next election.

"On TV debates, I'm in favour of them, I think they are good and I think we should go on having them, and I will play my part in trying to make that happen," he said.

In December the prime minister told journalists he thought the debates had taken “all the life” out of the election campaign and said he had not made up his mind about whether to take part in future clashes.

His comments led Labour to accuse him of “running scared” of Ed Miliband, suggesting he did not want to defend his record in No.10.

Cameron also told the press conference that he felt the 2010 TV debates, which gave Nick Clegg a huge, if fleeting, surge in the polls, did not change the outcome of the election.

"I think actually from memory the polls going into the start of the last election were pretty similar to the polls coming out of the last election, so I suspect the result would have been pretty much the same anyway," he said.

Clegg added: "I'm a firm believer in the TV debates."

SEE ALSO: Cameron And Clegg 'Married, But Not To Each Other'

Obama’s Targeted Killing: Murdered without Being Charged. Administration Blocks Information Request on Assassination of...

obamadoublespeak (2)

On Wednesday, at the request of the Obama administration, US federal judge Colleen McMahon relied on expansive “national security” privileges to deny requests by the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times for government records related to the assassination of US citizens.

The US government’s “targeted killing” program, initiated under the Bush administration and expanded under the Obama administration, has so far resulted in the deaths of thousands of people far from any battlefield, including at least three US citizens. The victims, as well as a great many bystanders, have been murdered without being charged with any crime and without trial or judicial review of any kind.

The Obama administration’s ongoing targeted killing program is in violation of the core historic concept of the American legal system, which is contained in the Fifth Amendment of 1791: “No person shall. .. be deprived of life. .. without due process of law.”

The issue before the court was not even the legality of this program, but the ability of the American people simply to have access to the arguments from the Obama administration to justify it.

“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for its conclusion a secret,” wrote Judge McMahon, US District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

While ruling for the government, this statement is itself a damning indictment of the Obama administration. Judge McMahon, an appointee of former president Bill Clinton, acknowledged the “Catch 22” and “Alice-in-Wonderland nature” of her ruling in favor of the Obama administration, but she blamed the outcome on “contradictory constraints and rules” outside her control.

The decision does cite extensively from documents and material from the period of the American Revolution, all of which make clear that the framers of the Constitution intended to forbid extrajudicial assassinations. After having reviewed these authorities, Judge McMahon cites numerous public statements by Obama and several senior officials in his administration that clearly indicate that the US government, with the direct involvement of Obama himself, is planning and carrying out extrajudicial assassinations.

The placement of the constitutional prohibition against extrajudicial killing next to the actions and statements of Obama makes a clear case for the impeachment, arrest and criminal indictment of the president and all of the top civilian, intelligence and military officials in his administration.

The case originated as separate and independent requests under the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the ACLU and New York Times journalists for information related to targeted killings, particularly of US citizens, in the wake of the assassination of Muslim cleric and US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki in September 2011. (See “The legal implications of the al-Awlaki assassination”.)

Citing “national security” exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act, government secrecy statutes, and expansive executive privileges, the Obama administration not only failed to disclose the requested documents, but refused even to number or list the documents that were being withheld, on the grounds that to acknowledge that any of the requested documents exist would compromise national security.

The provocative nature of the “no number, no list” response is underscored by dozens of public statements in which the US government alluded to information in its possession regarding the activities of Anwar Al-Awlaki before his assassination, as well as public statements suggesting that internal legal memoranda had been prepared regarding the legality of the targeted killing program.

The lawsuits to compel disclosure of the requested records were ultimately consolidated because the requests were of a similar nature. Except with respect to one minor category of documents, Judge McMahon’s ruling of January 2 effectively disposes of both lawsuits.

The ACLU had requested several broad categories of documents in October 2011 related to the targeted killings of US citizens. These categories included: records pertaining to the presumed legal basis for assassination of US citizens and records pertaining to the process by which US citizens can be targeted, including who is authorized to make such decisions and what evidence is needed to support them.

The ACLU also requested internal documents related to the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, “including discussions of. .. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. . .”

Finally, the ACLU requested “records pertaining to the factual basis for the targeted killing of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki,” the 16-year-old son of Anwar Al-Awlaki, whom the Obama administration murdered along with a large number of bystanders in a missile strike in Yemen in October 2011. (A separate lawsuit brought by the ACLU challenging that killing under the Fifth Amendment remains pending.)

The public naturally has every right to see these documents, which evidence the participation by Obama and others in war crimes and a conspiracy against democratic rights. However, Judge McMahon dismissed the ACLU requests as “facially overbroad.” She dedicated the bulk of her decision to the Times requests, which were significantly narrower.

In denying the Times requests, Judge McMahon cited interests of “national defense and foreign policy,” government secrecy statutes such as the National Security Act and the CIA Act, and other executive expansive privileges in support of her decision. “This Court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests,” McMahon wrote.

In a footnote in her decision, Judge McMahon indicates that she sent a draft of her decision to the Obama administration for approval before issuing it, “in order to give the Government an opportunity to object to the disclosure of any classified information that may have inadvertently found its way into this document.”

The judge also issued a secret “appendix” to her ruling that is not publicly available. She indicates in her decision that the secret appendix “is being filed under seal and is not available to Plaintiffs’ counsel [i.e., lawyers for the ACLU and New York Times ].”

“This ruling denies the public access to crucial information about the government’s extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens and also effectively green-lights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures,” stated Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director, in a press release Wednesday. The ACLU and the Times intend to appeal the decision.

U.S. Government Using Terrorism Against the American People

policestate

We’ve documented that – by any measure – America is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

But remember, terrorism is defined as:

The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

The American government has also been using violence and threats to intimidate and coerce the American public for political purposes.

For example, the U.S. government is doing the following things to terrorize the American public into docility and compliance:

U.S. constitutional law has taught for hundreds of years that chilling the exercise of our liberties is as dangerous to freedom than directly suppressing them.

Freda Sna U.S. Government Using Terrorism Against the American People

Year of the Snake(s) by Anthony Freda

For example, as we’ve previously noted, reporters censor themselves:

Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.

For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing “a form of self-censorship”:

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions…. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

What we are talking about here – whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not – is a form of self-censorship.

Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble …. You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our …. system.

As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .

There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.

I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter – whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

Former Fox News reporters say the same thing.

Any reporters who don’t censor themselves are harassed. Whistleblowers are prosecuted … or even tortured by the government.

The fact that the government is spying on all Americans – and using the information to launch political witch hunts – makes us all watch what we say, and makes us careful about who we talk to. As the ACLU notes:

Peaceful protesters should not be treated as potential terrorists nor spied upon by federal government agents. Not only is this a misuse of public funds that could be used to find real terrorists, it chills free speech activities and inhibits the public debate on important issues.

A federal judge found that the NDAA’s provision allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

The threat of being labeled a terrorist certainly dissuades and chills our willingness to exercise our rights.

Especially when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

The bottom line is that the U.S. government is using violence and threats to intimidate and coerce its own people for political purposes … to consolidate power and suppress dissent.

Postscript: fear of terror makes people docile and stupid … and the government has also intentionally whipped up an exaggerated hysteria of terror by “others” in order to scare the people. This is another form of terrorism.

Sarah Teather To Vote Against Benefit Cuts

Former Lib Dem minister Sarah Teather has said she will rebel against the coalition and vote against plans to cut benefit payments.

On Tuesday MPs will vote on the government's proposal to restrict the rise in benefit payments to a below inflation 1% - a real terms cut.

Nick Clegg has argued that the Lib Dem presence in government prevented even harsher cuts to welfare payments. However this was not good enough for Teather.

"We have a huge problem with in-work child poverty and we're only going to make this significantly worse," she said on Monday.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One programme, Teather added: "I feel deeply anxious about the policy and I will be voting against the Bill tomorrow very reluctantly and with a very heavy heart."

The Brent Central MP, who faces a tough fight to hold on to her seat against Labour at the next election, lost her job as children and families minister in the September reshuffle.

Teather's announcement that she intends to rebel against the coalition came just one hour before Clegg and David Cameron were due to host a joint press conference designed to show coalition unity or purpose.

She also attacked the "setting up" of a "strivers verses scroungers" narrative that drove "envy and division".

"Families who are earning the least amount of money really struggle to be able to pay for their basics," she said.

Catherine McKinnell: The Child Benefit Changes Are Chaotic, Unfair and Perverse

Foreign Terrorists Wage War on Syria

Syrian authorities said so in 2011. Other reports acknowledged it then and now.

Syria is Washington’s war. It was planned years ago. America wants pro-Western puppet leadership replacing Assad.

All independent governments are targeted for regime change. Imperial rogue states operate that way.

Strategy used is longstanding. On January 4, Michel Chossudovsky discussed it. Current US proxy wars employ earlier tactics. Western-recruited death squads are used.

Using them “go(es) back to the Vietnam war.”

“Terror brigades (commit) targeted assassinations (and) countless atrocities.”

Since Syria’s conflict erupted in March 2011, Washington, key NATO allies, Israel, and other regional allies recruited, armed, trained, and directed death squads.

They’re still doing it. They’re imported from abroad. More on that below.

Washington prioritizes the “Salvador Option.” Rules of engagement proliferated massacres, torture, and gruesome atrocities in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

In Vietnam, Operation Phoenix (OP) did the same things earlier. It became a template for future counterterrorism operations.

From 1968 – 1973, CIA operatives, Special Forces, and Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG) conducted covert missions.

Their mandate was to crush National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) resistance. Strategy was to terrorize people into submission.

Operations were no holds barred. Indiscriminate mass murder and atrocities were committed. US military personnel and South Vietnamese government officials considered security risks were targeted.

High-value elements mattered most. Countless others were affected. Around 80,000 died before operations ended.

Later reports said OP failed. John Pilger called America’s Southeast Asian war “the grand illusion of the American cause.” What couldn’t succeed finally ended.

Many remember Washington’s humiliating April 30, 1975 Saigon embassy rooftop exit. Perhaps Middle East/North African/Central Asian ones await.

America considers state-sponsored terrorism success stories.

Johnson and Nixon prioritized them. So did Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton and Obama. Rogue states operate no holds barred. Inviolable international and domestic laws are spurned.

Unchallenged global dominance alone matters. Unlimited body count totals and mass destruction further it. Wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Humanitarian intervention duplicity justifies them.

Patriotism means going along with criminal lawlessness. Truth is turned on its head. Media scoundrels suppress it. Rogue politicians betray their constituents.

It’s institutionalized. Empires never say they’re sorry. Policy is made through the barrel of a gun. It’s not pretty. It proliferates state terror globally. Most people haven’t a clue.

They’re hooked on bread and circuses. They’re mindless about what affects them most. Their dismissiveness compromises their own security. Their futures are jeopardized. Their children may not have one worth living. People are on their own to fight back.

Prioritized wealth, power, privilege and dominance undermine what’s too important to lose. Permanent imperial wars alone divert trillions of vitally needed dollars. They’re not available for essential domestic needs.

Popular ones go begging. Bailing out bankers and rewarding other corporate favorites matter more. So do imperial conquests. Permanent war is policy.

Direct and proxy ones are waged. Brutal assassins are used. They’re recruited abroad. A UN report said 29 countries supply them. The worst of cutthroat killers are hired guns. They’re enlisted to advance America’s imperium.

They’re waging war on Assad. It’s mischaracterized as civil. There’s nothing civil about Washington’s war on Syria. The same dirty game repeats. Independent states are targeted for regime change. All options are used.

They include full-scale war, mass killing, and gruesome atrocities. Nations are transformed into charnel houses. It’s done on the pretext of liberating them.

American-style freedom is slavery. Mainstream discourse doesn’t explain. It repeats long ago discredited notions. Responsibility to protect (R2P) duplicity justifies what demands condemnation.

Media scoundrels suppress imperial lawlessness. Western-inflicted violence and bloodshed go unnoticed. Victims are blamed for aggressor crimes. The same dirty game repeats.

Post-9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq were ravaged and destroyed. So was Libya last year. Now it’s Syria’s turn. Perhaps Iran comes next.

Most Syrians deplore violence. They oppose internal and external elements committing it. They support protective security forces. They represent a vital last line of defense.

Conflict continues without end. On January 1, Press TV headlined “Al-Qaeda, Israel’s Trojan horse in Middle East: Iranian MP,” saying:

Iranian Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee member Mohammad-Hassan Asafari said:

“The Zionist regime has become the largest training base for active terrorists in the Middle East region and the footprint of this sinister regime can be easily traced in recent terrorist operations.”

Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists wage war on Syria. They’re closely allied with Washington. They’re recruited throughout the region and beyond.

Israel provides training and intelligence support. A separate Press TV report headlined “US, Israel major players in Syria crisis: Iran cmdr,” saying:

“Chairman of Iran’s Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi says the United States and Israel are major players in the Syrian crisis.”

“The number of terrorists in Syria, compared with the people and the popular army of this country, is not high and they are weak.”

“However, they have been provided with advanced weapons and shoot people from hiding places, and this is not a coherent and systematic move.”

The London Independent discussed the issue. It’s report was largely one-sided. It headlined “Foreign fighters fuel the sectarian flames in Syria.”

It called the conflict “sectarian.” Doing so implies civil war. It covered up a foreign invasion. It cited a duplicitous Human Rights Council International Commission of Inquiry for Syria report.

It claimed Syrian forces “resorted to aerial bombardments, including shelling of hospitals.” It called such attacks “disproportionate.” It blamed Assad for Western aggression.

The Media turn truth on its head. Managed news substitutes for the real thing. Readers and viewers aren’t told what they most need to know.

Offensive Patriot missiles arrived in Turkey. They’re positioned near Syria’s border. NATO maintains control.

On January 4, an AFRICOM statement said America began transporting 400 troops to Turkey. Additional equipment will arrive by sea.

US forces will be based at Gaziantep. It’s 50km north of Syria’s border. Missile batteries will be fully operational later in January. They’re for offense, not defense.

Plans may involve establishing a backdoor no-fly zone. Doing so would circumvent Security Council authority.

Washington-led NATO heads closer to full-scale intervention. The new year promises more bloodshed.

On January 6, Press TV headlined “Russian warships gathering off Syria waters to deter West: Report.”

The Sunday Times was cited. It said Russia sent sent five landing ships. On board are military vehicles, hundreds of marines, and combat vessels.

“Russia should be prepared for any developments as it believes the situation in Syria might reach its peak before Easter,” it said. An unnamed diplomatic source was quoted.

He added that Russia intends to deter “the West from deploying ground forces.” Moscow says its ships are to “improve the management, maintenance, and testing of the interaction of naval forces.”

Another Russian warship carrying marines heads for Tartus. Moscow maintains its only Mediterranean base in the Syrian port city.

On December 29, two other warships, the Azov and Nikolai Filchenkov, were deployed. They’ll arrive in Syrian waters shortly.

“In mid-December, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that a fleet of Russian warships had been sent from the Baltic port of Baltiysk to the Mediterranean Sea near the Syrian waters.”

“Syria, Russia and Iran say” deploying offensive Patriot missiles near Syria’s border “could spark an eventual military action by NATO.”

On January 2, Iran’s Fars News Agency (FNA) headlined “Foreign Military Intervention in Syria: Red Line for Russia,” saying:

Mehdi Sanayee is a senior Iranian legislator. He’s a National Security and Foreign Policy Commission member. He’s also a Russian expert.

He told FNA:

“Causing developments through military intervention and remaining empty-handed in the developments in Syria are Moscow’s red lines.”

Deploying Russian forces represents a “new step” in the Syrian conflict.

“Russia tries to prove on the international scene that it is committed to its strategy, which is opposition to and confrontation against foreign military intervention and unilateral moves in Syria to show that it has not surrendered on them,” he said.

He referred to Vladimir Putin’s earlier comments. They suggested Moscow’s new position. It remains to be seen what follows.

Patrick Seale is a longtime Middle East analyst. On January 1, he offered grim new year tidings. “The coming year” won’t be “happy” for “the tormented Middle East,” he said.

“(T)he balance sheet of the past two years remains profoundly negative.” Nowhere throughout the region have “convincing sign(s) of peace and reconciliation” emerged.

Some countries suffered more than others. He called the “Palestine cause….all but lost. The two-state solution is virtually extinct.” He stopped short of saying it’s been that way for years.

He stressed the importance of preserving a “unitary Syrian state.” Doing so is essential to “containing Israel.” Resolving the conflict militarily can’t succeed.

The only solution is mutually agreed on ceasefire, halting weapons and funding sent insurgents, “isolat(ing) murderous extremists,” and resolving the conflict politically.

At issue isn’t whether Assad stays or goes. Syria is vitally important. It’s essential to protect its “unique historical heritage, its state institutions, its ancient minorities, and its vital role in the defense of Arab independence.”

On January 6, Assad delivered a major address. It’s his first in months. He called for “comprehensive national dialogue in the near future” with opposition elements and other political parties.

“Syria wants peace and reconciliation,” he stressed. At the same time, “(a)rmed groups must halt terrorist acts.” Outside forces direct them.

They’re “terrorists” and “criminals.” They want Syria’s government ousted. He vowed to defeat them. He called for “full national mobilization.”

“We meet today and suffering is overwhelming Syrian land. There is no place for joy while security and stability are absent on the streets of our country. The nation is for all and we all must protect it.”

“These are the enemies of the people, the enemies of God,” he said. “Eventually they resorted to terrorism to terrorize the people.”

“They call it a revolution, but it has nothing to do with revolution. A revolution needs thinkers. These are a bunch of criminals.”

“The first stage of a political solution would require that regional powers stop funding and arming (opposition forces), an end to terrorist operations, and controlling the borders.”

“We will not have dialogue with a puppet made by the West,” he stressed.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported what he said in detail.

He prefers responsible conflict resolution. He urged it all along. Mutually agreed on ceasefire is essential. Washington and key NATO partners spurn it.

For months, Assad made good faith efforts. A year ago, Syria’s constitution was rewritten. It was put to a popular referendum.

Despite opposition boycotts, threats, anti-Assad media campaigns, and turnout hampered in violence-torn areas, 89.4% of eligible voters approved it. Another 9% opposed, and 1.2% of ballots were invalid.

It includes 157 articles. Key reforms were instituted. They include political pluralism established for the first time. Presidential term limits and press freedom were mandated.

Last May, first time ever legislative elections were held. Doing so was a milestone political event. Independent candidates participated.

Despite ongoing insurgent violence, turnout was high. Voting went smoothly. Independent monitors supervised the process. They included intellectuals, legislators and judicial authorities from other countries.

Ba’ath party members won a 60% majority. Previously they held just over 50% control. With support from independent MPs, they comprise 90% of Syria’s parliament. Opposition party members were also elected.

Assad said nothing about stepping down. He, Russia, China, Iran, and other sources say Syrians alone should choose their government.

Outside interference is rejected. International law is clear and unequivocal. The UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified.

Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zone acts of war.

In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council in accordance with UN Charter provisions.

Three General Assembly resolutions also prohibit non-consensual belligerent intervention. They include:

• the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;

• the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and

• the 1974 Definition of Aggression.

Under no circumstances may one or more nations intervene against another without lawful Security Council authorization. Doing so constitutes illegal aggression.

Article 8 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention of Rights and Duties says “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

Under Article 10, differences between states “should be settled by recognized pacific methods.”

Article 11 calls sovereign state territory “inviolable….”

Washington and key NATO partners spurn international law repeatedly. In 1999, without Security Council authorization, nonbelligerent Yugoslavia was lawlessly attacked and ravaged. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya followed.

Now Syria. America prioritizes attacking one nation at a time or in multiples. Unless stopped, doing so may end up destroying humanity in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and 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 and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays 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/foreign-terrorists-wage-war-on-syria/

Ecuador vs The Bankers

RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc. "The Real News" is the flagship show of IWT and Real News Network.

All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network.  Click here for more

Problems with this site? Please let us know

Linux VPS Hosting by Star Dot Hosting

Sandy Hook School Massacre Timeline

Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School

The following timeline of the December 14 mass killing of 20 children and 8 adults in Newtown Connecticut attempts to demonstrate how the event was presented to the public by corporate news media. The chronological assemblage of coverage is not comprehensive of all reports published on the incident but rather seeks to verify how the storyline was to a substantial degree constructed by federal and to a lesser degree state law enforcement authorities and major media around the theory (prior to a complete and exhaustive police investigation) that 20-year-old Adam Lanza was the sole agent in the massacre.

From the outset, this scenario became an established reality through the news media’s pronounced repetition of the “lone gunman” narrative and meme. This proposed scenario significantly obscured the fact that police encountered and apprehended two additional shooting suspects on the school’s grounds within minutes of the crime. These suspects remain unaccounted for by authorities but the roles they may have played arguably correlate with the shifting information presented by authorities and major news media on injuries and weapons vis-à-vis the mass carnage meted out in the school. While the detainment of additional suspects was pointed to by alternative news media, in the days following the tragedy, the lone gunman narrative has become firmly established in the public psyche via an overwhelming chorus of corporate media reports and interpretations.

Note: Times of occurrences referenced are Eastern Standard Time and in some instances signify time of publication rather than the specific incident cited. Time of publication does not always correlate with exact time of incident. “n.t.” denotes “no time” of publication referenced.

2012

At the start of the 2012-13 academic year Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung announces in a public letter to families the Newtown School District’s new security system installed “in all elementary schools.” Under the newly-announced security regimen, “exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1,000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification. Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m.” “Principal Outlined New Security Procedures at Sandy Hook Elementary,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012, 8:25PM EST.

9:47AM
Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung Tweets photo of emergency drill held at Sandy Hook fire station with Sandy Hook Elementary faculty and students participating. Esther Zuckerman, “The Sandy Hook Principal’s Twitter Feed is Haunting,” The Atlantic Wire, December 14, 2012.

n.t.
Following Obama’s reelection Senator Diane Feinstein is believed to be meeting with relevant federal agencies to lay groundwork for reenacting assault weapons ban. “Senator Diane Feinstein Moves to Ban All Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Pistol Grips,” Market Daily News, November 7, 2012.

10:14AM
Hartford Courant publishes online Google map of Sandy Hook Elementary School. “Map of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012.

10:47AM
Connecticut State Police report assisting Newtown police in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. “The Hartford Courant [<-hyperlink is to a different story] reports there are multiple injures [sic] and unconfirmed reports that one of the shooters is dead while the other is still at large. The school superintendent’s office says the district has locked down schools to ensure the safety of students and staff. Crimeside Staff, “Connecticut School Shooting: Police Investigating Reports of a Shooting at Elementary School,” CBS News, December 14, 2012.

10:47AM
[Famous photo taken by Newtown Bee editor is distributed via CBS and other national media.]

Connecticut School Shooting: Police Investigating Reports of a Shooting at Elementary School,” CBS News, December 14, 2012, 1047AM EST.

11:30AM
A Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps dispatcher says a Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher was taken to hospital after being shot in the foot. “There are reports of multiple injuries,” CBS notes. The Newton Bee reports a student with apparently serious wounds was carried out of the facility by a police officer. The school superintendent’s office says all schools in the district remain in lockdown. Crimesider Staff, “Connecticut School Shooting Update: One Gunman Dead, One Teacher Injured at Elementary School,” CBS News, December 14, 2012.

11:34AM
Police say the shooter is dead and two weapons were recovered from him. “The source says one weapon recovered is a Glock and the other is a Sig Sauer.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

12:29PM
Hartford Courant mysteriously publishes online Googlemap of neighborhood of Lanza residence, which is 36 Yogananda St. “Map of 46 Yogananda St. Sandy Hook, CT,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012.

12:27PM
Anonymous witness and parent of student says that while attending a meeting with faculty regarding her child she heard “at least 100 rounds” being fired when the shooting began about 9:30 to 9:35AM. “There was a ‘pop pop pop’ in the hall outside the room. Three people went out of the room into the hall where the sounds had come from. ‘Only one person came back.’” The same witness says “she then called 911. She said she never saw the shooter but she later was escorted outside the room past two bodies lying in blood.” “Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

1:57PM
An anonymous federal law enforcement source informs news media the death toll is closer to 30 than 20, with most of those killed being children. The source, who says he is in contact with authorities on the scene, says the suspected gunman had a connection to the school but would not elaborate. Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:09PM
CNN is “told that 18 to 20 of the dead are children.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:11PM
An anonymous law enforcement official tells CNN that the suspect’s name is Ryan Lanza and he is in his 20s. Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:39PM
Anonymous federal law enforcement authorities say “the shooting happened quickly and happened in a concentrated area.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:52PM
Father of Sandy Hook Elementary School third grade student Stephen Delgiudice describes to CBS News what his daughter heard over the loudspeaker from the principal’s office. This prompted the teacher to lock the classroom door. “We have a pretty good program in Newtown,” Delgiudice says. “where basically a code red reverse 911 type of a call, and a, came through. [It said] there’s a shooting at the school and naturally I obeyed the speed limit and drove immediately to the school. And ah, y’know it was just mass-mass chaos. I finally got to my daughter—a friend of mine led me to my daughter. I wanted to see her face and hold her, which I did, and once I did that there was a sense of relief, but, uhm, it was just chaos.” Crimesider Staff, “Connecticut School Shooting: Father Says Student Heard Commotion Over Loudspeaker,” CBS News, December 14, 2012.

3:16PM
President Obama addresses nation. “As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago – these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

3:51PM
A federal law enforcement official informs CNN that “shooter arrived and headed directly toward and to his mother’s classroom. That and the other information now emerging – another family member killed, police interviews lead them to believe his mother was the primary target. But they note he also came armed with clear intention of mass killing.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

3:45PM
There were a total of 27 people dead at the school, Lt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police tells assembled reporters. “Eighteen students were pronounced dead at the scene, and two others died at the hospital.” In addition, six adults were pronounced dead at the scene.  Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

3:54PM
CNN now reports “three guns found at the scene … the third weapon found on the scene was a .223 Bushmaster. The other weapons, previously reported, are a Glock, and a Sig-Sauer. No word on the models of Glock or Sig-Sauer.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

6:34PM
Witnesses attest to seeing bloodied children, hearing as many as 100 shots, and “loud booms.” “It was horrendous,” parent Brenda Lebinski said, who rushed to the school where her daughter is a third grade student. “Everyone was in hysterics – parents, students. There were kids coming out of the school bloodied. I don’t know if they were shot, but they were bloodied.” Lebinski said another parent in the school “during the shooting told her a ‘masked man’ entered the principal’s office and may have shot the principal. Lebinski, who is friends with the mother who was at the school, said the principal was “’severely injured.’” Lebinski’s daughter’s teacher “immediately locked the door to the classroom and put all the kids in the corner of the room.” Nearby resident Melissa Murphy listened to events unfold on a police scanner. “’I kept hearing them call for the mass casualty kit and scream, “Send everybody! Send everybody!” Murphy said. ‘It doesn’t seem like it can be really happening. I feel like I’m in shock.’” A girl interviewed by an NBC Connecticut affiliate said she heard seven loud “booms” while in gym class. “A police officer came in and told us to run outside and so we did,” the unidentified girl said on camera. Dan Burns and Chris Kaufman, “Connecticut Gun Rampage: 28 Dead, Including 20 Children,” Reuters, December 14, 2012.

6:34PM
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls for greater gun control measures. “We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress,” Bloomberg said. “That must end today.” Dan Burns and Chris Kaufman, “Connecticut Gun Rampage: 28 Dead, Including 20 Children,” Reuters, December 14, 2012.

6:44PM
US officials representing three different lettered agencies separately identify the suspected shooter as Adam Lanza, in contrast to what investigators said earlier in the day. No explanation is given regarding what prompted confusion among investigators. Lanza’s older brother, Ryan, was taken into custody for general questioning in Hoboken, New Jersey but was not labeled a suspect. “Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

7:13PM
Fox News presents “newly released police dispatch audio” of exchange between 911 dispatcher and Newtown Police and Connecticut State Police encountering two shooting suspects on school grounds. “I have reports that the teacher saw two shadows running past the building, past the gym which would be rear [inaudible].” “Yeah, we got him. He’s coming at me, down [inaudible].” “911 Call Dispatch Audio Reveals Police Response to Sandy Hook School Shooting,” Fox News, December 14, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16AfZXH33eQ

[Night]
Police recover long gun from automobile in Sandy Hook parking lot. “Police Find Long Gun in Trunk of Car in Sandy Hook Parking Lot, Newtown Connecticut,” NBC News, December 14, 2012.

n.t.
CBS correspondent notes how police have a second shooting suspect in custody who they are interrogating. “Well, they have an individual in custody, who they’re talking to. I am told they’re looking into the person as possibly a second shooter. Now that changes the dynamics here a little bit which goes from—if in fact this turns out to be confirmed—it goes from a lone gunman scenario where somebody has this argument with society and wants to take revenge with the most defenseless people in society to a team of individuals who’ve gotten together and conspired to do something like this.” “School Shooting: Possible Second Gunman in Custody,” CBS News Online, December 14, 2012.

n.t.
The Associated Press interviews an unidentified Sandy Hook Elementary student who describes seeing a shooting suspect prone on the ground in the school’s parking lot. Unidentified student: “And then the police like were knocking on the door, and they’re like, ‘We’re evacuating people! We’re evacuating people!’ So we ran out. There’s police about at every door. They’re leading us, ‘Down this way. Down this way. Quick! Quick! Come on!’ Then we ran down to the firehouse. There’s a man pinned down to the ground with handcuffs on. And we thought that was the victim [sic]. We really didn’t get a good glance at him because there was a car blocking it. Plus we were running really quick.” “Raw: Student Describes Scene at School Shooting,” Associated Press, December 14, 2012.

7:05AM
State Police Lt. J. Paul Advance on ABC’s Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos.

Vance: This is something that’s going to take a significant amount of time. From the onset we’ve had teams looking into the background  of [Adam Lanza], peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak. We have many, many questions that we need to ask—that we need to explore.
Stephanopoulos: Three guns found on site?
Vance: We haven’t discussed that as of yet, but, uh, in excess of three guns.
Stephanopoulos: More than three guns. And we know also that the guns match those of his mother may have had. Have you been able to put that together yet?”
Vance: We’re—we’re—I don’t have that information specifically–
Stephanopoulos: Do you know if they were obtained legally?
Vance: Again, that’s something we would also have to explore during the investigation.

ABC News, “Tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Good Morning America, December 15, 2012.

8:40AM
Sandy Hook resident Gene Rosen comes forth with story that he encountered six first grade children from Sandy Hook Elementary in his front lawn while feeding his cats. “I thought they were practicing for a play or Cub Scouts, and I went and approached them and it became clear that they were so distressed,” Rosen told CBS News. “And I took them into my house, and they were crying and talking, and I got them into my house, and they were crying and talking [sic], and I got them some stuffed animals.” “Neighbor Found Terrified Children on Front Lawn after School Massacre,” CBS New York, December 15, 2012.

3:45PM
MSNBC: “Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver provides an update to the media after he and his team examined the victims’ bodies at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown following Friday’s shootings.” In this exchange Carver and State Police drastically change the story on what weapons were used in the shooting, contending that the Bushmaster 223 was the sole weapon Lanza wielded. Carver exhibits an amazing degree of deferral to law enforcement and overall lack of knowledge about the postmortem operation he has just presided over. For example, a reporter asks, “Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?” Carver responds, “I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].” Shortly thereafter another reporter asks, “How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?” Carver shakes his head slowly, “I don’t know.” “Medical Examiner: Rifle Primary Weapon Used in Shootings,” MSNBC, December 15, 2012.

4:32PM
List of Sandy Hook Elementary victims is released. “Police Release Names of Newtown School Shooting Victims,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012,.

8:55PM
Federal authorities confirm there is no record of Adam Lanza using local Newtown shooting range. Michael Isikoff and Hannah Rappleye, “Mom of Suspected Shooter-First to Die—Was Avid Gun Enthusiast, Friend Says,” NBC News, December 15, 2012.

8:55PM
Federal officials claim Lanza took three weapons to Sandy Hook Elementary, a Glock and Sig Sauer, and a Bushmaster .223-caliber semiautomatic assault-style rifle. Authorities remain unclear on whether all guns were used in the attack. Michael Isikoff and Hannah Rappleye, “Mom of Suspected Shooter-First to Die—Was Avid Gun Enthusiast, Friend Says,” NBC News, December 15, 2012.

9:15PM
“An official with knowledge of the investigation” informs the Associated Press that three weapons were found inside Sandy Hook Elementary on or near Adam Lanza’s body—a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle, a Glock 10mm pistol, and a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol. “Three other guns have also been recovered, but it was not clear where they were found, the official told AP. They were a Henry repeating rifle, an Enfield rifle and a shotgun.” Matt Appuzo and Pete Yost, “Connecticut Shooter Adam Lanza’s Guns Were Registered to Mother Nancy Lanza: Official,” Associated Press/Huffington Post, December 15, 2012.

11:31PM
Adam Lanza’s aunt Marsha Lanza describes Nancy Lanza as “meticulous” and “self-reliant,” pointing out that she kept three guns in the home “for self-defense.” “She would never leave the guns out,” Marsha Lanza asserts. Josh Kovner and Edmund H. Mahoney, “Adam Lanza: A ‘Quiet, Odd’ Loner Living on the Fringes,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

11:31PM
Law enforcement officials state the murder weapon was one of three guns owned by Nancy Lanza:  a semiautomatic rifle or two semiautomatic pistols. Josh Kovner and Edmund H. Mahoney, “Adam Lanza: A ‘Quiet, Odd’ Loner Living on the Fringes,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

11:31PM
Investigators believe Adam Lanza’s behavior was consistent with Asperger’s syndrome, a disorder within “the autism spectrum … marked by difficulty with social interaction. Many with Asperger’s are otherwise high-functioning people. There is no pre-disposition toward violence, experts said.” Josh Kovner and Edmund H. Mahoney, “Adam Lanza: A ‘Quiet, Odd’ Loner Living on the Fringes,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

11:44PM
Law enforcement authorities provide press with detailed information on event which becomes bedrock “official” storyline that Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. After shooting his mother twice in the head while she lie in bed Lanza proceeded to Sandy Hook Elementary where he “fired a half-dozen thunderous rounds from a semiautomatic rifle to open a hole big enough to step through in one of the school’s glass doors.” He entered the school and shot Principal Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach who after hearing the “sounds of gunfire and shattering glass, bolted into a corridor from a conference room across the hall from the classrooms … The first classroom Lanza reached was teacher Kaitlin Roig’s. Alarmed by the gunfire, Roig hid her students in a bathroom and closed her classroom door. Lanza passed by Roig’s classroom in lieu of substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau’s, shooting all 14 children who investigators believe were huddled and clutching one another in fear, in addition to Rousseau and a special education teacher who happened to be in the room. Lanza next arrived at teacher Victoria Soto’s classroom, who is believed to have hidden her 6- and 7-year old students in a closet. When Lanza demanded to know where the children were, Soto tried to divert him to the other end of the school by saying that her students were in the auditorium. As six of Soto’s students attempted to flee Lanza shot them, Soto and another teacher in the room. Searching for survivors police found the remaining seven of Soto’s students still hiding in the closet. They told the police what had happened. The two teacher’s aides who were killed were Mary Anne Murphy and Rachel Davino. It was unclear which aide was in which room when they were killed. The first officer arriving at the school found Lanza’s body near the door of Soto’s classroom. The intense violence lasted about 10 minutes. Lanza fired at least three, 30-round magazines with deadly accuracy. Two of the people he shot survived. All of the victims were shot multiple times. ‘I did seven (autopsies) myself with three to 11 wounds apiece,’ Chief State Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver III said Saturday. ‘Only two were shot at close range. I believe everybody was hit (by bullets) more than once.’” Edward H. Mahoney and Dave Altimari, “A Methodical Massacre, Horror and Heroics,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

6:44AM
“We too are asking why. We have cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so. Like so many of you, we are saddened, but struggling to make sense of what has transpired.”—Adam Lanza’s father Peter Lanza said in a statement. Jonathan Dienst, “Conn. Shooting Suspect Adam Lanza’s Father: ‘We Too Are Asking Why,’” NBC News, December 16, 2012.

10:30AM
On CBS’s Face the Nation Bob Orr remarked that at least two computers at the Lanza residence were “smashed to smithereens.” CBS correspondent and former FBI agent John Miller noted “that subpoenas have been issued for all of the shooter’s email accounts and his mother’s accounts, including all of the ‘sent’ mail and ‘received’ mail over a long period of time. Miller said that Lanza’s mother, Nancy, had battled with the school system and eventually took her son out of the schools and home-schooled him.” Christopher Keating, “Newtown Update: CBS Says Two Computers ‘Smashed to Smithereens’ In Lanza Home in Newtown; Subpoenas for All Emails of Mother and Shooter,” Capitol Watch, Courantblogs, December 16, 2012, n.t. [Such programs are typically taped the preceding Friday afternoon.-JT]

12:12PM
Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance states Adam Lanza possessed “an extraordinary amount of weaponry … In addition to an assault-style rifle and at least two handguns, he also had a shotgun in reserve in the car he drove to the school.” Lance claims that when Lanza’s body was found he “still had ‘hundreds of rounds’ of ammunition in multiple magazines, after having already fired hundreds of rounds inside the school.” M. Alex Johnson, “Very Heavily Armed Gunman Shot Mother Multiple Times Before Killing 26 at Connecticut School, Police Say,” NBC News, December 16, 2012.

12:12PM
Details emerge on Adam Lanza enrolling at Western Connecticut State University in 2008 at age 16. Lanza successfully completed six courses “including website production, data modeling, Philosophy 101 and ethical theory — and compiled a solid 3.26 grade-point average.” University officials claim Lanza presented no disciplinary concerns.  M. Alex Johnson, “Very Heavily Armed Gunman Shot Mother Multiple Times Before Killing 26 at Connecticut School, Police Say,” NBC News, December 16, 2012.

[Afternoon]
President Obama travels to Newtown to address grieving community and repeatedly allude to gun control legislation in an 18 minute speech. “We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, [the] fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims … Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” Daniela Altimari, “We Must Change, President Tells Nation,” Hartford Courant, December 16, 2012, 11:16PM EST.

4:52PM
Alex Israel was in the same class at Newtown High School with Adam Lanza, who lived a few houses down from her. “You could definitely tell he was a genius,” Israel says. “He was really quiet, he kept to himself.” Lanza’s former bus driver regarded Lanza as “’a nice kid, very polite’ like his brother.” Another former classmate remarked that Lanza “was just a kid” — not a troublemaker, not antisocial, not suggesting in any way that he could erupt like this.” Michael Martinez and David Ariosto, “Adam Lanza’s Family: Mom Liked Parlor Games, Guns; Dad, a Tax Exec, Remarried,” CNN.com, December 16, 2012.

8:06PM
Connecticut State Police Lieutenant J. Paul Vance tells the Huffington Post that Adam Lanza specifically used the Bushmaster .223 rifle to carry out all of the Sandy Hook murders. “Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday,” the Huffington Post reports, “firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults … Lanza, 20, carried ‘many high-capacity clips’ for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene. John Rudolf and Janet Ross, “School Shooter Adam Lanza Used Military-Style Bushmaster Rifle,” Huffington Post, December 16, 2012.

8:06PM
Senator Dianne Feinstein announces that she intends to introduce legislation reauthorizing a federal assault weapons ban originally passed in the early 1990s during the Clinton administration that was allowed to lapse in 2004. John Rudolf and Janet Ross, “School Shooter Adam Lanza Used Military-Style Bushmaster Rifle,” Huffington Post, December 16, 2012.

Health science and investigative writer Mike Adams observes that much like the Tucson Arizona, Aurora Colorado, and Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings, mass media are scrubbing their coverage and doctoring the storyline to obscure the fact that there were additional suspects and probable shooters at the crime scene. Mike Adams, “Newtown School Shooting Already Being Changed by the Media to Eliminate Eyewitness Reports of a Second Shooter,” Natural News, December 16, 2012, n.t.

12:51PM
Divorce records reveal the parents of Adam Lanza had joint custody of their son and that Lanza’s father paid yearly alimony totaling $240,000 in 2010, $265,000 in 2011 and $289,800 in 2012. Nancy and Peter Lanza’s divorce cited irreconcilable and was made final in September 2009. The divorce decree designated Adam Lanza’s primary residence with his mother in the Yogananda Street address which Peter Lanza quitclaimed to Nancy. Peter was designated as solely responsible for the cost of college for Adam and brother Ryan and for buying Adam a car. Nancy Lanza seldom discussed domestic affairs with friends. She was otherwise regarded as very open and generous. Allaine Griffith, “After Divorce, Lanzas Had Joint Custody of Adam,” Hartford Courant, December 17, 2012.

12:51PM
A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is uncertain whether Nancy Lanza brought her son to the range or whether he ever fired a weapon there. Allaine Griffith, “After Divorce, Lanzas Had Joint Custody of Adam,” Hartford Courant, December 17, 2012.

1:09PM
Sandy Hook Elementary nurse Sally Cox tells ABC of her encounter with gunman on the morning of December 14 as she crouched underneath her desk. “I could see him from the knees down, 20 feet away, his boots were facing my desk,” Cox said in an interview on Good Morning America. “It was seconds… and then he turned and walked out and I heard the door close.” The 60-year-old staff member then heard “loud popping noises” outside the infirmary. Cox was joined by a school secretary and together they dialed 911 before hiding in a supply closet. Lauren Effron, “Sandy Hook School Nurse Hid From Shooter, ‘His Boots Were Facing My Desk,’” ABC News, December 17, 2012.

1:15PM
Funerals for massacre victims begin in Newtown, with first being for 6 year old Sandy Hook first-grader Jack Pinto. “There are many ways to measure what was lost Friday morning at Sandy Hook,” the Washington Post observes, “a school shooting that has spurred a national debate about public safety and a speech by the president. But no accounting of the damage was as searing as the one that began Monday, when parents stepped behind lecterns and spoke about the children they would miss.” Eli Saslow and Steve Vogel, “Funerals for Newtown Massacre Victims Begin,” Washington Post, December 17, 2012.

1:26PM
Two witnesses in Sandy Hook school shooting are unidentified adults. “There are two adults that were injured in the facility—in the school—and suffered gunshot wounds and are recovering,” Connecticut State Police Lieutenant J. Paul Vance stated. “Our investigators will in fact speak with them when it’s medically appropriate, and certainly they will shed a great deal of light on the facts and circumstances of this tragic investigation that we’re undertaking.” [Vance’s emphasis] “Key Witnesses in Connecticut School Shooting are Survivors,” Hartford Courant, December 17, 2012.

6:39PM
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveils “Demand a Plan” campaign, sponsored by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns bipartisan coalition that requests Congress and President Obama move immediately on gun control measures. Bloomberg calls Washington’s inability to act a “stain on our nation’s commitment to protect our children.” Carlo Delaverson, “NYC Mayor Launches Campaign Against Gun Violence,” NBC News, December 17, 2012.

6:00PM
Infowars reporter Rob Dew utilizes overlooked excerpts from CBS and Associated Press coverage of the massacre to explain how there were additional shooter suspects apprehended by law enforcement on the morning of December 14 that have been left unaccounted for and since dropped from public view. Rob Dew, “Sandy Hook 2nd Shooter Coverup,” Infowars Nightly News, December 18, 2012.

1:07PM
Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II says he will work with a University of Connecticut geneticist to determine what prompted Adam Lanza to act. “I’m exploring with the department of genetics what might be possible, if anything is possible [sic],” Carver says. “Is there any identifiable disease associated with this behavior?” David Owens, “Obama Calls for New Proposals for Gun Control in Wake of Newtown Massacre,” Hartford Courant, December 19, 2012.

11:16PM
Hundreds attend wake of Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung, including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, US Senator Richard Blumenthal and US Senator-elect Chris Murphy. Matthew Kauffman, “Communities Say Farewell to Four More Victims of Newtown Shootings,” Hartford Courant, December 19, 2012.

1:42PM
US Attorney General Eric Holder makes unannounced visit to Newtown to meet with Sandy Hook first responders following a meeting in Washington with Vice President Joe Biden, presumably to discuss forthcoming gun control legislation. “Holder to Meet with First Responders in Newtown,” Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press/Hartford Courant, December 20, 2012.

n.t.
Further analysis by alternative news media points to additional Sandy Hook shooting suspects overlooked by corporate media. Niall Bradley, “Sandy Hook Massacre: Official Story Spins Out of Control,” Veterans Today, December 20, 2012; James F. Tracy, “The Newtown School Tragedy: More Than One Gunman?” Global Research, December 20, 2012.

7:20PM
Witness to shooting Becky Virgalla interviewed by Connecticut news media. [Video of interview at Hartford Courant website has since been taken down.] “Witness to the Sandy Hook Massacre,” Hartford Courant, December 26, 2012.

Attorney Irv Pinsky asks State of Connecticut Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr. for permission to file $100 million dollar lawsuit on behalf of unnamed 6-year-old Sandy Hook student for negligence and trauma suffered after hearing screaming, cursing, and gunfire over school’s intercom system. As a result, the “child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined,” the proposed claim asserts. Pinsky’s claim also alleges “that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from ‘foreseeable harm.’” Mary Ellen Godin, “Claim Seeks $100 Million for Child Survivor of Connecticut School Shooting,” Reuters, December 28, 2012.

Adam Lanza’s body reportedly turned over by Connecticut Medical Examiner to father Peter Lanza “sometime last week.” “Father Claims Adam Lanza’s Body,” Hartford Courant, December 31, 2012, 3:38PM.

3:12PM
Connecticut Attorney General says $100 million claim against state on behalf of 6 year old Sandy Hook student is “misguided,” and maintains that “a public policy response by the U.S. Congress and the Connecticut state legislature would be ‘more appropriate’ than legal action.” Edith Honan, “Connecticut Attorney General Says Newtown Legal Claim Misguided,” Reuters/Hartford Courant, December 31, 2012.

2013

11:49AM
State Attorney General George Jepsen says lawsuit brought against state lacks a “valid basis.” According to a report Jepsen said “the claims commissioner’s office was not the appropriate venue for a discussion about the shooting.” Amanda Falcone, Request to Sue State for Newtown Shooting Has No Basis, Attorney General Says,” Hartford Courant, January 1, 2013.

2:29PM
New Haven attorney Irving Pinsky withdraws claim on behalf of traumatized Sandy Hook student after receiving new evidence. “If the state were liable in this instance, where would the state’s liability ever end?” State Attorney General George Jepsen said. Brian Dowling and Hilda Munoz, “Attorney Withdrawing Request to Sue State in Sandy Hook Shootings,” Hartford Courant, January 1, 2013.

9:10PM
Jean Henry, a processing technician for the Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is placed on a paid leave pending an investigation of an incident on December 16 where she permitted her husband, an unauthorized employee, to view the body of alleged mass killer Adam Lanza. Jon Lender and Dave Altimari, “State Worker Placed on Leave After Showing Husband Adam Lanza’s Body,” Hartford Courant, January 2, 2013.

[Morning]
Sandy Hook students return to classes 7 miles south of Newtown at Chalk Hill School in Monroe Connecticut. The school was closed about two years ago and recently cleaned and painted to accommodate students. Amanda Falcone, “Sandy Hook Students Back in Class,” Hartford Courant, 5:18PM EST, January 3, 2013.

6:18PM
Connecticut State Attorney’s Office and State Police refuse to give timeline for Sandy Hook shooting investigation. “It cannot be stated too often how invaluable and necessary the work of the United States Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal agencies was and is to this investigation,” State Attorney General Stephen J. Sedensky III said. Christine Dempsey, “No Timeline for Newtown Shooting Probe,” Hartford Courant, January 3, 2013.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg meets privately in his office with former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was almost fatally shot at a constituent meeting in Tucson in January 2011. The sit-down was not listed on Bloomberg’s public schedule and a Bloomberg aide refused to state what was discussed. Holly Bailey, “Bloomberg Meets with Gabrielle Giffords on Gun Control,” Yahoo News, January 3, 2013, n.t.

3:40AM
Former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords visits Newtown families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting. John Christoffersen, “Wounded ex-Rep Giffords Meets with Conn. Families,” Associated Press/Yahoo News, January 5.

To be continued.

The Syria Endgame: Strategic Stage in the Pentagon’s Covert War on Iran

Iran and Syria flags combined

Since the kindling of the conflict inside Syria in 2011, it was recognized, by friend and foe alike, that the events in that country were tied to a game plan that ultimately targets Iran, Syria’s number one ally. [1] De-linking Syria from Iran and unhinging the Resistance Bloc that Damascus and Tehran have formed has been one of the objectives of the foreign-supported anti-government militias inside Syria. Such a schism between Damascus and Tehran would change the Middle East’s strategic balance in favour of the US and Israel.

If  this cannot be accomplished, however, then crippling Syria to effectively prevent it from providing Iran any form of diplomatic, political, economic, and military support in the face of common threats has been a primary objective. Preventing any continued cooperation between the two republics has been a strategic goal. This includes preventing the Iran-Iraq-Syria energy terminal from being built and ending the military pact between the two partners.

All Options are Aimed at Neutralizing Syria

Regime change in Damascus is not the only or main way for the US and its allies to prevent Syria from standing with Iran. Destabilizing Syria and neutralizing it as a failed and divided state is the key. Sectarian fighting is not a haphazard outcome of the instability in Syria, but an assisted project that the US and its allies have steadily fomented with a clear intent to balkanize the Syrian Arab Republic. Regionally, Israel above all other states has a major stake in securing this outcome. The Israelis actually have several publicly available documents, including the Yinon Plan, which outline that the destruction of Syria into a series of smaller sectarian states is one of their strategic objectives. So do American military planners.

Like Iraq next door, Syria does not need to be formally divided. For all intents and purposes, the country can be divided like Lebanon was alongside various fiefdoms and stretches of territory controlled by different groups during the Lebanese Civil War. The goal is to disqualify Syria as an external player.

Since 2006 and the Israeli defeat in Lebanon in that year there was renewed focus on the strategic alliance between Iran and Syria. Both countries have been very resilient in the face of US designs in their region. Together both have been key players for influencing events in the Middle East, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Their strategic alliance has undoubtedly played an important role in shaping the geo-political landscape in the Middle East. Although critics of Damascus say it has done very little in regard to substantial action against the Israelis, the Syrians have been the partners within this alliance that have carried the greatest weight in regards to facing Israel; it has been through Syria that Hezbollah and the Palestinians have been provided havens, logistics, and their initial strategic depth against Israel.

From the beginning the foreign-supported external opposition leaders made their foreign policy clear, which can strongly be argued was a reflection of the interests they served. The anti-government forces and their leaders even declared that they will realign Syria against Iran; in doing so they used sectarian language about returning to their “natural orbit with the Sunni Arabs.” This is a move that is clearly in favour of the US and Israel alike. Breaking the axis between Damascus and Tehran has also been a major goal of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms since the 1980s as part of a design to isolate Iran during the Iraq-Iran War. [2] Moreover, the sectarian language being used is part of a construct; it is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of Orientalist conjecture and desires that falsely stipulate that Muslims who perceive themselves as being Shia or Sunni are inherently at odds with one another as enemies.

Among the prostrating Syrian opposition leaders who would execute the strategic goals of the US has been Burhan Ghalioun, the former president of the Istanbul-based and foreign-sponsored Syrian National Council, who told the Wall Street Journal in 2011 that Damascus would end its strategic alliance with Iran and end its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians as soon as anti-government forces took over Syria. [3] These foreign-sponsored opposition figures have also served to validate, in one way or another, the broader narratives that claim Sunnis and Shiites hate one another. In synchronization the mainstream media in the countries working for regime change in Damascus, such as the US and France, have consistently advertized that the regime in Syria is an Alawite regime that is allied to Iran, because the Alawites are an offshoot of Shiism. This too is untrue, because Syria and Iran do not share a common ideology; both countries are aligned, because of a common threat and shared political and strategic objectives. Nor is Syria run by an Alawite regime; the government’s composure reflects Syrian society’s ethnic and religious diversity.

Israel’s Stake in Syria

Syria is all about Iran for Israel. As if Tel Aviv has nothing to do whatsoever with the events inside Syria, Israeli commentators and analysts are now publicly insisting that Israel needs to deal with Iran by intervening inside Syria. Israel’s involvement in Syria, alongside the US and NATO, crystallized in 2012. It was clear that Israel was working in a conglomerate comprised of the US, Britain, France, Turkey, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon’s minority March 14 Alliance, and the NATO-supported usurpers that have taken over and wrecked the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.  

Although it should be read with caution, it is worth noting the release of the hacked correspondence of Strategic Forecast Incorporated’s Reva Bhalla to her boss, George Friedman, about a December 2011 meeting in the Pentagon between herself (representing Stratfor), US, French, and British officials about Syria. [4] The Stratfor correspondence claimed that the US and its allies had sent in their military special forces to destabilize Syria in 2011 and that there actually were not many Syrian anti-government forces on the ground or, as Bhalla writes, “there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train.” [5] The Daily Star, which is owned by Lebanon’s Hariri family which has been involved in the regime change operations against Syria, soon after reported that thirteen undercover French officers were caught by the Syrians conducting operations inside Homs. [6] Instead of a categorical no to the information about the captured French officers, the French Foreign Ministry’s response to the public was that it could not confirm anything, which can be analyzed as an omission of guilt. [7]

Days earlier, Hezbollah’s Al-Manar station revealed that Israeli-made weapons and supplies, ranging from grenades and night binoculars to communication devices, were captured alongside Qatari agents inside the insurgent stronghold of Baba Amr in Homs towards the end of April and start of March. [8] An unnamed US official would later confirm in July 2012 that the Mossad was working alongside the CIA in Syria. [9] Just a month earlier, in June, the Israeli government began publicly demanding that a military intervention be launched into Syria, presumably by the US and the conglomerate of governments working with Israel to destabilize Syria. [10]

The Israeli media has even begun to casually report that Israeli citizens, albeit one has been identified as an Israeli Arab (meaning a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship), have entered Syria to fight against the Syrian Army. [11] Normally any Israelis, specifically those that are non-Jewish Arabs, which enter Lebanon or/and Syria are condemned or prosecuted by Israeli authorities and Israeli news reports focus on this aspect of the story. Yet, it has not been so in this case. It should also be mentioned that the Palestinian opponents of Israel living inside Syria are also being targeted, just as the Palestinians living in Iraq were targeted after the US and UK invaded in 2003.

Syria and the Objective of Making Iran Stand Alone

The journalist Rafael D. Frankel wrote a revealing article for the Washington Quarterly that illustrates what US policymakers and their partners think about in Syria. In his article Frankel argued that because of the so-called Arab Spring that an attack on Iran by the US and Israel would no longer trigger a coordinated regional response from Iran and its allies. [12] Frankel argued that because of the events inside Syria an opportunity has been created for the US and Israel to attack Iran without igniting a regional war that would involve Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. [13]

Frankel’s line of thinking was not lost on circles in either NATO or Israel. In reality his line of thinking springs forth from the views and plans of these very circles. As a psychological enforcement of their ideas, his text actually found its way to NATO Headquarters in Brussels in 2012 for reading material. While the latter, Israel, released its own intelligence report about the subject.

According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the intelligence report by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has concluded that Syria and Hezbollah will no longer be able to open a second front against Israel should it go to war with Iran. [14] During the Israeli report’s release, one senior Israeli official was quoted as saying “Iran’s ability to harm Israel in response to an attack on our part declined dramatically.”[15]

Many news wires, papers, and writers with hostile positions towards both Syria and Iran, such as The Daily Telegraph, immediately replicated the Israeli report’s findings about Iran and its regional allies. Two of the first people to reproduce the findings of the Israel report, Robert Tait (writing from the Gaza Strip) and Damien McElroy (who was expelled from Libya in 2011 by that country’s authorities during the war with NATO), summarize how significant the findings of the report are by effectively outlining how Iran’s key allies in the Levant have all been neutralized. [16]

The Israeli report has triumphantly declared that Syria has turned within and is too busy to join ranks with its strategic ally Iran against Tel Aviv in a future war. [17] The ramifications of the Syrian crisis have also placed Iran’s Lebanese allies, particularly Hezbollah, in an unsteady position where their supply lines are under threat and they have been politically damaged through their support of Damascus. If anyone in Lebanon should side with Iran in a future war the Israelis have said that they will invade through massive military operations on the ground. [18]

The new Egyptian government’s role in aiding US objectives under President Morsi also becomes clear with what the Israeli report says about his supportive role: “The foreign ministry report also predicted that Egypt would stop Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, from helping Iran by launching rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.” [19] This adds credence to the view that Morsi was allowed by the US and Israel to broker a peace between the Gaza Strip and Tel Aviv, which would prevent the Palestinians there from standing with Iran during a war. In other words the Egyptian truce was setup to bind the hands of Hamas. The recent announcements about moves by Morsi’s government to engage Hezbollah politically can also be scrutinized as an extension of the same strategy applied in Gaza, but in this case for unbinding Iran from its Lebanese allies. [20]

There is also clamouring for steps to be taken to de-link Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, from its Christian allies in Lebanon. The German Marshall Fund showcased a text essentially saying that the Lebanese Christians that are allies to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran need to be presented with an alternative political narrative to replace the one where they believe that Iran will ultimately run the Middle East as a great power. [21] This too is tied to further eroding Iran’s alliance system.

Mission Accomplished?

The conflict in Syria is not merely an Israeli affair. The slow bleeding of Syria has other interested parties that want to smash the country and its society into pieces. The US is foremost among these interested parties, followed by the Arab dictators of the petro-sheikhdoms. NATO has also always been covertly involved.

NATO’s involvement in Syria is part of the US strategy of using the military alliance to dominate the Middle East. This is why it was decided to establish a component of the missile shield in Turkey. This is also the reason that Patriot missiles are being deployed to the Turkish border with Syria. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) and NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue are components of these plans too. Additionally, Turkey has ended its veto against the further integration of Israel into NATO. [22]

NATO has been reorienting itself towards asymmetrical warfare and greater emphasis is now being put on intelligence operations. NATO strategists have increasingly been studying the Kurds, Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians. In the scenario of an all-out war, NATO has been preparing itself for overt military roles in both Syria and Iran.

Iraq is being destabilized further too. While Iran’s allies in Damascus have been weighed down, its allies in Baghdad have not. After Syria, the same conglomerate of countries working against Damascus will turn their attention to Iraq. They have already started working to galvanize Iraq further on the basis of its sectarian and political fault lines. Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are playing prominent roles in this objective. What is becoming manifest is that the differences between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims that Washington has cultivated since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now been augmented by Kurdish sectarianism.

It appears that many in the Israeli political establishment now believe that they have succeeded in breaking the Resistance Bloc. Whether they are correct or incorrect is a matter of debate. Syria still stands; the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (which was by far the most active Palestinian group fighting Israel from Gaza in 2012) and other Palestinians will side with Iran even if Hamas will have its hands tied by Egypt; there are still Tehran’s allies in Iraq; and Syria is not the only supply line for Iran to arm its ally Hezbollah. What is also very clear is that the siege against Syria is a front in the covert multi-dimensional war against Iran. This alone should make people reconsider the statements of US officials and their allies about having concerns for the Syrian people merely on the basis of humanitarianism and democracy.

NOTES

[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Obama’s Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? ‘The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus,’” Global Research, January 20, 2012.

[2] Jubin M. Goodarzi, Syria and Iran: Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East (London, UK: I.B. Tauris, 2009), pp.217-228.

[3] Nour Malas and Jay Solomon, “Syria Would Cut Iran Military Tie, Opposition Head Says,” Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2011.

[4] WikiLeaks, “Re: INSIGHT – military intervention in Syria, post withdrawal status of forces,” October 19, 2012: <http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/209688_re-insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html>.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Lauren Williams, “13 French officers being held in Syria,” The Daily Star, March 5, 2012.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Israa Al-Fass, “Mossad, Blackwater, CIA Led Operations in Homs,” trans. Sara Taha Moughnieh, Al-Manar, March 3, 2012.

[9] David Ignatius, “Looking for a Syrian endgame,” The Washington Post, July 18, 2012.

[10] Dan Williams, “Israel accuses Syria of genocide, urges intervention,” Andrew Heavens ed., Reuters, June 10, 2012.

[11] Hassan Shaalan, “Israeli fighting Assad ‘can’t go home,’” Yedioth Ahronoth, January 3, 2013.

[12] Rafael D. Frankel, “Keeping Hamas and Hezbollah Out of a War with Iran,” Washington Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 4 (Fall 2012): pp.53-65.

[13] Ibid.

[14] “Weakened Syria unlikely to join Iran in war against Israel: report,” The Daily Star, January 4, 2013.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Damien McElroy and Robert Tait, “Syria ‘would not join Iran in war against Israel,’” The Daily Telegraph, January 3, 2013.

[17] “Weakened Syria,” The Daily Star, op. cit.

[18] “Syria and Hezbollah won’t join the fight if Israel strikes Iran, top-level report predicts,” Times of Israel, January 3, 2013.

[19] McElroy and Tait, “Syria would not,” op. cit.

[20] Lauren Williams, “New Egypt warms up to Hezbollah: ambassador,” The Daily Star, December 29, 2011.

[21] Hassan Mneimneh, “Lebanon ― The Christians of Hezbollah: A Foray into a Disconnected Political Narrative,” The German Marshall Fund of the United States, November 16, 2012.

[22] Hilary Leila Krieger, “Israel to join NATO activities amidst Turkey tension,” Jerusalem Post, December 23, 2012; Jonathon Burch and Gulsen Solaker, “Turkey lifts objection to NATO cooperation with Israel,” Mark Heinrich ed., Reuters, December 24, 2012; “Turkey: Israel’s participation in NATO not related to Patriots,” Today’s Zaman, December 28, 2012.

Idle No More: Indigenous Peoples in Canada Actions in Support of Chief’s Hunger Strike

RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc. "The Real News" is the flagship show of IWT and Real News Network.

All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network.  Click here for more

Problems with this site? Please let us know

Linux VPS Hosting by Star Dot Hosting

Fiscal Cliff Postmortems

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Congressional profiles in courage are sorely lacking. Pretenders usually vote party line when asked or pressured. No House or Senate...

The Finance Industry Has Pried into Every Sector of the Economy, and Has Ended...

Finance has moved to capture the economy at large, industry and mining, public infrastructure, and now even the educational system.

December 31, 2012  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

Today’s economic warfare is not the kind waged a century ago between labor and its industrial employers. Finance has moved to capture the economy at large, industry and mining, public infrastructure (via privatization) and now even the educational system. (At over $1 trillion, U.S. student loan debt came to exceed credit-card debt in 2012.) The weapon in this financial warfare is no larger military force. The tactic is to load economies (governments, companies and families) with debt, siphon off their income as debt service and then foreclose when debtors lack the means to pay. Indebting government gives creditors a lever to pry away land, public infrastructure and other property in the public domain. Indebting companies enables creditors to seize employee pension savings. And indebting labor means that it no longer is necessary to hire strikebreakers to attack union organizers and strikers.

Workers have become so deeply indebted on their home mortgages, credit cards and other bank debt that they fear to strike or even to complain about working conditions. Losing work means missing payments on their monthly bills, enabling banks to jack up interest rates to levels that used to be deemed usurious. So debt peonage and unemployment loom on top of the wage slavery that was the main focus of class warfare a century ago. And to cap matters, credit-card bank lobbyists have rewritten the bankruptcy laws to curtail debtor rights, and the referees appointed to adjudicate disputes brought by debtors and consumers are subject to veto from the banks and businesses that are mainly responsible for inflicting injury.

The aim of financial warfare is not merely to acquire land, natural resources and key infrastructure rents as in military warfare; it is to centralize creditor control over society. In contrast to the promise of democratic reform nurturing a middle class a century ago, we are witnessing a regression to a world of special privilege in which one must inherit wealth in order to avoid debt and job dependency.

The emerging financial oligarchy seeks to shift taxes off banks and their major customers (real estate, natural resources and monopolies) onto labor. Given the need to win voter acquiescence, this aim is best achieved by rolling back everyone’s taxes. The easiest way to do this is to shrink government spending, headed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Yet these are the programs that enjoy the strongest voter support. This fact has inspired what may be called the Big Lie of our epoch: the pretense that governments can only create money to pay the financial sector, and that the beneficiaries of social programs should be entirely responsible for paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not the wealthy. This Big Lie is used to reverse the concept of progressive taxation, turning the tax system into a ploy of the financial sector to levy tribute on the economy at large.

Financial lobbyists quickly discovered that the easiest ploy to shift the cost of social programs onto labor is to conceal new taxes as user fees, using the proceeds to cut taxes for the elite 1%. This fiscal sleight-of-hand was the aim of the 1983 Greenspan Commission. It confused people into thinking that government budgets are like family budgets, concealing the fact that governments can finance their spending by creating their own money. They do not have to borrow, or even to tax (at least, not tax mainly the 99%).

The Greenspan tax shift played on the fact that most people see the need to save for their own retirement. The carefully crafted and well-subsidized deception at work is that Social Security requires a similar pre-funding – by raising wage withholding. The trick is to convince wage earners it is fair to tax them more to pay for government social spending, yet not also to ask the banking sector to pay similar a user fee to pre-save for the next time it itself will need bailouts to cover its losses. Also asymmetrical is the fact that nobody suggests that the government set up a fund to pay for future wars, so that future adventures such as Iraq or Afghanistan will not “run a deficit” to burden the budget. So the first deception is to treat only Social Security and medical care as user fees. The second is to aggravate matters by insisting that such fees be paid long in advance, by pre-saving.

The Achievements of Hugo Chavez

CounterPunch | While Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez is fighting for his life in Cuba, the liberal press of both sides of the Atlantic (e.g., El Pais”)...

Top 10 Legal Drugs Linked to Violence

Time | When people consider the connections between drugs and violence, what typically comes to mind are illegal drugs like crack cocaine. However, certain medications...

Killing of Journalists by US Forces a Growing Problem

During the Vietnam War, which US forces fought from 1960 through 1974, and which cost the lives of several million Southeast Asians and 58,000...

63% of Brits do not trust newspapers

Hacked Off | The YouGov Poll commissioned by The Sun, published today on p.6 and headlined “State-run watchdog will gag free press: 75% of Brits see...

8 in 10 believe their online privacy is under threat

Eight out of 10 UK consumers who use a computer, tablet PC or smartphone for work activities feel their online privacy is threatened, but...

Is Impeachment Gone for Good?

War is a Crime | Henry Kissinger's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize didn't, in the end, eliminate satire from the earth (or peace prizes...

Sandy: Katrina Redux?

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | On August 29, 2005, New Orleans was woefully unprotected. It wasn't accidental. It was planned. In early 2001, FEMA predicted the...

Obama’s Presidency Through Palestinian Eyes

Dr. Elias Akleh | People worldwide were very interested and following the 2012 American election believing that their future would, somehow, be affected by the...

Doom Economist’s Asset Protection Strategy: Buy A Machine Gun… and a Tank

Mac Slavo, SHTFplan.com | When most economists talk about asset diversification they’ll often recommend a portfolio of stocks, bonds and cash. Marc Faber, however, isn’t your everyday mainstream economist. Appropriately named...

Shocking survey result shows how much freedom Americans are willing to sacrifice

Paul Joseph Watson, Propaganda Matrix | A survey commissioned by Infowars and conducted by Harris Interactive has found that 35% of American adults would be willing to...

FACT: A handful of companies control the global economy

Andrew Gavin Marshall | In October of 2011, New Scientist reported that a scientific study on the global financial system was undertaken by three complex systems theorists at...

Rebel or Perish

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | A previous article discussed what perhaps is the most perilous time in world history. American-led Western societies are waging war on...

America’s bleak human rights record

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Far and away, America's human rights record is the world's worst. No other nation approaches its unprincipled history. Earlier crimes against...

Trick or Treat Jobs Report

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Friday's headline number belies dire economic reality. Main Street's in protracted Depression. Nearly 25 million Americans are jobless. Real unemployment...

Predicting protracted hard times

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | It works the same way every time. Bad policies assure bad results. Prioritizing short-term profits jeopardizes long-term gains. Force-fed austerity when stimulus...

Police for sale: Met receive £22.5m in sponsorship

BBC | The Metropolitan Police has received donations and sponsorship worth £22.7m from dozens of organisations over the past five years, the BBC has learned. The...

Marijuana Prohibition is Hanging on by its Final Thread

Even though I’ve lived west of the Mississippi for half my life, the native New Yorker in me has always been dismissive of reports...

94% do not want Data Communications Bill

Only 6% of UK citizens think the government has made a clear and compelling argument for the Draft Data Communications Bill, a survey has revealed. In...

Support for Marijuana legalization highest (pardon the pun) in history

Phillip Smith | A new YouGov poll conducted for the Huffington Post has found that a whopping 59% of respondents nationwide support legalizing marijuana, with 51% saying...

Major breakthrough for cannabis law reform

Mick Meaney | The British people are finally waking up to the draconian laws surrounding the use of cannabis. A new poll conducted by the BBC...

Is this the beginning of the end of Google?

Google loses $26 billion due to premature report RT | Google Inc's saw its shares crash by 9%, erasing about $26 billion off the company’s...

Is the game rigged?

Mike Adams, NaturalNews | I've been pondering this topic for weeks, trying to find the words to communicate the full impact of this realization to...

Chavez Opposition Disintegrating

Stephen Lendman | On October 7, voters get to choose Venezuela's next president. It's all over but the cheers, postmortems, and perhaps opposition planned disruptions. Chavez...

Survey: 77% of Americans don’t trust politicians

Mick Meaney | RINF News | A new survey has found that 77% of Americans distrust politicians, believing  they favor corporate interests over the interests of their constituents. The report...

Emails expose secret, widespread TrapWire surveillance system

RT | Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial recognition technology – and have installed it across...

Three Essential Keyword Tips for SEO Newbies

If you’re new to the digital marketing landscape then you probably feel overwhelmed with the amount of information there is lurking around on the...

What QE3 Will Look Like

The recent financial fireworks in the US and in Europe have made it clear that QE3 is close at hand.  The third installment described herein is much more than just another revving up of the printing presses, as it will involve a paradigm shift intent on restoring currencies and maintaining the current  power structure.

It's an all too common mistake to see the central bankers and their mainstream media propagandists derided as incompetent fools.  These “fools”control the money and the message and it's their game to lose.  Most pundits think the powers that be have lost control and can do little more than kick the can down the road. They are wrong.  We are about to witness one of the greatest orchestrated events in human history; a monumental sleight of hand that will restore economic prosperity, keep the masses happy and most importantly- maintain the parasitic elites in power. 


Mainstream sources deride conspiracy theorists as simpletons unable to  deal with the complexity of the world;  the tin hat crowd are in need of a “God” or “bogeyman” to explain the evils of the world.  The sophisticated academics and journalists tell us that history is the product of countless interests fighting for limited resources. The cabal of bankers is nothing more than a mirage conjured up in the thirsty imagination of simpletons.
If one wears a shiny tin hat then the problem, and the solution, are very different: the 1%  crowd have created an enormous pyramid scheme supported by magnificent lies preached from schools, televisions, governments, churches, newspapers, universities and the like.  The mission is to wake up their brothers and the whole misbegotten scheme will melt into a sea of crisp consciousness.
What is is not in doubt is that the world reserve currency is nearing the end of its viability at least in its current form. The only other two options, the euro and the yen, are in as bad or worse shape.  The end game has arrived for the current monetary system which began with Bretton Woods in 1944. The sub prime crisis, the Fukushima earthquake and nuclear disaster and the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain) were the final nails in the coffin of the dollar reserve system. 
When humans existed in small groups as hunter gatherers, societies were generally egalitarian and specialization of labour was limited.  Since there were no full time enforcers, authority was relative and flexible as most tasks could be accomplished by most people; the groups “stickiness” was determined by the incremental benefits of the group.  As society progressed and the groups became larger, labor specialization increased efficiencies, allowing for full time armed forces and propagandists.  Elite rulers thrived off their capacity to control and made it very difficult for individuals to leave and make a go of it on their own. 
Men gave up their freedom as soon as they began plowing to eat.  The larger societies became, the more complex the control mechanisms of religion, slavery, standing armies and caste systems.
The main impulse of history has been for the 1% to maintain their power against the brave few intent on to replacing them.  The key novelty of the information age is the extreme specialization and unprecedented technologies of control the elites have today.  The modern citizen in an industrialized nation is more vulnerable then any other human in history.  He relies on his masters for everything from food and shelter to education and entertainment.  He is incapable of teaching his children, growing crops, entertaining himself, or, most importantly, thinking for himself.  Modern man is the ultimate souless slave.
The modern division of labor consists of a ruling class (top 1%) that control about 40% of all financial assets, a managerial class ( the top 2%-10%) who control about 35% of all assets, with  the other 90% of the working masses dividing up the 25% that’s left.
The pyramid is organized by a complex and highly specialized division of labor, state run education,  massive corporations, government bureaucracy, the judiciary, intelligence organizations, mediatic propaganda machines and mainstream religion.  Those rare few that actually wake up and see the zombie world are quickly diagnosed by the DSM-5 and given anti-depressants.
There are two things everyone wants all the time, and one of them is money.  Control of the money is the magic wand that rules the world.  All the other  religious, patriotic and historical paraphernalia are directly related to allowing the 1% to control the creation of money.  Take that away, and they are nothing but media hacks.
The current era which began with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the involvement  of the United States in WWI  is coming to an end.   The great mistake most “awake” people make is believing redemption is at hand while underestimating the ruling class.  The masters of propaganda and finance and are much more in control then they will ever reveal through their own channels.  Their imaginations are immense and their capacity to orchestrate drama has no limits.  They are the voice of reason while the dissenters are “diagnosed” with a collection of ailments that quickly marginalize them.
The Greatest Brand Ever Created
What should never be underestimated is the importance of the dollar for international commerce.  A dollar collapse would inevitably lead to a mad scramble for commodities and an unprecedented global economic downturn.  While there are solid world currencies, only three are large enough to be a reserve currency, and all three are mortally wounded.  No one will appreciate the incredible role the dollar has provided until it is gone.
The dollar began in the sixteenth century as the Bohemian Tolar which eventually became the eighteenth century standard Spanish silver piece which they pronounced dólar.  The Americans called it the dollar, determined it should have 24.057 grams of pure silver and adopted it as the US "money of account".  In 1933 Roosevelt pegged the dollar to .888 g of gold,  or $35 per ounce. Finally, under pressure from many central banks to convert their dollars to gold, Nixon established  the pure fiat era in 1971 which meant that the dollar was officially backed by nothing more than faith- it had become a pure paper currency.  The dollar was the symbol and expression of the American Empire in the 20th Century and it was the the pillar upon which globalization was accomplished.
No brand in history has ever become so ubiquitous.  From Tijuana to Tehran, from Vladivostock to Vanouver, from Senegal to Stockholm, a fistful of green backs will get you whatever your heart desires.  Through the greatest slight of hand in history, the 1% turned this once receipt for gold into nothing more than paper that they produced at will and for a dear price.  The dollar is the backbone of their parasitic existence, and QE3, the final QE, will be a valiant, brilliant attempt to restore the validity of the dollar regime and their control of it. QE3 will be a radical transition to a new era, similar to the  period of 1912 –1918. 
The top 1% was hurt in 2008. The financial disaster that was the sub prime debacle put them on the ropes leaving QE1 focused on buying up about $1 trillion in mortgage paper that had become almost impossible to move.  QE2 flooded equity and commodities markets with liquidity until the SP500 as well as most major commodities had regained their pre-2008 valuations in one of histories greatest bull markets.  QE1&amp;2 restored the financial wealth that the 1% had lost during the crisis.  Unfortunately, in doing so, the Feds (Federal Reserve and Federal Government) have put the last nails into the current dollar’s coffin.  They would argue that the dollar was already on its last legs post 2001, and they simply hastened the end by a few years- a small price to pay for restoring the fortunes of their masters.
To Kick or not to Kick (the can)
One should never confuse politicians- chronic can kickers- with the 1%.  Politicians are the shills and lackeys of the real power and generally are incapable of any kind of policy creation on their own.  The current stop gap measures to save the euro, the dollar and the yen were never meant to be anything more than breathing room for the 1% to recuperate their massive losses.  Their fortunes have been restored and now it's time to create a new, post American period of wealth and prosperity.  This will be accomplished by none other than mystery man himself, Barack Hussein Obama.
The are nomajor economic, political, or social problems in the developed, industrialized world that threaten the 1% other than excess debt.  The debt problem is not a real problem, but an abstract claim on present and future income (work) by the 1%.  The system is so utterly clogged that is reaching a point of complete paralysis .  We have entered the tumultuous and inevitable debt destruction period that is often the death knell of regimes.  Deflation, hyperinflation, default and revolution are the usual outcomes.  But there is another way.
The Big Finale


The New York Times recently reported on how banks were reducing the principal on thousands of performing  loans by about 50% in exchange for small increases in interest rates and new, clean promissory notes, with no MERS involvement.   As long as the Federal Reserve “adjusts” the reserve requirements for the bank to reflect half of the money that the bank created as “disappeared”, then for the bank, its no harm no foul.  They are off the hook for the same amount that they reduced for the borrower, and the small adjustment in interest rate recaptures some of the lost future interest earnings from the smaller loan size. 
This solution serves two absolutely critical functions for the banks and the 1% that control them.  First, the banks morbid balance sheets are wiped clean, marked to market and made pure.  No more zombie banks threatening the world.  Second, it frees up vast amounts of consumer income to re-charge the economy, create jobs etc.
The second part of the QE3 will be the ‘public debt crisis’.  Act I was  the S&amp;P downgrade and AIG (government owned) lawsuit against Bank of America which by a wild coincidence all happened on the same   "Black Monday" as the European Central Bank beginning quantitative easing by purchasing Spanish and Italian bonds.  Act II will see a few very large banks being ‘nationalised’ in both the US and Europe, (Bank of America and SocGen for example) and a massive mortgage principal reduction of about 50% will  follow as the President can nationalise banks without congressional approval through the “orderly liquidation authority” or OLA  provisions under Dodd-Frank.  Act III will see the US $14 trillion, as well as the Italian, Spanish, UK, Japanese etc.public debt being halved in exchange for balanced budgets and reduced social spending.  The $50 trillion or so in US unfunded liabilities will be wiped out in a new “social contract”.  Some student loan and Third World debt forgiveness will be thrown in for the full Kumbaya effect.
All of this will emerge out of a new “Bretton Woods” type of agreement that will be followed like the World Cup, Dancing with the Stars, Eurovision, the Superbowl, and the rest of the circus events meant to keep the plebs entertained.  The Euro, doomed to failure, will escape the fangs of a new dark age and emerge triumphant with the Ode to Joy playing in the background.  Logic will overcome chaos and a new age of enlightened corporate slavery will begin.  The only difference will be that the dollar will be replaced by a new reserve system that spreads ultimate control over more than one currency.
Barack Obama will emerge as the new Franklin Roosevelt, the reluctant revolutionary who saved the world.  Prosperity will return and the holders of the dollar, euro and yen debt while not avoiding a nasty haircut, will in exchange get a world willing once again to buy hand over fist again their oil and the products of their manufacturing base.  All of this will take place in a massive drama worthy of Hollywood (because it actually will be written by Hollywood types), keeping the sheeple glued to their televisions, talk radio etc.   They  will cheer when it all finishes with the good guys winning, just as they did when Bin Laden was killed, and when “major combat operations” ended in Iraq. 
Will the masses demand to know how banks can simply create and destroy money with a few clicks of a mouse?  Will they insist on dismantling the Fed and halving the size of the Federal Government?  Will they not rest until all their soldiers are brought home and the war mongers who started these conflicts brought to justice?

Unfortunately, no.  They won't ask any questions that can’t be explained away by the talking head de jour on Fox or MSNBC and the charade will continue, the matrix intact, for another generation to try to dismantle.


Special thanks to Jim Horky for editing this article.

A look inside Top Sites’ Data Centres

by Jasmine S
Have you ever wondered how your favorite sites – Facebook, YouTube and Google - handle the vast traffic that they receive every day? What is it that enables them to cope with the millions of...

‘Blogger’ Most Reliable Blogging Platform

by Mick Meaney
In a new test conducted by leading uptime monitoring service, Pingdom, the Google owned blogging platform 'Blogger' has come out on top for reliability. From October 15 to December 15, Pingdom tested five blogging platforms - pinging each service once every minute...

Avoid ‘Black Hat’ or Ill-Planned Social Media Marketing Strategies

by Barry James from Wolf21.com
E-mail campaigns have long been a staple of online marketing; however, the proliferation of scam artists (spam artists?) has bred a high degree of cynicism amongst target audiences who are ever more ready to block e-mails from all-too persistent marketers; or, worse yet, report what appears to be dubious marketing from a website as spam.

Generation Y Prefers Mobile Internet

by Jennifer Null from Vergent
Generation Y, defined as the generation of people who are currently aged 18-27, are addicted to surfing the internet via their mobile phones. According to a survey by Opera, most Gen Y users received their first phone between the ages of 18-20 and grew up using it.

Social Media’s Biggest Obstacle?

Guest Post by Joshua Carnes Efforts to build customer loyalty gather more social media spending from marketers than campaigns aiming to build brand awareness or...

Using SEO For Internet Marketing? Facebook Keywords Could Bring In The Hits

For webmasters who depend on SEO marketing for their website traffic, the logical step is to publish reports that contain ‘in demand’ keywords and...

UK Companies Not Utilizing SEO

According to results by ThomsonLocal.com and Analytics SEO, from the UK’s first audit of small business websites, almost 50% of all UK business websites...

Venezuela World’s Newest Forex Market; Euro Remains Under Pressure

by Marco Lavanna In an effort to stop the spiraling depreciation of the bolivar, Venezuela has launched their own regulated forex market. The bolivar's...

New Study Advocates Smoking Crackdown in U.S., Nations Around the Globe Agree

According to the latest study, if smoking was banned from all public spaces in the United States, there would be over 18,000 fewer heart...

Mainstream Media Profits Plunge

The bigger newspapers are, the harder their profits fell in the last five years, according to newly revised data provided Monday by the Inland...

The Persecution of Michael Jackson

Last Thursday, while working on some writing deadlines, I was switching channels on cable.  On CNN they were promoting “Black In America, ” an...

Scientology Broadcasts TV Ad

RINF NEWS The Church of Scientology is broadcasting a TV advert aimed at re-branding the group, who are often accused of human rights violations including child abuse...

Transferring money – The next cellphone trick

In an unprecedented show of collaboration, Canada’s three main wireless companies will unveil a service Monday that will let people exchange money through their...

Israeli War Crimes Against Children

Following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) documented the toll on Gaza’s children and published it in May. It...

10 Things You Might Not Know About ID Cards

  The government issued a little-reported document this month on ID cards. It was quietly published when the home secretary Jacqui Smith announced that some...

How Americans Came to Support Torture, in Five Steps

By Roy Eidelson | In recent weeks, new revelations about the harsh interrogation and torture of detainees during the Bush administration years have made...

The Zeitgeist Disinformation Project

After receiving telephone threats from Zeitgeist creator, Peter Joseph, over a year ago RINF warned readers that not all was as it seems with...

Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN | It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity,...

Knife crime figures ‘were fiddled’

Ministers have been accused of "fiddling the figures" after new statistics undermined claims made in a notorious Home Office press release. The data, put out...

Top Secret Credit Crisis Bailouts

Interesting stories are stacking up again so it's time for some economic potpourri starting with secret dealings by the Fed. Fed Refuses to Release Bank...

Revealed: Pentagon’s secret prisons, legal loopholes and CIA ‘ghost’ detainees

By Stephen C. Webster Three major human rights organizations have declared the Department of Defense was running secret prisons at Bagram and in Iraq,...

Obama approves missile strikes in Pakistan

On the fourth day of Barack Obama’s presidency, he approved missiles strikes in Pakistan. Déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say, begging...

Venezuelan Elections: The Media Response

By Stephen Lendman | On November 23, Venezuela held regional and local elections for governors, mayors and other municipal offices. Over 5000 candidates contested...

WHAT BANKS, ACADEMICS, THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS DON’T TELL YOU ABOUT MONEY

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but is the government's greatest creative opportunity. By the...

Fifth Columnist

AS THE OBSERVER TROTS OUT POLICE LINE OVER ECO-TERRORISM SchNEWS “Of course I don’t have a f*cking agenda. I’m a national newspaper journalist — why would...

Lendman: The Wages of Sin

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | “Reaping the whirlwind” for money manager and market strategist Jeremy Grantham in his latest no-nonsense commentary. Worlds different...

The DNA database and you

How big is it? How many get off it? Your questions answered... By David Mery Special Report The National DNA Database (NDNAD) keeps growing: it now...

The End of Prosperity

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | From too much of a good thing. From the 1980s and 1990s excesses. From the longest ever US bull...

The October Surprise: Global Panic

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Since 9/11, the notion of an October surprise has been around. The idea going something like this. Another...

Secret Papers Reveal Tony Blair Sold Out to Big Tobacco

Secret documents recently obtained by British reporters under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act that show former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered...

Record increase in DNA database

More than 722,000 samples were added to the National DNA Database last year - a record increase for one year. The database has samples from...

New Documents Reveal Unlawful Guantanamo Procedures Were Also Applied On American Soil

Market Watch | According to newly released military documents, the Navy applied lawless Guantanamo protocols in detention facilities on American soil. The documents, which...

The establishment that destroyed America’s first republic

By Sam Smith | Of George Bush's many sins, one has remained unnoted. He and his aides are so absurdly inept at most of...

The death of the ‘dream’ of global free-market capitalism

IWCA | New Labour and the Tories are muttering that the left musn’t be allowed to exploit the current economic crisis in order to make...

Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal’

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Danny Schechter is a media activist, critic, independent filmmaker, TV producer as well as an author of 10...

Fake Soldiers Used In RNC Video

It was a video that was supposed to elicit soaring patriotism and real emotions about the Pledge of Allegiance. But to do that, it...

DNA databases shut after identities compromised

Nature | Several DNA databases run by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, the Wellcome Trust in London and the...

L.A. City Council Decides to Outlaw New Fast Food Restaurants

By Joanne Waldron | The City Council of Los Angeles, in an effort to combat the problem of the rapidly increasing number of obese...

McCain Betrays Himself By Defining Rich at $5 million

By Matthew Rothschild | I don’t know why a pastor was allowed to hold the first forum with the Presidential candidates–in a church, no...

What’s on Tap and What You Need to Know About Drinking Water

By Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D. | The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental action organization, recently conducted an in-depth study into the...

The Cover-up of the Impeachment Coverage

By Chris Stevenson | A 7/31/08 report by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) shows even the most token coverage of the impeachment hearings...

Police bullying at Camp Kingsnorth

By Lenin's Tomb | I've just returned from a 2-3 day sojourn at the Climate Camp at Kingsnorth -- site of a proposed new coal-fired power...

Media Censorship at Olympics in China Mirrors FDA Censorship of Health Product Claims in...

NaturalNews | The U.S. media is loudly protesting the censorship of their reporters at the Olympics in Beijing. Betraying its promise to the International...

Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins stood to benefit from a panic

The suspect in deadly mailings, who killed himself this week as the FBI closed in, could have collected patent royalties on an anthrax vaccine. By...

Distortions, Falsehoods, Fabrications

monbiot.com | So here we go again. For the second time, Channel 4 has been fiercely criticised by the broadcasting regulator for a programme attacking...

Pentagon Claims Cluster Bombs ‘Save Lives’

By Noah Shachtman |The Pentagon not only told the world yesterday that it would keep on using cluster bombs -- it called the controversial...

Mind-Forged Manacles

By George Monbiot | Which of these countries has the most prisoners per head of population? Sudan, Syria, China, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe or...

ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS CALL THEIR WORKPLACE A DICTATORSHIP

Zogby | UTICA, New York - One out of every four working Americans (25%) describes their workplace as a dictatorship, while just 34% of bosses...

Government rejects calls for greater debate on data sharing

By Tom Young | The government has rejected a call from the Joint Human Rights Committee that any legislation that permits greater data sharing...

Bush’s “ownership society” hits the canvas

By Mike Whitney | The economy is in tatters. Consumer confidence has plummeted, food and energy prices are soaring, and the housing market is...

Have Government officials broken EU rules?

IC Wales | QUESTIONS have been raised over whether European rules are being broken in the running of a new £92m business grant scheme....

On Trial for Protesting a Weapons Maker

By Socialist Worker | Eamonn McCann is a founder of the 1960s civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, a veteran socialist and trade unionist, and...

Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article

Indymedia | Before turning to the article, it is worth noting that the issue's Editorial makes similar allegations about Indymedia UK. "For many of...

‘Challenging Authority’

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Frances Fox Piven is a Canadian-born Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University...

Suicide bomber was in Guantánamo, says US

By Ewen MacAskill | The Pentagon confirmed yesterday that a Kuwaiti released from the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay three years ago carried...

Worldwide Support for Free Media

By Mick Meaney - RINF | A new major survey of world nations has found the majority of people support a free media and...

Facial recognition is same as tossing coin

By Geraint Bevan - NO2ID | After all the rhetoric about securing our borders, the Home Office has now announced its intent significantly to weaken passport...

Bush’s disapproval worst of any president in 70 years

By Susan Page | President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history...

DOD data: More forced to stay in Army

By Tom Vanden Brook | The Army has accelerated its policy of involuntary extensions of duty to bolster its troop levels, despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates'...

PRISON SLAVERY ABOLITION UNITED FRONT PLATFORM

By by Lee Wood | This 2008 Abolitionist Plank is provisional. We humbly seek and request like-minded recommendations and participation. Tell us what additional structural,...

Hunger Plagues Haiti and the World

By Stephen Lendman | Consumers in rich countries feel it in supermarkets but in the world's poorest ones people are starving. The reason - soaring...

What if 5.3 Million More Americans Could Vote?

By Erika Wood | Millions of people in the U.S. can't vote because of felony convictions. Restoring their right to vote means restoring democracy. This is...

F.A.C.K. YOU

SchNews WORKPLACE DEATHS CONTINUE, TEN YEARS AFTER THE MURDER OF SIMON JONES “FACK grew out of the campaigning around Simon Jones' death which had a...

Revolution is the Solution

By Cindy Sheehan One of the founders of the USA, Thomas Jefferson, said that the US should have a revolution every 20 years or so...

Why the Government doesn’t care what you think

"All the more reason for us to elect the right person come November -- so that in four years, we don't run the risk...

The Secret American-Iranian Security Deal In Iraq

Arab online newspaper published in London, is the only newspaper to report this a week ago but I waited few days to see if...

Zogby: Alternative Media Replacing Mainstream News

Zogby Poll - 67% View Traditional Journalism as "Out of Touch" Internet is the top source of news for nearly half of Americans; Survey finds two-thirds...

Surveillance in the sky

Air travellers face ever-more intrusive surveillance - and an increased risk of being wrongfully detained Gus Hosein With only months left to the Bush administration, the...

‘A Century of War’ Part I

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who's written on issues of...

Opposition to ID cards reaches 50%

Anthony Wells A new ICM poll for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust suggests 50% of people now think ID cards would be a bad idea,...

The Future of Big Brother

Homeland Security is bankrolling futuristic profiling technology to nab terrorists before they strike. Robert L. Mitchell As soon as you walk into the airport, the machines...

Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11

By Kevin Johnson WASHINGTON – Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality, Justice Department statistics show. The heightened...

Depleted Uranium — Far Worse Than 9/11

Depleted Uranium Dust — Public Health Disaster For The People Of Iraq and Afghanistan Doug Westerman In 1979, depleted uranium (DU) particles escaped from the National...

Britons Reject ID Cards After Missing Data Scandal

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - A growing scandal over the government’s loss of the personal data of 25 million British people last week could...

VIDEO: Driver Tased For Asking Why He Was Stopped

Man who refused to sign speeding ticket because he did not understand what it was is tased and arrested by officer who then refused...

Congressional Shame and Duplicity

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News The latest October Reuters/Zogby Index shows record low approval ratings for George Bush and Congress - 24% for the president...

Expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job

Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background as...

Iraq’s Environmental Crisis

By Jeffrey St Clair and Joshua Frank The ecological effects of war, like its horrific toll on human life, are exponential. When the Bush Administration...

An Alternative to IMF and World Bank Dominance

The Bank of the South: An Alternative to IMF and World Bank Dominance  By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News In July, 2004, the IMF and World Bank...

Subscribe to RINF – Help keep us online!

By subscribing to RINF Alternative News, you allow us to continue our vital work of independent research, distributing free info-flyers, film production and organising free...

Reviewing James Petras’ “Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire”

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News James Petras is Binghamton University, New York Professor Emeritus of Sociology whose credentials and achievements are long and impressive. He's...

So, JUST HOW many security systems failed on 911? All of them!!‏

The following list is from Jim Marrs book Inside Job. - A wide variety of standard defense mechanisms designed to prevent such an attack systematically...

Greenspan’s Dark Legacy Unmasked

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News After retiring as the Federal Reserve's second longest ever serving chairman, Alan Greenspan is now cashing in big late in...

Do you know the truth about the EU?

http://drjn.co.uk/  1. The Queen has signed 6 of the 7 EU Treaties. 2. The 6 treaties define and build the EU as an unelected dictatorship. 3. The...

US captivated in the theater of war

By Ira Chernus A week has passed since President George W Bush announced that US troops will stay in Iraq in "a security engagement that...

Reviewing Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News Naomi Klein is an award-winning Canadian journalist, author, documentary filmmaker and activist. She writes a regular column for The Nation...

“Unrecognized” Palestinians

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News Israel's population today is about 7,150,000. About 5.4 million are Jews (76%) plus another 400,000 Jewish settlers in over 200...

The Greatest Story Never Told

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News No issue is more sensitive in the US than daring to criticize Israel. It's the metaphorical "third rail" in American...

The Coincidence Theorist’s Guide to 9/11

There are no coincidences The Coincidence Theorist’s Guide to 9/11 -That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators...

Chair of 9/11 Commission admits official evidence was ‘far from the truth’

Peter Tatchell Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'. Six years after...

We’re Winning the Battle for 9/11 Truth

A new poll by reputable pollster Zogby International shows that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush and Cheney regarding 9/11, and 67%...

Middle East Madness

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News Administration rhetoric is heated and the dominant media keep trumpeting it. It signals war with Iran of the "shock and...

The War on Working Americans – Part II

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News This article was written to assess the state of working America in the run-up to Labor Day, 2007. Organized labor today...

Britain cuts arms to Israel due to feers of Human rights violations‎

The British government has blocked almost one third of British military exports to Israel this year, citing possible threats to regional stability and fears...

Bush Wants Microchipped Society

Newsbuster The Bush administration tells us the main reason for warrantless wiretapping and searches is, warrantless searches and spying are necessary in order to keep...

NSA to spy on 38% of world telecom traffic

The US National Security Agency now has the legal right to monitor some 38% of the world's telephone, data and internet traffic without requiring...

Thousands Of British Troops Suffering Mental Problems

Thousands Of British Troops Suffering Mental Problems, Alcoholism And Family Breakdowns From Iraq, Afghanistan Service Thousands of Britain's frontline veterans of the wars in Iraq...

The War Against Strawmen

by Harry Browne
by Harry Browne

The Bush Administration continues to maintain that its war in Iraq, and its adventures anywhere else, are aimed at ending worldwide terrorism.

But such a feat is not only impossible, it is absurd.

Terrorism is a crime, not a war. Terrorism is committed by gangs of criminals — not soldiers representing a sovereign government. And no one in his right mind can believe that our government can eliminate every criminal gang in the world.

If our government could do that, why wouldn’t it start with the drug gangs that terrorize areas of Washington, D.C.? What a perfect opportunity for the politicians to demonstrate their crime-fighting abilities.

On October 4, 2001, I wrote:

Because the September attacks were a crime, the government's job is to locate and bring to trial any perpetrators who didn't die in the attacks. If some of them are located in foreign countries, our government should request extradition — not threaten to bomb the foreign country if we don't get our way.

I was criticized by some people, who asked, "But what if all the ‘criminals’ aren’t caught"

And yet, here we are four years later, tens of thousands of people have died, and still not all the criminals have been caught regardless. Osama Bin Laden not only hasn’t been apprehended, he isn’t even talked about anymore. As I said in 2001:

If not all the criminals are found and brought to trial, it doesn't mean that bombing innocent people would have brought the criminals to justice.

So why do the politicians talk about a War on Terrorism that makes no sense?

Because it opens the door to all sorts of aggressions against foreigners and Americans.

And it allows the politicians — most notably the leading members of the Bush administration — to pose as noble warriors against enemies that are really only Strawmen.

Charley Reese, in a recent LewRockwell.com article, quoted Dick Cheney as claiming a U.S. pullout from Iraq would leave it in the hands of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden, and/or Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Charley points out that "Zarqawi is a Jordanian, not an Iraqi; he has been denounced by his tribe and his family; and he has killed more Iraqis than Americans. It is just a matter of time before some Iraqi drops a dime on him and he’s packed off to Islamic hell."

But he’s a worthy Strawman, a bogey man, whose name is worth a hundred million dollars or more in Congressional appropriations.

Charley goes on, "As for bin Laden and his Egyptian adviser, they are — assuming they’re still alive — hiding out in some cave or rat-infested village in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They could not control a small town, much less a country of 25 million people of which neither of them is a native."

As we all know, the U.S. government has since World War II been financing and arming various foreign dictators — such as Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran, and others — only to denounce and attack them once they become wealthy and aggressive enough to be worthy Strawmen.

It’s also true that the U.S. government has financed and armed various opposition groups that supposedly represent the opportunity to topple the mean old dictators. Often these groups oppose each other, and engage in violence against one another. But no matter, the object of our government is to be doing something to fight a Strawman.

Robert Dreyfuss, in another excellent LewRockwell.com article, catalogs a number of the groups that opposed Saddam Hussein and are now battling for control of Iraq. There is far more than the Iraqi National Congress. The strongest groups are SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution), Al Dawa (The Islamic Call), SCIRI’s paramilitary arm, the Badr Brigade, the Muslim Brotherhood , represented by IIP (the Iraqi Islamic Party) — not to mention Al-Qaeda. The first three originated and are based in — guess where — Iran. In fact, SCIRI was founded in 1982 by Ayatollah Khomeini.

Today these groups are fighting each other as much as they’re fighting Iraqi insurgents, Americans, or Iraqi civilians. They regularly practice torture, assassinations, and other dastardly deeds upon one another. They are fighting to become the rulers of the new Iraq — the "democracy" that George Bush claims to be creating.

Is this what 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for? Is this what $200 billion dollars has financed? Is this why we have given up so much of our freedom?

And whoever wins the battle to rule Iraq will eventually become Strawmen against whom the Bush administration can get on its horses and ride off to protect us.

There is no War on Terrorism. There is only a War on Strawmen, a War on Shadows, a War on Fantasies — allowing George Bush to do whatever he, or his advisors, choose to do.

It is time to quit pretending that the War in Iraq serves any purpose relating to world peace, democracy in the Middle East, the first line against terrorism, or any other salutary goal.

It is simply part of the War on Strawmen.

December 14 , 2005

Harry Browne [send him mail], the author of Why Government Doesn't Work and many other books, was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. See his website.

Copyright © 2005 Harry Browne

Harry Browne Archives

Idaho Seizes Medical Marijuana Activists’ Kids

Phillip SmithStopTheDrugWar.orgMay 7, 2013 Idaho is officially not a marijuana-friendly state. Although it is bordered on most sides by medical marijuana states (Washington, Oregon, Nevada,...

Americans Convinced Gun Homicides Soar Despite Actual Plunge In Gun Crimes

Zero HedgeMay 8, 2013 In yet another example of the massive gap between the American people’s perception of what is going on around them (whether...

See for Yourself: Syrian Government Likely Did Not Use Chemical Weapons

Washington’s BlogMay 8, 2013 Haaretz reported on March 24th, “Jihadists, not Assad, apparently behind reported chemical attack in Syria“. UN investigator Carla Del Ponte said that...

The Price Of Copper And 11 Other Recession Indicators That Are Flashing Red

Michael SnyderEconomic CollapseMay 8, 2013 There are a dozen significant economic indicators that are warning that the U.S. economy is heading into a recession. The...

Britain lays out plan for arming Syrian rebels amid fears of ‘likely’ chemical weapons...

telegraph.co.ukMay 8, 2013 A confidential paper, seen by The Daily Telegraph, sets out the case for two “options” allowing Britain and France to start supplying...

SEAL Team 6 Families to Blame Government For Deaths

“Never before revealed information” to be aired at press conference Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.com May 8, 2013 SEAL Team 6 Member. Image: Tumblr Families of the SEAL Team...