Monday, April 30, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
As the Mutiny Spreads, It’s Clear: Europeans Have Had Enough!
Watch Europe tip left and right as voters rise in fury against the austerity menu that’s been bringing them to utter ruin. In Holland, the right-wing Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders brought down the governing coalition on Monday bellowing his defiance for the “Diktats from Brussels”, and asserting that “We must be master of our own house.” Labour and Christian Democrats, Holland’s major parties, are crumbling.
Almost certainly doomed is France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, with François Hollande poised to win in the second round, but Marine Le Pen’s fiery, anti-banker populism has reaped her deserved rewards. As Ambrose Evans’Pritchard writes in the Daily Telegraph:
“Elected governments have already been swept away – or replaced by EU technocrats without a vote, indeed to prevent a vote – in every eurozone state where unemployment has reached double-digits: Spain (23.6 per cent), Greece (21 per cent), Portugal (15 per cent), Ireland (14.7 per cent) and Slovakia (14 per cent).The political carnage has been striking. Ireland’s Fianna Fail, creator of the Irish free state, has lost every seat in Dublin. Greece’s Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) – torch-bearers of Greek democracy since the Colonels – has fallen to 14 per cent in the polls and faces ruin next month.
“The results are in: the hard-Left and hard-Right are on the rampage across Euroland…. France’s Marine Le Pen presents herself as a latterday Jeanne d’Arc, openly comparing France’s pro-EU camp with the Burgundians who plotted ‘English Annexation’ in the 1430s – or indeed ‘Les Collabos’ who bought peace after 1940. ‘Let us break the chains of the French people. Bring on the French Spring,’ she tells Front National rallies.
“The mood feels different from past episodes of irritation with EU aggrandisement, whether the ‘No’ votes against the European Constitution in 2005 or the Irish ‘No’ to Lisbon and Nice, or the Scandinavian ‘Nej’ votes against the euro. Mme Le Pen has gone to the heart of the matter, asserting that monetary union cannot be fudged, that it is incompatible with the French nation state. She has won 18 per cent of the vote campaigning to pull France out of the euro and smash the whole project. Unlike her father – who never seriously expected to be president – she has a realistic chance of peeling off enough Gaulliste votes to emerge as paramount leader of the French Right.”
Almost certainly doomed is France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, with François Hollande poised to win in the second round, but Marine Le Pen’s fiery, anti-banker populism has reaped her deserved rewards. As Ambrose Evans’Pritchard writes in the Daily Telegraph:
“Elected governments have already been swept away – or replaced by EU technocrats without a vote, indeed to prevent a vote – in every eurozone state where unemployment has reached double-digits: Spain (23.6 per cent), Greece (21 per cent), Portugal (15 per cent), Ireland (14.7 per cent) and Slovakia (14 per cent).The political carnage has been striking. Ireland’s Fianna Fail, creator of the Irish free state, has lost every seat in Dublin. Greece’s Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) – torch-bearers of Greek democracy since the Colonels – has fallen to 14 per cent in the polls and faces ruin next month.
“The results are in: the hard-Left and hard-Right are on the rampage across Euroland…. France’s Marine Le Pen presents herself as a latterday Jeanne d’Arc, openly comparing France’s pro-EU camp with the Burgundians who plotted ‘English Annexation’ in the 1430s – or indeed ‘Les Collabos’ who bought peace after 1940. ‘Let us break the chains of the French people. Bring on the French Spring,’ she tells Front National rallies.
“The mood feels different from past episodes of irritation with EU aggrandisement, whether the ‘No’ votes against the European Constitution in 2005 or the Irish ‘No’ to Lisbon and Nice, or the Scandinavian ‘Nej’ votes against the euro. Mme Le Pen has gone to the heart of the matter, asserting that monetary union cannot be fudged, that it is incompatible with the French nation state. She has won 18 per cent of the vote campaigning to pull France out of the euro and smash the whole project. Unlike her father – who never seriously expected to be president – she has a realistic chance of peeling off enough Gaulliste votes to emerge as paramount leader of the French Right.”
Friday, April 27, 2012
Mossad, Blackwater, CIA Led Operations in Homs
“The crisis is at its end” is no longer a relieving statement made by some political analysts, as the crisis is really close to its end. Baba Amro is now under the control of the Syrian army… and so are the armed groups of which a big number escaped to the Lebanese borders dubbing their retreat “tactical”.
Around 700 Arab and Western gunmen surrendered in Baba Amro, well-informed sources told Al-Manar website, adding that “huge and critical surprises will be uncovered in the coming few days… such as the kinds of arms seized, as well as the military tactics the armed groups followed, and the sides that supervised the operations.”
The sources further assured to the news website that the security operation in Homs will be over in a maximum of five to eight days.
Weapons from Israel used for First Time in Baba Amro
For his part, Syrian expert in strategic affairs Salim Harba pointed out that Baba Amro neighborhood and the areas surrounding it were emptied from the armed groups’ organizational as well as command structures with minimum army and civilian casualties, as the area was mainly concentrated by gunmen.
Speaking to Al-Manar website, Harba said that “the captured gunmen held Arab nationalities, including Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese… among them were also Qatari intelligence agents and non-Arab fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, and some European countries like France.
Around 700 Arab and Western gunmen surrendered in Baba Amro, well-informed sources told Al-Manar website, adding that “huge and critical surprises will be uncovered in the coming few days… such as the kinds of arms seized, as well as the military tactics the armed groups followed, and the sides that supervised the operations.”
The sources further assured to the news website that the security operation in Homs will be over in a maximum of five to eight days.
Weapons from Israel used for First Time in Baba Amro
For his part, Syrian expert in strategic affairs Salim Harba pointed out that Baba Amro neighborhood and the areas surrounding it were emptied from the armed groups’ organizational as well as command structures with minimum army and civilian casualties, as the area was mainly concentrated by gunmen.
Speaking to Al-Manar website, Harba said that “the captured gunmen held Arab nationalities, including Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese… among them were also Qatari intelligence agents and non-Arab fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, and some European countries like France.
If you liked the USS LIBERTY, the Lavon Affair, and the 5 dancing Israelis on 9/11, you’re simply going to LOVE the MeK
Given the current climate in America, where all political creatures—both small and great—bear that infamous ‘mark’ indicating their 100% bona fides as hired guns for the Jewish state, it can only mean one thing when suddenly lots of them are found chorus-lining a cause whose sole beneficiary happens to be that same aforementioned ethno-theocratic enclave that has never considered America’s best interests to be anything of a priority…
…bad weather’s a comin’…
Remember, (as if we could forget) this is the same gang that schmoozed the American people into sending their sons and daughters off to fight and die in a needless (and illegal) war against Iraq that’s killed millions, destroyed the American economy and—following a close 2nd after Israel–made the United States the most-hated country on the planet…The same gang that justifies the $30 million a day the Jewish state receives in US taxpayer money (separation of church and state anyone???) on the basis that it’s ‘an investment in American security’…
And, of course, the same gang that told (tells) us with a straight face that the 9/11 attacks had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with America’s blind and unyielding support for that ethno-theocratic enclave who gets her kicks by perpetrating serial violence against those unfortunate enough to be living in close proximity to her, but rather because ‘DEM MOOZLEMS’ hate us for ‘our freedoms’…
With such a history then, no one should be particularly surprised when self-proven criminals position themselves for even more morally-obnoxious behavior.
After all, at the end of the day, that’s the way it is with ‘bad eggs’…Their behavior is a cancer of sorts that can neither stay put nor be self-contained, and must instead be constantly oozing into new cracks and crevices where it’s never gone before and where propriety forbids it.
…bad weather’s a comin’…
Remember, (as if we could forget) this is the same gang that schmoozed the American people into sending their sons and daughters off to fight and die in a needless (and illegal) war against Iraq that’s killed millions, destroyed the American economy and—following a close 2nd after Israel–made the United States the most-hated country on the planet…The same gang that justifies the $30 million a day the Jewish state receives in US taxpayer money (separation of church and state anyone???) on the basis that it’s ‘an investment in American security’…
And, of course, the same gang that told (tells) us with a straight face that the 9/11 attacks had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with America’s blind and unyielding support for that ethno-theocratic enclave who gets her kicks by perpetrating serial violence against those unfortunate enough to be living in close proximity to her, but rather because ‘DEM MOOZLEMS’ hate us for ‘our freedoms’…
With such a history then, no one should be particularly surprised when self-proven criminals position themselves for even more morally-obnoxious behavior.
After all, at the end of the day, that’s the way it is with ‘bad eggs’…Their behavior is a cancer of sorts that can neither stay put nor be self-contained, and must instead be constantly oozing into new cracks and crevices where it’s never gone before and where propriety forbids it.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Jon Corzine Is the Original George Zimmerman
So the Senate Banking Committee is beginning hearings today on the MF Global scandal, hearings entitled, "The Collapse of MF Global: Lessons Learned and Policy Implications." Apparently the government has already moved to the reflective, introspective, South Park-ian, "You know, I learned something today!" stage in its examination of the scandal, despite the fact that the government’s official "response" hasn’t even started yet, i.e. authorities have yet to arrest a single person in this brazen billion-dollar theft story.
Somebody from MF Global has to be arrested soon. The message otherwise to middle America is so galling that it boggles the mind.
It would be one thing if this was a country with a general, across-the-board tendency toward leniency for property crime. But we send tens of thousands of people to do real jail time in this country for non-violent offenses like theft. We routinely separate mothers from their children for relatively petty crimes like welfare fraud. For almost anyone who isn’t Jon Corzine, it’s no joke to get caught stealing in America.
But these people stole over a billion dollars, right out in the open, and nobody is doing anything about it. Instead, we get a lot of chin-scratching legislative hearings, and an almost academic-style public discussion about whether or not a crime even took place. If there aren’t arrests in this case soon, ordinary people will correctly deduce that it simply isn’t a crime to steal in America, if the thefts are executed with a computer by white people in suits.
Just as it was incredible when Florida authorities dragged their feet in the Zimmerman case, it’s incredible that people in Washington don’t see the implications of this continual non-decision on MF Global. Apparently they hope no one notices. The sad thing is, they might be right.
Somebody from MF Global has to be arrested soon. The message otherwise to middle America is so galling that it boggles the mind.
It would be one thing if this was a country with a general, across-the-board tendency toward leniency for property crime. But we send tens of thousands of people to do real jail time in this country for non-violent offenses like theft. We routinely separate mothers from their children for relatively petty crimes like welfare fraud. For almost anyone who isn’t Jon Corzine, it’s no joke to get caught stealing in America.
But these people stole over a billion dollars, right out in the open, and nobody is doing anything about it. Instead, we get a lot of chin-scratching legislative hearings, and an almost academic-style public discussion about whether or not a crime even took place. If there aren’t arrests in this case soon, ordinary people will correctly deduce that it simply isn’t a crime to steal in America, if the thefts are executed with a computer by white people in suits.
Just as it was incredible when Florida authorities dragged their feet in the Zimmerman case, it’s incredible that people in Washington don’t see the implications of this continual non-decision on MF Global. Apparently they hope no one notices. The sad thing is, they might be right.
Something Rotten in the State
With the number of Secret Service members and agents caught up in the partying-with-prostitutes scandal in Cartagena now at a dozen, and six already gone, how much wider and deeper does this go?
No one can take pleasure in seeing Secret Service agents — whose deserved reputation is that they will “take a bullet” for the president, his family and all whom they protect — shamed and disgraced.
Yet one would have to be naive to believe this was some isolated incident. No sooner was the first day’s work done in Cartagena than 20 hookers were trooping into the hotel rooms of SS agents, supervisors and members of the military advance team.
And Sen. Charles Grassley asks a relevant question.
As the Secret Service travel and work in close contact with the White House Advance Office and White House Communications Agency, was the Obama staff oblivious to this misconduct? If they were aware of it, did no one report it to the White House chief of staff?
Hostile intelligence services often use “honey traps” to ensnare U.S. diplomats and journalists. Thus this hookers-and-agents scandal is no laughing matter.
And it hit just as we learned that the General Services Administration, purchasing agent for the U.S. government, shelled out $823,000 on a party for 300 employees at a casino-spa in Las Vegas, where the hired entertainment included a mind reader, a clown and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise.
No one can take pleasure in seeing Secret Service agents — whose deserved reputation is that they will “take a bullet” for the president, his family and all whom they protect — shamed and disgraced.
Yet one would have to be naive to believe this was some isolated incident. No sooner was the first day’s work done in Cartagena than 20 hookers were trooping into the hotel rooms of SS agents, supervisors and members of the military advance team.
And Sen. Charles Grassley asks a relevant question.
As the Secret Service travel and work in close contact with the White House Advance Office and White House Communications Agency, was the Obama staff oblivious to this misconduct? If they were aware of it, did no one report it to the White House chief of staff?
Hostile intelligence services often use “honey traps” to ensnare U.S. diplomats and journalists. Thus this hookers-and-agents scandal is no laughing matter.
And it hit just as we learned that the General Services Administration, purchasing agent for the U.S. government, shelled out $823,000 on a party for 300 employees at a casino-spa in Las Vegas, where the hired entertainment included a mind reader, a clown and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise.
The UN Plan for the World: Global Carbon Taxes, Global Safety Nets And A One World Green Economy
Did you know that the UN has a plan for running the world and it is right out in the open? It is called "sustainable development", but it is far more comprehensive than it sounds.
The truth is that the UN plan for running the world would dramatically alter nearly all forms of human activity. A 204-page report on "sustainable development" entitled "Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective" has been published in advance of the upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro.
You can read the full report right here. It envisions a vast system of global carbon taxes, massive global safety nets and the implementation of a one world green economy. Many of those that are pushing "sustainable development" on a global level believe that they are doing it for the good of the planet. In fact, the 204-page report mentioned above even says that the transition "to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act" but that it will be worth it in the end.
What people need to understand is that throughout modern history tyranny has almost always been initially introduced by people that believed that they had "good intentions". No matter how much friendly language the UN uses in their reports, the truth is that what they are promoting is an insidious agenda of absolute tyranny on a global scale.
The upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro comes 20 years after the original 1992 UN Earth Summit that adopted "Agenda 21". This new summit will be about renewing that commitment to "sustainable development" and moving that agenda forward.
The truth is that the UN plan for running the world would dramatically alter nearly all forms of human activity. A 204-page report on "sustainable development" entitled "Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective" has been published in advance of the upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro.
You can read the full report right here. It envisions a vast system of global carbon taxes, massive global safety nets and the implementation of a one world green economy. Many of those that are pushing "sustainable development" on a global level believe that they are doing it for the good of the planet. In fact, the 204-page report mentioned above even says that the transition "to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act" but that it will be worth it in the end.
What people need to understand is that throughout modern history tyranny has almost always been initially introduced by people that believed that they had "good intentions". No matter how much friendly language the UN uses in their reports, the truth is that what they are promoting is an insidious agenda of absolute tyranny on a global scale.
The upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro comes 20 years after the original 1992 UN Earth Summit that adopted "Agenda 21". This new summit will be about renewing that commitment to "sustainable development" and moving that agenda forward.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
How America Went Rogue: What We All Need to Know About Our Government's Shadow Wars
Covert operations are nothing new in American history, but it could be argued that during the past decade they have moved from being a relatively minor arrow in the national security quiver to being the cutting edge of American power. Drone strikes, electronic surveillance and stealth engagements by military units such as the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), as well as dependence on private corporations, mercenary armies and terrorist groups, are now arguably more common as tools of US foreign policy than conventional warfare or diplomacy. But these tools lend themselves to rogue operations that create peril for the United States when they blow back on us. And they often make the United States deeply unpopular.
Shadow power has even become an issue in the presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich advocates ramped-up “covert operations” inside Iran. President Obama replied to Mitt Romney’s charge that he is an “appeaser” by suggesting that his critics “ask bin Laden” about that.
Obama often speaks of the “tide of war receding,” but that phrase refers only to conventional war. In Afghanistan, where the administration hopes to roll up conventional fighting by the end of 2013, it is making plans for long-term operations by special forces through units such as JSOC. It is unclear what legal framework will be constructed for their activities, other than a wink and a nod from President Hamid Karzai.
Although the Iraqis managed to compel the withdrawal of US troops by the end of last year, Washington is nevertheless seeking to remain influential through shadow power. The US embassy in Baghdad has 16,000 employees, most of them civilian contractors. They include 2,000 diplomats and several hundred intelligence operatives. By contrast, the entire US Foreign Service corps comprises fewer than 14,000. The Obama administration has decided to slash the number of contractors, planning for an embassy force of “only” 8,000. This monument to shadow power clearly is not intended merely to represent US interests in Iraq but rather to shape that country and to serve as a command center for the eastern reaches of the greater Middle East. The US shadow warriors will, for instance, attempt to block “the influence of Iran,” according to the Washington Post. Since Iraq’s Shiite political parties, which dominate Parliament and the cabinet, are often close to Iran, that charge would inescapably involve meddling in internal Iraqi politics.
Shadow power has even become an issue in the presidential campaign. Newt Gingrich advocates ramped-up “covert operations” inside Iran. President Obama replied to Mitt Romney’s charge that he is an “appeaser” by suggesting that his critics “ask bin Laden” about that.
Obama often speaks of the “tide of war receding,” but that phrase refers only to conventional war. In Afghanistan, where the administration hopes to roll up conventional fighting by the end of 2013, it is making plans for long-term operations by special forces through units such as JSOC. It is unclear what legal framework will be constructed for their activities, other than a wink and a nod from President Hamid Karzai.
Although the Iraqis managed to compel the withdrawal of US troops by the end of last year, Washington is nevertheless seeking to remain influential through shadow power. The US embassy in Baghdad has 16,000 employees, most of them civilian contractors. They include 2,000 diplomats and several hundred intelligence operatives. By contrast, the entire US Foreign Service corps comprises fewer than 14,000. The Obama administration has decided to slash the number of contractors, planning for an embassy force of “only” 8,000. This monument to shadow power clearly is not intended merely to represent US interests in Iraq but rather to shape that country and to serve as a command center for the eastern reaches of the greater Middle East. The US shadow warriors will, for instance, attempt to block “the influence of Iran,” according to the Washington Post. Since Iraq’s Shiite political parties, which dominate Parliament and the cabinet, are often close to Iran, that charge would inescapably involve meddling in internal Iraqi politics.
The Regime-Change Machine
The world is in chaos, war is breaking out all over, there’s blood flowing in the streets of cities from the Middle East to Africa, but not to worry – we’ve got an “Atrocity Prevention Board”! Now doesn’t that make you feel much better?
The board is chaired by the infamous Samantha Power – whose advocacy of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine is credited with the Obama administration’s support for Islamist rebels in Libya, and is currently energizing calls for a similar intervention in Syria. The announcement of this new bureaucratic instrument of war was made by Obama at a recent speech delivered at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, where professional warmonger and Israel Firster Elie Wiesel took the opportunity to call for war with Iran and the President, for his part, announced the imposition of new sanctions on both Iran and Syria.
The atrocities this board is supposed to prevent are those that are not committed by the US: our atrocities, you understand, are really “humanitarian” acts, as opposed to their atrocities, which are … well, just plain old atrocities. One can safely assume the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed by US sanctions prior to the invasion, is not one of those atrocities to be considered by the Board. Nor will those many thousands of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives in the war be so recognized.
No, designation will be reserved for the actions of governments that defy our will, like Iran and Syria. Obama singled out South Sudan and Libya as monuments to this policy of “atrocity prevention” – Libya, whose Islamist government is jailing, murdering, and otherwise repressing its own people, and South Sudan, a completely made-up “nation” that owes its very existence to Western intervention, routinely arrests opposition figures and journalists, and is currently involved in putting down local and tribal insurgencies in the majority of its provinces (with our help, you can be sure).
The piddling atrocities carried out by such tinhorn despots as Bashar al-Assad and the Iranian mullahs are nothing compared to the large-scale war crimes routinely committed by US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our drones roam the world, wreaking random havoc on innocents and “terrorists” alike – oh, but that isn’t an “atrocity.” It’s “fighting terrorism.” That is how the world’s biggest perpetrator of atrocities gets to set up an “Atrocity Prevention Board” and not be laughed off the world stage.
The board is chaired by the infamous Samantha Power – whose advocacy of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine is credited with the Obama administration’s support for Islamist rebels in Libya, and is currently energizing calls for a similar intervention in Syria. The announcement of this new bureaucratic instrument of war was made by Obama at a recent speech delivered at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, where professional warmonger and Israel Firster Elie Wiesel took the opportunity to call for war with Iran and the President, for his part, announced the imposition of new sanctions on both Iran and Syria.
The atrocities this board is supposed to prevent are those that are not committed by the US: our atrocities, you understand, are really “humanitarian” acts, as opposed to their atrocities, which are … well, just plain old atrocities. One can safely assume the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed by US sanctions prior to the invasion, is not one of those atrocities to be considered by the Board. Nor will those many thousands of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives in the war be so recognized.
No, designation will be reserved for the actions of governments that defy our will, like Iran and Syria. Obama singled out South Sudan and Libya as monuments to this policy of “atrocity prevention” – Libya, whose Islamist government is jailing, murdering, and otherwise repressing its own people, and South Sudan, a completely made-up “nation” that owes its very existence to Western intervention, routinely arrests opposition figures and journalists, and is currently involved in putting down local and tribal insurgencies in the majority of its provinces (with our help, you can be sure).
The piddling atrocities carried out by such tinhorn despots as Bashar al-Assad and the Iranian mullahs are nothing compared to the large-scale war crimes routinely committed by US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our drones roam the world, wreaking random havoc on innocents and “terrorists” alike – oh, but that isn’t an “atrocity.” It’s “fighting terrorism.” That is how the world’s biggest perpetrator of atrocities gets to set up an “Atrocity Prevention Board” and not be laughed off the world stage.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
UN Report for Rio+20 Outlines Top-down “Green” World Order
A recently released United Nations report outlines the global body’s plan to foist a centrally planned “green” world order on all of humanity, making every level of government subservient to its “sustainable development” agenda. The upcoming Rio+20 sustainability conference in Brazil — held two decades after the first “Earth Summit” adopted Agenda 21 — will be used to solidify the foundation of the emerging planetary control system.
Under the guise of a “green economy” — expected to cost trillions of dollars per year, according to the report — the UN intends to make use of coercive power at all levels of governance to implement the plan. From local and national governments to regional and global entities, programs affecting every area of human life will be used to advance the controversial “sustainable development” agenda.
According to the UN report, entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective,” everything must change to make humanity more sustainable. Lifestyles, opinions, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and more: Literally everything must be re-shaped to conform with new international standards.
“Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments, and other economic activities,” the document explains, touting the reduction of carbon emissions and new educational programs to teach humanity why it must become sustainable. “Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”
The perfect opportunity to solidify the scheme is coming up in June at the UN sustainability summit. And UN bosses are determined not to waste it. “Agreement among UN entities on core elements of strategy, policy, and programmatic services in support of governments’ green economy initiatives will send a powerful signal to governments, businesses, and civil society of the determination of the UN system to ‘Deliver as One’ on a green economy transformation for sustainable development,” the report notes.
Under the guise of a “green economy” — expected to cost trillions of dollars per year, according to the report — the UN intends to make use of coercive power at all levels of governance to implement the plan. From local and national governments to regional and global entities, programs affecting every area of human life will be used to advance the controversial “sustainable development” agenda.
According to the UN report, entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective,” everything must change to make humanity more sustainable. Lifestyles, opinions, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and more: Literally everything must be re-shaped to conform with new international standards.
“Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments, and other economic activities,” the document explains, touting the reduction of carbon emissions and new educational programs to teach humanity why it must become sustainable. “Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”
The perfect opportunity to solidify the scheme is coming up in June at the UN sustainability summit. And UN bosses are determined not to waste it. “Agreement among UN entities on core elements of strategy, policy, and programmatic services in support of governments’ green economy initiatives will send a powerful signal to governments, businesses, and civil society of the determination of the UN system to ‘Deliver as One’ on a green economy transformation for sustainable development,” the report notes.
The Globalization of Hollow Politics
I went to Lille in northern France a few days before the first round of the French presidential election to attend a rally held by the socialist candidate Francois Hollande. It was a depressing experience. Thunderous music pulsated through the ugly and poorly heated Zenith convention hall a few blocks from the city center. The rhetoric was as empty and cliché-driven as an American campaign event. Words like “destiny,” “progress” and “change” were thrown about by Hollande, who looks like an accountant and made oratorical flourishes and frenetic arm gestures that seemed calculated to evoke the last socialist French president, Francois Mitterrand. There was the singing of “La Marseillaise” when it was over. There was a lot of red, white and blue, the colors of the French flag. There was the final shout of “Vive la France!” I could, with a few alterations, have been at a football rally in Amarillo, Texas. I had hoped for a little more gravitas. But as the French cultural critic Guy Debord astutely grasped, politics, even allegedly radical politics, has become a hollow spectacle. Quel dommage.
The emptying of content in political discourse in an age as precarious and volatile as ours will have very dangerous consequences. The longer the political elite—whether in Washington or Paris, whether socialist or right-wing, whether Democrat or Republican—ignore the breakdown of globalization, refuse to respond rationally to the climate crisis and continue to serve the iron tyranny of global finance, the more it will shred the possibility of political consensus, erode the effectiveness of our political institutions and empower right-wing extremists. The discontent sweeping the planet is born out of the paralysis of traditional political institutions.
The signs of this mounting polarization were apparent in incomplete returns Sunday with the far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, winning a staggering vote of roughly 20 percent. This will make the National Front the primary opposition party in France if Hollande wins, as expected, the presidency in the second round May 6. Jean-Luc Melenchon’s leftist coalition, the Front de Gauche, was pulling a disappointing 11 percent of the vote. But at least France has a Melenchon. He was the sole candidate to attack the racist and nationalist diatribes of Le Pen. Melenchon called for a rolling back of austerity measures, preached the politics “of love, of brotherhood, of poetry” and vowed to fight what he termed the “parasitical vermin” who run global markets. His campaign rallies ended with the singing of the leftist anthem “The Internationale.”
“Long live the Republic, long live the working class, long live France!” he shouted before a crowd of supporters Saturday night.
Every election cycle, our self-identified left dutifully lines up like sheep to vote for the corporate wolves who control the Democratic Party. It bleats the tired, false mantra about Ralph Nader being responsible for the 2000 election of George W. Bush and warns us that the corporate technocrat Mitt Romney is, in fact, an extremist.
The emptying of content in political discourse in an age as precarious and volatile as ours will have very dangerous consequences. The longer the political elite—whether in Washington or Paris, whether socialist or right-wing, whether Democrat or Republican—ignore the breakdown of globalization, refuse to respond rationally to the climate crisis and continue to serve the iron tyranny of global finance, the more it will shred the possibility of political consensus, erode the effectiveness of our political institutions and empower right-wing extremists. The discontent sweeping the planet is born out of the paralysis of traditional political institutions.
The signs of this mounting polarization were apparent in incomplete returns Sunday with the far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, winning a staggering vote of roughly 20 percent. This will make the National Front the primary opposition party in France if Hollande wins, as expected, the presidency in the second round May 6. Jean-Luc Melenchon’s leftist coalition, the Front de Gauche, was pulling a disappointing 11 percent of the vote. But at least France has a Melenchon. He was the sole candidate to attack the racist and nationalist diatribes of Le Pen. Melenchon called for a rolling back of austerity measures, preached the politics “of love, of brotherhood, of poetry” and vowed to fight what he termed the “parasitical vermin” who run global markets. His campaign rallies ended with the singing of the leftist anthem “The Internationale.”
“Long live the Republic, long live the working class, long live France!” he shouted before a crowd of supporters Saturday night.
Every election cycle, our self-identified left dutifully lines up like sheep to vote for the corporate wolves who control the Democratic Party. It bleats the tired, false mantra about Ralph Nader being responsible for the 2000 election of George W. Bush and warns us that the corporate technocrat Mitt Romney is, in fact, an extremist.
CISPA Is the New SOPA
Earlier this year, strong public opposition led by several prominent websites forced congressional leaders to cancel votes on two bills known in Washington as SOPA and PIPA. Both of these bills threatened search engines and websites with possible shutdowns if the Justice Department deemed them insufficiently cooperative with our phony “war on terror,” or if they were merely accused of copyright infringement. Fortunately, the American public flooded Capitol Hill with phone calls and congressional leaders dropped both bills.
But we should never underestimate the federal government’s insatiable desire to control the Internet. Statists of all parties, persuasions, and nationalities hate the free, unbridled flow of information, ideas, and goods via the Internet. They resent the notion that ordinary people can communicate and trade across the world without government filters or approvals. So they continually seek to impose controls, always under the guise of fighting terrorism or protecting “intellectual property” rights.
The latest assault on Internet freedom is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, which may be considered by Congress this week. CISPA is essentially an Internet monitoring bill that permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications with no judicial oversight — provided, of course, that they do so in the name of “cybersecurity.” The bill is very broadly written and allows the Department of Homeland Security to obtain large swaths of personal information contained in your emails or other online communication. It also allows emails and private information found online to be used for purposes far beyond any reasonable definition of fighting cyberterrorism.
CISPA represents an alarming form of corporatism, as it further intertwines government with companies like Google and Facebook. It permits them to hand over your private communications to government officials without a warrant, circumventing well-established federal laws like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It also grants them broad immunity from lawsuits for doing so, leaving you without recourse for invasions of privacy. Simply put, CISPA encourages some of our most successful Internet companies to act as government spies, sowing distrust of social media and chilling communication in one segment of the world economy where America still leads.
Proponents of CISPA may be well-intentioned, but they unquestionably are leading us toward a national-security state rather than a free constitutional republic. Imagine having government-approved employees embedded at Facebook, complete with federal security clearances, serving as conduits for secret information about their American customers. If you believe in privacy and free markets, you should be deeply concerned about the proposed marriage of government intelligence gathering with private, profit-seeking companies. CISPA is Big Brother writ large, putting the resources of private industry to work for the nefarious purpose of spying on the American people.We can only hope the public responds to CISPA as it did to SOPA back in January. I urge you to learn more about the bill by reading a synopsis provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I also urge you to call your federal senators and representatives and urge them to oppose CISPA and similar bills that attack Internet freedom.
But we should never underestimate the federal government’s insatiable desire to control the Internet. Statists of all parties, persuasions, and nationalities hate the free, unbridled flow of information, ideas, and goods via the Internet. They resent the notion that ordinary people can communicate and trade across the world without government filters or approvals. So they continually seek to impose controls, always under the guise of fighting terrorism or protecting “intellectual property” rights.
The latest assault on Internet freedom is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, which may be considered by Congress this week. CISPA is essentially an Internet monitoring bill that permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications with no judicial oversight — provided, of course, that they do so in the name of “cybersecurity.” The bill is very broadly written and allows the Department of Homeland Security to obtain large swaths of personal information contained in your emails or other online communication. It also allows emails and private information found online to be used for purposes far beyond any reasonable definition of fighting cyberterrorism.
CISPA represents an alarming form of corporatism, as it further intertwines government with companies like Google and Facebook. It permits them to hand over your private communications to government officials without a warrant, circumventing well-established federal laws like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It also grants them broad immunity from lawsuits for doing so, leaving you without recourse for invasions of privacy. Simply put, CISPA encourages some of our most successful Internet companies to act as government spies, sowing distrust of social media and chilling communication in one segment of the world economy where America still leads.
Proponents of CISPA may be well-intentioned, but they unquestionably are leading us toward a national-security state rather than a free constitutional republic. Imagine having government-approved employees embedded at Facebook, complete with federal security clearances, serving as conduits for secret information about their American customers. If you believe in privacy and free markets, you should be deeply concerned about the proposed marriage of government intelligence gathering with private, profit-seeking companies. CISPA is Big Brother writ large, putting the resources of private industry to work for the nefarious purpose of spying on the American people.We can only hope the public responds to CISPA as it did to SOPA back in January. I urge you to learn more about the bill by reading a synopsis provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I also urge you to call your federal senators and representatives and urge them to oppose CISPA and similar bills that attack Internet freedom.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Afghanistan: The need to be politically incorrect
Here is the dilemma: To be politically correct, or to be factually correct?
When we look at Afghanistan, we try to ignore a big part of the picture: The elephant in the room – The Afghan people.
No definite steps can be taken towards lasting peace without taking into consideration the part that Afghans have played in starting and exacerbating their own woes.
For their own sake and for the sake of the entire region and the world at large, it is necessary for the Afghans to be honest about their own role in this composite mess.
Since 1967, there have been several cutoff points where the Afghans could have moved in the right direction but they didn’t.
PDPA (Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan) was the communist party established on 1 January 1965 by Nur Mohammad Tarakai and Babrak Karmal. After gaining some popularity the party was flooded by too many ambitious people and it voluntarily split into four factions in 1967: Khalq, Parcham, Setami Milli and Grohi Kar. — This was the first major step in the wrong direction. Many of the troubles of Afghanistan today can be traced to this splintering of communists.
In 1973, Sardar Daoud Khan overthrew his first cousin King Zahir Shah and became the president of Afghanistan. He was supported by PDPA that was still a minority voice in a country where people looked with suspicion at communism. — This was the second wrong step for PDPA. Had it stayed away from power, it would have had the chance to unite internally and gain the mass popularity for better serving their country. But they preferred instant power.
When we look at Afghanistan, we try to ignore a big part of the picture: The elephant in the room – The Afghan people.
No definite steps can be taken towards lasting peace without taking into consideration the part that Afghans have played in starting and exacerbating their own woes.
For their own sake and for the sake of the entire region and the world at large, it is necessary for the Afghans to be honest about their own role in this composite mess.
Since 1967, there have been several cutoff points where the Afghans could have moved in the right direction but they didn’t.
PDPA (Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan) was the communist party established on 1 January 1965 by Nur Mohammad Tarakai and Babrak Karmal. After gaining some popularity the party was flooded by too many ambitious people and it voluntarily split into four factions in 1967: Khalq, Parcham, Setami Milli and Grohi Kar. — This was the first major step in the wrong direction. Many of the troubles of Afghanistan today can be traced to this splintering of communists.
In 1973, Sardar Daoud Khan overthrew his first cousin King Zahir Shah and became the president of Afghanistan. He was supported by PDPA that was still a minority voice in a country where people looked with suspicion at communism. — This was the second wrong step for PDPA. Had it stayed away from power, it would have had the chance to unite internally and gain the mass popularity for better serving their country. But they preferred instant power.
"GLOBAL SPYING". WASHINGTON'S "WEAPONIZED DATA" SYSTEM
No longer the exclusive domain of intelligence agencies, a highly-profitable Surveillance-Industrial Complex emerged in the 1980s with the deployment of the NSA-GCHQ ECHELON intercept system. As investigate journalist Nicky Hager revealed in CovertAction Quarterly back in 1996:
The ECHELON system is not designed to eavesdrop on a particular individual's e-mail or fax link. Rather, the system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and using computers to identify and extract messages of interest from the mass of unwanted ones. A chain of secret interception facilities has been established around the world to tap into all the major components of the international telecommunications networks. Some monitor communications satellites, others land-based communications networks, and others radio communications. ECHELON links together all these facilities, providing the US and its allies with the ability to intercept a large proportion of the communications on the planet.
With the exponential growth of fiber optic and wireless networks, the mass of data which can be "mined" for "actionable intelligence," covering everything from eavesdropping on official enemies to blanket surveillance of dissidents is now part of the landscape: no more visible to the average citizen than ornamental shrubbery surrounding a strip mall.
That process will become even more ubiquitous. As James Bamford pointed out in Wired Magazine, "the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (10 to the 24th bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes--so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)"
"It needs that capacity because, according to a recent report by Cisco, global Internet traffic will quadruple from 2010 to 2015," Bamford reported, "reaching 966 exabytes per year. (A million exabytes equal a yottabyte.) ... Thus, the NSA's need for a 1-million-square-foot data storehouse. Should the agency ever fill the Utah center with a yottabyte of information, it would be equal to about 500 quintillion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text."
The ECHELON system is not designed to eavesdrop on a particular individual's e-mail or fax link. Rather, the system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and using computers to identify and extract messages of interest from the mass of unwanted ones. A chain of secret interception facilities has been established around the world to tap into all the major components of the international telecommunications networks. Some monitor communications satellites, others land-based communications networks, and others radio communications. ECHELON links together all these facilities, providing the US and its allies with the ability to intercept a large proportion of the communications on the planet.
With the exponential growth of fiber optic and wireless networks, the mass of data which can be "mined" for "actionable intelligence," covering everything from eavesdropping on official enemies to blanket surveillance of dissidents is now part of the landscape: no more visible to the average citizen than ornamental shrubbery surrounding a strip mall.
That process will become even more ubiquitous. As James Bamford pointed out in Wired Magazine, "the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (10 to the 24th bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes--so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)"
"It needs that capacity because, according to a recent report by Cisco, global Internet traffic will quadruple from 2010 to 2015," Bamford reported, "reaching 966 exabytes per year. (A million exabytes equal a yottabyte.) ... Thus, the NSA's need for a 1-million-square-foot data storehouse. Should the agency ever fill the Utah center with a yottabyte of information, it would be equal to about 500 quintillion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text."
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Book claims JFK's mistress was assassinated by the CIA 'because she knew too much about his assassination'
The suspicious death of one of President John F. Kennedy's mistresses just months after his death has sparked numerous conspiracy theories.
The latest version posits that socialite Mary Pinchot Meyer, a beautiful divorcee who was close friends with the Kennedys and is widely known for having a lengthy affair with the playboy President, was shot in a cover-up operation by the CIA.
A new book alleges that, in her preoccupation with her lover's assassination and ensuing personal investigation, she may have gotten so close to the 'truth' that the CIA found her to be a threat.
As a result, agency operatives staged a shooting to make it look like she died due to a sexual assault that turned violent.
Whether or not the theory is true, there are a number of questionable components to the story of the months leading up to her death on October 12, 1964.
Her ex-husband, Cord Meyer, was a CIA agent himself and the couple were card-carrying members of Georgetown's starry social set, which included then-Senator John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline.
The couples became close friends, along with Mary's sister Antoinette (who went by Tony) and her husband Ben Bradlee, who was a bureau chief for Newsweek but later went on to be the managing editor of The Washington Post.
Another couple that they spent time with was Mary's Vassar classmate Cicely d'Autremont and her husband James Angleton, who was the chief of the counter surveillance for the CIA.
A book by Peter Janney, called Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision of World Peace, the author claims that the the socialite would often bring marijuana and LSD to her trysts with the President.
The latest version posits that socialite Mary Pinchot Meyer, a beautiful divorcee who was close friends with the Kennedys and is widely known for having a lengthy affair with the playboy President, was shot in a cover-up operation by the CIA.
A new book alleges that, in her preoccupation with her lover's assassination and ensuing personal investigation, she may have gotten so close to the 'truth' that the CIA found her to be a threat.
As a result, agency operatives staged a shooting to make it look like she died due to a sexual assault that turned violent.
Whether or not the theory is true, there are a number of questionable components to the story of the months leading up to her death on October 12, 1964.
Her ex-husband, Cord Meyer, was a CIA agent himself and the couple were card-carrying members of Georgetown's starry social set, which included then-Senator John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline.
The couples became close friends, along with Mary's sister Antoinette (who went by Tony) and her husband Ben Bradlee, who was a bureau chief for Newsweek but later went on to be the managing editor of The Washington Post.
Another couple that they spent time with was Mary's Vassar classmate Cicely d'Autremont and her husband James Angleton, who was the chief of the counter surveillance for the CIA.
A book by Peter Janney, called Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision of World Peace, the author claims that the the socialite would often bring marijuana and LSD to her trysts with the President.
Obama Stimulus Dollars Funded Soros Empire
Newly recently released tax documents reveal how billionaire “philanthropist” George Soros expanded his U.S.-based empire by using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Obama stimulus. Soros and Obama worked hand-in-glove through the stimulus, which has been called the largest single partisan wealth transfer in American history.
In 2010, tax records show that Soros, a convicted inside trader with extensive knowledge of the American financial system and government policies under Obama, deployed grantees from his Open Society Foundations1 to lobby for and acquire federal contracts for job training, green energy, and community redevelopment programs. By gaining control over those resources, Soros advanced his agenda for “green economics,” open borders, and increased government handouts. In short, he grew his empire, which includes much of the “progressive” movement in the U.S., as the federal government and Obama’s political constituencies grew in power and influence.
This report analyzes George Soros’s grants to organizations in 2010. The records show massive coordination of non-profit networks in the states and nationally. Four powerful organizations and coalitions — The STAR Coalition, The Gamaliel Foundation, the Apollo Alliance, and Green for All — are given detailed scrutiny in this regard, with the involvement of Van Jones getting special mention. Jones is the former Obama “Green Jobs Czar” fired after information about his communist past surfaced through the work of anti-communist blogger Trevor Loudon and then-Fox News personality Glenn Beck. The lobbying power of such efforts ensured that stimulus funds flowed from taxpayers into union coffers and into the hands of other activists who had been instrumental in putting President Obama into office.
This report, “Obama Stimulus Dollars Funded Soros Empire,” includes an analysis of how Soros-funded organizations and networks operate, the strategies used to steer stimulus money to special interest lobbies, and an explanation of how taxpayers were forced to subsidize the “progressive” movement in the U.S. However, only Congress, with its investigative powers, can get to the bottom of how this money was spent and into whose coffers it ultimately ended up.
America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) began the process of analyzing the Soros empire, which has been financed with almost $8 billion from the controversial billionaire, during an October 27, 2011, “Soros Files” conference in Washington, D.C. Reports and speeches from this conference are posted at www.sorosfiles.com The reports available at this website include How Soros Finances Marxism in America, Soros Funds Marxist Legal Groups and Terrorists, and How Soros is Subverting the Criminal Justice System. This website is updated on a regular basis.
In 2010, tax records show that Soros, a convicted inside trader with extensive knowledge of the American financial system and government policies under Obama, deployed grantees from his Open Society Foundations1 to lobby for and acquire federal contracts for job training, green energy, and community redevelopment programs. By gaining control over those resources, Soros advanced his agenda for “green economics,” open borders, and increased government handouts. In short, he grew his empire, which includes much of the “progressive” movement in the U.S., as the federal government and Obama’s political constituencies grew in power and influence.
This report analyzes George Soros’s grants to organizations in 2010. The records show massive coordination of non-profit networks in the states and nationally. Four powerful organizations and coalitions — The STAR Coalition, The Gamaliel Foundation, the Apollo Alliance, and Green for All — are given detailed scrutiny in this regard, with the involvement of Van Jones getting special mention. Jones is the former Obama “Green Jobs Czar” fired after information about his communist past surfaced through the work of anti-communist blogger Trevor Loudon and then-Fox News personality Glenn Beck. The lobbying power of such efforts ensured that stimulus funds flowed from taxpayers into union coffers and into the hands of other activists who had been instrumental in putting President Obama into office.
This report, “Obama Stimulus Dollars Funded Soros Empire,” includes an analysis of how Soros-funded organizations and networks operate, the strategies used to steer stimulus money to special interest lobbies, and an explanation of how taxpayers were forced to subsidize the “progressive” movement in the U.S. However, only Congress, with its investigative powers, can get to the bottom of how this money was spent and into whose coffers it ultimately ended up.
America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) began the process of analyzing the Soros empire, which has been financed with almost $8 billion from the controversial billionaire, during an October 27, 2011, “Soros Files” conference in Washington, D.C. Reports and speeches from this conference are posted at www.sorosfiles.com The reports available at this website include How Soros Finances Marxism in America, Soros Funds Marxist Legal Groups and Terrorists, and How Soros is Subverting the Criminal Justice System. This website is updated on a regular basis.
Thank You for Your Service? No Thanks!
It would be very difficult for me to think of any term that disgusted me more than those words uttered continuously in the presence of virtually any soldier in the United States: "Thank you for your service."
What service is actually being praised by those conditioned to say these empty words? Why are they thanking and praising nearly every soldier they see?
Is it because hatred of the U.S. is increasing, and new enemies are being created in the Middle East and all around the rest of the world?
Is it because thousands and thousands of innocent people are being killed now in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and many more are being threatened?
Is it because 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 foreigners, mostly innocent civilians, have died just since World War II due to U.S. interference and war?
Is it because indefinite detention without due process, torture, assassination, and rendition are now common and accepted practices?
Is it because suicide rates among American soldiers have increased 80% since the Iraq War began?
Is it because mental problems now send more military personnel to the hospital than any other cause?
Is it because destruction and separation of military families is rampant?
Is it because civil liberties have all but disappeared due to so-called terrorism legislation? (terror legislation would be more accurate)
Is it because of the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA, TSA, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
Is it because of the massive buildup of killer drones abroad and at home?
Is it because the huge deficit spending to support multiple aggressive wars is causing economic chaos?
Is it because of the surging number of double amputees of American soldiers?
Is it because of increasing energy costs due to the United States unwarranted presence in the Middle East region?
Is it because the domestic police have now become a brutal militarized force, bent on controlling the entire population?
I could of course go on, but the picture is clear. Those who continue to believe the propaganda about all U.S. wars leading to the protection of freedom, and to our national security, are blinded by ignorance, and consumed by pathetic false patriotism. No U.S. wars have ever served the purpose of freedom; they have only served to destroy it.
Due to these wars of aggression and occupation, our freedoms are virtually non-existent today. We are spied upon, tracked, searched without warrant, sexually assaulted, and radiated. There are now checkpoints in many parts of the country where it is demanded that we "show our papers," and killer spy drones are filling our skies. Government agents and the military are patrolling all U.S. borders, and Blackhawk war helicopters sporting heavily armed soldiers hanging on tethers are flying over our cities.
What service is actually being praised by those conditioned to say these empty words? Why are they thanking and praising nearly every soldier they see?
Is it because hatred of the U.S. is increasing, and new enemies are being created in the Middle East and all around the rest of the world?
Is it because thousands and thousands of innocent people are being killed now in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and many more are being threatened?
Is it because 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 foreigners, mostly innocent civilians, have died just since World War II due to U.S. interference and war?
Is it because indefinite detention without due process, torture, assassination, and rendition are now common and accepted practices?
Is it because suicide rates among American soldiers have increased 80% since the Iraq War began?
Is it because mental problems now send more military personnel to the hospital than any other cause?
Is it because destruction and separation of military families is rampant?
Is it because civil liberties have all but disappeared due to so-called terrorism legislation? (terror legislation would be more accurate)
Is it because of the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA, TSA, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
Is it because of the massive buildup of killer drones abroad and at home?
Is it because the huge deficit spending to support multiple aggressive wars is causing economic chaos?
Is it because of the surging number of double amputees of American soldiers?
Is it because of increasing energy costs due to the United States unwarranted presence in the Middle East region?
Is it because the domestic police have now become a brutal militarized force, bent on controlling the entire population?
I could of course go on, but the picture is clear. Those who continue to believe the propaganda about all U.S. wars leading to the protection of freedom, and to our national security, are blinded by ignorance, and consumed by pathetic false patriotism. No U.S. wars have ever served the purpose of freedom; they have only served to destroy it.
Due to these wars of aggression and occupation, our freedoms are virtually non-existent today. We are spied upon, tracked, searched without warrant, sexually assaulted, and radiated. There are now checkpoints in many parts of the country where it is demanded that we "show our papers," and killer spy drones are filling our skies. Government agents and the military are patrolling all U.S. borders, and Blackhawk war helicopters sporting heavily armed soldiers hanging on tethers are flying over our cities.
Friday, April 20, 2012
First Ever Blueprints for World Government Revealed
The main lines of this blueprint for governmental or unofficial action to organize the world were drawn in 1924. We revised our work and published the present pamphlet in 1937. This is the fourth edition. Believing government initiation of world union to be at present not only hopeless but even undesirable, we wish to emphasize the part of our plan designed for unofficial action. Immediate action along unofficial lines is imperative.
We have seen our globe in not time turned into one armed camp. We can transform it as quickly into a fit home for the human family. Self-made governments in exile have for military purposes been grouped with the greater powers into the “United Nations”. As the first step in peaceful achievement of world union, we urge the immediate creation of the self-made Provisional World Government to take all the unofficial action recommended in our original plan. Its world-wide announcement must include an appeal to all people to lay down their arms and prepare to participate in creating the new world order.
The only chance of creating the long-overdue federalized world government, all inclusive, non-military and democratic in its structure, is to stop this war before either belligerent is exhausted. Men and women of supreme integrity and imaginative daring must rise and lead mankind into their new safe road. Good plans have long been ready.
Internationally controlled demarcation lines must be established between the hostile forces, immobilizing them. They can cooperate in local reconstruction work until world organization has reached the stage where its own federal commissions can supervise their systematic demobilization and immediate absorption into planned creative work on a global scale.
The Provisional World Government in continuous session with full publicity shall draw up the World Constitution. Simultaneously it shall be prepared to assume the impartial administration of scientifically planned emergency relief of starving populations. It shall also receive complaints, accusations and claims against individuals, groups and nations for proper preparations and submission to courts to be established under the World Constitution.
We have seen our globe in not time turned into one armed camp. We can transform it as quickly into a fit home for the human family. Self-made governments in exile have for military purposes been grouped with the greater powers into the “United Nations”. As the first step in peaceful achievement of world union, we urge the immediate creation of the self-made Provisional World Government to take all the unofficial action recommended in our original plan. Its world-wide announcement must include an appeal to all people to lay down their arms and prepare to participate in creating the new world order.
The only chance of creating the long-overdue federalized world government, all inclusive, non-military and democratic in its structure, is to stop this war before either belligerent is exhausted. Men and women of supreme integrity and imaginative daring must rise and lead mankind into their new safe road. Good plans have long been ready.
Internationally controlled demarcation lines must be established between the hostile forces, immobilizing them. They can cooperate in local reconstruction work until world organization has reached the stage where its own federal commissions can supervise their systematic demobilization and immediate absorption into planned creative work on a global scale.
The Provisional World Government in continuous session with full publicity shall draw up the World Constitution. Simultaneously it shall be prepared to assume the impartial administration of scientifically planned emergency relief of starving populations. It shall also receive complaints, accusations and claims against individuals, groups and nations for proper preparations and submission to courts to be established under the World Constitution.
Problems of Empire
"We’re within an inch of war almost every day," said Leon Panetta at a recent congressional hearing: he was talking about war with North Korea, but then went on to speak about other regions where the threat of conflict keeps him up at night, naming Iran, Syria, and indeed the entire Middle East as the source of his insomnia.
Which raises the question: what are we gaining from all this? What benefits do we derive from our troop presence in South Korea, and our interference in its internal affairs? What are we getting out of provoking Iran beyond the limits of human endurance? Why are we even thinking about intervening in Syria, when we can see the horrendous results of our support for the Libyan rebels – and the Iraqi exile groups who tricked us into supporting a disastrous invasion and occupation?
Even if we weren’t bankrupt, it is hard to see how a cost-benefit analysis can justify this level of US intervention abroad. We spend more on the military than all other nations on earth combined, and the only thing it’s gotten us has been some pretty consequential blowback and a mountain of unsustainable debt. So what’s the upside?
Well, there isn’t any – unless you’re a military contractor, or a politician on the take from the military-industrial complex. If you’re an "analyst" who works for one of the pro-militarist Washington thinktanks, you have a lot [.pdf] to gain from this "forward stance" foreign policy: however, if you’re an ordinary American – not so much.
Let’s look at the North Korean example, which provoked Panetta’s revealing comment in the first place. Here is a country that is still technically at war with the US and its South Korean neighbor, after more than sixty years, and can hardly feed its own people. The food aid we regularly ship to them has been cut off, in part due to the recent missile launch. Sure, the launch was a failure, but that doesn’t matter: the point being that only the US and its allies have the right to needlessly provoke the rest of the world by saber-rattling as loudly as possible. We still have to punish them – even though they have no capacity to attack the US mainland, and are unlikely to acquire the technology to do so. Sure, they can always attack South Korea, where we – still! – have some 20,000 troops stationed. Yet what is the real purpose of our troop presence there? These soldiers are for all intents and purposes being held hostage by the North Koreans, whose periodic antics cause Panetta so much heartburn. So why keep them there?
Which raises the question: what are we gaining from all this? What benefits do we derive from our troop presence in South Korea, and our interference in its internal affairs? What are we getting out of provoking Iran beyond the limits of human endurance? Why are we even thinking about intervening in Syria, when we can see the horrendous results of our support for the Libyan rebels – and the Iraqi exile groups who tricked us into supporting a disastrous invasion and occupation?
Even if we weren’t bankrupt, it is hard to see how a cost-benefit analysis can justify this level of US intervention abroad. We spend more on the military than all other nations on earth combined, and the only thing it’s gotten us has been some pretty consequential blowback and a mountain of unsustainable debt. So what’s the upside?
Well, there isn’t any – unless you’re a military contractor, or a politician on the take from the military-industrial complex. If you’re an "analyst" who works for one of the pro-militarist Washington thinktanks, you have a lot [.pdf] to gain from this "forward stance" foreign policy: however, if you’re an ordinary American – not so much.
Let’s look at the North Korean example, which provoked Panetta’s revealing comment in the first place. Here is a country that is still technically at war with the US and its South Korean neighbor, after more than sixty years, and can hardly feed its own people. The food aid we regularly ship to them has been cut off, in part due to the recent missile launch. Sure, the launch was a failure, but that doesn’t matter: the point being that only the US and its allies have the right to needlessly provoke the rest of the world by saber-rattling as loudly as possible. We still have to punish them – even though they have no capacity to attack the US mainland, and are unlikely to acquire the technology to do so. Sure, they can always attack South Korea, where we – still! – have some 20,000 troops stationed. Yet what is the real purpose of our troop presence there? These soldiers are for all intents and purposes being held hostage by the North Koreans, whose periodic antics cause Panetta so much heartburn. So why keep them there?
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama
If Americans are looking for anything in the dark clouds of political dust and powdered ash that choke our air and leave us feeling naked against the elements, it is but a simple moment of sincerity.
It sounds like an easily attainable thing, and yet, we continue to gasp and clamor.
The visible surface of our nation is so devoid of honest connection with our social voice that we have turned to a cynical form of loneliness. We have embraced a life without clarity, and been made wretchedly bitter, desperate for even the faintest taste of truth.
The false two party paradigm that drives America gives us a measure of sustenance. Just enough to keep us from going completely mad, but not enough to end our hunger. As this process continues, however, and the establishment grows bolder, we too become savvy in the ways of the machine.
Eventually, the old standards just don’t keep the masses distracted like they used to, and so, the system, not willing to give up power, decides instead to become “like us”, at least outwardly. It steals our vision and our song and goes on parade. It tries to make us believe again…
The campaign of Barack Obama in 2008 was a perfect example of the propaganda pageant, complete with visceral slogans like “Hope” and “Change”. After eight years of the clownish George Bush Jr., when our country spiraled down into a state of disturbed and vicious adolescence, people were looking for a renewal.
It sounds like an easily attainable thing, and yet, we continue to gasp and clamor.
The visible surface of our nation is so devoid of honest connection with our social voice that we have turned to a cynical form of loneliness. We have embraced a life without clarity, and been made wretchedly bitter, desperate for even the faintest taste of truth.
The false two party paradigm that drives America gives us a measure of sustenance. Just enough to keep us from going completely mad, but not enough to end our hunger. As this process continues, however, and the establishment grows bolder, we too become savvy in the ways of the machine.
Eventually, the old standards just don’t keep the masses distracted like they used to, and so, the system, not willing to give up power, decides instead to become “like us”, at least outwardly. It steals our vision and our song and goes on parade. It tries to make us believe again…
The campaign of Barack Obama in 2008 was a perfect example of the propaganda pageant, complete with visceral slogans like “Hope” and “Change”. After eight years of the clownish George Bush Jr., when our country spiraled down into a state of disturbed and vicious adolescence, people were looking for a renewal.
Nasrallah tells Assange that Hezbollah aims ‘to deter, not attack’ Israel
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview Tuesday that his forces would not attack Israel if Israel did not attack Lebanon, and that Hezbollah’s aim was to deter Israel and protect Lebanon’s civilians.
Nasrallah was speaking in the opening episode of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s new talk show.
The half-hour segment aired on Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT Tuesday and featured questions about Israel, Lebanon, Syria, theology and encryption. Nasrallah, who is rarely seen on English-language television, largely stuck to well-established positions.
But he did reveal that his group had been in touch with opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, apparently because he was prepared to approach Assad on their behalf.
He said that Hezbollah had “contacted elements of the opposition, to encourage them, to facilitate dialogue with the regime.”
Speaking through a translator, Nasrallah said, however, that Hezbollah had been rebuffed.
“You have an opposition that is not prepared for dialogue… all it wants is to bring down the regime,” he said.
Tuesday marks the launch of Assange’s unlikely career in television, and a partnership with a state-backed station that many have found uncomfortable.
Assange himself said he anticipated criticism along the lines of: “There’s Julian Assange, enemy combatant, traitor, getting into bed with the Kremlin and interviewing terrible radicals from around the world.”
Nasrallah was speaking in the opening episode of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s new talk show.
The half-hour segment aired on Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT Tuesday and featured questions about Israel, Lebanon, Syria, theology and encryption. Nasrallah, who is rarely seen on English-language television, largely stuck to well-established positions.
But he did reveal that his group had been in touch with opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, apparently because he was prepared to approach Assad on their behalf.
He said that Hezbollah had “contacted elements of the opposition, to encourage them, to facilitate dialogue with the regime.”
Speaking through a translator, Nasrallah said, however, that Hezbollah had been rebuffed.
“You have an opposition that is not prepared for dialogue… all it wants is to bring down the regime,” he said.
Tuesday marks the launch of Assange’s unlikely career in television, and a partnership with a state-backed station that many have found uncomfortable.
Assange himself said he anticipated criticism along the lines of: “There’s Julian Assange, enemy combatant, traitor, getting into bed with the Kremlin and interviewing terrible radicals from around the world.”
China’s Rise, America’s Fall
The rise of China surely ranks among the most important world developments of the last 100 years. With America still trapped in its fifth year of economic hardship, and the Chinese economy poised to surpass our own before the end of this decade, China looms very large on the horizon. We are living in the early years of what journalists once dubbed “The Pacific Century,” yet there are worrisome signs it may instead become known as “The Chinese Century.”
But does the Chinese giant have feet of clay? In a recently published book, Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson characterize China’s ruling elites as “extractive”—parasitic and corrupt—and predict that Chinese economic growth will soon falter and decline, while America’s “inclusive” governing institutions have taken us from strength to strength. They argue that a country governed as a one-party state, without the free media or checks and balances of our own democratic system, cannot long prosper in the modern world. The glowing tributes this book has received from a vast array of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including six Nobel laureates in economics, testifies to the widespread popularity of this optimistic message.
Yet do the facts about China and America really warrant this conclusion?
China Shakes the World
By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.
China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.
But does the Chinese giant have feet of clay? In a recently published book, Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson characterize China’s ruling elites as “extractive”—parasitic and corrupt—and predict that Chinese economic growth will soon falter and decline, while America’s “inclusive” governing institutions have taken us from strength to strength. They argue that a country governed as a one-party state, without the free media or checks and balances of our own democratic system, cannot long prosper in the modern world. The glowing tributes this book has received from a vast array of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including six Nobel laureates in economics, testifies to the widespread popularity of this optimistic message.
Yet do the facts about China and America really warrant this conclusion?
China Shakes the World
By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.
China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
How Pakistan makes US pay for Afghan war
The following ingredients should go a long way to produce a political thriller. Mr M, a jihadi in an Asian state, has emerged as the mastermind of a terrorist attack in a neighboring country, which killed six Americans. After sifting through a vast cache of intelligence and obtaining a legal clearance, the State Department announces a $10 million bounty for information leading to his arrest and conviction. Mr M promptly appears at a press conference and says, "I am here. America should give that reward money to me."
A State Department spokesperson explains lamely that the reward is meant for incriminating evidence against Mr M that would stand up in court. The prime minister of M's home state condemns foreign interference in his country's internal affairs. In
the midst of this imbroglio, the US decides to release $1.18 billion in aid to the cash-strapped government of the defiant prime minister to persuade him to reopen supply lines for US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces bogged down in the hapless neighboring Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Alarmingly, this is anything but fiction or a plot for an upcoming international sitcom. It is a brief summary of the latest development in the fraught relations between the US and Pakistan, two countries locked into an uneasy embrace since September 12, 2001.
Mr M is Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, a 62-year-old former academic with a tapering, hennaed beard, and the founder of the Lashkar-e Taiba (the Army of the Pure, or LeT), widely linked to several outrageously audacious terrorist attacks in India.
The LeT was formed in 1987 as the military wing of the Jammat-ud Dawa religious organization (Society of the Islamic Call, or JuD) at the instigation of the Pakistani army's formidable intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The JuD owes its existence to the efforts of Saeed, who founded it in 1985 following his return to his native Lahore after two years of advanced Islamic studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, under the guidance of that country's grand mufti, Shaikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz.
A State Department spokesperson explains lamely that the reward is meant for incriminating evidence against Mr M that would stand up in court. The prime minister of M's home state condemns foreign interference in his country's internal affairs. In
the midst of this imbroglio, the US decides to release $1.18 billion in aid to the cash-strapped government of the defiant prime minister to persuade him to reopen supply lines for US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces bogged down in the hapless neighboring Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Alarmingly, this is anything but fiction or a plot for an upcoming international sitcom. It is a brief summary of the latest development in the fraught relations between the US and Pakistan, two countries locked into an uneasy embrace since September 12, 2001.
Mr M is Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, a 62-year-old former academic with a tapering, hennaed beard, and the founder of the Lashkar-e Taiba (the Army of the Pure, or LeT), widely linked to several outrageously audacious terrorist attacks in India.
The LeT was formed in 1987 as the military wing of the Jammat-ud Dawa religious organization (Society of the Islamic Call, or JuD) at the instigation of the Pakistani army's formidable intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The JuD owes its existence to the efforts of Saeed, who founded it in 1985 following his return to his native Lahore after two years of advanced Islamic studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, under the guidance of that country's grand mufti, Shaikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz.
Surprises in the Israeli-Iranian Duel
Although it is too early to make a judgement, it looks as if Israel’s Iran policy has back-fired and may result in a very different outcome from the one Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has long sought.
Israel’s thinking these past three years has been that punitive sanctions, cyber warfare and the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists must eventually force a crippled Islamic Republic to agree to ‘zero enrichment’ of uranium – that is to say to dismantle its entire nuclear programme. This, it was hoped, would open the way for ‘regime change’ in Tehran.
To bring about sufficiently severe pressure on Iran, Israel’s strategy has been to threaten to attack. It calculated -- rightly as it turned out -- that the United States and its allies would not dare call its bluff. Instead -- to head off an Israeli attack, which they feared could trigger a regional war with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences -- they worked to bring Iran’s economy to its knees.
Israel’s strategy was working. Everything seemed to be going its way. Punitive sanctions on Iran were beginning to bite. Impatient for regime change, pro-Israeli propagandists in the United States had even started to call for covert action in support of the Iranian opposition.
Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, then stepped into the fray. Confounding the hawks, she made an offer to Iran to restart negotiations, using a conciliatory tone quite different from the usual hectoring heard from Washington, Paris and London, and wholly at odds with Israel’s relentless sabre-rattling. Iran responded positively to Ashton’s invitation. Its first meeting with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) took place in Istanbul on 14 April, and, by all accounts, was a surprising success.
Saeed Jalili, the chief Iranian negotiator -- who had joined Catherine Ashton for an informal dinner at the Iranian consulate the previous evening -- spoke of “a positive approach.” She, in turn, called the discussions “constructive and useful.” As a framework for the talks, she listed a number of principles, which must have reassured the Iranians and caused Israeli hawks to grit their teeth.
Israel’s thinking these past three years has been that punitive sanctions, cyber warfare and the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists must eventually force a crippled Islamic Republic to agree to ‘zero enrichment’ of uranium – that is to say to dismantle its entire nuclear programme. This, it was hoped, would open the way for ‘regime change’ in Tehran.
To bring about sufficiently severe pressure on Iran, Israel’s strategy has been to threaten to attack. It calculated -- rightly as it turned out -- that the United States and its allies would not dare call its bluff. Instead -- to head off an Israeli attack, which they feared could trigger a regional war with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences -- they worked to bring Iran’s economy to its knees.
Israel’s strategy was working. Everything seemed to be going its way. Punitive sanctions on Iran were beginning to bite. Impatient for regime change, pro-Israeli propagandists in the United States had even started to call for covert action in support of the Iranian opposition.
Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, then stepped into the fray. Confounding the hawks, she made an offer to Iran to restart negotiations, using a conciliatory tone quite different from the usual hectoring heard from Washington, Paris and London, and wholly at odds with Israel’s relentless sabre-rattling. Iran responded positively to Ashton’s invitation. Its first meeting with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) took place in Istanbul on 14 April, and, by all accounts, was a surprising success.
Saeed Jalili, the chief Iranian negotiator -- who had joined Catherine Ashton for an informal dinner at the Iranian consulate the previous evening -- spoke of “a positive approach.” She, in turn, called the discussions “constructive and useful.” As a framework for the talks, she listed a number of principles, which must have reassured the Iranians and caused Israeli hawks to grit their teeth.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
What if the government rejects the Constitution?
What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation -- in some cases the same human beings -- that wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don't regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?
What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don't think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people's backs?
What if there's no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us ObamaCare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don't want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?
What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?
What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation that Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?
What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don't think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people's backs?
What if there's no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us ObamaCare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don't want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?
What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?
What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation that Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?
The Babylonian Captivity of Washington: Israel Can Start a War and the US Can do Nothing to Stop It
The most troubling prerogative of modern government is the ability of the sovereign or head of state to go to war.
War means death, debt, and, if the decision is a bad one, the very end of civil society and the prevailing political order. Because war is potentially so terrible, a number of nations have curtailed the ability of the executive authority to make such a decision without first satisfying conditions imposed through constitutional and other political restraints. It is perhaps ironic that the world’s oldest republic, the United States, has ignored its own constitution to grant to the president the authority to enter into armed conflict through the simple expedient of not actually declaring war. America has been de facto at war continuously since 2001 and the recent National Defense Authorization Act has codified an unending conflict in which the whole world is a battlefield and everyone in it is a potential enemy combatant subject to no constitutional or legal protection.
Many critics of the perennially lopsided relationship that the United States enjoys with Israel have noted a disturbing shift in the relationship during the first three years of the Obama Administration. To be sure, Obama appears to genuinely dislike Israel’s arrogant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sentiment that is fully reciprocated. But Obama is bound hand and foot into an engagement with Israel in which he lacks leverage over what might or might not take place. Even George W. Bush was able to say no to Israel when it was mooted that Tel Aviv might attack Iran, but Obama has painted himself into a corner where the United States has little influence over what might occur. Whether the Obama reticence is due to the control exercised by his Chicago billionaire patrons, the Crown and Pritzker families, both of which are strong supporters of the Middle East status quo, or whether it is just a more generalized fear about what might happen in the upcoming national elections, the result has been paralysis in Washington. Recent war games conducted by the Pentagon have confirmed that a new conflict with Iran started by Israel would quickly draw the United States in and would become regional in nature. The war would not produce a good result for anyone involved and would be particularly bad for the United States, which would again slide into deep recession as energy prices soar.
So Israel can start a war and the United States can do nothing to stop it and will become a major victim of whatever plays out. If that is true, why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? The account of the disturbing Pentagon war games did indeed appear in the New York Times and was picked up in a number of other places, but it quickly died out, as always happens with stories that are critical of Israel and its policies. Supporters of Israel might also be quick to note that the hue and cry against another war is largely coming from the usual suspects who are philosophically opposed to interventionism, including supporters of Ron Paul and a number of contributors to this website. But given their underlying pretense that the US is supporting Israel due to its own national interests, perhaps they should take another look at a document that recently surfaced on WikiLeaks. The document enables one to better understand that where Israel leads in foreign and security policy the United States will inevitably follow.
The summary of the Secret message, which I reproduce in full, is:
War means death, debt, and, if the decision is a bad one, the very end of civil society and the prevailing political order. Because war is potentially so terrible, a number of nations have curtailed the ability of the executive authority to make such a decision without first satisfying conditions imposed through constitutional and other political restraints. It is perhaps ironic that the world’s oldest republic, the United States, has ignored its own constitution to grant to the president the authority to enter into armed conflict through the simple expedient of not actually declaring war. America has been de facto at war continuously since 2001 and the recent National Defense Authorization Act has codified an unending conflict in which the whole world is a battlefield and everyone in it is a potential enemy combatant subject to no constitutional or legal protection.
Many critics of the perennially lopsided relationship that the United States enjoys with Israel have noted a disturbing shift in the relationship during the first three years of the Obama Administration. To be sure, Obama appears to genuinely dislike Israel’s arrogant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sentiment that is fully reciprocated. But Obama is bound hand and foot into an engagement with Israel in which he lacks leverage over what might or might not take place. Even George W. Bush was able to say no to Israel when it was mooted that Tel Aviv might attack Iran, but Obama has painted himself into a corner where the United States has little influence over what might occur. Whether the Obama reticence is due to the control exercised by his Chicago billionaire patrons, the Crown and Pritzker families, both of which are strong supporters of the Middle East status quo, or whether it is just a more generalized fear about what might happen in the upcoming national elections, the result has been paralysis in Washington. Recent war games conducted by the Pentagon have confirmed that a new conflict with Iran started by Israel would quickly draw the United States in and would become regional in nature. The war would not produce a good result for anyone involved and would be particularly bad for the United States, which would again slide into deep recession as energy prices soar.
So Israel can start a war and the United States can do nothing to stop it and will become a major victim of whatever plays out. If that is true, why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? The account of the disturbing Pentagon war games did indeed appear in the New York Times and was picked up in a number of other places, but it quickly died out, as always happens with stories that are critical of Israel and its policies. Supporters of Israel might also be quick to note that the hue and cry against another war is largely coming from the usual suspects who are philosophically opposed to interventionism, including supporters of Ron Paul and a number of contributors to this website. But given their underlying pretense that the US is supporting Israel due to its own national interests, perhaps they should take another look at a document that recently surfaced on WikiLeaks. The document enables one to better understand that where Israel leads in foreign and security policy the United States will inevitably follow.
The summary of the Secret message, which I reproduce in full, is:
Bibi’s Dilemma — and Barack’s
“Bibi” Netanyahu was disgusted.
"My initial reaction is that Iran has gotten a freebie. It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation."
The Israeli prime minister was referring to Saturday’s meeting in Istanbul of the P5-plus-1 — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany — with representatives from Iran.
Subject: Iran’s nuclear program. After a "constructive" meeting of one day, all agreed to meet again in Baghdad, May 23, and departed.
For Bibi, it was a strategic defeat.
For Israel’s goal is a halt to Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the removal of enriched uranium from that country.
But Catherine Ashton, the foreign minister for the European Union who is leading the P5-plus-1, stated that the West accepts Iran’s position that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she has a right to a peaceful nuclear program and nuclear power.
"Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear power" must be fully respected, Ashton said. No one dissented.
"My initial reaction is that Iran has gotten a freebie. It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation."
The Israeli prime minister was referring to Saturday’s meeting in Istanbul of the P5-plus-1 — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany — with representatives from Iran.
Subject: Iran’s nuclear program. After a "constructive" meeting of one day, all agreed to meet again in Baghdad, May 23, and departed.
For Bibi, it was a strategic defeat.
For Israel’s goal is a halt to Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the removal of enriched uranium from that country.
But Catherine Ashton, the foreign minister for the European Union who is leading the P5-plus-1, stated that the West accepts Iran’s position that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, she has a right to a peaceful nuclear program and nuclear power.
"Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear power" must be fully respected, Ashton said. No one dissented.
Monday, April 16, 2012
FROM LIBYA TO SYRIA: "WAR IS A RACKET. IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN"
“War is a racket. It always has been.” These words are as true now as they were when Major General Smedley Butler first delivered them in a series of speeches in the 1930s. And he should have known. As one of the most decorated and celebrated marines in the history of the Corps, Butler drew on his own experiences around the globe to rail against the business interests that use the U.S. military as muscle men to protect their racket from perceived threats. From National City Bank interests in Haiti to United Fruit plantations in Honduras, from Standard Oil access to China to Brown Brothers operations in Nicaragua, Butler pointed out how intervention after intervention served the business interests of the well-connected even as American taxpayer money went to foot the bill for these adventures. The names and places may have changed, but the old adage holds: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The National Transitional Council that is nominally in charge of what is left of Libya announced this week that they're beginning a probe of foreign oil contracts brokered during Gaddafi's reign by his son, Saif al-Islam. Libya is sitting on the largest oil reserves in Africa, and it is no coincidence that within weeks of the start of the NATO campaign last year the rebels had already secured the country's oil ports and refineries on the Gulf of Sidra and established their own national oil company for negotiating contracts with the invading forces. Although the oil contract probes are supposedly meant to show the transparency of the new “government” and their willingness to root out the graft and kickbacks inherent in the old regime, it's quietly acknowledged that the process will be used to reward the nations that most visibly supported last year's invasions and punish those who were more reticent.
Surprising, then, that the first companies on the block are Italy's Eni and France's Total. Both countries fostered close ties with the NTC last year and France was the first country to officially recognize them as the government of Libya. But now Libya's general prosecutor is reviewing documents related to these companies for possible financial irregularities. The SEC is getting in on the act, too, requesting documents relating to both companies' Libyan operations to check for suspected violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The potential blow to the European giants' share in the Libyan market is especially painful in light of the upcoming Iranian oil embargo that threatens to squeeze the crude imports of Greece, Italy and Spain. Now, as Libya ramps up oil production to pre-war levels the obvious potential winners in the probe are the American and British majors, who could end up eating up some of Eni and Total's share in Libya's oil production should the investigation lead to charges.
China may also have reason to be wary of their standing with the new government. Chinese-Libyan ties were increasingly close in the years leading up to Gaddafi's ouster, with trade volume having reached $6.6 billion in 2010. In 2007, as the US was beginning to put AFRICOM together and the competitive scramble for African resources was heating up, Gaddafi delivered an address to the students of Oxford University where he praised China's hands-off approach to investment in Africa. At the time, Gaddafi suggested that Beijing was winning the hearts and minds of Africans with its reluctance to interfere in local politics, while Washington was alienating the population with their heavy-handed interventions. In the wake of the NATO bombing the would-be government of Libya is singing a different tune and relations with China have cooled down. Last August a senior NTC official suggested that China would be punished when it came time to award reconstruction contracts in Libya because of their initial reluctance to support the rebels. Although the statement was downplayed, it was revealed earlier this month that Chinese companies are still waiting to begin negotiations on losses to frozen and outstanding contracts worth $18.8 billion. Relations are still cordial, though, and the Libyan government is assuring China that the contracting companies will be in a better position to resume negotiations after national elections in June.
The National Transitional Council that is nominally in charge of what is left of Libya announced this week that they're beginning a probe of foreign oil contracts brokered during Gaddafi's reign by his son, Saif al-Islam. Libya is sitting on the largest oil reserves in Africa, and it is no coincidence that within weeks of the start of the NATO campaign last year the rebels had already secured the country's oil ports and refineries on the Gulf of Sidra and established their own national oil company for negotiating contracts with the invading forces. Although the oil contract probes are supposedly meant to show the transparency of the new “government” and their willingness to root out the graft and kickbacks inherent in the old regime, it's quietly acknowledged that the process will be used to reward the nations that most visibly supported last year's invasions and punish those who were more reticent.
Surprising, then, that the first companies on the block are Italy's Eni and France's Total. Both countries fostered close ties with the NTC last year and France was the first country to officially recognize them as the government of Libya. But now Libya's general prosecutor is reviewing documents related to these companies for possible financial irregularities. The SEC is getting in on the act, too, requesting documents relating to both companies' Libyan operations to check for suspected violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The potential blow to the European giants' share in the Libyan market is especially painful in light of the upcoming Iranian oil embargo that threatens to squeeze the crude imports of Greece, Italy and Spain. Now, as Libya ramps up oil production to pre-war levels the obvious potential winners in the probe are the American and British majors, who could end up eating up some of Eni and Total's share in Libya's oil production should the investigation lead to charges.
China may also have reason to be wary of their standing with the new government. Chinese-Libyan ties were increasingly close in the years leading up to Gaddafi's ouster, with trade volume having reached $6.6 billion in 2010. In 2007, as the US was beginning to put AFRICOM together and the competitive scramble for African resources was heating up, Gaddafi delivered an address to the students of Oxford University where he praised China's hands-off approach to investment in Africa. At the time, Gaddafi suggested that Beijing was winning the hearts and minds of Africans with its reluctance to interfere in local politics, while Washington was alienating the population with their heavy-handed interventions. In the wake of the NATO bombing the would-be government of Libya is singing a different tune and relations with China have cooled down. Last August a senior NTC official suggested that China would be punished when it came time to award reconstruction contracts in Libya because of their initial reluctance to support the rebels. Although the statement was downplayed, it was revealed earlier this month that Chinese companies are still waiting to begin negotiations on losses to frozen and outstanding contracts worth $18.8 billion. Relations are still cordial, though, and the Libyan government is assuring China that the contracting companies will be in a better position to resume negotiations after national elections in June.
A Chance for Peace With Iran
With the price of gasoline rising, and President Barack Obama’s reelection prospects sinking, delaying a showdown with Iran and ratcheting down regional tensions has become a political necessity for this administration. The question is: can the Israel lobby scuttle revived negotiations?
That the participants came out of the 12-hour Istanbul meeting with reports of progress – and an agreement to meet again, on May 23, in Baghdad – is good news that must be taken in context. It’s been over a year since negotiators met, and the last round ended with both sides engaging in public recriminations, leading to the present impasse. This time around, the Iranians seemed fully engaged, and quite specific about what they are willing to discuss: and while such hot topics as the enrichment issue and increased IAEA access to Iranian nuclear facilities were politely danced around in public, all parties praised the meeting as "constructive."
Most important, from the Iranian perspective, is that the talks are to go forward within the context of the Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory – and Israel, its chief antagonist, is not. Under the terms of the NPT, Iran has the right to create a peaceful – i.e. energy-oriented – nuclear program, which is what they have been insisting has been their goal all along. An agreement within this framework would underscore the Israelis’ unwillingness to sign the NPT, or to even admit the existence of their substantial nuclear arsenal.
It was only a matter of hours before the Israelis responded with typical peevishness. Meeting with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a swing at Obama and the Europeans:
"My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie. It’s got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition."
That the participants came out of the 12-hour Istanbul meeting with reports of progress – and an agreement to meet again, on May 23, in Baghdad – is good news that must be taken in context. It’s been over a year since negotiators met, and the last round ended with both sides engaging in public recriminations, leading to the present impasse. This time around, the Iranians seemed fully engaged, and quite specific about what they are willing to discuss: and while such hot topics as the enrichment issue and increased IAEA access to Iranian nuclear facilities were politely danced around in public, all parties praised the meeting as "constructive."
Most important, from the Iranian perspective, is that the talks are to go forward within the context of the Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory – and Israel, its chief antagonist, is not. Under the terms of the NPT, Iran has the right to create a peaceful – i.e. energy-oriented – nuclear program, which is what they have been insisting has been their goal all along. An agreement within this framework would underscore the Israelis’ unwillingness to sign the NPT, or to even admit the existence of their substantial nuclear arsenal.
It was only a matter of hours before the Israelis responded with typical peevishness. Meeting with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a swing at Obama and the Europeans:
"My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie. It’s got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition."
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy
Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?
We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.
Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”
The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious. For example, scores, perhaps hundreds of credible eyewitnesses have cast doubt on the official “lone kook” scenario that is a staple of every domestic assassination.
But these whistleblowers are quickly discredited, suppressed, or worse. From time to time people even come out of the national security establishment to testify to such wrongdoing, but they almost always pay a heavy price –which of course discourages others from bearing witness.
We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.
Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”
The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious. For example, scores, perhaps hundreds of credible eyewitnesses have cast doubt on the official “lone kook” scenario that is a staple of every domestic assassination.
But these whistleblowers are quickly discredited, suppressed, or worse. From time to time people even come out of the national security establishment to testify to such wrongdoing, but they almost always pay a heavy price –which of course discourages others from bearing witness.
Washington Leads World Into Lawlessness
The US government pretends to live under the rule of law, to respect human rights, and to provide freedom and democracy to citizens. Washington’s pretense and the stark reality are diametrically opposed.
US government officials routinely criticize other governments for being undemocratic and for violating human rights. Yet, no other country except Israel sends bombs, missiles, and drones into sovereign countries to murder civilian populations. The torture prisons of Abu Gahraib, Guantanamo, and CIA secret rendition sites are the contributions of the Bush/Obama regimes to human rights.
Washington violates the human rights of its own citizens. Washington has suspended the civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution and declared its intention to detain US citizens indefinitely without due process of law. President Obama has announced that he, at his discretion, can murder US citizens whom he regards as a threat to the US.
Congress did not respond to these extraordinary announcements with impeachment proceedings. There was no uproar from the federal courts, law schools, or bar associations. Glenn Greenwald reports that the Department of Homeland Security harasses journalists who refuse to be presstitutes, and we have seen videos of the brutal police oppression of peaceful OWS protestors. Chris Floyd describes the torture-perverts who rule the US.
Now Washington is forcing as much of the world as it can to overthrow international treaties and international law. Washington has issued a ukase that its word alone is international law. Any country, except those who receive Washington’s dispensation, that engages in trade with Iran or purchases Iran’s oil will be sanctioned by the US. These countries will be cut off from US markets, and their banking systems will not be able to use banks that process international payments. In other words, Washington’s “sanctions against Iran” apply not to Iran but to countries that defy Washington and meet their energy needs with Iranian oil.
US government officials routinely criticize other governments for being undemocratic and for violating human rights. Yet, no other country except Israel sends bombs, missiles, and drones into sovereign countries to murder civilian populations. The torture prisons of Abu Gahraib, Guantanamo, and CIA secret rendition sites are the contributions of the Bush/Obama regimes to human rights.
Washington violates the human rights of its own citizens. Washington has suspended the civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution and declared its intention to detain US citizens indefinitely without due process of law. President Obama has announced that he, at his discretion, can murder US citizens whom he regards as a threat to the US.
Congress did not respond to these extraordinary announcements with impeachment proceedings. There was no uproar from the federal courts, law schools, or bar associations. Glenn Greenwald reports that the Department of Homeland Security harasses journalists who refuse to be presstitutes, and we have seen videos of the brutal police oppression of peaceful OWS protestors. Chris Floyd describes the torture-perverts who rule the US.
Now Washington is forcing as much of the world as it can to overthrow international treaties and international law. Washington has issued a ukase that its word alone is international law. Any country, except those who receive Washington’s dispensation, that engages in trade with Iran or purchases Iran’s oil will be sanctioned by the US. These countries will be cut off from US markets, and their banking systems will not be able to use banks that process international payments. In other words, Washington’s “sanctions against Iran” apply not to Iran but to countries that defy Washington and meet their energy needs with Iranian oil.
NATO Reports: Syria at Any Cost
As if there was any doubt, NATO's official "Alliance News Blog" has confirmed that the US is committed to the overthrow of Syria's government and is "already committed to helping [President Bashar al-Assad] fall," but is "merely looking for the least violent, lowest cost way to get there." The April 9, 2012 blog entry features an op-ed titled, "US 'already committed to helping Assad fall'," and fully admits that the US is equipping the so-called "Free Syrian Army" which has received weapons, leadership, and cash from the NATO-backed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) terrorists led by notorious mass-murderer Abdul Hakim Belhaj.
TO's official "Alliance News Blog proudly reports that the US is already committed to helping "Assad fall" and is simply using the lull in fighting brought on by Kofi Annan's disingenuous "peace plan" to rearm, reorganize, and redeploy their terrorist proxy forces against Assad. The op-ed featured on NATO's blog was featured in the LA Times and written by CFR member Doyle McManus.
Additionally, NATO admits that the Kofi Annan brokered "peace deal" is merely a ploy stating, "if the pace of the killing slows, that could buy time: time for economic sanctions to undermine the regime, time to cajole Russia to switch sides and help pull the rug out from Assad, but also time for the opposition and its new army to organize themselves into a more effective force." This confirms what the Fortune 500-funded US policy think-tank Brookings Institution said regarding Kofi Annan's plan. In Brookings' latest report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change" it is stated (emphasis added):
"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
TO's official "Alliance News Blog proudly reports that the US is already committed to helping "Assad fall" and is simply using the lull in fighting brought on by Kofi Annan's disingenuous "peace plan" to rearm, reorganize, and redeploy their terrorist proxy forces against Assad. The op-ed featured on NATO's blog was featured in the LA Times and written by CFR member Doyle McManus.
Additionally, NATO admits that the Kofi Annan brokered "peace deal" is merely a ploy stating, "if the pace of the killing slows, that could buy time: time for economic sanctions to undermine the regime, time to cajole Russia to switch sides and help pull the rug out from Assad, but also time for the opposition and its new army to organize themselves into a more effective force." This confirms what the Fortune 500-funded US policy think-tank Brookings Institution said regarding Kofi Annan's plan. In Brookings' latest report, "Assessing Options for Regime Change" it is stated (emphasis added):
"An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts." -page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Blockades and the danger of disaster
It's a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians - and possibly in the long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down the Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences.
The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Barack Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program.
Historical memory has never been an American strong point and few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today.
Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law.
Based on the latest US intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has affirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist that Tehran's civilian nuclear enrichment program is aimed ultimately at making a bomb, that the Iranians are pursuing such a path in a determined fashion, and that they must be stopped now - by military means if necessary.
The United States is already effectively embroiled in an economic war against Iran. The Barack Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to the most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on the horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as a way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program.
Historical memory has never been an American strong point and few today remember that a global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today.
Iran's supreme theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly condemned the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of all sorts as tools of the devil, weaponry that cannot be used without killing massive numbers of civilian noncombatants. In the most emphatic terms, he has, in fact, pronounced them forbidden according to Islamic law.
Based on the latest US intelligence, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has affirmed that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear warhead. In contrast, hawks in Israel and the United States insist that Tehran's civilian nuclear enrichment program is aimed ultimately at making a bomb, that the Iranians are pursuing such a path in a determined fashion, and that they must be stopped now - by military means if necessary.
The Full Court Press on Iran: John Hagee, Franklin Graham, Press TV Bans, and the Hispan TV Affair
The Full Court Press on Iran continues unabated. The ongoing escalation in economic sanctions targeting Iranian oil, banking, and trade are accompanied by Zionist inspired terror within that country, using the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK/PMOI/MKO), PJAK, and Jundallah in the carrying out of premeditated murder in Tehran, Iranian Azerbaijan, Diyala, Khuzestan, and Balochistan provinces. The Washington Post concedes that there has been a five-fold “unexplained” increase in explosions in the last two years at Iranian nuclear sites and military installations, oil and gas facilities and pipelines, and electrical plants. This is supplemented by American, British, and Israeli financial support for various activities of political insurrection against the IRI regime, American violations of Iranian airspace with drones, and the deployment of three United States aircraft carrier task forces and two Marine amphibious assault units near the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The winds of a totally immoral and unjustifiable war of aggression continue to blow with greater force and speed.
I have a reiteration of a prediction with my own subsequent addendum. Lawrence Dennis, the great American Nationalist theoretician, is certainly correct in his assessment of the present crisis uttered over half a century ago.
Yes, this war will happen as Dennis predicted. But it is also a war that will irrevocably destroy what little remains of the United States and the Western World from the immediate post-World War II configuration of powers and cultures. The good news is that Israel will also collapse over time, along with Zionist fiat banking; fractional reserve banking; usury; Jewish cultural subversion of Christian and Islamic influence; and every other corresponding cancer of the New World Order. Out of short-term tragedy will emerge an aftermath in this present world with renewed reason for hope and life once more, or the Eschaton itself.
Yet the chief beneficiaries and apologists for The Beast will not go down without a fight. There are three (3) prime examples of this currently manifesting their poison-for-pay agenda in the interest of igniting a Zionist inspired Holocaust in Iran.
The first example comes from the Rotund Reaper of Deception himself, John Hagee, whose Christians United for Israel sponsored a March 28 airing of the agitation-propaganda film Iranium at the University of Texas in San Antonio about the alleged threat to the West posed by a weaponized Iranian nuclear program. The claims of the film are a repudiation of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the subject produced by America’s 16 intelligence agencies, and what has emerged from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well. One of the film’s chief spokespersons is Clair Lopez of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), the chief PR arm of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in Washington. Ms. Lopez and IPC chief Dr. Raymond Tanter of Georgetown University are key links in a spider web of American intelligence front organizations with symbiotic links to the Israeli Mossad and a Jewish-driven Neo-Conservative movement which has hijacked the American Right and much of the national security apparatus of the United States as well.
I have a reiteration of a prediction with my own subsequent addendum. Lawrence Dennis, the great American Nationalist theoretician, is certainly correct in his assessment of the present crisis uttered over half a century ago.
Yes, this war will happen as Dennis predicted. But it is also a war that will irrevocably destroy what little remains of the United States and the Western World from the immediate post-World War II configuration of powers and cultures. The good news is that Israel will also collapse over time, along with Zionist fiat banking; fractional reserve banking; usury; Jewish cultural subversion of Christian and Islamic influence; and every other corresponding cancer of the New World Order. Out of short-term tragedy will emerge an aftermath in this present world with renewed reason for hope and life once more, or the Eschaton itself.
Yet the chief beneficiaries and apologists for The Beast will not go down without a fight. There are three (3) prime examples of this currently manifesting their poison-for-pay agenda in the interest of igniting a Zionist inspired Holocaust in Iran.
The first example comes from the Rotund Reaper of Deception himself, John Hagee, whose Christians United for Israel sponsored a March 28 airing of the agitation-propaganda film Iranium at the University of Texas in San Antonio about the alleged threat to the West posed by a weaponized Iranian nuclear program. The claims of the film are a repudiation of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the subject produced by America’s 16 intelligence agencies, and what has emerged from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well. One of the film’s chief spokespersons is Clair Lopez of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Iran Policy Committee (IPC), the chief PR arm of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) in Washington. Ms. Lopez and IPC chief Dr. Raymond Tanter of Georgetown University are key links in a spider web of American intelligence front organizations with symbiotic links to the Israeli Mossad and a Jewish-driven Neo-Conservative movement which has hijacked the American Right and much of the national security apparatus of the United States as well.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Is it Time for Americans to Take up Arms?
What have things come down to when a mainstream democrat, reluctant “Obamacare” supporter tells you the guy he has voted for and, worst of all, may suggest voting for again, has lost his friggin’ mind?
When Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, apologizing for the sections that ended our constitution, civil trials, all human rights in America, I suspected something was going on I didn’t see. How could Obama do this? How could he break so many promises?
I remember 1999 when the Project for a New American Century called for a “New Pearl Harbour” and only a few months after they get into office, an illegal act on a 5/4 Supreme Court vote in itself, the World Trade Center is blown up and the Pentagon attacked.
Anyone who still believes any of that is coincidence, please go elsewhere.
Then we get a new law, it allows the government to arrest demonstrators at locations it deems “government related?” Are we talking Dick Cheney’s heart transplant party here? With no hard definition, this is martial law. Even with one, it is blatantly unconstitutional, same as with the NDAA.
Then the Supreme Court decides to allow police to strip search anyone, anywhere for any reason. If this isn’t considered unconstitutional, remember the language, “unreasonable search,” I don’t know what is?
Then we have the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, a name I find offensive, buying 750,000,000 rounds of .40 cal hollow point ammunition. Who for?
When Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, apologizing for the sections that ended our constitution, civil trials, all human rights in America, I suspected something was going on I didn’t see. How could Obama do this? How could he break so many promises?
I remember 1999 when the Project for a New American Century called for a “New Pearl Harbour” and only a few months after they get into office, an illegal act on a 5/4 Supreme Court vote in itself, the World Trade Center is blown up and the Pentagon attacked.
Anyone who still believes any of that is coincidence, please go elsewhere.
Then we get a new law, it allows the government to arrest demonstrators at locations it deems “government related?” Are we talking Dick Cheney’s heart transplant party here? With no hard definition, this is martial law. Even with one, it is blatantly unconstitutional, same as with the NDAA.
Then the Supreme Court decides to allow police to strip search anyone, anywhere for any reason. If this isn’t considered unconstitutional, remember the language, “unreasonable search,” I don’t know what is?
Then we have the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, a name I find offensive, buying 750,000,000 rounds of .40 cal hollow point ammunition. Who for?
Expect War. It's Coming
When Washington plans regime change, wars are waged if other methods fail.
For over a year, Western-generated violence ravaged Syria. Assad remains firmly in control. As a result, expect war. All signs suggest it.
Annan's so-called peace plan is sham cover for what's planned. A longstanding imperial tool, he's part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of pointing fingers the right way, he blames Syria for insurgent crimes.
So does Ban Ki-moon, calling Assad "fully accountable for grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law." He added that government forces are using the so-called April 10 halt to violence deadline as an "excuse" to increase it.
Assad deplores it and accepted deadline terms provided both sides comply. Under orders, Western-controlled insurgents refuse. Peace and stability assure status quo conditions Washington rejects. Regime change requires violence, the more the better.
On April 8, Itar-Tass headlined, "Syrian opposition refuses to give authorities guarantees on ceasefire," saying:
Free Syrian Army (FSA) commander Colonel Riad al-Asaad said the FSA "does not recognize the (Assad) regime and will not give any guarantees."
Disingenuously he added that if government forces withdraw from cities, they'll lay down arms. Doing so lets insurgents regain control over areas they previously held. Letting them assures continued violence, including appalling atrocities.
For over a year, Western-generated violence ravaged Syria. Assad remains firmly in control. As a result, expect war. All signs suggest it.
Annan's so-called peace plan is sham cover for what's planned. A longstanding imperial tool, he's part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of pointing fingers the right way, he blames Syria for insurgent crimes.
So does Ban Ki-moon, calling Assad "fully accountable for grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law." He added that government forces are using the so-called April 10 halt to violence deadline as an "excuse" to increase it.
Assad deplores it and accepted deadline terms provided both sides comply. Under orders, Western-controlled insurgents refuse. Peace and stability assure status quo conditions Washington rejects. Regime change requires violence, the more the better.
On April 8, Itar-Tass headlined, "Syrian opposition refuses to give authorities guarantees on ceasefire," saying:
Free Syrian Army (FSA) commander Colonel Riad al-Asaad said the FSA "does not recognize the (Assad) regime and will not give any guarantees."
Disingenuously he added that if government forces withdraw from cities, they'll lay down arms. Doing so lets insurgents regain control over areas they previously held. Letting them assures continued violence, including appalling atrocities.
The Babylonian Captivity of Washington
The most troubling prerogative of modern government is the ability of the sovereign or head of state to go to war. War means death, debt, and, if the decision is a bad one, the very end of civil society and the prevailing political order. Because war is potentially so terrible, a number of nations have curtailed the ability of the executive authority to make such a decision without first satisfying conditions imposed through constitutional and other political restraints. It is perhaps ironic that the world’s oldest republic, the United States, has ignored its own constitution to grant to the president the authority to enter into armed conflict through the simple expedient of not actually declaring war. America has been de facto at war continuously since 2001 and the recent National Defense Authorization Act has codified an unending conflict in which the whole world is a battlefield and everyone in it is a potential enemy combatant subject to no constitutional or legal protection.
Many critics of the perennially lopsided relationship that the United States enjoys with Israel have noted a disturbing shift in the relationship during the first three years of the Obama Administration. To be sure, Obama appears to genuinely dislike Israel’s arrogant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sentiment that is fully reciprocated. But Obama is bound hand and foot into an engagement with Israel in which he lacks leverage over what might or might not take place. Even George W. Bush was able to say no to Israel when it was mooted that Tel Aviv might attack Iran, but Obama has painted himself into a corner where the United States has little influence over what might occur. Whether the Obama reticence is due to the control exercised by his Chicago billionaire patrons, the Crown and Pritzker families, both of which are strong supporters of the Middle East status quo, or whether it is just a more generalized fear about what might happen in the upcoming national elections, the result has been paralysis in Washington. Recent war games conducted by the Pentagon have confirmed that a new conflict with Iran started by Israel would quickly draw the United States in and would become regional in nature. The war would not produce a good result for anyone involved and would be particularly bad for the United States, which would again slide into deep recession as energy prices soar.
So Israel can start a war and the United States can do nothing to stop it and will become a major victim of whatever plays out. If that is true, why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? The account of the disturbing Pentagon war games did indeed appear in the New York Times and was picked up in a number of other places, but it quickly died out, as always happens with stories that are critical of Israel and its policies. Supporters of Israel might also be quick to note that the hue and cry against another war is largely coming from the usual suspects who are philosophically opposed to interventionism, including supporters of Ron Paul and a number of contributors to this website. But given their underlying pretense that the US is supporting Israel due to its own national interests, perhaps they should take another look at a document that recently surfaced on WikiLeaks. The document enables one to better understand that where Israel leads in foreign and security policy the United States will inevitably follow.
The summary of the Secret message, which I reproduce in full, is:
"SECRET cable from U.S. Embassy, Tel Aviv, dated 12 December 2009.
"1. (S) Summary: Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher visited Israel December 1-2. U/S Tauscher focused her visit on setting the stage for a successful Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon) in May 2010. She consulted with GOI interlocutors on potential strategy in addressing Egyptian insistence on pushing for the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, as a way to divert attention from Iran to Israel. U/S Tauscher reiterated that the United States will not take any action to compromise Israel’s security and would consult closely with Israel — which GOI officials greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, U/S Tauscher said the United States is interested in exploring possible small steps involving Israel to address some of Egypt’s NWFZ concerns regarding the lack of implementation of the 1995 resolution. GOI officials for the most part were critical of these tactics, questioning why Israel should be portrayed as part of the problem. They recommended a more direct approach to President Mubarak – thereby circumventing the Egyptian MFA — in which Egypt is reminded that Iran is the regional nuclear threat. Other topics discussed include President Obama’s arms control and nonproliferation agenda, the P5 1 process and Iran’s nuclear program, the FMCT and CTBT, Jordan’s plans for a nuclear reactor, and Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME)."
Many critics of the perennially lopsided relationship that the United States enjoys with Israel have noted a disturbing shift in the relationship during the first three years of the Obama Administration. To be sure, Obama appears to genuinely dislike Israel’s arrogant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sentiment that is fully reciprocated. But Obama is bound hand and foot into an engagement with Israel in which he lacks leverage over what might or might not take place. Even George W. Bush was able to say no to Israel when it was mooted that Tel Aviv might attack Iran, but Obama has painted himself into a corner where the United States has little influence over what might occur. Whether the Obama reticence is due to the control exercised by his Chicago billionaire patrons, the Crown and Pritzker families, both of which are strong supporters of the Middle East status quo, or whether it is just a more generalized fear about what might happen in the upcoming national elections, the result has been paralysis in Washington. Recent war games conducted by the Pentagon have confirmed that a new conflict with Iran started by Israel would quickly draw the United States in and would become regional in nature. The war would not produce a good result for anyone involved and would be particularly bad for the United States, which would again slide into deep recession as energy prices soar.
So Israel can start a war and the United States can do nothing to stop it and will become a major victim of whatever plays out. If that is true, why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? The account of the disturbing Pentagon war games did indeed appear in the New York Times and was picked up in a number of other places, but it quickly died out, as always happens with stories that are critical of Israel and its policies. Supporters of Israel might also be quick to note that the hue and cry against another war is largely coming from the usual suspects who are philosophically opposed to interventionism, including supporters of Ron Paul and a number of contributors to this website. But given their underlying pretense that the US is supporting Israel due to its own national interests, perhaps they should take another look at a document that recently surfaced on WikiLeaks. The document enables one to better understand that where Israel leads in foreign and security policy the United States will inevitably follow.
The summary of the Secret message, which I reproduce in full, is:
"SECRET cable from U.S. Embassy, Tel Aviv, dated 12 December 2009.
"1. (S) Summary: Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher visited Israel December 1-2. U/S Tauscher focused her visit on setting the stage for a successful Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon) in May 2010. She consulted with GOI interlocutors on potential strategy in addressing Egyptian insistence on pushing for the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, as a way to divert attention from Iran to Israel. U/S Tauscher reiterated that the United States will not take any action to compromise Israel’s security and would consult closely with Israel — which GOI officials greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, U/S Tauscher said the United States is interested in exploring possible small steps involving Israel to address some of Egypt’s NWFZ concerns regarding the lack of implementation of the 1995 resolution. GOI officials for the most part were critical of these tactics, questioning why Israel should be portrayed as part of the problem. They recommended a more direct approach to President Mubarak – thereby circumventing the Egyptian MFA — in which Egypt is reminded that Iran is the regional nuclear threat. Other topics discussed include President Obama’s arms control and nonproliferation agenda, the P5 1 process and Iran’s nuclear program, the FMCT and CTBT, Jordan’s plans for a nuclear reactor, and Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME)."
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Putting Palestine back on the agenda
By asserting that Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence (a ludicrous assertion) and beating the drums for war with it, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has succeeded in getting Palestine off the political and mainstream media agenda and winning more time for Zionism to consolidate its occupation of the West Bank. (As Barak Ravid noted in an article for Ha’aretz, “The Presidential election season in the United States is obviously an especially good time to enlarge settlements in the West Bank and strike new roots in the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem.”)
Question: What can be done to put Palestine back on the agenda?
Answer: Close down the Palestinian Authority and by so doing make Israel fully responsible for its occupation.
As my regular readers know, I advocated this course of action many months ago, but the case for actually doing it has now been well made by Yossi Beilin, the Israeli who has worked harder than any other for real peace with the Palestinians. (Beilin served as a minster in the cabinets of three Israel Prime Ministers – Rabin, Peres and Barak; was the architect on the Israeli side of the Oslo peace process; worked on the Beilin-Abu Mazen talks between 1993 and 1995; and launched the Geneva Accord with Yasser Abed Rabbo in 2003. Incidentally, I agree with Beilin. The Oslo process was not doomed to failure from its beginning. As Arafat once said to me, it could have worked if Rabin had not been assassinated by a Zionist zealot and if the U.S. and other major powers had insisted that Israel honoured the commitments it made).
Beilin delivered his call for action in an open letter to Palestinian “President” Abbas published by Foreign Policy. It was headlined Dear Abu Mazen, End This Farce.
Question: What can be done to put Palestine back on the agenda?
Answer: Close down the Palestinian Authority and by so doing make Israel fully responsible for its occupation.
As my regular readers know, I advocated this course of action many months ago, but the case for actually doing it has now been well made by Yossi Beilin, the Israeli who has worked harder than any other for real peace with the Palestinians. (Beilin served as a minster in the cabinets of three Israel Prime Ministers – Rabin, Peres and Barak; was the architect on the Israeli side of the Oslo peace process; worked on the Beilin-Abu Mazen talks between 1993 and 1995; and launched the Geneva Accord with Yasser Abed Rabbo in 2003. Incidentally, I agree with Beilin. The Oslo process was not doomed to failure from its beginning. As Arafat once said to me, it could have worked if Rabin had not been assassinated by a Zionist zealot and if the U.S. and other major powers had insisted that Israel honoured the commitments it made).
Beilin delivered his call for action in an open letter to Palestinian “President” Abbas published by Foreign Policy. It was headlined Dear Abu Mazen, End This Farce.
The Afghan Syndrome
Take off your hat. Taps is playing. Almost four decades late, the Vietnam War and its postwar spawn, the Vietnam Syndrome, are finally heading for their American grave. It may qualify as the longest attempted burial in history. Last words — both eulogies and curses — have been offered too many times to mention, and yet no American administration found the silver bullet that would put that war away for keeps.
Richard Nixon tried to get rid of it while it was still going on by “Vietnamizing” it. Seven years after it ended, Ronald Reagan tried to praise it into the dustbin of history, hailing it as “a noble cause.” Instead, it morphed from a defeat in the imperium into a “syndrome,” an unhealthy aversion to war-making believed to afflict the American people to their core.
A decade later, after the U.S. military smashed Saddam Hussein’s army in Kuwait in the First Gulf War, George H.W. Bush exulted that the country had finally “kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.” As it turned out, despite the organization of massive “victory parades” at home to prove that this hadn’t been Vietnam redux, that war kicked back. Another decade passed and there were H.W.’s son W. and his advisers planning the invasion of Iraq through a haze of Vietnam-constrained obsessions.
W.’s top officials and the Pentagon would actually organize the public relations aspect of that invasion and the occupation that followed as a Vietnam opposite’s game — no “body counts” to turn off the public, plenty of embedded reporters so that journalists couldn’t roam free and (as in Vietnam) harm the war effort, and so on. The one thing they weren’t going to do was lose another war the way Vietnam had been lost. Yet they managed once again to bog the U.S. military down in disaster on the Eurasian mainland, could barely manage to win a heart or a mind, and even began issuing body counts of the enemy dead.
“We don’t do body counts,” General Tommy Franks, Afghan War commander, had insisted in 2001, and as late as November 2006, the president was still expressing his irritation about Iraq to a group of conservative news columnists this way: “We don’t get to say that — a thousand of the enemy killed or whatever the number was. It’s happening. You just don’t know it.” The problem, he explained, was: “We have made a conscious effort not to be a body count team” (à la Vietnam). And then, of course, those body counts began appearing.
Richard Nixon tried to get rid of it while it was still going on by “Vietnamizing” it. Seven years after it ended, Ronald Reagan tried to praise it into the dustbin of history, hailing it as “a noble cause.” Instead, it morphed from a defeat in the imperium into a “syndrome,” an unhealthy aversion to war-making believed to afflict the American people to their core.
A decade later, after the U.S. military smashed Saddam Hussein’s army in Kuwait in the First Gulf War, George H.W. Bush exulted that the country had finally “kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.” As it turned out, despite the organization of massive “victory parades” at home to prove that this hadn’t been Vietnam redux, that war kicked back. Another decade passed and there were H.W.’s son W. and his advisers planning the invasion of Iraq through a haze of Vietnam-constrained obsessions.
W.’s top officials and the Pentagon would actually organize the public relations aspect of that invasion and the occupation that followed as a Vietnam opposite’s game — no “body counts” to turn off the public, plenty of embedded reporters so that journalists couldn’t roam free and (as in Vietnam) harm the war effort, and so on. The one thing they weren’t going to do was lose another war the way Vietnam had been lost. Yet they managed once again to bog the U.S. military down in disaster on the Eurasian mainland, could barely manage to win a heart or a mind, and even began issuing body counts of the enemy dead.
“We don’t do body counts,” General Tommy Franks, Afghan War commander, had insisted in 2001, and as late as November 2006, the president was still expressing his irritation about Iraq to a group of conservative news columnists this way: “We don’t get to say that — a thousand of the enemy killed or whatever the number was. It’s happening. You just don’t know it.” The problem, he explained, was: “We have made a conscious effort not to be a body count team” (à la Vietnam). And then, of course, those body counts began appearing.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Secret US-Israeli accord lets Iran keep low 3.5 enriched uranium
Debkafile’s Washington sources disclose exclusively that the Obama administration and Netanyahu government have secretly agreed on “Formula of 1,000” as their final concession at the end of the forthcoming Six Power nuclear talks with Iran which starts Saturday, April 14. In substance, this formula would let Iran keep 1,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium up to 3.5 percent and stock 1,000 kilograms of the same grade uranium while, aside from a small amount for medical research, giving up its store of 20-percent grade uranium which can be jumped quickly to weapon quality.
US sources told debkafile that Russia and China have accepted the deal.
According to our Iranian sources, Tehran was informed of this formula through its back-channel contacts with Washington (which debkafile has been tracking since mid-February). That is why in Iranian public statements in the last couple of days have harped on the issue of uranium enriched to 20 percent. US-Israeli permission to keep 3.5 percent grade is in the bag before the talks begin, so Iran is treating it as the starting-point for bargaining, not the end result, and concentrating on raising the ante through the negotiating process to come.
The concession Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made to the Obama administration, to let Iran to continue to enrich uranium, has not been brought before any Israeli government or military forum. Their remarks Sunday, April 8, conveyed the mistaken impression that there were at odds on the nuclear issue in the run-up to international talks.
Netanyahu said Israel would satisfied with nothing less than the total discontinuance of uranium enrichment and the removal of all quantities out of Iran, while Barak’s words came closer to the secret deal with Washington when he spoke of consenting to Iran continuing to produce low-enriched uranium and holding on to a few hundred kilos.
US sources told debkafile that Russia and China have accepted the deal.
According to our Iranian sources, Tehran was informed of this formula through its back-channel contacts with Washington (which debkafile has been tracking since mid-February). That is why in Iranian public statements in the last couple of days have harped on the issue of uranium enriched to 20 percent. US-Israeli permission to keep 3.5 percent grade is in the bag before the talks begin, so Iran is treating it as the starting-point for bargaining, not the end result, and concentrating on raising the ante through the negotiating process to come.
The concession Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak made to the Obama administration, to let Iran to continue to enrich uranium, has not been brought before any Israeli government or military forum. Their remarks Sunday, April 8, conveyed the mistaken impression that there were at odds on the nuclear issue in the run-up to international talks.
Netanyahu said Israel would satisfied with nothing less than the total discontinuance of uranium enrichment and the removal of all quantities out of Iran, while Barak’s words came closer to the secret deal with Washington when he spoke of consenting to Iran continuing to produce low-enriched uranium and holding on to a few hundred kilos.
J Street and the Israeli Lobby
“J Street supporters are pro-peace first and pro-Israel second” is the criticism of hard-line Zionists and their allies in Washington. It well describes the growing fault lines in the Jewish community with those who want peace for Israel’s and America’s own long-term interests. Aggressive new settlements, international opprobrium, and unending, costly conflicts have lost Israel most of its worldwide support. As all-powerful and intimidating as AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, still appears, Jewish attacks are weakening it, even as Congress still trembles and Republican presidential candidates grovel before it. Its power is now being challenged as never before. Indeed, AIPAC’s leadership already only speaks for a minority of Jews, especially old ones, according to many participants at the conference. Today it increasingly depends upon the support of two main allies, the military-industrial complex and Christian Zionist millenarians.
Polls already show that a majority of American and Israeli Jews want peace and the removal of most of the settlements, and they support a viable Palestinian state. Israel’s Likud government, which long viewed J Street as a nuisance, this time felt compelled to send an emissary, Deputy Head of Mission Baruch Binah, to address its third gala dinner at Washington’s giant convention center last March 26.
J Street’s motto of “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, Pro-Two States,” its open discussion of Palestinian suffering and rights, its espousal of Jewish values of humanism: they are all anathema to Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, to the subsidized settlers on the West Bank, and to American evangelicals wanting chaos and wars to hurry up God’s agenda for destruction and their longed-for Second Coming. Many of the panels dealt with the conflicts among American Jews in criticizing Israel’s occupation policies. Author Peter Beinart, a keynote speaker, argued that younger American Jews are simply turning off from the unending conflict and brutalities of the occupation, which itself is severely morally corrupting for Israel, and that Zionism, to regain its moral standing and legitimacy, must reach a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. He states in his book The Crisis of Zionism that AIPAC’s first allegiance is to the Israeli government, not to the Zionist ideals upon which Israel was founded. He and other speakers warned that Jews never in their history have had such political power as in America, but that they need to learn how to use it justly and wisely. In Jewish circles there’s an expression, “Is it good for the Jews?” Unspoken is the fear that abuse of their power could backfire with untoward consequences, as history attests.
J Street, barely four years old, hosted a conference of 2,500 attendees. This compares to 50 year old AIPAC, the most powerful lobby in America, which had 13,000 participants at its recent meeting. J Street now counts 180,000 members. The conference was sponsored by 41 major Jewish organizations and included students from 100 countries, 700 rabbis, and 60 members of Congress at the final banquet. There were some 30 panels, lectures, and training sessions.
Polls already show that a majority of American and Israeli Jews want peace and the removal of most of the settlements, and they support a viable Palestinian state. Israel’s Likud government, which long viewed J Street as a nuisance, this time felt compelled to send an emissary, Deputy Head of Mission Baruch Binah, to address its third gala dinner at Washington’s giant convention center last March 26.
J Street’s motto of “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, Pro-Two States,” its open discussion of Palestinian suffering and rights, its espousal of Jewish values of humanism: they are all anathema to Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, to the subsidized settlers on the West Bank, and to American evangelicals wanting chaos and wars to hurry up God’s agenda for destruction and their longed-for Second Coming. Many of the panels dealt with the conflicts among American Jews in criticizing Israel’s occupation policies. Author Peter Beinart, a keynote speaker, argued that younger American Jews are simply turning off from the unending conflict and brutalities of the occupation, which itself is severely morally corrupting for Israel, and that Zionism, to regain its moral standing and legitimacy, must reach a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. He states in his book The Crisis of Zionism that AIPAC’s first allegiance is to the Israeli government, not to the Zionist ideals upon which Israel was founded. He and other speakers warned that Jews never in their history have had such political power as in America, but that they need to learn how to use it justly and wisely. In Jewish circles there’s an expression, “Is it good for the Jews?” Unspoken is the fear that abuse of their power could backfire with untoward consequences, as history attests.
J Street, barely four years old, hosted a conference of 2,500 attendees. This compares to 50 year old AIPAC, the most powerful lobby in America, which had 13,000 participants at its recent meeting. J Street now counts 180,000 members. The conference was sponsored by 41 major Jewish organizations and included students from 100 countries, 700 rabbis, and 60 members of Congress at the final banquet. There were some 30 panels, lectures, and training sessions.
Japan is Poisoning Other Countries By Burning Highly-Radioactive Debris
Fukushima to Burn Highly-Radioactive Debris
Fukushima will start burning radioactive debris containing up to 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram. As Mainchi notes:
The state will start building storage facilities for debris generated by the March 2011 tsunami as early as May at two locations in a coastal area of Naraha town, Fukushima Prefecture, Environment Ministry and town officials said Saturday.
About 25,000 tons of debris are expected to be brought into the facilities beginning in the summer, according to the officials.
If more than 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium are found per kilogram of debris, the debris will be transferred to a medium-term storage facility to be built by the state. But if burnable debris contains 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium or less, it may be disposed of at a temporary incinerator to be built within the prefecture, according to the officials.
Within the 20-km-radius no-go zone spanning across Naraha and five other municipalities along the coast, debris caused by the magnitude 9.0 quake and the subsequent tsunami has amounted to an estimated 474,000 tons, much of remaining where it is.
How much radiation is that?
Fukushima will start burning radioactive debris containing up to 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram. As Mainchi notes:
The state will start building storage facilities for debris generated by the March 2011 tsunami as early as May at two locations in a coastal area of Naraha town, Fukushima Prefecture, Environment Ministry and town officials said Saturday.
About 25,000 tons of debris are expected to be brought into the facilities beginning in the summer, according to the officials.
If more than 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium are found per kilogram of debris, the debris will be transferred to a medium-term storage facility to be built by the state. But if burnable debris contains 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium or less, it may be disposed of at a temporary incinerator to be built within the prefecture, according to the officials.
Within the 20-km-radius no-go zone spanning across Naraha and five other municipalities along the coast, debris caused by the magnitude 9.0 quake and the subsequent tsunami has amounted to an estimated 474,000 tons, much of remaining where it is.
How much radiation is that?
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Hunger Games as a Metaphor for the Warfare State
Much has been written about The Hunger Games and many of the underlying libertarian themes in that story. Jeffrey Tucker recently described the similarity between the fictional games and voting. Brent Railey noted just the other day the realities of the black market springing up to provide what the state can’t, or won’t, and the futility in relying on political figures for salvation. A co-worker of mine suggested that another lesson is that when fighting one evil, it’s important not to become just as evil yourself; a lesson from later in the series. In this essay I’d like to draw attention to the allegory of the games and the modern warfare state.
Briefly, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the trilogy, here’s the background. North America has descended into a full-blown totalitarian state, with the people forced to live in virtual internment camps. The citizens of each region, or district, work as slaves to the Capitol, providing such goods as coal, seafood, or electronics.
In order to maintain control over the people and remind them of their impotence, a group of teens is selected each year to fight in a gladiatorial arena. The event, called the Hunger Games, is televised for the entertainment of those in the Capitol, and the punishment of those in the various districts. A rebellion ensues and, well, you ought to just read the series.
So right off the bat it’s pretty clear: An impoverished underclass, already forced to pay tribute to the government, has its youth pressed into violent service by the wealthy and politically powerful, for the entertainment and enrichment of this ruling elite. This pretty well describes the nation-state in virtually all times and all places, but it goes far beyond this.
The next similarity one finds is the way in which children are selected for the games: a draft. Each child’s name is placed in a bowl, and a representative from the Capitol draws the "winner." There is a slight twist, one that makes the process even more similar to the actual draft. Each child may be entered additional times in exchange for greater food rations for their family.
Briefly, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the trilogy, here’s the background. North America has descended into a full-blown totalitarian state, with the people forced to live in virtual internment camps. The citizens of each region, or district, work as slaves to the Capitol, providing such goods as coal, seafood, or electronics.
In order to maintain control over the people and remind them of their impotence, a group of teens is selected each year to fight in a gladiatorial arena. The event, called the Hunger Games, is televised for the entertainment of those in the Capitol, and the punishment of those in the various districts. A rebellion ensues and, well, you ought to just read the series.
So right off the bat it’s pretty clear: An impoverished underclass, already forced to pay tribute to the government, has its youth pressed into violent service by the wealthy and politically powerful, for the entertainment and enrichment of this ruling elite. This pretty well describes the nation-state in virtually all times and all places, but it goes far beyond this.
The next similarity one finds is the way in which children are selected for the games: a draft. Each child’s name is placed in a bowl, and a representative from the Capitol draws the "winner." There is a slight twist, one that makes the process even more similar to the actual draft. Each child may be entered additional times in exchange for greater food rations for their family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)