Can the US Starve Hezbollah of Funds?

October 8th, 2019 by Elijah J. Magnier

Over the years, researchers have copied and parroted inaccurate declassified US intelligence reports on Hezbollah’s sources of income around the world. These documents claim Hezbollah lives off selling smuggled cigarettes and illegally copied CDs or on income generated by selling drugs in Latin America and around the world. The US also accuses Hezbollah of profiting from commercial or business projects abroad and of having bank accounts worldwide. These claims were pretexts for the US to impose sanctions on the group and confiscate foreign accounts that, in reality, did not belong to Hezbollah. When all attempts to curb Hezbollah’s finances failed, a few options remained to the US government.

One was to prevent Khums (tithes, a religious obligation referring to one fifth, or 20%, of acquired wealth at the end of a fiscal year) paid by Shia immigrants from reaching Hezbollah. Another was to impose heavy sanctions on Iran, Hezbollah’s main ally and financial provider. And the last was to impose sanctions on Shia individuals and banks in Lebanon dealing with Hezbollah ministers or members of parliament or other wealthy Shia with close ties to the organisation.

The objective was to push Shia society -which represents a third of the entire Lebanese population – to distance itself from Hezbollah. The US aims to break the policy of unity approved by the parliament, the council of ministers and the President, which calls for the solidarity of “the Army, the People and the Resistance” against any Israeli aggression on Lebanon. Can the US succeed in undermining the status of Hezbollah in Lebanese society, and in neutralising its finances?

Lebanese Hezbollah is a quasi-state actor, with 73 members of parliament and 18 members of the council of ministers in its camp. Its legitimacy is ensured by the legislative and executive authorities, along with a significant part of the security forces and the majority of the Shia that represent a bit less than a third of the population. Both President Michel Aoun and the pro-US Prime Minister, the dual nationality holder (Lebanese and Saudi) Saad Hariri, reasserted very recently Lebanon’s right to retaliate against Israel for sending two suicide drones into a suburb of Beirut, violating the cessation of hostilities agreed within the UN resolution 1701 following the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. The Lebanese officials referred to Hezbollah when expressing “Lebanon’s right to retaliate” and waved this card in the face of international community representatives who were trying to convince the Lebanese of the validity and effectiveness of a “soft response” to Israel.

Notwithstanding the domestic legitimacy that protects Hezbollah’s existence and operation, is it possible for the US to impoverish Hezbollah, and how?

According to the latest visitor to Lebanon, Israeli-born US Treasury Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker, Iran “provides $700 million a year to Hezbollah”, that is around $60 million monthly. If we assume this figure is correct, the quasi-state actor families and militants are spending tens of millions of dollars monthly in Lebanon, boosting its economy. Hezbollah pays “Huquq” (a term indicating payment of salaries) to its tens of thousands of members and provides full medical coverage to its members and their families. It invests money locally on artificial wells – to combat the scarcity of drinking water – and on other basic infrastructure needs the local government has failed to provide for decades. Lack of government attention, services and lack of protection for its population have given Hezbollah fertile ground to replace the Lebanese government role in many areas.

Hezbollah’s budget has been provided by Iranian crude oil for months. Iran considers Hezbollah not only as part of its national security but as an inseparable member of its body. Therefore, the US will need to close the tap of every single oil well in Iran to stop income from reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran has managed to sell hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily despite the harsh US sanctions. Hezbollah takes its share of oil and sells it in the market at low prices. If Hezbollah receives $700 million yearly, it needs between 1.2 million barrels of oil per month to cover all expenses. That is an easy task to undertake since Hezbollah is present in Syria and Iraq, enjoying support among officials and among the population.

Even if falling short, the money Hezbollah is bringing to Lebanon – slightly less than one billion dollars per year – is contributing to the Lebanese economy. The country is suffering an acute financial crisis due to decades of corruption and the turbulent domestic economic system, which does not protect local industry and agriculture. Lebanon over-relies on tourism, a limited sector, and one that is easily affected by rumours of war in the region.

The US is now targeting the Lebanese banking system, one of the rare systems still working in the country. It has closed two major banks so far and imposed harsh measures on internal procedures and money transfers and has requested the closure of accounts related to individuals connected to Hezbollah in any way. The US administration is actually running the Lebanese banking system from Washington. The Central Bank of Lebanon is totally obedient to any US request, fearing a devaluation of the local currency or the collapse of Lebanese banks if targeted by the US.

Regardless of this grim picture, since the declaration of Hezbollah’s first memorandum in 1985 and its first unification in 1992, the Huquq has reached Hezbollah regularly, and never missed one single payment even if sometimes delayed for between four to six months.  Hezbollah continues to increase the number of recruits among its ranks. It is still paying Huquq (salaries) even if in some months these payments are divided into several instalments throughout the month or even delayed for a month or two.

The members of the organisation are not considered as employees in a bank or in any other civilian company to regulate payment of salaries. On the other hand, many Lebanese companies, including the ones owned by the Prime Minister, have closed their doors, refrained from paying their employees and dismissed their employees for lack of job opportunities in the country.

Hezbollah is a group fighting for its survival and for the protection of a society that would otherwise be unable to defend itself, its family members, and its wealth in the face of Israel’s many wars and the violation of its sovereignty. Hezbollah found fertile ground because it operates in the absence of any action by the Lebanese authorities against the Israeli occupation.

Since the liberation of Lebanon’s territory from Israeli occupation, Lebanese officials have relied on Hezbollah’s military capability in negotiations with US officials when defending the land and water rights of Lebanon. Hezbollah’s sophisticated military apparatus is also a deterrent to prevent Israel from further attacking Lebanon and to discourage a fourth war against the country.

It is inevitable that both Iran and Hezbollah be suffering the consequences of the US’s aggressive sanctions. Hezbollah used to get around 70% of its financial needs from Iran and the remaining 30% from Lebanese immigrants who volunteered to transfer their Khums to Lebanon.

Today, Hezbollah has taken its distance from these immigrants and rejected their donations in order to prevent any US aggressive action against them. The US administration considers any donor or any affluent Shia who transfers money to his family back in Lebanon as a potential Hezbollah member, eligible for prison. With the Lebanese family composition, most Shia families have relatives – a brother, a cousin or a family member – within the organisation. That doesn’t mean every single family member is a Hezbollah operative – but the West refuses to accept the complexity of the issue, apparently ,“as a matter of convenience”.

The US administration is attempting to create a split between Hezbollah and Lebanese society. The first measure was to try to strangle the Shia community in Lebanon and turn it against Hezbollah: to no avail. The bond is too strong to be seriously affected by such meddling. The US seems unaware that Hezbollah members and their families are not a foreign body but represent almost a third of the local population. Many of these depend today on Hezbollah, financially.

The US aims to teach the Lebanese a lesson for standing behind Hezbollah, particularly in the Lebanese-Israeli territorial and water dispute. The US administration would lift all sanctions on Lebanon if an agreement were reached with Israel whereby Lebanon gives up part of its oil-rich blocks on the borders.

The US administration tried to blame Syria for the current Lebanese financial crisis, accusing the Levant of absorbing the region’s dollars to the detriment of Lebanon. But Washington is unaware that Syria has an excess of foreign currency due to the billions of dollars its Gulf allies (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) and Israel have spent to destabilise the country. Jihadists and rebels exchanged their dollars for the Syrian Lira, boosting the Syrian Central Bank’s wealth in dollars. Notwithstanding the fact that the Americans are exerting all sorts of pressure on Jordan and Iraq to keep their borders closed to Syrian goods, in consequence of the Lebanese production Syria supports Hezbollah financially, advancing dollars to its strategic ally in cash when in need. This is another obstacle to the US’s efforts to impoverish Hezbollah.

Lebanon has received visits from Marshall Billingslea, the US assistant secretary of the Treasury, head of the office of terrorism and financial crimes, David Schenker, US assistant secretary for near eastern affairs, David Hill, the under-secretary for political affairs, Ambassador David Satterfield, acting assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State. They all apparently advocated “fighting Hezbollah and its influence on Lebanon”. In reality, they all discussed first and foremost the security of Israel and how a solution can be reached to meet Israel’s demands in the disputed maritime area. There are between 500 to 600 square kilometres Israel claims as its own maritime borders that Lebanon controls and considers its own. The US is ready to disregard Hezbollah’s activities and lift all sanctions if a satisfactory deal is reached with Israel, said sources within the group of Lebanese decision makers and negotiators who met US officials over recent months.

Billingslea said recently that “Hezbollah is a cancer and therefore should be starved[of energy]. It is the duty of the Lebanese political system to unite against Hezbollah and the threat it represents to democracy and to the safety of the Lebanese government”. The US official overlooks the fact that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and the political system!

The US official said that “the US and its allies are not responsible for taking upon themselves the responsibility for stopping Hezbollah; it is up to the Lebanese people to protect democracy in their country”.

Billingslea may well be unaware that the vast majority of the Lebanese population stands by Hezbollah. There is no doubt there are Lebanese within the political system who are powerless but loyal to the US. Hezbollah speaks and acts in the name of those who voted for it during the last Parliamentary democratic elections.

No ruler among Trump’s allies in the Middle East represents a true democracy. Perhaps the US official aims to transform Lebanon into a system more comparable to its neighbours. US pressure on Lebanon to bow to Israel’s interests is far from democratic. Billingslea’s incoherent narrative betrays even more of the US’s fragile aims and objectives in Lebanon.

Washington is showing little creativity in trying to curb Lebanon and many of its wealthy people, rather than attacking Hezbollah directly or even Iran, its financier.

Hezbollah is aware that the US and its allies are trying to win in a time of relative peace what they failed to achieve in their war on Lebanon (2006) and on Syria (from 2011 to date), in order to curb the “Axis of the Resistance”. The strength of this Axis has been demonstrated in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. US pressure on Lebanon may well backfire and spark an ugly and unexpected situation that even Washington may not be ready or willing to face. Hezbollah is contemplating ways to respond to the US and its allies. How can it defend the Shia Lebanese, however unrelated to Hezbollah, who pay the price for US interference?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Shutterstock/Gabirelle Pedrini. Hezbollah’s supporters at Liberation Day, Bint Jbeil, Lebanon, 25 May 2014.

Video: Idlib Militants Retreating to Turkish Border

October 8th, 2019 by South Front

On October 5, the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out airstrikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near the town of Ballisa and Agr Hilltop in southern Idlib. The strikes eliminated at least 9 militants and became a logical continuation of the recent increase of intensity of strikes by the Syrian Air Force in northwestern Hama and northern Lattakia.

In the period from October 3 to October 6, Syrian helicopters delivered over 30 strikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, Horas al-Din and other al-Qaeda-linked groups. Additionally, on October 6, rocket and artillery systems of the Syrian Army shelled militants near al-Zainah, located west of the militant stronghold of Jisr al-Shughur.

The Syrian-Russian strikes in the southern part of the Idlib zone, and the loss of underground infrastructure in the towns of Khan Shaykhun and al-Lataminah liberated by the Syrian Army in August forced Idlib militants to adapt their approach.

According to videos appearing online, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is transferring its weapons depots, including those containing Grad rockets and mortar shells, to the border with Turkey. One of locations of militants’ weapon depots is the Bab al-Hawa border crossing. Radicals hope that their weapons and ammunition depots will be safer closer to positions of the Turkish military.

Watch the video here.

Syria and Russia are constructing a permanent bridge between the eastern and western banks of the Euphrates in western Deir Ezzor. Syrian personnel are working under the supervision of Russian engineers. Russian Special Forces troops are deployed to secure construction works. The bridge is set to be completed by the end of October.

Russia’s NTV TV channel reported that the bridge will be used to improve the humanitarian situation in the area and provide aid to people remaining on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, most of which is controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.

Tensions between the US and Turkey are once again growing over the situation in northeastern Syria. On October 5, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that his country is not satisfied by the implementation progress of the ‘safe zone’ agreement with the US and Ankara is ready to launch a military operation to fight “terrorists” in northeastern Syria.

Turkey sees Kurdish militias, which are the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, as terrorist groups. The Turkish-US ‘safe zone’ agreement was intended to address Turkish security concerns removing US-backed Kurdish militias from the border with Turkey. However, it seems that Washington is not hurrying up to do so. This behavior is setting ground for further tensions in the region.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The deepening conflict over the impeachment of President Donald Trump is a struggle between factions of the capitalist ruling class and its governmental apparatus. The fight is fundamentally over which side will exercise control over the state and government with all the power and wealth that confers.

The announcement of an impeachment inquiry was made by Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi on September 24. It followed the revelation that a “whistleblower” complaint had been filed in regard to a July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine. The “whistleblower” was later identified as a CIA operative, but the complaint is widely understood to be a collective product of numerous intelligence agents.

There is no “progressive” side in this struggle. As was the case of Nixon in 1974, the very structure of impeachment focuses all attention on what is going on inside the so-called “hallowed halls” of Congress, relegating popular movements to the sidelines.

The Trump regime is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-labor, anti-homeless and more. Every day, Trump’s functionaries are carrying out assaults on hard-won people’s rights and the planet itself.

Yet instead of resisting these attacks, the Democratic party leadership in Congress is focusing all of its energy on impeaching Trump, on the grounds that he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election. The Democrat leaders see this as a kind of line of least resistance, and one that doesn’t require challenging the corporate interests that are represented by and fund both of the major capitalist parties.

What actually happened on the phone call

In a July 25 phone call with recently elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump first complains that European Union countries are not doing enough to help Ukraine while the United States is providing support. Then he suggests that Zelensky help in an investigation of Crowdstrike, the private cyber security company that told the FBI that it was the Russians who hacked the Democratic Party National Committee servers in 2016.

Since the Mueller report was released in August 2019 and concluded that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia, both Trump and Attorney General William Barr have embarked on an international campaign to uncover the origins of the Russia-Trump collusion hoax. The transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call released by the White House on September 25 records Trump saying to Zelensky,

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

After inquiring about Crowdstrike, Trump asks Zelensky to help in an investigation into Hunter Biden and his father, former Vice-President Joe Biden.

“The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution [related to the corporation that gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board of directors — ed.] and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

The Democrats decided to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump, on the eve of a presidential election, based on this call.

The Democrats didn’t object when Trump was twisting the arm, bullying and threatening other heads of state to stop buying oil from Iran or recognizing the elected government of Venezuela or importing natural gas from Russia. But we are told that his “bullying” of Zelensky constitutes an intolerable and impeachable abuse of authority. It is an abuse of authority but so was the Obama Administration’s covert and overt operations to topple the democratically elected government in Ukraine in 2014.

Trump’s request for an investigation of the Bidens’ conduct in Ukraine is clearly an abuse of authority but not likely to lead to Trump’s ouster, barring more explosive revelations. Were Trump to be impeached by a majority vote in the House of Representatives, he would then face trial before the Senate. There a two-thirds majority, 67 senators, would have to vote for conviction. There are 53 Republican and 47 Democratic senators at present.

Trump, the Bidens and Ukraine

In his July 25 phone conversation with Zelensky, Trump spoke in the style of an imperial ruler addressing a colonial subject. The subject fawned mightily, lavishly praising the ruler and assuring him that he had stayed at Trump Tower when he was in New York.

How did the government in Kiev, 5,000 miles from Washington D.C., become a U.S. dependency?

The real answer, entirely absent from mainstream media coverage, is a searing indictment of Biden and other operatives of the national security apparatus during the Obama administration for crimes in Ukraine that far exceeded “conflicts of interest” or bullying.

In February 2014, State Department personnel worked together with right-wing and outright fascist elements to overthrow the elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, after months of increasingly violent demonstrations in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital. Yanukovich’s “crime” was seeking to to maintain a neutral position between Russia and the Western imperialist powers, a position that was entirely unacceptable to Washington.

The United States was seeking to continue the eastward march of NATO by bringing in Ukraine. Many former eastern European socialist countries and Soviet republics had already been incorporated into the U.S.-led alliance, but adding Ukraine would have been of particular importance, putting NATO bases and missiles in close proximity to Russia’s western heartland.

The U.S. commander-on-the-ground of the regime change operation was Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, working closely with then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. Nuland openly boasted that the United States had spent $5 billion bringing “democracy” to Ukraine. Appointed to oversee the coup and its aftermath on behalf of President Obama was none other than his vice president, Joe Biden.

Following are excerpts from a taped phone call between Nuland and Pyatt a few weeks before the coup that took place on February 24, 2014. The subject of the call was who Washington was selecting to be the new leader of Ukraine following the planned coup.

Victoria Nuland: What do you think?

Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.

Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess … in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader, a neo-Nazi] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the … what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in … he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

Regarding the attempt by the European Union, a U.S. “ally,” to negotiate an end the stalemate in Kiev, Nuland says, “F___ the EU.” Listen to the recording here or below.

After the coup and with the backing of the United States, Yatseniuk did indeed become the new President of Ukraine.

Biden continued to play a key role in the country after the coup. In August 2016, he described to Atlantic magazine how he had the country’s equivalent of Attorney General removed a year earlier:

“He described, for example, a meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko—whom he calls ‘Petro’—in which he urged Poroshenko to fire a corrupt prosecutor general or see the withdrawal of a promised $1 billion loan to Ukraine. ‘Petro, you’re not getting your billion dollars,’ Biden recalled telling him. ‘It’s OK, you can keep the [prosecutor] general. Just understand—we’re not paying if you do.’ Poroshenko fired the official.”

Just a few months after the 2014 coup, Biden’s son, Hunter, was added to the board of directors of a major Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, on which he “served” for the next five years. Despite having no background in the energy industry nor Ukraine, Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 per month. He resigned from the board when his father announced his presidential candidacy in 2018.

As the impeachment crisis heats up, the Trump administration and the Democrats are accusing each other of corruption. Both are right.

Just as the Nixon impeachment hearings in 1974 turned lifelong segregationists like Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina into liberal heroes, the Trump impeachment hearings are already having as similar effect. Now reactionaries are being elevated like House Intelligence Committee chair, Adam Schiff, a staunch supporter of Israel, the Iraq war, the U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen, the blockade and travel ban on Cuba, the CIA, NSA, etc. The unlikely (barring explosive new revelations) conviction of Trump would bring about the elevation of the extreme right-wing Mike Pence to the presidency.

For the people’s movement, impeachment offers a road map to nowhere.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who they brought to power in the 2014 coup. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry stands in the background. Photo: U.S. Department of State, June 4, 2014

News from inside is that collective punishment is being rolled out across the state. Under the guise of their new “Violence Reduction Initiative” the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA DOC) has begun punishing all inmates “associated” or on the same tier if there is a fight or someone is accused of a violent act. K. Brittian Facility manager at SCI Frackville responded to Bryant Arroyo’s grievance by stating that “Facility Manager/Designees [are authorized to] …utilize lock downs as a response to critical incidents…disorder, a threat to security or an inability to maintain orderly control of inmates.” This reason for denying Bryant’s grievance misses the point, it waves “security” as a red flag to obscure the unconstitutional action of punishing someone for something they did not do. This is not the “some” evidence standard, this is the NO EVIDENCE standard. Furthermore, the sanctions go far beyond reimposing order and locking folks down The sanctions are targeted specifically at innocent individuals, continue far beyond the lock down, and escalate. With no due process and no grievance appeals allowed. Mail and visits are rights that involve access to the courts and additional constitutional protections.

Following any violent incident, any inmate or many inmates (who often have little knowledge of the incident in question) can lose phone calls, basic (necessary) commissary, recreation and yard time, access to the law library, mail, work, and more.

Collective punishment is immoral. It is unconstitutional and dangerous and it does not work. It is a tool in a repressive regime to get compliance. It is inhumane and brutal.

As a fascist stick in the prison guards’ toolkit. It offers the guards and prison officials unlimited and unaccountable latitude for selective enforcement and the targeting of specific prisoners.

The policing industry is endorsing this program, which means we will soon see this not just where it’s already started in Washington, Maryland, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, but all across the nation—if we don’t respond.

If someone on Bryant Arroyo’s or Mumia Abu-Jamal’s tier throws a punch, and their whole tier can be locked down. Well this happened recently, and ironically the guys who threw the punch were given a semblance of “due process”: they could grieve their 2 days in the hole. But Mumia and Bryant could not. They were not allowed to challenge the “collective punishment” given to the whole block. This threat looms over every person in these prisons, every day.

History has proven that often the targets of prison officials are the jailhouse lawyers, community leaders, and the folks that are outspoken and organized.

Our correspondents are the most vulnerable in the face of these repressive policies. Prison Radio correspondent Bryant Arroyo shares with us what it is like to live in these conditions:

“Every day I’m in a state of impending lock down. We’re anxious all the time. The mood is very tense and it’s become dangerous for both inmates and staff alike.. ..It’s gotten to the point where if you see a fight might be about to break out, you grab your towel and head to the shower because you don’t know when your next chance will be.”

His room had been turned upside down by guards during the last lock down, based on a fight he wasn’t even aware of.

As we have come to expect, these same brave men and women in prison are taking the lead in exposing these unconstitutional practices.

In addition to talking to us and organizing inside their tiers, Mumia Abu-Jamal and Bryant Arroyo have both filed inmate grievances. Mumia’s came after he was subjected to a lock down for events of which he had no knowledge whatsoever: he argued that collective punishment is unconstitutional by its “inherent nature” as a violation of both the 8th and 14th amendments. From the letter:

“Collective punishment is anathema to US law, as it is a government process that punishes others who have not participated in the event giving rise to said government action. PA DOC cannot institute a policy based on an unconstitutional theory or practice. Period.”

“The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Chief Justice Earl Warren Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

“The relief requested is to grant my legitimate grievance by abolishing this dysfunctional, collectively punitive, officially oppressive, unconstitutional policy which directly affected the ‘actually-innocent’ inmates by broadly and arbitrarily/capriciously misapplying the policy to everyone.” —Bryant Arroyo, Prison Radio correspondent at SCI Frackville PA.

This past month after he filed his grievance Bryant Arroyo’s commissary through JPAY was frozen. He could no longer get stamps to send us copies of his research. If you can we ask you to send him a money gram. MoneyGram has a contract with the PA DOC and he can get funds that way. Bryant Arroyo Inmate number CU1126. PA DOC code 3209. JPAY will also accept money orders for Bryant if made out and sent to JPAY with is name and number on the memo line. JPAY 717 Market St. Ste 423 Lemoyne, PA 17043-1581.

Also when Prison Radio sent copies of the grievances to other inmates also filing complaints the prison censors rejected the mail, saying that the paper copy of the grievance was a prisoner’s “personal property” could not be shared. This information needs to be widely distributed so these decisions can be immediately and effectively appealed. We are filed a grievance on the blocking of legal documents being copied and sent to other inmates.

We can and must support folks inside when they are standing up for their rights.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Prison Radio

The conflict between President Trump and congressional Democrats escalated over the weekend, with attorneys for the CIA officer who triggered an impeachment inquiry declaring that there were other “whistleblowers” coming forward to provide testimony in support of his allegations against Trump.

Like the first whistleblower, the additional witness or witnesses were said to be intelligence officials. At least one has been interviewed by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who declared the initial complaint against Trump, over his efforts to get the president of Ukraine to provide derogatory material on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, to be “credible” and “urgent.”

Andrew Bakaj, the lead attorney for the first whistleblower, tweeted Saturday,

“I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers.”

Mark Zaid, another attorney for the first whistleblower, said the second intelligence official had firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations made in the initial complaint.

A second whistleblower, whether he or she made an independent complaint or merely bolstered the first whistleblower, would mark a further intensification of the efforts by sections of the national security apparatus either to remove Trump outright or to shift US foreign policy in a direction even more hostile to Russia.

The most direct expression of the role of the intelligence apparatus in the Democratic Party impeachment drive was the appearance Sunday of former CIA Director John Brennan on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The CIA director under Obama now receives a fat paycheck as “senior national security and intelligence analyst” for the television network.

Brennan was asked by host Chuck Todd to “assess the stability of the American government” as the CIA would assess another country. Brennan answered,

“We would look at it as a very corrupt government that is under the sway, right now, of this powerful individual who has been able to just corrupt the institutions and the laws of that country.”

“I think it’s no longer, you know, a democracy,” Brennan continued, referring to Trump as “an autocrat,” and concluding, “there’s just tremendous political instability here … which is consuming the government now. And it’s not able to take care of the issues that it needs to address, whether it be on the domestic front or the national security or the foreign policy front.”

This is a remarkable declaration by an official who is one of the most bloodstained figures in recent American history. Brennan directed drone missile assassination strikes from the Obama White House before returning to the CIA to oversee its worldwide operations of murder, political subversion and plots against democracy. With the support of the Obama White House, he sought to suppress the Senate investigation into the torture program run by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration.

Brennan is voicing the views of powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, which oppose Trump not only on specific foreign policy decisions in relation to Russia and the Middle East, but regard his administration as too erratic and too much driven by narrow personal and political considerations to effectively advance the interests of American imperialism as a whole.

While Trump is appealing to racism and anti-immigrant bigotry and seeking to mobilize sections of the police and military and outright fascists in his defense, his Democratic Party opponents are operating on a completely right-wing basis, working as the front men for a section of the national security apparatus.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, a Democratic senator and presidential candidate, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, cited her trips to Ukraine with two Republican warmongers, Lindsey Graham and the late John McCain. She repeated the litany of the US foreign policy elite since the 2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine, saying,

“they need our country by their side as they deal with a foreign entity, as in Russia, that shot planes down over their country, that’s annexed Crimea in their own country. They need us. And President Trump knows that.”

The handful of Republican senators who have distanced themselves from Trump have also done so on a right-wing basis. Three Republicans criticized Trump’s public appeal on Thursday for the Chinese government to investigate the activities of Biden and his son Hunter, who has extensive business operations in China. In making this statement in front of the television cameras, Trump was doubling down on his bullying of the Ukrainian government for an anti-Biden probe, carried out secretly in a July 25 phone call to President Zelensky.

Senator Mitt Romney said Trump’s appeal was “wrong and appalling,” and Susan Collins of Maine called it “a big mistake” and “completely inappropriate.” Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska resorted to outright redbaiting.

“Americans don’t look to Chinese commies for the truth,” he told the Omaha World-Herald. “If the Biden kid broke laws by selling his name to Beijing, that’s a matter for American courts, not communist tyrants running torture camps.”

Other Republican senators followed the lead of Marco Rubio of Florida, another vicious anti-communist, who claimed that Trump’s invitation to China was merely a joke—presumably like Trump’s musings about extending his time in office, serving three or four terms, in defiance of the US Constitution, or his claims that his political opponents are guilty of treason.

Nowhere in the US political establishment, either Democratic or Republican, is there any genuine opposition to Trump’s real crimes: his attacks on immigrants (including the most recent revelation that he wanted US agents to shoot refugees who attempted to cross the border), his building up of a personalist, authoritarian regime, and his continuous favors to big business, from scrapping regulatory enforcement to gargantuan tax cuts.

There were further developments this weekend on the legal front. A federal judge in Washington ordered the White House to preserve records of Trump’s “meetings, phone calls, and other communications with foreign leaders,” acting in a lawsuit filed by several groups last May that charged the administration was failing to follow the Presidential Records Act, which governs the official records of the US chief executive.

The lawsuit is not directly related to impeachment, but the records ordered preserved could be subject to subpoena by the House of Representatives and used against Trump in a future impeachment or Senate trial.

Top Republican leaders acknowledged that the House is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. Trump himself said as much Friday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a video released by his reelection campaign, boasted,

“The way that impeachment stops is with a Senate majority with me as majority leader.”

He claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “in the clutches of a left-wing mob that finally convinced her to impeach the president.”

Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the number two Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the invective from the White House against committee Chair Adam Schiff and Speaker Pelosi was unwarranted because the charges against him were emanating from White House staffers, not Congress.

Appearing on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Himes said,

“His problem is not with the Democrats. It’s not with people like me. We’re sort of sitting here watching the information flow out of the White House … professionals who are in the Oval Office, who are in the situation room, are watching what is happening and finally saying, ‘My God, this cannot happen anymore.’ And they are coming forward either as whistleblowers or… leaking.”

In substance, Himes is correct: it is the “professionals,” i.e., the military-intelligence officials, who are driving the impeachment investigation, which Pelosi embraced only reluctantly, fearful that a full-blown political crisis in Washington could destabilize the US political system as a whole.

Even more significant was the warning on the same program by Bob Woodward, the former Watergate journalist who is completely plugged in to the concerns of the military-intelligence apparatus. Woodward is old enough to remember years like 1968, when the American political landscape was thrown into turmoil by political assassinations and other forms of violence. He said,

“The Democrats need to be really careful about how they let this play out… suppose something happens… I mean, let’s hope it’s not a bloody 2020.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

China is planning to invest $280 billion in Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors that are being affected by US sanctions, according to Petroleum Economist magazine.

The energy affairs magazine quoted a senior source who was linked to the Iranian Oil Ministry, as stating that this enormous investment represents a key point in a new agreement between the two countries. This was confirmed during Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s visit to China in late August, to present a roadmap for the strategic comprehensive partnership agreement, which concluded in 2016.

According to the magazine, Beijing also pledged to invest $120 billion in Iran’s oil sector and industrial infrastructure.

This vast amount will be disbursed during the first five years of the agreement’s entry into implementation, with possible additional investments in subsequent similar periods, if both parties agree.

In return, Iran will grant Chinese companies the priority right to participate in tenders for any new, frozen or incomplete projects to develop oil and gas fields, as well as all petrochemical projects, including the provision of technology and staff to implement these projects.

This comprises the deployment of up to 5,000 Chinese security officers in Iranian territories to secure Chinese projects, as well as the involvement of other staff and resources in securing oil, gas or petrochemical exports from Iran to China, including those across the Gulf, the source explained.

The agreement also permits China to purchase oil, gas and petrochemical products at low prices, with the right to delay the payment of these prices for two years in the Chinese national currency (Yuan) or other “easy currencies” with which Beijing makes profits, through its projects in Africa and the former Soviet republics, without resorting to transactions in USD.

According to the source, this agreement grants China a total discount of around 32 per cent on all oil, gas, and petrochemical products from Iran.

This plan also emerged during the course of China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, in which Beijing intends to take advantage of the low-cost labour force available in Iran, to establish factories to be supervised by Chinese prominent companies.

In return, the new agreement enables Tehran to strengthen its partnership with Beijing, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and raise the level of production in three of its largest oil and gas fields, in addition to China’s approval to increase the volume of oil imports from Iran.

The source stressed that the main points of the new agreement will not be publicly announced, although they represent a significant shift in the balance of power in the world’s oil and gas sectors.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

77 Groups Join to Counter Trump Administration Attack on “Science Advice”

October 7th, 2019 by Union of Concerned Scientists

Political appointees in the Trump administration are already starting to eliminate science advisory committees, following a presidential executive order earlier this year directing agencies to reduce the total number of advisory committees by a third. This effort to undermine science advice has drawn strong opposition from the science community and a wide range of groups across civil society.

In a new letter, 77 of these groups are telling the White House to rescind this destructive executive order and restore science advice. The signers include a broad range of institutions, including major universities, scientific societies, public health experts, civil rights advocates, unions, farmers’ organizations, and groups focused on ethics and transparency in government.

The letter argues that federal advisory committees provide vital information to policymakers in a cost-effective way—and that we can’t make good decisions about public health and safety without considering the best independent science. It also notes that advisory committees provide an avenue for public input and comment into policy.

The signers argue that the executive order is a short-sighted measure that will force agencies to halt important work for the sake of hitting an arbitrary target. They call the effort to slash advisory committees “a threat to a vital independent source of information and deliberation.”

Quotes from organizations that have signed on to the letter:

“This executive order is a blunt instrument that will damage our ability to make smart, effective policies. It’s the latest example of a pattern across this administration of excluding science from government to the detriment of public health. It’s not just the scientists offering up their time to serve the public who will be hurt by these cuts—it’s communities across the country who deserve to benefit from policy based on evidence. The President needs to revoke this thoughtless executive order.” – Genna Reed, lead science and policy analyst for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists

“For decades, federal advisory committees have been key to ensuring our federal agencies sail to success in a sea of scientific and technological breakthroughs. Limiting or eliminating them would be akin to setting sail across the ocean without any electronic navigation tools or even a sextant and a compass. We are very likely to get lost, sail around in circles, or even run aground as a result. I hope the president will rescind the Executive Order on Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees before we find ourselves in extremis like this.” – Rear Admiral (Ret.) Jonathan White, president and CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership

“As biologists and health care experts who work with patients daily, nurses join with our colleagues in the scientific community to demand that this administration rescind the executive order gutting the existence of federal advisory committees and value the essential advice that we provide to ensure government decisions are made based on fact and for the public good. Lives are at stake.” – Irma Westmoreland, vice president of National Nurses United and an RN at the Veterans Health Administration

“Policy related to human health—whether we are considering the influences of genetics, food and agriculture, the workplace, the ambient environment, or pharmaceuticals—must be based on current science. Economic interests must be tempered by scientific knowledge, not the other way around.” –  Linda Forst, MD, MPH Senior Associate Dean, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago

“Federal advisory committees provide valuable stakeholder feedback to guide federal policies and programs that cannot, and should not, be underestimated. Eliminating scores of advisory committees without sound rationale serves to undermine the vital work federal agencies are tasked by Congress to do, including supporting beginning and disadvantaged farmers, furthering agriculture and food systems research, and informing the statistical needs of U.S. agriculture. Instead, we call upon the Administration to uphold the invaluable role of science and public input in policy decision-making.” –  Nichelle Harriott, Policy Specialist, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

“Federal advisory committees are an essential tool in our work to ensure that the federal government is responsive to the needs of marginalized communities. The Executive Order on Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees will arbitrarily remove the voice of stakeholders from decision-making and degrade our ability to participate in our democracy.” –  Meghan Maury, Policy Director at the National LGBTQ Task Force

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 77 Groups Join to Counter Trump Administration Attack on “Science Advice”

The Chinese Communist Party-backed “Global Times” was absolutely correct in publishing an analysis last month warning that “China Should Remain Alert To Indian-South Korean Security Cooperation” because New Delhi is attempting to leverage its newfound military ties with Seoul for zero-sum grand strategic purposes as part of its unofficial US-encouraged policy of “containing” the People’s Republic.

***

India surprised many observers when it failed to reach a widely reported military logistics pact with Russia following Modi’s visit to the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin’s guest of honor early last month but instead ended up clinching one with South Korea of all countries shortly thereafter. It was thought that Russia would be the next in line after the US and France to enter into such a close security pact with India as part of the country’s “multi-alignment” policy of “balancing” between the world’s Great Powers, but it can be argued in hindsight that the agreement with South Korea is equally — if not more — strategic. That would explain why it caught the attention of the Chinese Communist Party-backed “Global Times” newspaper after assistant research fellow with the Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the Jilin Academy of Social Sciences Ma Weiying published an intriguing analysis about how “China Should Remain Alert To Indian-South Korean Security Cooperation“.

The author elaborated on the increasingly close military ties between those two countries that most observers weren’t aware of and pointed out how India’s “Act East” policy apparently prioritizes South Korea as its pivot in Northeast Asia. Ma also mentioned how India is “balancing” its relationship with that country and its nearby Japanese rival following their recent historical and trade tensions over the summer, which altogether helps to make New Delhi’s regional strategy more wholesome. Still, the researcher doesn’t believe that South Korea has any intent to leverage this relationship to “contain” China, though India is a totally different story given its recent attempts to do just that with some ASEAN nations. It’s because of India’s multilateral military engagement with a few of those states that Ma is worried that it might try doing something similar with South Korea in accordance with the US’ “Indo-Pacific” vision for “containing” China, which would therefore represent “a potential threat to China’s peripheral security.”

That assessment is correct for even more reasons than the author might have realized when writing their piece. It’s not a coincidence of timing that India reached an agreement to create the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) just before signing the military logistics pact with South Korea since these two developments are part of the same strategic whole of ensuring a regular naval presence along these Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) that could provocatively see the country’s warships patrolling through the South China Sea and up the Chinese coast. Instead of receiving military logistics support from Russia, which could uncomfortably give off the optics of Moscow being “complicit” in facilitating a policy that ruffles Beijing’s feathers, India will rely on South Korea instead. Even in the event that a military logistics pact is concluded with Russia sometime in the coming future, it would simply be the second regional country to reach such an agreement with India after South Korea and therefore not be suspected by China of any ulterior motives.

In fact, South Korea also might not be suspected of the same either because it probably just agreed to this in order to secure a larger share of India’s arms market and isn’t exactly aware of its partner’s intentions in exploiting this deal for the indirect purpose of “containing” China. Giving credit where it’s due, it was a rather brilliant move on India’s part to pursue such a pact with South Korea since it proves that its strategists are capable of quickly exploiting regional developments such as the South Korean-Japanese split over this summer in order to portray themselves as that dispute’s much-needed “neutral” third-party “balancer”, which perfectly corresponds with the implied precepts of the new Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that Russian strategists envision it and India leading across the 21st century. Russia can retain “plausible deniability” of any involvement in India’s grander “balancing” plans along China’s southern waters and eastern shores since South Korea has surprisingly come to serve as its navy’s regional point of entry while Russia’s role is strictly economic for now.

India’s extremely close strategic relationship with the US raises suspicions among some that it’s acting as America’s “Trojan Horse” in Asia and could therefore advance its partner’s aims in various regions such as this one by acting as the “good cop” for indirectly recruiting other countries like South Korea into the Quad-led “Indo-Pacific” policy for “containing” China. At the same time and looked at from the reverse perspective, intensifying strategic ties with India could lead to indirect inroads with the US and further Russia’s vision of a “New Detente” between the two for example, the same as it could enable South Korea to look better in America’s eyes at Japan’s possible expense given their existing tensions. That said, these “balancing” benefits don’t extend to China since it can’t use India against the US or vice-versa because those two are playing on the same strategic side in this paradigm, which is why it’s understandably troubling when China sees that India’s navy will soon be able to receive military logistical support from a country right on its eastern doorstep.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld 

The last four days have shown that the ongoing US-Iran war is acutely affecting the whole region. This is now evident in Iraq where more than 105 people have been killed and thousands wounded in the course of demonstrations that engulfed the capital Baghdad and southern Shia cities including Amara, Nasririyeh, Basrah, Najaf and Karbalaa. Similar demonstrations could erupt in Beirut and other Lebanese cities due to the similarity of economic conditions in the two countries. The critical economic situation in the Middle East offers fertile ground for uprisings that lead to general chaos.

Iraq has special status due to its position, since the 2003 US occupation of the country, as both an Iranian and as a US ally. Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi up to now has armed himself with article 8 of the constitution, seeking to keep Iraq as a balancing point between all allies and neighbouring countries, and to prevent Mesopotamia from becoming a battlefield for conflicts between the US and Iran or Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Notwithstanding the efforts of Baghdadi officials, the deterioration of the domestic economic situation in Iraq has pushed the country into a situation comparable to that of those Middle Eastern countries who were hit by the so-called “Arab Spring”.

Fuelled by real grievances including lack of job opportunities and severe corruption, domestic uprisings were manipulated by hostile foreign manipulation for purposes of regime change; these efforts have been ongoing in Syria since 2011. Baghdad believes that foreign and regional countries took advantage of the justified demands of the population to implement their own agenda, with disastrous consequences for the countries in question.

Sources within the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister said

“the recent demonstrations were already planned a couple of months ago. Baghdad was working to try and ease the situation in the country, particularly since the demands of the population are legitimate. The Prime Minister has inherited the corrupt system that has developed since 2003; hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Moreover, the war on terror used not only all the country’s resources but forced Iraq to borrow billions of dollars for the reconstruction of the security forces and other basic needs.”

“The latest demonstrations were supposed to be peaceful and legitimate because people have the right to express their discontent, concerns and frustration. However, the course of events showed a different objective: 8 members of the security forces were killed (1241 wounded) along with 96 of civilians (5000 wounded) and many government and party buildings were set on fire and completely destroyed. This sort of behaviour has misdirected the real grievances of the population onto a disastrous course: creating chaos in the country. Who benefits from the disarray in Iraq?”

The unrest in Iraqi cities coincides with an assassination attempt against Iran’s Soleimani. Sources believe that the

“assassination attempt against the commander of the Iranian IRGC-Quds Brigade Qassem Soleimani is not a pure coincidence but related to events in Iraq”.

“Soleimani was in Iraq during the selection of the key leaders of the country. He has a lot of influence, like the Americans who have their own people. If Soleimani is removed, those who may have been behind the recent unrest may think it will create enough confusion in Iraq and Iran, allowing room for a possible coup d’état carried out by military or encouraged by foreign forces, Saudi Arabia and the US in this case. Killing Soleimani, in the minds of foreign actors, could lead to chaos, leading to a reduction of Iranian influence in Iraq”, said the sources.

The recent decisions of Abdel Mahdi made him extremely unpopular with the US. He has declared Israel responsible for the destruction of the five warehouses of the Iraqi security forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, and the killing of one commander on the Iraqi-Syrian borders. He opened the crossing at al-Qaem between Iraq and Syria to the displeasure of the US embassy in Baghdad, whose officers expressed their discomfort to Iraqi officials. He expressed his willingness to buy the S-400 and other military hardware from Russia. Abdel Mahdi agreed with China to reconstruct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and gave a $284 million electricity deal to a German rather than an American company. The Iraqi Prime Minister refused to abide by US sanctions and is still buying electricity from Iran and allowing the exchange of commerce that is bringing large amounts of foreign currency and boosting the Iranian economy. And lastly, Abdel Mahdi rejected the “Deal of the Century” proposed by the US: he is trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia and therefore is showing his intention to keep away from the US objectives and policies in the Middle East.

US officials expressed their complete dissatisfaction with Abdel Mahdi’s policy to many Iraqi officials. The Americans consider that their failure to capture Iraq as an avant-garde country against Iran is a victory for Tehran. However, this is not what the Iraqi Prime Minister is aiming at. He is genuinely trying to keep away from the US-Iran war, but is confronted with increasing difficulties.

Abdel Mahdi took over governance in Iraq when the economy was at a catastrophic level. He is struggling in his first year of governance even though Iraq is considered to have the fourth largest of the world’s oil reserves. A quarter of Iraq’s over 40 million people live at poverty level.

The Marjaiya in Najaf intervened to calm down the situation, showing its capacity to control the mob. Its representative in Karbalaa Sayyed Ahmad al-Safi emphasises the importance of fighting corruption and creating an independent committee to put the country back on track. Al-Safi said it was necessary to start serious reforms and asked the Parliament, in particular “the biggest coalition”, to assume its responsibility.

The biggest group belongs to Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, with 53 MPs. Moqtada declared – contrary to what the Marjaiya hoped – the suspension of his group from the parliament rather than assuming his responsibilities. Moqtada is calling for early elections, an election where he is not expected to gather more than 12-15 MPs. Al-Sadr, who visits Saudi Arabia and Iran for no strategic objective, is trying to ride the horse of grievance so he can take advantage of the just requests of the demonstrators. Moqtada and the other Shia groups who rule the country today, in alliance with Kurds and Sunni minorities, are the ones to respond to the people’s requests, and not hide behind those in the street asking for the end of corruption, for more job opportunities, and improvement of their conditions of life.

Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi doesn’t have a magic wand; the people can’t wait for very long. Notwithstanding their justified demands, the people were “not alone in the streets. The majority of social media hashtags were Saudi: indicating that Abdel Mahdi’s visits to Saudi Arabia and his mediation between Riyadh and Tehran have not rendered him immune to regime change efforts supported by Saudi,” said the source. Indeed, Iraq’s neighbours gave strong indications to the Prime Minister that Iraq’s relation Iran is the healthiest and the most stable of relations with neighbouring countries. Tehran didn’t conspire against him even if it was the only country whose flag was burned by some demonstrators and reviled in the streets of Baghdad during the last days of unrest.

The critical economic situation is making the Middle East vulnerable to unrest. Most countries are suffering due to the US sanctions on Iran and the monstrous financial expenditure on US weapons. US President Donald Trump is trying hard to empty Arab leaders’ pockets and keep Iran as the main scarecrow to drain Gulf finances. The Saudi war on Yemen is also another destabilising factor in the Middle East, allowing plenty of room for tension and confrontation.

Iraq seems headed for instability as one aspect of the multidimensional US war on Iran; the US is demanding support and solidarity from Gulf and Arab countries to stand behind its plans. Iraq is not conforming to all US demands. The Iraqi parliament and political parties represent the majority of the population; regime change is therefore unlikely, but neighbouring countries and the US will continue to exploit domestic grievances. It is not clear whether Abdel Mahdi will manage to keep Iraq stable. What is clear is that US-Iran tensions are not sparing any country in the Middle East.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author

Selected Articles: Pathways to Peace

October 7th, 2019 by Global Research News

In spite of online censorship efforts directed against the independent media, we are happy to say that readership on globalresearch.ca has recently increased. We wish to thank all of you who share our articles far and wide.

We cover a diversity of key issues you would be hard pressed to find on any other single online news source. This is truly independent news and analysis, a dying breed.

Our costs have increased and our revenue has gone down over the past year. We are running a monthly deficit. Help us keep the independent voice alive by becoming a member or making a donation today!

*     *     *

Pathways to Peace

By Mairead Maguire, October 07, 2019

We need to offer new hope to a humanity suffering under the scourge of militarism and war.  People are tired of armaments and war. People want Peace.  They have seen that militarism does not solve problems, but is a part of the problem.  The Global Climate crisis is added to by the emissions of US military, the greatest polluter in the World.  Militarism also creates uncontrollable forms of tribalism and nationalism.  These are a dangerous and murderous form of identity and about which we need to take steps to transcend, lest we unleash further dreadful violence upon the world.  To do this we need to acknowledge that our common humanity and human dignity is more important than our different traditions.   We need to recognize our life and the lives of others (and Nature) are sacred and we can solve our problems without killing each other.

Trump’s Stonewalling of Impeachment Inquiry Is an Impeachable Offense

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, October 07, 2019

During the call, Zelensky indicated he wanted to buy Javelin anti-tank missiles from the U.S. Trump then replied, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” After asking Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike (a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee), Trump asked Zelensky to investigate alleged improprieties by presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine. Trump has accused then-Vice President Biden of urging the removal of a corrupt prosecutor to hinder an investigation of a Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter Biden was serving on the board. Biden has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Ukrainian authorities.

John Lennon vs. the Deep State: One Man Against the ‘Monster’

By John W. Whitehead, October 07, 2019

The official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

The Real Venezuela: Dignified, Indivisible and Truthful

By Nino Pagliccia, October 07, 2019

Much media effort has been put in creating the illusion that the legitimate Venezuela is the one “ruled” by a self-appointed (read, unelected) interim (read, for an undefined term) president that presides with no army, no cabinet, no judicial and no recognized congress. His name is hardly recognized in Venezuela were it not for the unrelenting promotion by his major supporter, the United States government.

The Dem-CIA Impeachment. Remove Trump from the Oval Office

By Renee Parsons, October 07, 2019

Trump’s response to the Dem-initiated furor was to release the White House transcript of the phone call which the CIA operative claimed was on ‘lock down’ by the White House to prevent its distribution.  Here is the only portion of that conversation that discussed the Biden Ukraine connection which is clearly asking the Ukraine President to conduct their own investigation.  Read the transcript and decide for yourself if there is political pressure, a quid pro quo or a violation worthy of impeachment – or is it all a Big Fat Nothing Burger?


Climate and the “Little Green Women and Men”

By Peter Koenig, October 06, 2019

The Little Green Women and Men (LGWM) are us, humanoids, especially those living in the west, believing we command Mother Earth. Well, no wonder, there is a group among us, who claims to be “God’s Chosen People” – and they act it all the way. So much so, that they and their influence on LGWMs, have almost managed to dominate all the women, men and resources of Mother Earth.

Brexit: A Symptom of Harmful Neoliberal Measures Which Have Undermined the EU

By Shane Quinn, October 06, 2019

The seemingly never-ending spectacle of Britain’s attempted exit from the European Union is part of a broader malaise affecting this association of European states. The EU is in growing difficulty and much of this is unfortunately due to its own making. The EU has become destabilised from within through a not altogether dissimilar manner to the Soviet Union, whose economy had been stagnating from the 1970s under Leonid Brezhnev’s inflexible policies, before the complete collapse eventually arrived in December 1991.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Global Research: Committed to Curbing Disinformation…With Your Help!

October 7th, 2019 by The Global Research Team

In a “post-truth” “fake news” era, it is important now more than ever to have a reliable news source that delivers the critical analysis that is ignored or manipulated by the mainstream media. 

Global Research is committed to curbing the tide of disinformation and stimulating public engagement and understanding through our activities.

At this juncture in our history, we all have decisions to make regarding the roles our lives will play in the struggle for social justice and peace. Global Research gives you some of the important tools to make these decisions based on fact and real understanding.

The service we provide may be free, but there are very real costs associated with it. For several months now we have been struggling to make ends meet. We are on course to get back on track during the next 12 months, but not without the help of our readers! To support us in this endeavor, please make a donation or become a member of Global Research now.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


Browse our online book store here


THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT MEDIA!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Research: Committed to Curbing Disinformation…With Your Help!

Pathways to Peace

October 7th, 2019 by Mairead Maguire

I am very happy to be with you all at this conference.  I would like to thank David Swanson and World Beyond War for organizing this important event and also all those attending for their work for peace.

I have long been inspired by the American Peace activists and it is a joy to be with some of you at this conference.   A long time ago, as a teenager living in Belfast, and social activist, I was inspired by the life of Dorothy Day, of the Catholic Worker.  Dorothy, a nonviolent Prophet, called for an end to war and the money from militarism, to be used to help alleviate poverty.   Alas, if today Dorothy (RIP) knew that one in six individuals in the USA is in the Military-Media-Industrial-Complex and armament costs continue to rise daily, how disappointed she would be.  Indeed, one third of the USA military budget would eliminate the entire poverty in the USA.

We need to offer new hope to a humanity suffering under the scourge of militarism and war.  People are tired of armaments and war. People want Peace.  They have seen that militarism does not solve problems, but is a part of the problem.  The Global Climate crisis is added to by the emissions of US military, the greatest polluter in the World.  Militarism also creates uncontrollable forms of tribalism and nationalism.  These are a dangerous and murderous form of identity and about which we need to take steps to transcend, lest we unleash further dreadful violence upon the world.  To do this we need to acknowledge that our common humanity and human dignity is more important than our different traditions.   We need to recognize our life and the lives of others (and Nature) are sacred and we can solve our problems without killing each other.    We need to accept and celebrate diversity and otherness.  We need to work to heal the old divisions and misunderstandings, give and accept forgiveness and choose nonkilling and nonviolence as ways to solve our problems.

We are also challenged to build structures through which we can co-operate and which reflect our interconnected and inter-dependent relationships.  The vision of the European Union founders to link countries together economically unfortunately has lost its way as we are witnessing the growing militarization of Europe, its role as a driving force for armaments, and the dangerous path, under the leadership of the USA/NATO towards a new cold war and military aggression with the building up of battle groups and a European army.  I believe the European countries, who used to take initiatives in the UN for peaceful settlements of conflicts, particularly allegedly peaceful countries, like Norway and Sweden, are now one of the USA/NATO’s most important war assets.

The EU is a threat to the survival of neutrality and has been drawn into being complicit in breaking international law through so many illegal and immoral wars since 9/ll.  I therefore believe NATO should be abolished, and the myth of military security replaced by Human Security, through International Law and implementation of Peace Architecture.  The Science of Peace and implementation of Nonkilling/Nonviolent Political Science will help us transcend violent thinking and replace a culture of violence with a culture of nonkilling/nonviolence in our homes, our societies, our world.

Also the UN should be reformed and should actively take up their mandate to save the world from the scourge of war.    People and Governments should be encouraged to evoke moral and ethical standards in our own personal lives and for Public Standards.  As we have abolished slavery, so too we can abolish militarism and war in our world.

I believe if we are to survive as the human family, we must end Militarism and War and have a policy of general and complete disarmament.  In order to do so, we have to look at what is sold to us as   the driving forces for militarism and war.

Who are the real beneficiaries of war?   So to begin we are sold the wars under democracy, the fight against terrorism, but history has taught us wars proceeded the fight against terrorism.  Greed and Colonialism and seizing of resources proceeded terrorism and the fight for so called democracy proceeded terrorism by thousands of years.  We now live in an age of Western Colonialism disguised as a fight for freedom, civil rights, religious wars, right to Protect.

Under the premises we are sold the opinion that by sending our troops there and facilitating this, we are bringing democracy, rights for women, education, and for the more slightly astute of us, for those of us who see through this war propaganda, we are told that this has benefits for our countries.  For those of us who are slightly more realistic about our countries goals in these countries we see an economic benefit for cheap oil, tax revenues from companies expansion into these countries, through mining, oil, resources in general and arms sale.

So at this point we are questioned morally for the good of our own country, or for our own morals.   The majority of us do not own shares, in Shell, BP, Raytheon, Halliburton, etc., Shares that skyrocketed (including Raytheon) three fold since the Syrian proxy war began.  The major US military firms are:

  • Lockheed Martin
  • Boeing
  • Raytheon
  • BAE Systems
  • Northrop Grumman
  • General Dynamics
  • Airbus
  • Thales

The General Public do not benefit from the massive tax expenditure incurred by these wars.  In the end these benefits are funnelled towards the top.  Shareholders benefit and the top l% who run our media, and the military industrial complex, will be the beneficiaries of war.   So we find ourselves in a world of endless wars, as large arms companies, and the people who benefit the most have no financial incentives for peace in these countries.

Irish Neutrality

I would first like to address all Americans and thank the young soldiers and all Americans and give them my deepest condolences as I am truly sorry so many soldiers, and civilians, have been injured or killed in these US/NATO wars.     It is with great regret that the American people have paid a high price, as have the Iraqi, Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Somalis, but we must call it what it is.  America is a Colonial Power, much like the British Empire.   They may not plant their flag or change the currency but when you have 800 USA bases in over 80 countries and you can dictate what currency someone sells their oil in and when you use the economic and financial banking system to cripple countries and you push which leaders you wish to control a country, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Venezuela, I feel it is Western Imperialism with a modern twist.

In Ireland we suffered our own Colonialism for over 800 years.  Ironically, it was the American/Irish that put pressure on the British Empire to give the Republic of Ireland its freedom.  So as Irish people to-day we must question our own morals and look to the future and wonder how our children will judge us.  Were we the people who facilitated the mass movement of weapons, political prisoners, civilians, through Shannon Airport, to facilitate Imperial powers to slaughter the people in far off lands, and for what end so that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, will continue to provide jobs in Ireland?   How much blood of women and children, has been spilt overseas?  How many countries have we, by facilitating USA/NATO forces going through Shannon Airport, helped to destroy?  So I ask the people of Ireland, how does this sit with you?

I have visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Syria and seen the devastation and destruction caused by military intervention in these countries.  I believe it is time to abolish militarism and solve our problems through International Law, mediation, dialogue and negotiations.  As an allegedly neutral country it is important that the Irish Government ensures that Shannon Airport is used for civilian purposes and not used to facilitate US military occupations, invasions, renditions, and war purposes.  The Irish people strongly support neutrality but this is being negated by the use of Shannon airport by US Military.

Ireland and the Irish people are much loved and respected around the world and seen as a country that has contributed much to the development of many countries, particularly through education, health care, arts and music.  However, this history is endangered by the Government’s accommodating the US Military in Shannon Airport also by its participation in NATO-led forces such as ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan.

Ireland’s neutrality places it in an important position and arising out of its experience in peace making and conflict resolution at home, it could be a Mediator in General and Complete Disarmament and conflict resolution, in other countries caught in the tragedy of violence and war. (It also has an important role in upholding the Good Friday agreement and helping with the restoration of the Stormont Parliament in the North of Ireland.)

I am very hopeful for the future as I believe if we can reject militarism in its entirety as the aberration/dysfunction it is in human history, and all of us who no matter what area of change we work in, can unite and agree we want to see a demilitarized unarmed world.  We can do this together.  Let us remember in human history, people abolished slavery, piracy, we can abolish militarism and war, and relegate these barbaric ways into the dustbin of history.

And finally let us look to some of the Heroes of our times.  Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, to mention a few.  Julian Assange is currently being persecuted by British authorities over his role as a publisher and author.  Julian’s ground breaking journalism exposing government crimes during Iraqi/Afghan war has saved many  lives, but cost him his own freedom and perhaps his own life.  He is being tortured psychologically and psychically in a British prison, and threated with extradition to USA to face a Grand Jury, simply by doing his job as a journalist exposing the truth.  Let us do all we can we work for his freedom and demand he will not be extradited to USA.   Julian’s father said after visiting his son in hospital in Prison, ‘they’re murdering my Son’.  Please ask yourself, what can you do to help Julian get his freedom?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

On Saturday, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that preparations have been made for a unilateral cross border air and land military operation in the next day or two, in northern Syria, east of the Euphrates River. Erdogan expressed his frustration with Washington’s lack of adherence to a September 30th deadline to establish a thirty-kilometer-deep safe zone on Syria’s northern border.

In response to Erdogan’s threat, the US-backed Kurdish militia group known as The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) stated that they are ready to respond to an unprovoked Turkish attack with an all-out war if necessary.

Sandwiched between the Turkish-backed Free Syrian army and their affiliates and the US-backed Kurdish militias are Syrian civilians who are at risk of losing their homes, land, and lives. They are opposed to both entities and want the war to end.

Erdogan has made this same threat to target Kurdish militias on Syria’s northern border numerous times over the past year. Each time Washington strongly condemns any sort of unilateral military operation that could put US troops and their Kurdish militia allies in harm’s way. Then at the eleventh-hour placates Turkey by agreeing to help protect their national security by establishing a safe zone on the Syrian border or creating a “peace corridor” for Syrian refugees to return from Turkey to Syria. Wash, rinse and repeat every few weeks.

In August, an agreement between the United States and Turkey was made to establish the safe zone and peace corridor on Syria’s northern border. Some People’s Protection Units Kurdish YPG fighters removed their posts and left the safe zone area. Three Turkish/US joint patrol operations have taken place since August.  But Turkey still feels that not enough has been done and there are disagreements between the two regarding, depth, who should oversee the safe zone, and who needs to be removed from it. Turkey isn’t satisfied with a 10-15 km safe zone; they want 30 km and to be in total control of it.

It’s worth noting that the Syrian government has been vocal in their opposition to the creation of a Turkish safe zone or peace corridors on its land as well as joint patrol operations. Damascus knows that Turkey’s true intentions are expansion and changing the demographics and forcing the return of millions of Syrian refugees to areas in northern Syria where they do not originate from.

On the surface, establishing a safe zone for refugees might not seem like much of an issue. Especially if one thinks of Syria in the same terms as the United States and considers Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Al Hassaka etc. as just states within a united country. But it is an issue, and there are major differences in tribes, religion, ideologies, political affiliations and loyalties that are not being taken into consideration.

Now, this isn’t to say that Syrians are incapable of peacefully coexisting, they can and have, but forcing entire populations to shift creating huge demographical changes on Syrian soil is problematic and if Turkey is truly worried about their national security they can establish a safe zone on Turkish land to protect themselves but they do not have a right to encroach on Syrian land.

In addition to the safe zone and peace corridor, Turkey has consistently demanded that the United States end their alliance with the Kurdish militias in Syria, the YPG and SDF who they consider to be an extension of the Kurdish Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) whom they have been at war with for over three decades.

Rather than cut ties to make their NATO ally happy, the United States has continued to support Kurdish militias since 2015, even assisting in a name change from YPG to SDF to disassociate them from the Turkish PKK.

Earlier this week another large convoy of US military trucks destined for the SDF made its way into northeastern Syria from Iraq.

If Turkey does carry out their alleged cross border military operation it will be the third of its kind in as many years. Just a few days ago, fragmented Turkish-backed militia groups including the Free Syrian Army merged into one with roughly 60,000 fighters, in preparation for this military operation.

The US is caught between supporting their Kurdish militia allies and supporting Turkey, their NATO ally. If US President Donald Trump truly wants to withdraw US troops from Syria like he has publicly stated numerous times, then he should use this opportunity as a perfect excuse.  Pulling US troops would of course anger the Kurdish militias who the United States has supported for the past four years with weapons, funds, military equipment, intelligence etc. but it would cause the SDF to try to work things out with the Syrian government and army and unite with them.

Turkey has drawn out a detailed plan for resettling two million Syrian refugees in the safe zone and many are concerned that once these Turkish loyalists have resettled on Turkey’s border, Ankara will claim ownership on Syria’s northern region. Turkey’s plan would cost roughly $27 billion and Turkey is not planning on footing the entire bill and has asked for other nations to assist funds to carry out its plan.

Turkey’s plan includes establishing 140 villages, 10 towns, a Turkish university with three faculties including an Islamic Sciences faculty in Azaz, an Education Faculty in Afrin and an Economics and Administrative Sciences faculty in Al Bab. Each village would have 1,000 homes which would house 5,000 people. Each town would have 6,000 homes and house 30,000 people. The project would have a total of 200,000 homes to house an estimated 1 million people.

Turkey is attempting to repeat across northern Syria what they accomplished in Afrin during the Olive Branch operation. They drove out the Kurdish population and replaced them with Turkish aligned Syrian refugees, changing the demographics.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s Safe-zone and Refugee Peace-corridor in Syria Is a Cover for Encroachment and Territorial Expansion
  • Tags: , , ,

As three committees of the House of Representatives proceeded with the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, the president tweeted, “I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP.” Encyclopedia Britannica defines coup d’etat as “the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group.”

On the contrary, Congress is fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to investigate allegations that could constitute impeachable offenses — that is, high crimes and misdemeanors. Indeed, during its early history in England, impeachment was called “the most powerful weapon in the political armoury, short of civil war.”

Impeachment is mentioned six times in Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. The “sole Power of Impeachment” resides in the House of Representatives. Impeachment is like an indictment. It requires a simple majority of voting House members. The case then moves to the Senate for trial. It takes two-thirds of the senators to convict the president and remove him from office.

The grounds for impeachment are not limited to criminal offenses.

“Unlike a criminal case,” the 1974 Judiciary Committee report says, “the cause for the removal of a President may be based on his entire course of conduct in office. In particular situations, it may be a course of conduct more than individual acts that has a tendency to subvert constitutional government.”

Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as political, writing in Federalist No. 65 that they “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

There is abundant evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice by Trump. Both are impeachable offenses.

Evidence of Abuse of Power

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson determined in August that a whistleblower complaint against Trump raised an “urgent concern” and “appears credible.”

The whistleblower wrote:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had been trying to secure a meeting with Trump. The whistleblower’s complaint says “multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelensky would depend on whether Zelensky showed willingness to ‘play ball’ on the issues” Giuliani was raising.

Trump attacked the whistleblower’s credibility, tweeting that “its 2ND HAND description of the call is a fraud!” However, the complaint is corroborated by the summary of the July 25, 2019, phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

About a week before that call, Trump had ordered his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to delay nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, without explanation.

During the call, Zelensky indicated he wanted to buy Javelin anti-tank missiles from the U.S. Trump then replied, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” After asking Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike (a cybersecurity firm that investigated the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee), Trump asked Zelensky to investigate alleged improprieties by presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine. Trump has accused then-Vice President Biden of urging the removal of a corrupt prosecutor to hinder an investigation of a Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter Biden was serving on the board. Biden has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Ukrainian authorities.

The call summary quotes Trump telling Zelensky,

“Whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

The ellipses indicate that some text was omitted from the summary.

Additional evidence of Trump pressuring Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and 2016 election in exchange for military assistance to Ukraine and a Zelensky visit to Washington has emerged.

On October 3, during his interview with House investigators, Kurt Volker, former State Department envoy to Ukraine, produced a cache of text messages that document a quid pro quo exchange. In a text sent on the morning of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, Volker texted Zelensky’s aide:

“heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

On August 9, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland texted Volker:

“I think potus [President of the United States] really wants the deliverable.”

Sondland mentioned that Zelensky may hold a news conference and announce his intent to investigate.

On September 9, U.S. Charges D’affaires in Ukraine William B. “Bill” Taylor texted Sondland,

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Taylor complained that the decision to withhold congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine had already led to a “nightmare scenario.”

“Impeachable misconduct entails a president’s serious abuse of power and a serious abuse of public trust,” University of North Carolina Law professor Michael Gerhardt told the Los Angeles Times. “President Trump’s call did both of those things. It was an abuse of power because he used his position to benefit himself and not the country. It was a breach of trust because Americans trust their president not to engage in self-dealing, either through steering businesses to line their own pockets or through conspiring with or coordinating with foreign powers to intervene in American elections.”

Abuse of power was one of the articles of impeachment filed against Nixon, for, among other things, conspiring to cover up his role in the Watergate break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Evidence of Obstruction of Justice

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire admitted that Inspector General Atkinson reached a “sound conclusion” that the whistleblower was credible and acted in good faith.

“I believe the whistleblower did the right thing and followed the law every step of the way,” Maguire told the committee.

But instead of forwarding the complaint to Congress as required by the Whistleblower Protection Act when the Inspector General finds the complaint raises an “urgent concern,” Maguire went to the White House and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Overseen by Attorney General William Barr, himself implicated in the scandal, the OLC determined that the whistleblower’s complaint did not raise an “urgent concern” and advised Maguire that he had no duty to send the complaint to Congress. Although the White House was considering invoking executive privilege, in the face of public outrage, Trump decided to release the complaint.

The whistleblower also alleged a cover-up of the transcript of the July 25 call:

White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

Moreover, the White House and Giuliani are resisting the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees’ subpoenas for witnesses and documents pursuant to the impeachment inquiry. Such stonewalling could also provide evidence of obstruction of justice, as Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot Engel, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, wrote in a statement:

Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo was reportedly on the call when the President pressed Ukraine to smear his political opponent. If true, Secretary Pompeo is now a fact witness in the House impeachment inquiry. He should immediately cease intimidating Department witnesses in order to protect himself and the President.

Any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from talking with Congress—including State Department employees—is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. In response, Congress may infer from this obstruction that any withheld documents and testimony would reveal information that corroborates the whistleblower complaint.

On September 30, Trump quoted evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress, who invoked the possibility of civil war if Trump is removed from office.

“If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,” Trump tweeted.

As Harvard Law professor John Coates told Newsweek, that tweet could provide “an independent basis” for impeachment. Threatening civil war if Congress proceeds with the constitutional process of impeachment and removal from office is quintessential obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice was one of the articles of impeachment filed against both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon resigned before being impeached. Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath to cover up his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, but was acquitted in the Senate.

Trump Lashes Out

Trump was surprised at the firestorm surrounding the Ukraine call. “It’s a joke,” he said. “Impeachment for that?” Trump couldn’t understand why impeachment was now being pursued. “I thought we won,” he said of the Mueller report’s findings. “I thought it was dead, it was dead.”

But it is not surprising that Trump, who cannot abide any criticism without launching a defensive tweetstorm, would strike out at members of Congress participating in the impeachment investigation. Indeed, Trump accused Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff of treason on Twitter. Although the crime of treason requires giving aid or comfort to the enemy during war time, Trump often accuses his political opponents of treason.

Reacting to the whistleblower’s complaint, Trump harkened back to the “old days” when spying led to execution.

“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,” he told the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

Playing to his right-wing, gun-loving, immigrant-hating, evangelical base, Trump also tweeted that the investigation of his alleged abuse of power is “intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!”

Perhaps most disturbing is Trump’s threat to remain in office beyond the constitutionally limited two terms. He told a closed meeting of the U.S. Mission to the UN, “We’re looking good for another four years and then if we want to, another four and another four.”

Trump is taking a page from the playbook of Nixon, who infamously said, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” But nobody – not even the president – is above the law.

What’s Next?

As the House committees continue to issue subpoenas for their impeachment investigation, we can expect stonewalling by the White House.

“When the House opens an impeachment inquiry, it wields extraordinary constitutional powers and serves as the ultimate check on a rogue president. It can therefore overcome virtually any executive branch privilege or immunity,” Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe wrote in The Guardian. “Otherwise, the president could commit high crimes and misdemeanors and defeat accountability by simply defying all efforts to discover his wrongdoing.”

After the three committees do their work, they will forward the results to the House Judiciary Committee, which will then take the lead. It can hold its own hearings, which were pivotal in the Nixon impeachment investigation. James Reston Jr. wrote in The New York Times about the “power of the televised [Watergate] hearings of the House Judiciary Committee” in 1974. “Far from being politically divisive, they proved a dignified and appropriate response to egregious presidential misconduct — enough to persuade seven out of the committee’s 17 Republicans to vote in favor of at least one of the articles of impeachment.”

The Judiciary Committee will determine the scope of the inquiry. In proposing articles of impeachment to the full House of Representatives, the committee could limit the investigation to Ukrainegate. Or it may include other matters, which seem to emerge on a daily basis.

On October 3, a defiant Trump publicly called on China to investigate Biden, telling reporters, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.” That exhortation came only moments after Trump mentioned forthcoming trade talks with China, saying, “if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.” Trump and Barr “have now solicited assistance in discrediting the president’s political opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and, according to one report, Britain,” The New York Times reported.

There is another whistleblower complaint that alleges senior Treasury officials are secretly pressuring senior IRS officials about the audit of Trump’s tax returns. House investigators are also examining allegations that conservative groups and at least one foreign government have tried to secure favors from Trump by booking rooms at his hotel but not using them. These “ghost bookings” could violate the Emoluments Clause. And the Mueller report detailed obstruction of justice by Trump during the Russia investigation.

Once the House votes for impeachment, which is likely, the case will move to the Senate. Majority leader Mitch McConnell has stated he has no choice under the rules but to take up the matter. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. But the Senate may instead pass a motion to dismiss and avoid a trial entirely. During the Clinton impeachment proceeding, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s motion to dismiss was defeated along party lines and a five-week trial ensued. Republicans have the votes in the Senate to dismiss the case. But they will have to answer to public opinion, which increasingly favors impeachment.

Questions that remain to be answered include: What will be the scope of the impeachment inquiry? Will Trump be impeached, and if so, what will happen in the Senate? How will impeachment affect the 2020 election? Will Mike Pompeo, William Barr and Vice President Mike Pence, who is now being implicated in the scandal, be impeached and/or prosecuted for their roles in Ukrainegate?

Stay tuned.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

Featured image is from TruePublica

“You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

John Lennon, born 79 years ago on October 9, 1940, was a musical genius and pop cultural icon.

He was also a vocal peace protester and anti-war activist and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the Deep State will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority.

Long before Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were being castigated for blowing the whistle on the government’s war crimes and the National Security Agency’s abuse of its surveillance powers, it was Lennon who was being singled out for daring to speak truth to power about the government’s warmongering, his phone calls monitored and data files illegally collected on his activities and associations.

For a while, at least, Lennon became enemy number one in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Years after Lennon’s assassination it would be revealed that the FBI had collected 281 pages of files on him, including song lyrics. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI at the time, directed the agency to spy on the musician. There were also various written orders calling on government agents to frame Lennon for a drug bust.

“The FBI’s files on Lennon … read like the writings of a paranoid goody-two-shoes,” observed reporter Jonathan Curiel.

As the New York Times notes,

“Critics of today’s domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ‘The U.S. vs. John Lennon’ … is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.”

Indeed, all of the many complaints we have about government today—surveillance, militarism, corruption, harassment, SWAT team raids, political persecution, spying, overcriminalization, etc.—were present in Lennon’s day and formed the basis of his call for social justice, peace and a populist revolution.

For all of these reasons, the U.S. government was obsessed with Lennon, who had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, Lennon saw that his music could mobilize the public and help to bring about change. Lennon believed in the power of the people. Unfortunately, as Lennon recognized:

“The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people. It controls them.”

However, as Martin Lewis writing for Time notes:

“John Lennon was not God. But he earned the love and admiration of his generation by creating a huge body of work that inspired and led. The appreciation for him deepened because he then instinctively decided to use his celebrity as a bully pulpit for causes greater than his own enrichment or self-aggrandizement.”

For instance, in December 1971 at a concert in Ann Arbor, Mich., Lennon took to the stage and in his usual confrontational style belted out “John Sinclair,” a song he had written about a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. Within days of Lennon’s call for action, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Sinclair released.

What Lennon did not know at the time was that government officials had been keeping strict tabs on the ex-Beatle they referred to as “Mr. Lennon.” Incredibly, FBI agents were in the audience at the Ann Arbor concert, “taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song.”

The U.S. government, steeped in paranoia, was spying on Lennon.

By March 1971, when his “Power to the People” single was released, it was clear where Lennon stood. Having moved to New York City that same year, Lennon was ready to participate in political activism against the U. S. government, the “monster” that was financing the war in Vietnam.

The release of Lennon’s Sometime in New York City album, which contained a radical anti-government message in virtually every song and depicted President Richard Nixon and Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung dancing together nude on the cover, only fanned the flames of the conflict to come.

The official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

Then again, the FBI has had a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures. Most notably among the latter are such celebrated names as folk singer Pete Seeger, painter Pablo Picasso, comic actor and filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, comedian Lenny Bruce and poet Allen Ginsberg.

Among those most closely watched by the FBI was Martin Luther King Jr., a man labeled by the FBI as “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.” With wiretaps and electronic bugs planted in his home and office, King was kept under constant surveillance by the FBI with the aim of “neutralizing” him. He even received letters written by FBI agents suggesting that he either commit suicide or the details of his private life would be revealed to the public. The FBI kept up its pursuit of King until he was felled by a hollow-point bullet to the head in 1968.

While Lennon was not—as far as we know—being blackmailed into suicide, he was the subject of a four-year campaign of surveillance and harassment by the U.S. government (spearheaded by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover), an attempt by President Richard Nixon to have him “neutralized” and deported. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times points out,

“The F.B.I.’s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics.”

As Lennon’s FBI file shows, memos and reports about the FBI’s surveillance of the anti-war activist had been flying back and forth between Hoover, the Nixon White House, various senators, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration Office.

Nixon’s pursuit of Lennon was relentless and in large part based on the misperception that Lennon and his comrades were planning to disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention. The government’s paranoia, however, was misplaced.

Left-wing activists who were on government watch lists and who shared an interest in bringing down the Nixon Administration had been congregating at Lennon’s New York apartment. But when they revealed that they were planning to cause a riot, Lennon balked. As he recounted in a 1980 interview,

“We said, We ain’t buying this. We’re not going to draw children into a situation to create violence so you can overthrow what? And replace it with what? . . . It was all based on this illusion, that you can create violence and overthrow what is, and get communism or get some right-wing lunatic or a left-wing lunatic. They’re all lunatics.”

Despite the fact that Lennon was not part of the “lunatic” plot, the government persisted in its efforts to have him deported. Equally determined to resist, Lennon dug in and fought back. Every time he was ordered out of the country, his lawyers delayed the process by filing an appeal. Finally, in 1976, Lennon won the battle to stay in the country when he was granted a green card. As he said afterwards, “I have a love for this country…. This is where the action is. I think we’ll just go home, open a tea bag, and look at each other.”

Lennon’s time of repose didn’t last long, however. By 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again.

The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble. In his final interview on Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon mused,

“The whole map’s changed and we’re going into an unknown future, but we’re still all here, and while there’s life there’s hope.”

The Deep State has a way of dealing with troublemakers, unfortunately. On Dec. 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows when Lennon returned to his New York apartment building. As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman, in an eerie echo of the FBI’s moniker for Lennon, called out, “Mr. Lennon!”

Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman—dropping into a two-handed combat stance—emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four hollow-point bullets into his back and left arm. Lennon stumbled, staggered forward and, with blood pouring from his mouth and chest, collapsed to the ground.

John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. He had finally been “neutralized.”

Yet where those who neutralized the likes of John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and others go wrong is in believing that you can murder a movement with a bullet and a madman.

Thankfully, Lennon’s legacy lives on in his words, his music and his efforts to speak truth to power. As Yoko Ono shared in a 2014 letter to the parole board tasked with determining whether Chapman should be released: “A man of humble origin, [John Lennon] brought light and hope to the whole world with his words and music. He tried to be a good power for the world, and he was. He gave encouragement, inspiration and dreams to people regardless of their race, creed and gender.”

Sadly, not much has changed for the better in the world since Lennon walked among us.

Peace remains out of reach. Activism and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, with local police dressed like the military, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives across the globe. Just recently, for example, U.S. military forces carried out drone strikes in Afghanistan that killed 30 pine nut farmers.

For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state.

Meanwhile, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, those who dare to speak up are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship, involuntary detention or, worse, even shot and killed in their own homes by militarized police.

As Lennon shared in a 1968 interview:

“I think all our society is run by insane people for insane objectives… I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal means. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government and the Russian… Chinese… what they are actually trying to do, and what they think they’re doing, I’d be very pleased to know what they think they’re doing. I think they’re all insane. But I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

So what’s the answer?

Lennon had a multitude of suggestions.

“If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

“War is over if you want it.”

“Produce your own dream…. It’s quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders…. You have to do it yourself. That’s what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshipped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There’s nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can’t wake you up. You can wake you up. I can’t cure you. You can cure you.”

“Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

“If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence.”

And my favorite advice of all: “Say you want a revolution / We better get on right away / Well you get on your feet / And out on the street / Singing power to the people.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) recently published a video entitled “Journalism is not a crime.” It boldly states that “you can’t kill the truth,” that “everyone deserves access to information,” that “it’s vital to hold governments to account” and that “freedom of expression underpins all human rights.”

It therefore begs the question: why the hell is Julian Assange languishing in solitary confinement in Belmarsh high security prison, particularly now that he has served his sentence for breaching bail conditions?

He was due to be released on September 22, but district judge Vanessa Baraitser told him that in her view she had “substantial grounds” for believing that if she released him, he would “abscond again.” Consequently, she said Assange’s status in jail would change “from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.”

An obvious fact was ignored by the judge, which was that as one of the most well-known individuals on the planet, the chances of Julian Assange absconding anywhere are virtually zero. The decision to continue to detain him is a stain on Britain’s reputation and shows up the FCO’s video as a complete fraud.

The charges brought against him in the US include “computer misuse” and the “unauthorised disclosure of national defence information.” But these charges are incongruous, because what he revealed were war crimes by the US and the appalling abuse of state and corporate power. By disclosing this information, he performed an international public service and he should be venerated and celebrated, not demonised and denounced for his efforts on our behalf.

When Assange was dragged from the Ecuadorian embassy, Slavoj Zizek wrote:

“Assange characterised himself as the spy of and for the people: he is not spying on the people for those in power, he is spying on those in power for the people.”

It is therefore little wonder that the establishment on both sides of the Atlantic want to shut him up and deliver a warning to anyone else who dares to shine a light on their dirty dealings.

Assange risked everything to expose the misuse of power, which has resulted in him being subjected to a systematic, and deeply sinister, smear campaign ever since for his efforts on our behalf.

Having been the subject of a smear campaign myself, I certainly empathise with him, however the sheer scale and volume of the vile slurs thrown at him are of a completely different magnitude.

But as the FCO itself has said, you can’t kill the truth. Step forward Fidel Narvaez, a former diplomat who worked in the Ecuadorian embassy during the period that Julian Assange sought refuge there. In an article for The Grayzone he refuted the lies being peddled about the years Julian Assange was forced to live in the embassy. These ranged from ludicrous accusations about meddling in the last US presidential election to lurid assertions about smearing faeces on the walls.

He is now awaiting an extradition hearing, which if he loses could see him sentenced to 175 years in captivity. In other words, he would have to live out the rest of his natural life in a US jail because he told the truth about war crimes.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, eminent journalist John Pilger described the conditions in which Julian Assange is currently being held as “barbaric” after visiting him in Belmarsh. He tweeted that

Julian is “isolated, denied proper exercise, access to the library, a laptop, he cannot prepare his defence. He is even denied calls to his US lawyers. His UK lawyer wrote to the governor on June 4. Silence. How lawless.”

Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right to say any attempt to extradite Julian Assange to the US should be opposed by the British government. But predictably the Tories take the opposite view and the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, willingly signed an extradition request to the US.

There have been a number of rallies outside Belmarsh, but we need to do more to raise the profile of this case, which has huge ramifications for all of us. That is why I tabled an early day motion (EDM) this week opposing any extradition and condemning the on-going mistreatment and imprisonment of Julian Assange.

The motion highlights the fact that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that his treatment appears to contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality envisaged under human rights standards.

It also refers to the broader consequences for media freedoms, freedom of speech and civil liberties in the UK, and calls on the government to release him and offer compensation for his mistreatment. I would like to see every backbencher in the House of Commons signing the EDM and would urge readers to ask their MPs to sign EDM 2746.

This is one battle for democratic accountability that we absolutely must not lose. If ever there was a time to invoke Pastor Niemoller’s piercing poem — “First They Came” — it is now. If we don’t speak up for Julian Assange to prevent this monstrous misuse of the judicial system, who will dare to speak up for us in the future?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

There is a lot more corruption and crimes against humanity happening that people are not aware of. The hidden torture of unconsenting citizens leading us into modern day slavery. The CIA has taken control of the Military-Industrial complex and are using military weapons on civilians worldwide, to silence whistleblowers and dissent.

One of these weapons is a microwave beam that can be fired at civilians from satellites, called a Vircator. It is very precise and can cause excruciating pain. There are people in your country that are being targeted, right now. They are called Targeted Individuals.

We at TargetedJustice.com are a non-profit civil rights organization. Our goal is to bring about awareness, expose and stop the use of directed energy weapons on innocent citizens worldwide. Targeted Justice is looking to inform and share information with media and journalists so that we can work together to put a stop to this corruption and torture. To give a voice to the people enduring these horrible crimes and save the future of humanity so that more may not fall victim.

We will be holding a rally in Washington D.C. October 18-22 and meeting with members of Congress. On Saturday October 19th we will be rallying in front of the White House. We invite you to join us, to see and meet with Targeted Justice as well as other targeted individuals.

They would like to say we are mentally ill, it is an easy way to hide it. Please do your research but know there is alot of propaganda out there to discredit what is actually happening. We have two thousand members at Targeted Justice. This is not only happening here but is a global problem. Nobody is immune.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

A man wearing tracksuit bottoms, a hoodie and an untucked shirt slouches into a Tory Party conference. He is tall, balding and in his mid-forties. 

His every move is filmed or photographed by a platoon of cameramen as he’s followed by an entourage of loyal retainers.

It’s a well-documented contemporary phenomenon that powerful men in politics and business flout dress codes as a statement that they are much more important than how they’re dressed. But Dominic Cummings, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s strategist and senior adviser, is different.

Destructive agenda

His slovenly dress is not merely expressing contempt for the grey suits and traditional country tweeds of Tory MPs and party members. He’s deliberately showing contempt for the British Conservative Party itself.

And not just that: he’s sending out a statement that he holds Britain in contempt too, including his attitudes towards its institutions, its values, its rule of law and its parliamentary democracy.

To further his cause, he can rely on the support of an army of client journalists who crowd around him for access and information. They tend not to ask difficult questions about his ultimate objectives or who funds him.

Large sections of the British media share much of his destructive agenda, craving access and information. In return, Cummings receives their protection.

Above all, Johnson relies on him absolutely. Britain is run this autumn by a tiny gang inside Downing Street – a gang that came together in the dishonest Vote Leave campaign, which drove the Brexit vote.

Crucial to this is Michael Gove, the cabinet minister in charge of Brexit preparations. The leader may be Johnson, but the architect is Cummings. Many judge that Johnson is his useful tool or puppet.

A party transformed

I have attended every single Conservative Party conference since 1992. This one is the only one where I’ve felt scared.

The Conservative Party I have supported almost all my adult life scarcely exists anymore. Johnson, in his speech to party activists this week, spoke of a One-Nation Toryism, laying claim to a tradition that dates back to his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 150 years ago.

But the party he leads is not One Nation. It’s turning fast into an English national party that is venomously opposed to everything Conservatism has traditionally stood for.

It’s against the rule of law, disagreeing with the Supreme Court judges who humiliated Johnson by declaring that his decision to shut down Parliament for five weeks was unlawful. It is hostile to the tradition of parliamentary democracy, which in Britain dates back nearly 350 years, to the constitutional settlement set in train with the 1688 Glorious Revolution.

Johnson constantly refers to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act, which ruled out a no-deal Brexit, as the Surrender Act.

In other words, he is suggesting that the MPs who voted for it are traitors or collaborators with foreign powers. Twenty-one Tory MPs have been stripped of the Tory whip and others have left in despair.

Chaos and disruption

It breaks my heart. The Conservative Party used to celebrate the British values of good humour, decency, rule of law, tolerance and a certain gentle eccentricity.

Johnson’s Conservative Party speaks with one voice. There was no debate at this week’s conference. There were none of the divisions and arguments that dominated Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party conference a week earlier.

The conference’s refrain was: “Get Brexit done” – but the truth is that you can’t just “get Brexit done” by leaving the European Union on 31 October, as Johnson says he is determined to do. Such a move will lead to a fresh period of chaos, as Britain seeks to achieve new trading arrangements with the EU – a process that will take years and cause enormous chaos and disruption to the British economy.

Almost all serious businessmen are appalled by this course of action. But the Conservative Party is no longer the party of business. It’s becoming the party of anger and resentment.

Downing Street has been accused by former ministers of inciting violence. Johnson started this in Parliament last week, when he suggested that the best way MPs could avoid death threats and other forms of abuse was to carry out Brexit.

There were more examples in Manchester. James Cleverly, the Tory chairman, said that there would be violence in the streets if Brexit does not happen.

This is dangerous and dishonest. For all of the acrimony and bitter disagreement over Brexit, there has been no civil disorder on the British streets. But ministers this week were talking it up by introducing the idea into popular discourse. It almost feels as if they want violence to happen in order to push Brexit through.

Engineering an election

Parliament can stop Johnson leaving the EU without a deal on 31 October. Johnson says that he badly wants a deal with Europe. On this point, I believe him. He knows the dangers of No Deal.

This week, the British government unveiled details of its plans to solve the problem of the Irish border after Brexit. It proposes that Northern Ireland stay in the European single market for goods but leave the customs union, meaning there would need to be customs checks around the UK border with the Republic of Ireland.

Many experts who have examined the proposals say that they are unworkable. I am not so sure. I believe it’s entirely possible that Johnson will strike a deal when he meets European ministers at the EU Council meeting on 17 October, meaning Britain will leave the EU by the end of the month.

The EU does not want to risk Johnson using his failure to strike a deal to engineer an election.

Although the case for an election in the event of an EU extension is overwhelming – Johnson now leads a minority government and cannot press through legislation – the election will be ugly.

In his campaign, Johnson will mobilise “the people” against what Tories now call the “Remainer establishment”: judges, MPs, Parliament, big business, the British civil service. In other words, the British state as currently constituted, and its supporters in the private sector. If Johnson wins, he will have a free hand.

We are approaching a climactic moment in the long Brexit crisis that began when former prime minister David Cameron announced a referendum five years ago. The shape of the United Kingdom, for decades to come, may be decided during the next three weeks.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Brexit Crisis: Destructive Agenda Which Could Shape Britain for Decades to Come

After more than 10 years of battling Monsanto’s “bogus” drought tolerant maize project, the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) has welcomed the decision by the Minister of Agriculture, Ms Thoko Didiza, upholding the decision by the Executive Council: GMO Act and the appeal board to reject Monsanto’s application for the commercial cultivation of its triple-stacked “drought-tolerant” GM maize seed.

This landmark decision is a win for the ACB and other civil society organisations on the continent that have resisted the introduction of these GM varieties in South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

The Minister’s decision was made following the failure of the GM varieties to increase yield under drought conditions during repeated field trials in South Africa.

The Minister concluded what the ACB and independent biosafety experts have been saying for the last decade: that “the drought tolerance gene in the MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603 maize event did not provide yield protection in water-limited conditions”.

The stacked event, MON87460 x MON89034 x NK603, combines Monsanto’s so-called drought tolerance trait, with their older and increasingly futile herbicide tolerance and insecticidal traits.

Contrary to promises made by Monsanto, yield benefits were inconsistent and in some trials even showed lower yields than conventional maize. The decision also reveals that insect resistance data was insufficient since it came from only one trial site for only two planting seasons.

Significantly, the Minister and the Appeal body rejected attempts by Monsanto to claim that their drought tolerant trait was effective based merely on differences in maize kernel characteristics, despite lack of yield benefits, which in itself is not indicative of efficacy of a trait.

Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB, said,

“The data exposes the twisting and manipulation of science by Monsanto to promote sales of their ineffective, reductionist GM products for complex environmental, political and socio-economic challenges, such as climate change and poverty.

“The ACB has been exposing the lack of evidence of drought-tolerance sine 2008, calling on Monsanto to prove the efficacy of this trait. But, as confirmed by the South African decision making bodies, Monsanto completely failed to provide scientific data to substantiate their claims.”

Backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, traits such as drought-tolerance are being peddled as the latest Western biotechnology solution to climate change and hunger eradication under the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project.

The WEMA project is being implemented in South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique, and purports to offer the GM drought-tolerant maize to smallholder farmers in Africa as a “climate smart” solution to abiotic stresses such as drought.

The ACB is in the process of appealing an earlier government’s decision to approve the single drought tolerant trait MON87460. It remains to be seen if Monsanto will withdraw from the appeal case now that its project has been dealt such a death blow.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dying Wildlife on a Warming Planet

October 7th, 2019 by Meena Miriam Yust

If fish decline, so does a food source for humans and the water birds that feed on fish, and as insect pollinators decline, so do our crops and the plants around us.

***

The emaciated polar bear, a sorry remnant of magnificence, raiding garbage cans in an iconic, even infamous photo, is one consequence of global warming. As the September (2019) National Geographic cover story displays depressingly, Arctic ice collected over winter is sparser, thinner, and now disappears completely during summer in parts of Canada. If the effects of global warming are staring us in the face, then only the woefully or willfully ignorant—like Trump—can ignore them.

One more aspect of warming on Arctic ice has been reported recently.  As we know, two-thirds of an iceberg lies under water.  As sea water warms, melt increases and scientists have made measurements to discover that submerged parts of icebergs and glaciers entering the sea are melting significantly more than was previously believed, contributing to rising sea levels.

Researchers are warning that permafrost collapse in the Arctic is releasing nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide.  The store is vast: nearly 1,600 billion tonnes of carbon lies trapped in the frozen soils of the permafrost region as a result of decaying organic matter over millennia.  That is almost double the quantity in the atmosphere.

The environmental costs of global warming appear in yet other unexpected ways.  A new paper in Science reports the threat to coral reef reproduction.  Free-spawning marine species synchronize spawning as a way to ensure reproduction.  In this way the gametes developed are so numerous that some escape their predators, ensuring species survival.  Global warming is now affecting this reproductive synchrony, threatening coral reef recovery.

Rising ocean temperatures impact fish, plankton and crustaceans, in turn affecting the creatures that feed on them.  So now sea birds, like the puffin, are struggling to stay alive.  These are striking birds with black and white plumage, bright orange legs and feet, and, during the mating season, orange beaks.  This past May, it was estimated that between 3,150 and 8,500 puffins starved to death in the Bering Sea, their emaciated bodies washing ashore on the Pribilof Islands, some 300 miles west of mainland Alaska.  Prior to the mass deaths, there was a documented period of elevated sea surface temperatures in the eastern Bering Sea according to scientists.  The unfortunate result was a shift in zooplankton composition and in forage fish distribution, both food sources for the puffin.

In Iceland, too, puffins are in trouble.  Researchers discovered that thousands of puffin chicks had died from starvation in the summer of 2018.  It turns out rising ocean temperatures have pushed cold-water fish farther north leaving the baby pufflings with little to eat.  The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has categorized the Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) as vulnerable on its red list.

Rising ocean temperatures are also affecting food availability and the habitat of many Arctic creatures, including the walrus, polar bear, gray whale, arctic fox, and ice seal.  Some are starving to death, some wandering long and far in search of food.  Polar bears rely on sea ice to hunt seals at their breathing holes.  When the sea is not covered in ice, breathing holes become unnecessary as the seals can come up anywhere for air, and are no longer easy for polar bears to snatch up.  The World Wildlife Fund has reported a 40% drop in number of the southern Beaufort Sea polar bears between 2001 and 2010.   Worse still, scientists forecasting global polar bear populations estimate a high probability that 30% of polar bears worldwide will be gone by 2050.

Declining sea ice is also harming seals. Baby harp seals lie on the ice during their fragile first few weeks of life.  Without a thick and stable span of ice, seal pups may drown or be crushed by broken ice.  In 2007, a then surprising 75 percent plus of pups died due to thin ice conditions; in 2010, nearly all.  “Some years, when there’s poor ice in a given pupping ground, essentially all of the pups don’t make it,” says Duke marine biologist David Johnston.  As temperatures continue to rise, seal survival becomes precarious.

The Pacific walrus population is in decline with only 129,000 animals left.  Due to climate change, the floating summer ice that walruses used to haul themselves upon to rest is now way up north.  Consequently the animals are swimming ashore and taking to land in huge numbers.  Unfortunately their feeding grounds are far away from shore, forcing a 250 mile round trip.  In addition to exhaustion from traveling long distances and food scarcity, walruses also face threats from being on the beach in vast crowds.  In 2014, 35,000 walruses were seen together on the shore near Point Lay, Alaska.  The animals, which can weigh as much as 1.5 tons, can be frightened easily by loud noises like airplanes, causing stampedes and mass deaths by trampling, especially of young calves – as many as 500 in one incident.  If ice continues to diminish, their future looks bleak.

Then there are the gray whales.  Their favorite crustacean is the amphipod – a small flat morsel with segments and antennae resembling a grasshopper.  These lipid-rich crustaceans are devoured by whales in bulk.  Over the past 30 years, as currents have warmed and sea ice has melted, amphipod populations have declined in the Bering Sea whale feeding area.  As a result, gray whale mothers and babies have had no choice but to swim north through the Bering Strait and far into the Arctic Ocean in search of an alternate food supply.  They are so hungry they are eating krill and mysid shrimp, but as it takes an enormous quantity to match the calories of lipid-rich amphipods, the whales remain hungry.

The North Atlantic right whale, a species federally classified as endangered, is also affected by the rising ocean temperatures.  The Smithsonian reports that right whales eat more than 2,000 pounds each day, mostly copepods.  Their favorite copepod, the Calanus finmarchicus, has dramatically declined because some of the deep waters of the north Atlantic have warmed almost 9 degrees Fahrenheit since 2004, forcing right whales to migrate elsewhere in search of food.  Several right whales have been found dead in Canadian waters in recent months, and a sixth dead whale was found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in July of this year.  The steep rise since 2010 in the deaths of these whales from shipping vessel strikes as well as entanglement with fishing gear is attributed to the animals moving into new and unexpected areas where speed restrictions for vessels are not in place.  With some 400 right whales left (out of 500 in the early 2000s) and about 100 breeding females, the species may face extinction if these trends continue.  Researchers are hoping to use satellite technology to detect whales in new territory, allowing for faster responses in moving fishing nets and large vessels.

Creatures large and small face threats from melting ice.  Lemmings are like hamsters of the tundra—small, furry rodents with faces and whiskers as adorable as the childhood pet.  In winter, northern Norway lemmings burrow under the snow for insulation and protection from prey.  During good snow seasons, they reach population peaks and their young prosper.  But in Norway in recent years, rising temperatures are causing repeated thawing and icing periods resulting in poor snow conditions for the lemmings.  The resulting altered and reduced population cycles mean lemmings are no longer reaching population peaks.

The arctic fox relies on lemmings as a primary food source, and scientists believe lemming decline has contributed to sharp declines and breeding failures in the arctic fox population of Norway.  Arctic foxes also face threats from the red fox, a larger more aggressive animal, which historically lived south of the arctic fox habitat.  Due to climate change and warming of the Arctic, however, the red fox is encroaching on arctic fox areas.  Warming is also converting the tundra to shrublands, a habitat the red fox desires.  The poor arctic fox faces loss of habitat, decreased food availability, increased competition for food, and possible displacement by the red fox.  And with the Arctic continuing to warm, these changes will only become more extensive.  Small wonder then that the arctic fox often has to travel long and hard to find food.  One female captured all our hearts as it traveled 3,500 km from Norway to Canada in 76 days, its remarkable journey including 1,512 km on sea ice.

These few examples demonstrate the impact of global warming on diverse forms of life—from coral reefs and lemmings to the right whale. We learn that changes in plankton and tiny crustaceans can starve a giant whale and diminishing ice cover can cause polar bears to lose their primary food source, and we begin to register the intimate interconnectedness in the web of life. Human well-being too is tied to this chain of life.  If fish decline, so does a food source for humans and the water birds that feed on fish, and as insect pollinators decline, so do our crops and the plants around us.  A study suggests that 40% of insect species are in decline.  And the U.S. and Canada have lost three billion birds since 1970.  In this anthropocene age, humans are not rapacious owners but stewards of our planet, holding it in trust for succeeding generations.  It is what the young led by Greta Thunberg are forcefully making clear to their elders.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Meena Miriam Yust is an attorney based in Chicago, Illinois.  Educated at Vassar College and Case Western Reserve University School of Law, she published a draft Migratory Insect Treaty with commentary in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law.

Arshad M Khan is a retired professor and occasional commentator.

Featured image: Mickey Faulkner/Flickr/cc

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dying Wildlife on a Warming Planet

The Real Venezuela: Dignified, Indivisible and Truthful

October 7th, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

All those wondering who is in charge in Venezuela, should stop reading the biased and confusing corporate media and should look at who represents the country at the United Nations. The UN is not a perfect institution but it is one that is clear on the issue of membership despite powerful attempts at obfuscating that clarity.

Much media effort has been put in creating the illusion that the legitimate Venezuela is the one “ruled” by a self-appointed (read, unelected) interim (read, for an undefined term) president that presides with no army, no cabinet, no judicial and no recognized congress. His name is hardly recognized in Venezuela were it not for the unrelenting promotion by his major supporter, the United States government.

As we are still grappling with an old geopolitical world model that has left us with divided regions and countries, North vs. South, East vs. West, and Western vs. the rest, now we can add a new type of division, Real vs. Virtual. The “virtual” illusionary Venezuela defined above has no territory that controls, and its supporters have a programmatic agenda that is only based on negating, ignoring and disregarding the reality that surrounds them in the hope that it will go away.

At the UN General Assembly last September there was no ambiguity. The legitimate government of President Nicolas Maduro of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was represented by its Vice President Delcy Rodriguez despite a reported attempt to prevent her from addressing the 74th UNGA. Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Ron, and Venezuela’s Ambassador to the UN Samuel Moncada were also part of the Venezuelan delegation.

An undetermined group of delegates walked out of the hall as Rodriguez approached the podium to give her speech. The simultaneous action showed a deliberate intent and possibly prior agreement. More importantly, to a keen observer it showed contempt not against the speaker, as suggested, but against the ideal of an institution that is supposed to be a forum for voicing official positions, disagreements, reclamations and ideologies for the whole world to hear, consider and build upon.

Those delegates were free to walk out and we know that eventually they will end up reading Rodriguez’s speech. However, in the context of the United Nations this was more a statement that they did not accept the spirit of the UN Charter and opted to temporarily exclude themselves from that institution. In doing so, they negated, ignored and disregarded the reality and legitimacy of the United Nations. They superimposed their attitude towards Venezuela on the institution of the UN.

In contrast, Delcy Rodriguez made reference to the UN as the “sacred enclosure for public international law”, and recognized the UN as the space for direct communication without the mediation of compromised media. During her speech she invoked several times the UN Charter by affirming that the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) imposed by the US on several nations are against the UN Charter. They are indeed. Only “between 2015 and 2019 the US government has imposed more than 350 unilateral coercive measures against Venezuela” including individuals and institutions.

Delcy Rodriguez is a powerful communicator. She has been instrumental in defending Venezuela as the country’s representative at the OAS against the repeated attempts of the organization’s Secretary General to condemn Venezuela for violating the Democratic Charter. Her solid and convincing arguments prevented a majority vote against Venezuela albeit unwittingly forced the creation of the “Lima Group” as a splinter group of that body.

Eventually, Venezuela decided to withdraw from the OAS but the government has consistently defended and abided to the charters of all the international bodies it belongs to. It has become a trademark of the Venezuelan delegates to flag the organization’s Charter whenever they refer to it. In fact, Rodriguez, flagging the UN Charter booklet in her right hand, made her final point, “Venezuela asks for an investigation over all the infamous violations of the UN Charter by the United States.”

In her speech, Rodriguez effectively addressed the US financial system as the root cause of induced economic crisis in the world:

“There is a new kind of terror or state terrorism imposed on people that does not use bombs but banks and financial institutions that can simply reach for a key on the keyboard in our digital era.” “It is the [US] Treasury Department the Economic Pentagon that militarizes the international relations…to impose regime changes”.

She added that between 2015 and 2018 Venezuela has lost $130 billion that could have been used to satisfy the needs of the population through the “Bolivarian socialist model.”

The Venezuelan Vice President addressed credibly all major issues that affect the Bolivarian socialist model, but perhaps she achieved the greatest score in credibility when she convincingly refuted the accusations of Colombian President Ivan Duque that Nicolas Maduro was directly responsible for his “support for criminal and narcoterrorist groups operating in Venezuela to attack Colombia.” To make his point Duque produced photo “evidence” during his speech at the UNGA. The photos were immediately proven to be taken in Colombia instead. The abrupt dismissal of the Colombian intelligence chief who provided the photos fully confirms one of a long history of lies to discredit the Maduro government.

As Rodriguez said, Venezuela is “dignified and indivisible.” We believe that what distinguishes the real Venezuela from its imaginary illusion created by the US are precisely those qualities in addition to being truthful.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

It has been more than fascinating if not totally absorbing to watch the chain of events unfold over recent days with the Democrats in open cahoots with the CIA.  Their joint goal is to remove the implacable Donald Trump from the Oval Office as two-time former Dem presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has suddenly emerged from the Swamp for a few media appearances.

While the problematic candidacy of former veep Joe Biden plods on despite evidence of facilitating a family corruption scandal (also known as influence peddling) and a dementia that confirms he is unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency.

Image on the right: Joe and Hunter Biden (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Image result for hunter biden

The Democrats latest frenzied attempt to oust Trump was the result of an assertion by a CIA operative embedded in the White House that the President ‘pressured’ Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25th phone call to investigate allegations of misconduct by former veep Joe Biden and his son Hunter and their association with Burisma, Ukraine’s largest energy provider.  The alleged whistleblower alleged that Trump’s pressurewas ‘to solicit interference from a foreign country’ for political gain which would constitute abuse of his office thereby justifying an impeachment inquiry.

Before the Dems whipped themselves into a froth of anticipation, they might have checked out the ‘Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Agreement” signed by President Bill Clinton with the Ukraine government in 1999.  Spelling out a ‘broad range of cooperation in criminal matters,” the Agreement is internationally binding, still in force and indicates that Trump was acting within his Constitutional authority in his conversation with Zelensky.  You would think that would be the end of the matter, right?

Trump’s response to the Dem-initiated furor was to release the White House transcript of the phone call which the CIA operative claimed was on ‘lock down’ by the White House to prevent its distribution.  Here is the only portion of that conversation that discussed the Biden Ukraine connection which is clearly asking the Ukraine President to conduct their own investigation.  Read the transcript and decide for yourself if there is political pressure, a quid pro quo or a violation worthy of impeachment – or is it all a Big Fat Nothing Burger?

The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.  Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look in it…”

Contents of that phone call then became the subject of an extensive nine-page whistleblower Complaint filed on August 12th, the filing of which came at about the same time as Intel Inspector General Michael Atkinson changed the standard to allow for second hand tattling.

What is stunning is that the alleged whistleblower admits in his lengthy Complaint, that none of the information provided is first hand or personally obtained knowledge but rather informal via second and possibly third hand sources.  The speculative, hypothetical nature of the Complaint “not as a direct witness” therefore makes the entire document legally indefensible in addition to its factual errors.  Surely, IG Atkinson understood that when he allowed such a flawed, legally insubstantial document to be filed, a document based on hearsay, gossip, rumor, innuendo and/or word of mouth, that such a document would be inadmissible in any court proceeding.  End of Story, right?

And then, voila!, a second whistleblower with first hand knowledge has just stepped forward and is being interviewed by the same IG who accepted the first legally flawed document.

The impeachment efforts were further undermined by the inept manipulations of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif), Israeli proxy extraordinaire who appears to have lied about his level of knowledge and/or involvement, created his own version of Trump statements as well as what amounts to a Brady violation of withholding of evidence from Republicans on the Intel Committee in violation of Committee rules.

It is all almost too good a story with a too perfect cast of characters to be anything less than a great political theatre as a coup generated by the US intel community throws all legitimacy to the wind in its last ditch effort to impeach a sitting President for …well, we’re not quite sure exactly what the “misdemeanor and high crime” (Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution) charges might be since the Dems are not following the Constitutional impeachment procedures.

So far, the Democrats have failed to adhere to basic due process rights with no debate or vote on the Floor of the House of Representatives regarding potential Articles of  Impeachment.  After which, the House Judiciary Committee would prepare formalized charges for Committee consideration and hold a public hearing.

Instead there is a lot of hot air and grandstanding with the Intelligence Committee holding behind-closed-door-interviews as if there is some dire national security threat at stake which the American public should not be privy to.  In addition, the Intelligence Committee has no legislative role to bring impeachment charges but, alas, all of the above would require the Dems to provide facts of an impeachable offense.

In other words, it is time for the Democrats to put up or shut up and get on with the business of running the country – if they have the ability to do so remains in question.

Enter HRC, not widely regarded as a friend of the rule of law, who sought to relieve the House of their Constitutional prerogative by suggesting

“If the impeachment provision in the US Constitution will not reach the offenses charged here then perhaps that 18th Century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th Century paper shredder.”

It should be shocking that Clinton finds nothing sacrosanct about ‘abandoning’ the Constitution to a paper shredder.   It should make every American fearful of what a Clinton Administration might look like as she suggests that if the crime doesn’t fit the law, then change the law to fit the crime.

While the American public earnestly awaits the next chapter of Ukraine-gate, Biden warned Trump “you’re not going to destroy my family” although the former VP and son are doing a pretty good job of that without help from the often hapless Trump.

In 2012, the 42 year old Hunter Biden, with no prior military experience, was one of six recruits selected to serve as a Reserve Officer in the Navy’s Direct Commission Officer Program.  He sought two waivers; one because of his age and a second because of a previous drug charge years earlier.  In May, 2013, Biden was commissioned as an Ensign in the Navy’s Public Affairs Division in Norfolk, Virginia.  By June, he tested positive for cocaine and was dishonorably discharged in February, 2014.

By May, 2014, Hunter Biden was appointed to a seat on the Board of Directors for Burisma Holdings Ltd., Ukraine’s largest gas company and as a graduate of Yale Law School, he was in charge of its legal department for a cool $50,000 a month.  Biden joined Devon Archer another American new to the Burisma Board who also serves with Biden at Rosemont Seneca, a private equity firm.

Meanwhile, Burisma’s owner oligarch was under examination by Ukraine investigators after which, at Joe’s urging, the lead prosecutor was fired and the case dropped.  At a January Council on Foreign Relations meeting, Biden related threatening the government of Ukraine with the loss of a $1 billion loan guarantee in March, 2016:

I got the commitment from Poroshenko and Yatsenyk that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn’t. We’re not going to give you the billion dollars. I’m going to be leaving here in six hours and if the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid.

In addition, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Benefits Family and Friends” revealed that the younger Biden traveled to China during an official state visit aboard Air Force Two in December, 2013 with his father, VP Joe Biden.  That trip occurred several months after Hunter Biden failed the Navy’s drug test but before he was discharged.  The younger Biden was accompanied by Devon Archer and James Bulger, nephew of gangster Whitey Bulger when he met with Chinese State Bank officials.  A week later, Biden secured a $1.5 billion investment for Rosemont Seneca Partners, a hedge fund the younger Biden partnered with John Kerry’s stepson and Archer. It is not known if Archer and Bulger traveled aboard Air Force Two as part of the US delegation.

In 2014, after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma Board, Chris Heinz who had been a partner at Rosemont Seneca, left the equity firm and ended his business relationshipwith the younger Biden.   In early 2019, Hunter Biden left the Burisma Board.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Once again, the American voter has dutifully begun their quadrennial march to futility at the hands of another election cycle full of false prophets. None seem to realize or remember that the monocracy that they hold so sacrosanct is not- and has not been- a democracy for decades. Yet these societal lemmings, known as “voters,”again prepare to exert their media controlled, fact adjusted opinions at the polls while singing joyfully the praises of their one chosen new demagogue and praying that this timetheir candidate will, post-election, actually represent them from the Oval Office of American despair.

For far too long voters, political pundits and presidential opponents during each presidential election cycle have never asked that single most important campaign question: The one question that distills the essence of America’s fundamental and terminal societal and political problem. This question is never asked because the answer would immediately reveal, for all of America’s disenfranchised voters to understand clearly, who are the true masters of all potential candidates: Those grinning so menacingly at us throughout the many so-called DNC debates. Their master is not, has not, nor for more than fifty years never been the American voter.

Yes. One simple all-important question.

The cumulative results of the correct answer to this question are shown across America today. After repeated four year cycles of a full set of only the wrong questions, the voter in 2020 is once again faced with a Hobson’s choice within a pack of arguably the worst qualified presidential candidates – ethically, socially and politically – in US history.

And…then there’s Trump.

One question would indeed reveal the uselessness of each debate’s political charade of portended democracy, so… this question is never asked and the voter will again swim upstream in a renewed delusional quest for Hope and Change… once again.

*

To understand the importance of this one vital never asked question, political memory is first required. Considering the many past POTUS elections and the ultimately poor results by the people’s choice when reviewed some four years hence, these current populist media offerings on stage across the country must be compared to that of previous presidents of a bygone time: Those presidents who actually had the one, the vital, the all-important tool that should be- and is no longer– a requirement for any American president.

For nearly fifty years now, all American presidents have been miserable failures in bringing their electoral promises to bare with regards to the voter’s interest instead of their donors’. One basic reason is that all these modern-day presidents did not have, nor take the time to accumulate, the presidential tool of power necessary to bring a populist president’s will to bare. This vital presidential tool is what former Nixon General Council, Charles “Chuck” Colson, very accurately described when featuring this true meaning of real political power on his office wall:

If you get them by the balls…their hearts and minds will follow.”

What Colson was implicitly defining is that which no American president has had available to the American voter since before the Carter administration brought its four years of tepid, useless and failed sweater politics to the White House. This pure crystalline nut of political power past is best summed up in two similarly all-powerful – and long-forgotten– words: Political Capital.

No post-Nixon president ever again had within his political quiver real Political Capital to offer the American voter. The power that gets things done… regardless of the corrupt corporate whims of the US congress.

Political Capital. A POTUS without out Political Capital has absolutely nothing to offer the American voter.

Nothing! Except for a bright white smile.

The Populist Power of Political Capital…Long, Long Ago.

Image result for lyndon johnson

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th US President, got what he wanted. Or else.

LBJ was a progressive to his core and made not one god damn apology for it. He was going to change America for the better. He said so. And he did. As he noted to White House staffer, Bill Moyers during his first days in the White House,

“You know, when I went into that office tonight and they came in and started briefing me on what I have to do, do you realize that every issue that is on my desk tonight was on my desk when I came to Congress in 1937?”

The real problem, to Johnson, was obvious. So, while standing in front of that exact same American problem, Johnson, in his first State of the Union address to US Congress in 1964, declared his “unconditional war on poverty.” Words? Yes. But Johnson had the Political Capital to win that war.

Before politics, Johnson had already cut his teeth on the realization of the endemic poverty and social and racial inequality in rural Texas, a societal poverty that far transcended the south and the mid-west of middle America. Johnson had personally seen, and thus abhorred, the true condition of America, one documented in 1962 by author and social activist Michael Harrington in his book, “The Other America.” His book documented that upwards of a quarter of the US population—lived in a “system designed to be impervious to hope.” That “Other America” was:

…populated by the failures, by those driven from the land and bewildered by the city, by old people suddenly confronted with the torments of loneliness and poverty, and by minorities facing a wall of prejudice. Trapped in a national ghetto, a modern poor farm for the rejects of society and of the economy.”

These words, after fifty years of failed presidents, still ring all too true again today. Why?

America’s condition then disgusted Johnson. To this battle, he informed congress collectively, “The richest nation on Earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.” Johnson detested the hypocrisy of those congressional politicians who allowed the status quo of inequality to continue. Johnson would, after three decades, grab congress.. by the balls!

And then Johnson would squeeze. Hard!

Johnson was a student, prodigy and product of real DNC power of long ago. Not talk. Power. As LBJ biographer Robert A. Caro, documented in Master of the Senate,

“…he worked himself, worked himself. He had made up his mind to be President, and he was demonic in his drive.”

Johnson, like many political aspirants today, also started from humble roots in the heart of America. Unlike today’s oft-repeated political cabal, Johnson never sold-out. He did not forget where he came from and its lessons which he had studied in person. Johnson well understood the power of Political Capital, the vital need to attain it, and how to use it to effect his goals. Johnson’s goals for America were visionary. When Johnson first coined the phrase “Great Society”for the first time in a speech at Ohio University on May 7, 1964, he described his vision in part as “a society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled.” To a soulless US congress already in the throes of a military and corporate take over, his words were political anathema, revolutionary and, hence, vehemently opposed by Republicans and many democrats across the aisles of both the House and Senate. As the public and these congressional miscreants would come to find out- clearly– Johnson had the tools and the will to finish the job. And his campaign promises.

The fact that Johnson’s Great Society did achieve the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965; the very success full Head Start program; Medicare and Medicaid; 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, among many other pieces of populist legislation was a testament to his political integrity. The fact that he achieved these staggering accomplishments in the face of daily demonstrative opposition by Democrats and Republicans alike is a testament to his personal political power: his Political Capital.

When advised not to waste congressional goodwill on so hopeless a cause as American civil rights, Johnson barked

“What the hell’s the presidency for?”

Indeed.

*

To this end Johnson took no prisoners and rarely accepted compromise. He did not have to. He was finally President of the United States of America. “We have talked long enough … about civil rights,’ President Johnson had said. ‘It is time … to write it in the books of law… to embody justice and equality in legislation.” What gave Johnson the presidential power to smite his congressional opponents on the way to his- and America’s last– American societal victory? The sledgehammer of all truly powerful, truly populist presidents long since forgotten: “Political Capital.” Robert Caro summarized this power from long ago:

“Few emotions are more ephemeral in the political world than gratitude: appreciation for past favours. Far less ephemeral, however, is hope: the hope of future favours. Far less ephemeral is fear, the fear that in the future, favours may be denied.”

What cumulatively defines the power-or the weakness- of a president, that can give him the Political Capital to bring his congressional opposition to their knees? For Johnson, it was the deals, the arrangements, the backdoor understandings, the quid-pro-quo and back-slaps of six terms (12 years) in the House followed by twelve years in the US Senate, and of course a sadly truncated Vice-Presidency. In short: favours owed, multiplied by congressional seniority accumulated.

Political Capital.

Johnson indeed took careful note of all favours given, knowing that the effect of his Political Capital was contingent on his timely demand for these favours thus returned when demanded. So, when ultimately gaining the office he had sought all his life, he now had the true assets of power from which to force the changes he had already dedicated his political career to. He was the President. He could now use that accumulated power. And he would use it, not for himself, not for the whims of his donors. For the people of America.

The results were historic. The Johnson administration’s education bill began a progression that saw increased federal funding for public schools grow from just $2.7 billion in 1964 to $14.7 billion by 1971. The result was that between 1965 and 1968, the number of black students in the South who attended majority-white schools rose from roughly 2.3 per cent to almost 23.4 per cent. That ratio would continue to climb over the following two decades until it peaked at 43.5 per cent in 1988.

The Great Society did not stop at education. Immediately after, Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965. When meeting expected resistance Johnson chose another hammer blow: the White House dispatched more than a thousand inspectors to visit hospitals directly and ensure they were complying with Title VI. So, 7,000 facilities swiftly acquiesced and another 5,500 fell into line after inspection. When the Voting Rights Act met similar racist congressional opposition, LBJ instructed his Sec. Of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, Jr., to ensure that the US Justice Dept. “immediately mounted an all-fronts attack on poll taxes and literacy tests.” Four days later—the ink barely dry—federal examiners descended on 12 counties in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia. By the following January, they added more than 90,000 voters to the rolls in those jurisdictions alone.

LBJ is presumably blaspheming very loudly from his grave at the fraudulent facade of populist democracy that the DNC has become since the beginning of Obama’s reign as America’s Nubian president in blackface. In Johnson’s times, and that of presidents before him, a president had no compunction at all in using their built-up personal Political Capital to take even the most powerful congressional opponent to the White House woodshed. With Johnson, this might be the power of his very firm handshake or his penetrating hawk-like stare. Perhaps a brief whisper in a congressional hallway or cloakroom discussion, or the power of honest emphatic presidential oration before the full Congress. Observed Caro in The Passage of Power,

Lyndon Johnson’s sentences were the sentences of a man with a remarkable gift for words, not long words but evocative, of a man with a remarkable gift for images, homey images of a vividness that infused the sentences with drama.”

Those words were easy for Johnson because unlike the political wannabees of today, he believed to his core in what he said. Continues Caro, “President Kennedy’s eloquence was designed to make men think; President Johnson’s hammer blows are designed to make men act.”

Yes…congressmen!

For those who ran afoul of Johnson, there might be a summons to “the smoke-filled room” with the likes of Sam Rayburn, who himself was pure DNC power personified and Johnson’s mentor over the decades of his own accumulated power. Rayburn, like Johnson, was an odd power broker by today’s standards in that he held himself to a higher standard than most of his peers and truly believed in his obligation to the public. He once commented, “There are no degrees in honorableness. You either are… or you aren’t.

Words that the US voter should have heeded a very long time ago.

Rayburn was elected House Majority Leader in 1937. He led the House Democrats from 1940 to 1961 and served as Speaker of the House from 1940 to 1947, 1949 to 1953, and 1955 until his death in 1961. In twenty-five concurrent terms in the US House; Rayburn was clean. He took no bribes and examples of his turning back tendered bribes and illegal donations are numerous. No one could so much as buy him lunch. Rayburn refused not only speaking fees but travel expenses for out-of-town speeches. Hosts who attempted to press donations or speaking fees checks upon him quickly realized they had made a mistake. Comments Caro, “Rayburn would say, ‘I’m not for sale’ – and then he would walk away without a backward glance.”

Compare that to today’s Congress that receives a free healthcare package that their constituents can only dream of and who have provided themselves as the only enforcement body- not the judiciary- when caught in violations of law that would normally see any other American eating prison food for a considerably long time. Hence, the criminals are running the jail.

Rayburn was twenty-six years the senior of LBJ and by the time Johnson entered the House Rayburn already had twenty-four years of his own in congress to grab real power. He once said, ” I like power, and I like to use it.” And use it he did. Quietly. Historian Anthony Champagne, a Rayburn biographer, views the Speaker as a “bridge between the northern and southern members”of the Democratic Party in bringing collective national DNC power to bare.

Unlike Johnson, Rayburn preferred to work quietly in the background and successfully used his power of persuasion and charisma to get his bills passed. He refused to sign the Southern Manifesto and was influential in the construction of U.S. Route 66 the nation’s first trans-America highway. The brash Johnson would become the perfect persona to take on Rayburn’s tutelage and bring a face of accumulated DNC national power and a demand for social change before the public. It is doubtful that Johnson would have reached the pinnacle of US power had Rayburn not taken him on as his understudy.

However, for congressmen who had dispatched their obligation to the American people wholesale, in these times of LBJ and the Great Society, what many a lowly senator or congressman learned to dread most was: the phone call. The president calling.

In Austin, TX is the LBJ museum, a must stop for all who have fond memories of the days when America was indeed “Great” and defined its greatness by the overall well-being of all its people by providing them with a positive future and led worldwide by this example at the height of what Tom Brokaw coined – in his 1998 book of the same name – “The Greatest Generation.”

On the far side of the first floor of the museum’s public gallery, almost hidden among the dozens of other interesting exhibits about LBJ, is one very small, seemingly simple exhibit often easily missed. For those who wish to understand true presidential power- the power of Political Capital- this exhibit is the most illustrative of Johnson’s character, conviction and his knowledge of his own inherent, crushing, unchallengeable presidential power.

Here in the museum, sitting innocuously in front of a glass partition behind which shows a large simple black and white picture of Johnson leaning back on his chair in the oval office while speaking into his phone from his chair in the Oval Office, there sits on its hook a single black, old fashioned ’60s dial telephone and receiver. The same one in the picture. It sits there, hoping to be picked up. One then listens- and then hears- some of Johnson’s many phone solicitations with congressional opponents regarding the votes he needed to pass legislation within his Great Society.

But these calls are not negotiations. They are diktats… from the US president.

Showing the kind of long gone presidential power so desperately needed today, Johnson concludes one call, his voice slowly rising, “Senator… Yes, Senator… I can appreciate your position. Yes. But I will tell you this, Senator…” and here Johnson’s voice takes on a suddenly nasty tone, “as your president if I do not get your vote for this important bill…NOTHING… from your state will ever cross my desk again!” Then there is a click… and silence. Johnson has hung-up. No good-bye. Just pure power. And… Johnson got the senator’s vote.

That’s Presidential Power. That’s Political Capital!

So, back then, in the offices of the US Congress, when the phone rang…and it was the president calling…?

What might have Johnson’s full legacy and the current condition of today’s American political, social, and economic landscape have become if Johnson had not inherited JKF’s Vietnam along with Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and listened to a pack of pro-war jackals such as Secretary of State Dean Rusk and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, who convinced Johnson to gradually escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. This decision destroyed him personally and also his presidency.

Today, few remember the domestic accomplishments of Johnson in a once long ago great America and his iron will in sincerely using his Political Capital for the greater good. For all of the American people.

All that is remembered now, sadly, are those 58,209 body bags.

Presidential Impotence in the Modern American Monocracy.

History will not judge Barack Obama well. His legacy will ultimately be an indictment of how quickly a president can convert the voters dreams of Hope and Change into Despair and Disillusion. He is also the working model of comparison of today’s political reality of practical presidential weakness compared to those by-gone times when the will of the voter was still of concern.

The conversation will begin with: Was Obama merely politically inept or, rather, an utter charlatan, sell-out and opportunist in the vein of the amoral Bill Clinton? As described in an article written by this author within Obama’s first 100 days, “Bill Clinton v Obama: A Continued Crisis of Leadership,” Obama, once he became president with the persona of the former, when thus discovering that he had no Political Capital whatsoever to work with, he next gladly opted for the political expedience of the later.

American voters in ’08 had already also forgotten and violated one of the basic tenets of Dr M. L. King; electing a president primarily due to “the colour of his skin,”instead of first examining the true “content of his character.” Regarding Obama, this was a fatal mistake.

Within days of his inauguration, and having nothing in his pocket of political value, all this president could do was to barter and compromise with his adversaries. And then make excuses for his ongoing weakness and failure. LBJ would have been horrified. When Obama did so his adversaries immediately smelled weakness; a weakness that the Republicans exploited again and again to their advantage. This furthered the degradation of any meaningful promises of social changes that had swept Obama to power with a populist mandate for social change similar to Johnson. But Obama had no conviction for his own platform or the American people whatsoever. It took him no time to violate his promise of leaving lobbyists out of his cabinet, instead packing it with special Zio-corporate interests that were free to whisper in his ear at will. Hence, once he received his Nobel Peace Prize, he started five additional wars that served only Corporate Zionist influence, not American foreign policy.

It should be remembered that Obama was a man with barely three years of political experience as an Illinois US senator after beating Republican Alan Keyes in 2004. After flashing his award-winning smile during his speech at the DNC convention of the same year, Obama soon abandoned Illinois for his presidential ambitions proving that he was already no more than a Geechy dancing for his masters.

This meant that Obama had virtually no experience in congress and no time to build up any political Capital to offer the voter in 2008. As such this political operative of the status quo, once elected, almost immediately threw away a veto-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate and the impetus of a House packed with temporarily enthusiastic freshmen who had yet to find out for themselves what their president already knew was their true personal political value within congress: Selling out the voter to this same status quo.

Once Obama lost the 60 seat majority he effectively lost his only Political Capital for the next seven years. Obama failed to appreciate the essence and necessity of Political Capital and his subsequent tenure became a litany of cave-ins and tepid compromises to the Republicans that always took ever more away from the US public. His campaign promises too quickly turned to presidential manure. In power politics, the powerful feed on the weak. Period. From the moment Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts senate seat, which had been handed over temporarily to Martha Coakley due to Ted Kennedy’s illness, was taken by the republicans in the form of Scott Brown, the Obama years would become the antithesis of his promised Hope and Change. What was peculiar to this DNC tragedy is that Obama did not fully apply his personal effort to keep this vital seat in play for the benefit of his promised agenda. Why?

This would be a theme of the eight years of Obama weakness, for this failed president – as should have been easily predicted – subsequently had no true political power at all. No political capital. His presidency, as with every candidate offered in 2020, was doomed to failure before the final November vote was counted. What Obama did have to display was a winning smile, a smile that fooled the public once again in 2012… a smile so similar to the smiles seen today just prior to 2020.

Recognizing opportunity, Israel quickly chummed these new presidential waters of weakness within days of the February ’09 inauguration by announcing another seizure of sovereign Palestinian land for more of their “settlements.” Obama, having regularly assured voters that he supported a two-state solution and America’s leadership for same, now used the only remaining tool in his already emptied political toolbox to affect his US muscle. He forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop these settlements- by bribing him with a billion-plus dollar’s worth of brand new F-16 fighter jets. For free. The subsequent result was of course also predictable to anyone but Obama: Netanyahu accepted the bribe and stopped the settlements. However, within the month Netanyahu re-authored the settlements – merely in a different location. As if Israel needed more free US weaponry, and despite being utterly used, Obama whimpered in protest, but still gave Bibi his jets.

Next, Obama failed to get his first intended liberal US Supreme court nominee approved by the republicans. George Mitchell, who himself had twenty-five years as the US senator from Maine- six as Senate Majority Leader- was extremely respected on both sides of the aisle. Mitchell had a voting record that was certainly more in keeping with Obama’s promised platform. This, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were not willing to allow. The worst part of this failure was that Mitchell was considered a shoo-in for confirmation, yet Obama -not even 100 days into his brand of Hope and Change- still could not manage to bring Mitchell for confirmation.

And so… Sonia Sotomayor was born.

Due to a corporate US health care national monopoly and its congressional collusion for massive world record profits, Obama correctly touted a “Public Option” as promised and necessary for competition in order to effectively bring costs down in a nation with the highest per-capita spending. As Obama plied for votes with multiple enticements to congresspersons and senators, he was still a few votes short. But in Montana, a senate vote was available for purchase as well as a congressional one in Idaho. Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont ) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who both understood political capital – and their president’s implicit weakness – told this impotent president exactly what the mortita would be for their vote: they wanted to kill something. Wolves.

Despite bringing wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming back from the brink of near extinction over the previous forty-plus years by having them placed on the Federal Endangered Species Act list, Tester and Simpson wanted to kill wolves. For sport. For fun. These two barbarians did not care at all that the provisions of the Act which protected the wolves also far over-compensated all US farmers and ranchers for any loss due to a very occasional hungry wolf attack on livestock. No human has been attacked by wolves in the US in well over 100 years, but Tester and Simpson saw just the right time to get what they wanted. So, as to their president, they went in for the kill.

Obama, growing daily more desperate to show an already deeply disappointed America any example of his personal success, needed those two votes, no matter what. And so, the mortita was thus paid. The majestic wolves in all states were left to be slaughtered like so many Palestinian children to an Israeli sniper or an innocent US citizen in faraway Afghanistan to an Obama approved extrajudicial US hellfire rocket assassination.

Today, the howl of the wolf rarely sings in the valleys of Montana or Idaho.

The Public option was also dead; just as dead as the dreams of Hope and Change. All that would be left of his trendy populist promise of universal healthcare was the huge gift of 40 million new mandated universal healthcare subscribers doomed to higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less competition and sentenced to a required higher percentage of an already reduced family budget. Meanwhile, the Healthcare corporations got even higher profits and tax advantages and new loopholes to exploit their profits even further. Here Obama’s stewardship of his supposedly signature piece of legislation was conspicuously missing as his “Obamacare” continued to be watered down during the machinations of Congress.

This was confirmed by, Wendell Potter who spent 20 years working for CIGNA and Humana and was the main media contact for top-level executives. Summed up Potter in his tell-all book about the Obamacare negotiations, “We played Obama like a fiddle!”

This statement was apparently accurate as is the implicit indictment of Obama’s failure to marshall his congress. This was bolstered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -whose real skill for decades, like Obama’s, has been to fool the voter that she is not, in reality, a champion of the corporations that sponsor her. Said Pelosi before the surreptitious congressional vote, “We have to pass it so we can read it.” This, from the current opposition leader of the House and who knew full well at that time that the 10,000-page bill, instead, had been authored, edited and pre-approved by the Health Care lobby!

So…the wolves would die in vain: Obama Care would pass but without the promised public option. The advent of TARP, NDAA, Guantanamo, etc., al., had yet to be added to what would become a very lengthy list of the indictment of Barack Obama. History will judge him, not by what all that he lost, but far worse by…what might have been.

Hope and Change?

Rubbish!

From the America of Plenty…to an America with Nothing, or…1960 Redux?

The metrics showing that Congress today cares not for the public good- except every two-four-or-six years- becomes another lengthy indictment. A 2014 report by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens tabulated the results of congressional legislation from 1981 to 2002. Concluded the authors:

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”

Johnson and Nixon existed in a far different time socially and, more importantly, economically. America in these times still had something left to give its public from its collective tax base, before beginning the decades’ long plot to strip its societal obligations bare for the sake of the rich becoming richer. America is still a wealthy nation, but today all that wealth is in the pockets of the least number of Americans in history. The tool to this social pillaging has been the paid minions in congress that were ordered to provide legislation that effectively made corporate tax evasion legal.

America, under the false and repeatedly re-named and repeatedly discredited and failed Keynesian supply-side economic model- once called “Trickle-Down Economics” – has not as promised trickled anything but the crumbs of their stolen American apple pie back to the public. Yet always the rich want more. But even Nixon to a lesser degree than Johnson, increased, not negated, Federal social responsibility.

Nixon was anything but a populist. But he would have been branded a “Commie” today. He was a Republican at a time when there was still a polar difference between the two parties and the voter: Republicans took. Democrats gave. But that was a very long time ago. Nixon, however, still managed to squeeze from his congress the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and also sign amendments to the 1967 Clean Air Act calling for reductions in automobile emissions and bring to fruition the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act.

Today these hallmarks of the presidency of “Tricky Dick,” Nixon have- like the many societal achievements of LBJ- been gutted to the bone if not endemically vilified in the minds of the congress’ of today and in the minds of their political captives, the American voter.

But Nixon had his own Political Capital and like Johnson was willing to use it even if this was only to be re-elected. The American voter under Nixon was not then completely conditioned to accept political failure from their president each and every time, as it is the case today, so a few public treats were afforded the public even from a man as politically corrupt as Nixon.

Fifty years later, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether Johnson’s vision still exists in a country in which fewer workers enjoy employer pensions and health care, 31 per cent of children live in single-parent families (up from 12 per cent in 1960), household wages have long been stagnant, and inequality has reverted to levels we have not seen since the eve of the Great Depression.

That was an era under Johnson and Nixon when increasing numbers of middle-class and working-class employees enjoyed previously unimaginable benefits, like annual cost-of-living adjustments to their wages and salaries, employer-based health insurance, paid vacations and private pensions.

However, Nixon, like Johnson, and unlike the America of today had a tax base then of funds to spend, not merely via taking on additional US debt. As of this writing US sovereign debt stands at $21,606,948,183,180 which requires a yearly interest payment- at current historically low Fed rates- of $540 billion which exceeds all US discretionary spending except that for the military. Of course, military spending just grew again to a base budget of at $576 billion that exceeds $700 Billion all-inclusive or 59% of the entire US discretionary budget.

Meanwhile, Amazon, GE, GM, Apple and other companies paid tax rates measured not in percentages…but in fractions.

In 1967, the transition to Nixon at the height of Johnson’s tenure with the Vietnam war, US debt stood at a paltry $66 billion in today’s dollars before Nixon took this figure to $260 billion by 1972. Either amount is less than US interest payments now. At the height of the war in 1968, the military budget was $ 449 billion.

So in terms of America’s fiscal health Johnson and Nixon had money to spend. Today, America is not flat broke: It’s utterly bankrupt.

No Answer? No Vote!

The American voter now seems to suffer from a strange political Stockholm Syndrome regarding their congressional and presidential captors past, present and future. America’s current day rabid enthusiasm for the next fruitless election cycle carried on by this 2020 impotent cadre of political cadavers shows this delusional symptom clearly.

A synopsis of the democratic presidential field [to be offered for consideration in the next article] should in itself be pause for serious concern and certainly bolster the argument presented herein. Not one of them has any greater potential political asset other than fellating the Zio-Corporate lobby better than their opponents and thus receiving the greatly desired media support and the only path to the White House. This one successor next hopes for the necessary massive corporate people-person donations that will, once combined, equal victory.

But for who?

As these presidential contenders continue their quest to avoid eventual attrition during the many scripted media debates and whirlwind stump speeches, it is now time that the most important political question in any US presidential election to finally be asked.

At the next debate each of these political Messiahs, whether it be Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris,etc., must this time be looked straight in the eyes by the panel of talking head MSM moderators-and by every single American watching-and then one by one, as they stare smiling so brightly and so full of promises, be asked this one simple all-important presidential question:

What Political Capital – what specific political presidential hammer do you possess- that will force an utterly corporately controlled US congress to pass anything- anything- you are offering the American voter.”

But this question will not be asked. If so, it would shock the smiles of the faces of all these DNC stage actors and reveal them for what they are and the fraud they intend to again perpetrate within their particular brands of this election cycle of impossible Hope and Change.

But better, it would immediately shock to the core the American voter who until that very moment was again so hopefully praying that this time- yes, please this time-that this time any one of these false prophets- thus fully exposed before their eyes- will be face slapped from their affliction and realize that their real prison captors have always been right in front of them.

And then all voters, across the length and breadth of a manipulated and sedated America will -themselves- finally provide the correct answer, the most important answer, the only answer, to the most important presidential questionthat no one ever wants to ask:

Why am I fucking voting in the first place?!”

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 180 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan’s Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Most Important Presidential Election Question (That No One Ever Asks!)

Iraq Protests: Spontaneous or Made in the USA?

October 7th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Time and again, when peaceful protests turn violent in various countries, US dirty hands are involved.

There’s no ambiguity about months of protests in Hong Kong, US dirty hands all over them, local elements involved having met with Trump regime and congressional officials, as well as a US consular one in the city.

Nearly a week of violent protests in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, killing over 100, injuring thousands, security forces among the dead and wounded, bear similarity to the US-orchestrated late 2013/early 2014 color revolution in Ukraine.

The Euromaidan uprising was and remains all about replacing independent democratic governance with pro-Western fascist rule — controlled by the US.

Russia and then-Ukrainian President Yanukovich were falsely blamed for sniper shootings of protesters and police, killing around 100 people, injuring hundreds more.

Then-Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said

“there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new (putschist) coalition.”

“All the evidence shows” they were shooting at people from both sides. They targeted police and protesters.

Kiev Dr. Olga Bogomolets reported the same thing, citing photos for proof. Paet called her evidence “quite disturbing.”

Snipers were likely CIA-recruited neo-Nazi hitmen. Shots came from one or more buildings overlooking the Maidan.

Snipers with automatic weapons were inside. Eyewitnesses saw them leaving the area’s Philharmonic Hall, carrying military-style bags used for sniper and assault rifles with optical sights.

Former Ukrainian Security Service head Aleksandr Yakimenko confirmed what happened, planned well in advance he said, adding:

Elements involved “carried out everything that they were told by their leadership – the United States.” Maidan leaders practically lived at Washington’s embassy, he stressed.

The battle for Ukraine’s soul was lost, Washington gaining an imperial trophy bordering Russia.

Is what’s going on in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq similar to US-orchestrated Hong Kong protests and the Obama regime’s coup in Ukraine?

Long-suffering Iraqis have legitimate grievances, notably rampant corruption, high unemployment, impoverishment affecting millions, the nation’s youths notably affected, and lack of essential to life public services.

This is unacceptably going on in the oil-rich country with the world’s fifth largest reserves, its ruling authorities serving privileged interests and themselves exclusively, subjecting ordinary people to neoliberal harshness.

Therein lies the root cause of what’s going on. Extreme violence causing thousands of casualties, along with setting dozens of public and private buildings ablaze, storming others, raises red flags — a scenario appearing like dirty hands behind it.

Iraq’s interior ministry spokesman Saad Maan denied security forces were using live fire on protesters, adding “malicious hands” are targeting ordinary Iraqis, police, and other government forces.

Over the weekend, US-installed prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s cabinet issued a decree, including over a dozen intended reforms, notably land distribution, increased welfare payments for needy families, 100,000 new housing units, and benefits for the unemployed — if follow-through actually occurs and makes a difference.

Individuals killed were declared “martyrs,” their families granted special benefits.

Iraqi ruling authorities are allied with the US and Iran, its split loyalty riling Trump regime hardliners, wanting Baghdad allied with their war on the Islamic Republic by other means, along with their overall regional agenda.

They’re reportedly furious over Mahdi blaming Israel for terror-bombing sites in Iraq, opening the al-Qaem crossing between the country and Syria, along with expressing interest in buying Russian S-400 air defense systems and other military hardware from the country, partnering with China to construct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and choosing a German company over a US one for an electricity project.

The Trump regime is especially angry over normalized Iran-Iraq relations. Baghdad is notably dependent on Tehran for natural gas and electricity. Both countries share a common border.

Mahdi has tried to stay neutral to avoid greater regional conflict, rather than ally with the US, Israel and the Saudis against Iran. All of the above leaves him vulnerable to regime change by the US.

Iranian leader Khamenei tweeted the following on Sunday:

“Iran and Iraq are two nations whose hearts & souls are tied together through faith in God, love for Imam Hussein and the progeny of the Prophet (PBUH).”

“This bond will grow stronger day by day. Enemies seek to sow discord but they’ve failed and their conspiracy won’t be effective.”

Various Arab media sources and independent observers believe the Trump regime is behind days of violent protests in Iraq, internal elements enlisted as proxies to serve its interests by destabilizing the country.

A statement from PM Mahdi’s office said the following:

“(D)emonstrations were already planned a couple of months ago. Baghdad was working to try and ease the situation in the country, particularly since the demands of the population are legitimate.”

“The prime minister has inherited the corrupt system that has developed since 2003. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians” — and the West not mentioned.

“(T)he (US) war on terror used not only all the country’s resources but forced Iraq to borrow billions of dollars for the reconstruction of the security forces and other basic needs.”

“The latest demonstrations were supposed to be peaceful and legitimate because people have the right to express their discontent, concerns and frustration.”

“However, the course of events showed a different objective: 16 members of the security forces were killed along with tens of civilians, and many government and party buildings were set on fire and completely destroyed.”

“This sort of behavior has misdirected the real grievances of the population onto a disastrous course: creating chaos in the country. Who benefits from the disarray in Iraq?”

What’s going on is likely connected to a failed plot to kill Quds Force commander of Iran’s IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, a key figure in the country’s counterintelligence operations.

The US seeks unchallenged regional control, part of what years of war on Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is all about.

Other US aggression in Central Asia, north Africa, and economic terror war on Iran remain ongoing for the same reason.

A Final Comment 

According to the Lebanon-based Arabic-language al-Akhbar broadsheet, the Trump regime planned ongoing violence and chaos in Iraq months earlier.

An unnamed Iraqi security source said US preparations were made for a “hot fall” in the country, adding:

The US and Saudis may have similar tactics planned in Iran and Lebanon.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: Demonstrators are seen in Basra, Iraq, on July 19, 2019. During the protest, demonstrators assaulted journalist Ayman al-Sheikh. (Reuters/Alaa Al-Marjani)

The US under both right wings of its war party is militantly hostile toward nations it doesn’t control.

It’s longstanding aim throughout the post-WW II era is to transform them into client states under pro-Western puppet regimes — eliminating their sovereign independence, gaining control over their resources and populations.

The US has been hostile toward North Korea since the peninsula was divided post-WW II — a nonbelligerent nation threatening no one, its nuclear/ballistic missile deterrent solely for self-defense.

Throughout DPRK history, it never preemptively attacked another country. In June 1950, it responded defensively to belligerent South Korean cross-border provocations, its legitimate right.

Orchestrated by the US, it was all about seeking a pretext for war, waged by Harry Truman, not North Korean leader Kim Il-sung, turning much of the country to smoldering rubble, killing millions, mostly defenseless civilians.

Banned weapons were used like in all US wars of aggression, including incendiary, cluster, and radiological munitions, along with chemical and biological agents.

Research conducted by Professor Stephen Endicott revealed that US aircraft “dropped strange objects, including live spiders, flies, bees, snakes, fleas (with bubonic plague), ticks, dead rats, and mosquitos encased in US military tubes” on North Korea.

Since 1991 US aggression on Iraq, illegal depleted uranium (DU) has been and continues to be used in all its wars.

The 1907 Hague Convention banned use of any “poison or poisoned weapons.”

DU munitions are radioactive, chemically toxic and poisonous. Developing, stockpiling, transferring, and use of chemical and biological agents is strictly prohibited by international law — unlawfully used by the US in all its war theaters.

Since the uneasy 1953 armistice on the Korean peninsula was agreed on, the US waged dirty war on the DPRK by other means.

It remains ongoing because Washington needs enemies to unjustifiably justify pursuit of its hegemonic aims. Since none existed earlier or now throughout the post-WW II era, they’ve been invented — unfairly demonizing North Korea one of many examples.

Despite its genuine good faith outreach to the US and West for normalizing relations, fruition never happened.

Nor is it conceivable with the most hawkish ever US regime in power, militantly hostile toward all sovereign independent states, waging wars of aggression in multiple theaters, economic terrorism against Iran and Venezuela, and unwillingness to negotiate with North Korea in good faith.

Two Kim Jong-un/Trump summits failed over unacceptable/one-sided US demands — offering nothing in return but empty promises.

That’s where things now stand. If past is prologue, things are going nowhere because the US doesn’t negotiate in good faith.

US history is clear – a record of breached treaties, conventions and other deals, Washington agreeing to one thing, then going another way – why it can never be trusted.

Candidate Trump vowed to be non-interventionist in relations with other countries. Instead, he escalated wars he inherited and wages terror war on Iran and Venezuela by other means — intended to crush their economies and immiserate their people, his actions flagrantly illegal.

Bolton is gone. Likeminded right wing extremist Robert O’Brien succeeded him as national security advisor. Militantly hardline Pompeo and his likeminded henchmen remain.

These figures assure continuation of the Trump regime’s all take and no give in dealings with North Korea — leaving things at impasse, likely as long as DJT remains president with little prospect for positive change when new leadership succeeds him.

Reportedly, February Hanoi summit talks broke down over unacceptable US demands for Pyongyang to transfer its nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the US, offering no concessions in return as a show of good faith.

The Trump regime also demanded full dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missiles, launchers, related facilities, and elimination of chemical and biological weapons if any exist in the north — empty promises alone offered in return to be broken like countless times before.

On Saturday in Stockholm, Sweden, North Korean and US representatives held face-to-faces talks for the first time since Hanoi summit negotiations broke down February over unacceptable Trump regime demands.

Norway’s Dagens Nyheter broadsheet reported that DPRK delegation head Kim Myong-gil said the following:

“We are disappointed that the United States did not put anything on the negotiation table. Now the United States has the responsibility to continue the negotiations,” adding:

“We clearly expressed our position. The suspension of nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests, the demolition of a nuclear test site in the north of the country, the return of the remains of US soldiers.”

“We were the first to take steps to denuclearize and build confidence. If the United States sincerely responds to this, then we can move on to the next stage, of a serious discussion of denuclearization measures.”

Talks in Sweden broke down “entirely because the US has not discarded its old stance and attitude.”

In Hanoi, Kim reportedly asked Trump for partial sanctions relief alone, wanting only ones affecting North Korea’s economy lifted — as a US good will gesture.

Trump refused, insisting on full compliance with his regime’s unacceptable one-sided demands, refusing even a modest good faith gesture in return.

Bilateral talks were suspended following the failed summit. At the time, DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui blamed Trump regime officials for the breakdown, saying:

“We have no intention to yield to the (one-sided) US demands in any form, nor are we willing to engage in negotiations of this kind,” adding:

Pompeo and Bolton “created the atmosphere of hostility and mistrust and, therefore, obstructed the constructive effort for negotiations between the supreme leaders of North Korea and the United States.”

Choe quoted Kim saying:

“For what reason do we have to make this (65-hour) train trip again? Choe added: “I want to make it clear that the gangster-like stand of the US will eventually put the situation in danger.”

“We have neither the intention to compromise with the US in any form nor much less the desire or plan to conduct this kind of negotiation.”

On October 4, Time magazine reported that “Trump is prepared to offer Kim a three-year suspension of United Nations sanctions on textile and coal exports if Pyongyang agrees to dismantle its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon and halt its production of highly enriched uranium” — citing unnamed US officials.

On October 2, Vox.com reported the same thing. If true, why did Saturday talks in Stockholm break down with no progress cited by DPRK delegation head Kim Myong-gil.

Two weeks ago, Trump said he could meet with Kim Jong-un “soon.”

If his regime offers no meaningful good faith gestures, further summit talks if held will fail like twice before.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sign a joint statement | June 12, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan will arrive in Beijing on Tuesday and he will likely try to coordinate with China over the Kashmir issue to gain strong Chinese backing. It is likely that China will also be asked by Khan to assert pressure on India after New Delhi repelled Article 370 of the Indian constitution that ensured the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir has been a cause of division between Pakistan and India as Britain had not determined the final status of the region during decolonization in 1947. The region is now being ruled dividedly by China, India and Pakistan. 

Although the date has not been specifically confirmed, according to media reports from India and Pakistan, Imran Khan will arrive in Beijing on October 8, which will be his third visit to China this year alone. The timing of this is critical as Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit India on October 11.

As Pakistan has become a key state of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Khan will hope he has some leverage to gain stronger support from Beijing for the Kashmir region, which Islamabad says it should rightfully administer in its entirety, or at least the Indian portion. Khan will also be hoping that Beijing can help push Pakistan’s position in the international arena, and will be emphasizing Pakistan’s commitment to the BRI.

Pakistan hopes to increase trade with China by at least $10 billion a year, which is of critical importance for the economic stabilization of the country as it has been experiencing a financial crisis. Therefore, Khan will be urging China to help develop Pakistan’s agricultural and industrial sectors. With China investing $100 billion to Pakistan through various means such as the Dwadar Port project, Khan will also want China to develop mining and other infrastructure.

Islamabad has failed to gain significant support for its Kashmir cause, which has also meant limited opportunities for international trade as states do not want to risk the significant advantages they can benefit from India’s rapid economic growth and development. But the BRI’s expansion into Pakistan has provided much needed international relief and support. However, does this mean that Beijing will strongly back Pakistan over the Kashmir sovereignty issue?

It is unlikely that Beijing will want to risk further worsening its difficult relations with New Delhi, and therefore may opt to remain neutral or soft on the Kashmir issue as both China and India have much to gain by improved relations and an increase in trade. It will then be critical for Khan to emphasize that Pakistan is China’s primary ally in the South and Central Asian regions. However, the undeniable fact is that Xi’s visit to India is not primarily to assert pressure against India over the status of Kashmir but to find some ways to reach a common resolution and agreement.

Tensions are so bad between China and India that in August, according to Indian media, the National Federation of Traders of India (CAIT) called for boycotts of Chinese goods and demanded a high tariff of 300% to 500% on Chinese goods. CAIT pointed out that “China needs to know the consequences of supporting Pakistan” on the initiative to discuss Kashmir in the United Nations. CAIT believes that “China has listed itself in a list of potential enemies of India’s national security.”

So, with some Indians already believing China strongly sides with Pakistan over the Kashmir issue, Xi perhaps may not want to further antagonize Indian emotions and may lower the importance of this issue on the agenda if his key focus is economic benefits.

According to Article 370 of the previous Constitution of India, people outside Kashmir could not live, work and own their own property in the region. Although the local population of Kashmir is mainly comprised of pro-Pakistan Muslims, this constitution protected the interests of the local people. This is why India’s behaviour is mainly to strengthen the Indian government’s control over the region by changing the demographics of the Indian-controlled portion of the Kashmir region. This is to increase the number of Hindus while shrinking the Muslim population.

This is currently the core issue for India, and domestic affairs takes precedence over foreign affairs for New Delhi. That is why Xi will most likely not take a strong position against India’s Kashmir policy on behalf of Pakistan. Although Khan will lobby Islamabad’s position on Kashmir to Xi on the eve of his India visit and attempt to convince him to take on an active position against New Delhi, the Chinese president is unlikely to adopt this position and focus his agenda on economic development.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Because the Israeli government refuses to be a party either to the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the internationally agreed Chemical Weapons or Biological Weapons Conventions (CWC) (BWC), means that unlike the vast majority of UN Member States including America, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany etc., the state of Israel is uniquely able to mount a nuclear/chemical attack upon any country in the Middle East (or Europe), at any time, without warning.

Israel is, of course, the only undeclared nuclear-weaponised state in the world and is estimated by US scientists to have up to 400 nuclear weapons plus substantial stocks of banned chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  Furthermore, the Israeli state is NOT a member of either NATO or the EU.

Frighteningly, it now has a second-strike capability through its nuclear-armed cruise missiles that can be delivered by land, submarine-launched or aircraft. That fact alone makes it, arguably, the most dangerous state on the planet with the ability to destroy and contaminate whole swathes of Europe and the Middle East, for more than a generation.

However, instead of meeting this threat with a national defence planning campaign, the U.K. government exports military equipment to the Netanyahu Likud administration to assist in its potential for regional military domination.

Why? That is a question that must remain unanswered for there is no valid explanation for a British government helping to further arm a potential future enemy that is the only undeclared nuclear state in the world and which already has a fleet of German-built, Dolphin-class submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles plus its Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The status quo would appear to be both political and military madness.

There can be but one explanation: the powerful influence of the friends of Israel lobby at Westminster – and, of course, that of its sister lobby, AIPAC, in Washington.

And, it is noted here that at least one member of the current British cabinet of Boris Johnson, has been established in the public domain as a known collaborator with the hard-Right, settler-controlled, Netanyahu government.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on If 4 Nuclear WMD Are More than Adequate for Israel’s Defence – Why Is It Armed with an Estimated 400?

When earlier this year Tesla’s Elon Musk said the company could soon have batteries lasting for over one million miles, many probably took it as yet another grand promise with less substance than realism requires. Now it seems Musk may have not been exaggerating.

Last month, Wired reported on a paper by researchers from Dalhousie University in Canada, which detailed a battery that “should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 1 million miles.”

The researchers from Dalhousie University have an exclusive agreement with Tesla, and two months ago they reported that they had designed battery cells with higher energy density without using the solid-state electrolyte that many believe is a necessary condition for enhanced density. What’s more, the battery cell that the team designed demonstrated a longer life than some comparable alternatives.

This second paper builds on that, it seems. It details a “moderate-energy-density lithium-ion pouch cell chemistry” that, according to the authors, should serve as a benchmark for other researchers. Those other researchers will probably appreciate it because “cells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 1.6 million kilometers (1 million miles) and last at least two decades in grid energy storage.”

Two decades of grid energy storage sounds almost better than the 1 million miles in an EV as demand for energy storage—the Holy Grail of renewables—garners growing attention. But back to EVs.

Range and battery durability—and cost—are the biggest obstacles to mass EV adoption. On the one hand, drivers want to know their car won’t die midway to their destination because its range is too short. On the other, they also want to know the battery will last.

Realistically speaking, no car needs a battery that can last for a million miles, simply because few people keep their cars for that long. Most cars have exhausted their useful life at about 200,000 miles, according to the Observer’s Harmon Leon. Yet it does sound impressive, and what’s even more impressive is that, according to the researchers, the new battery cell only loses a tenth of its energy density over this extended lifetime, which makes it more efficient than existing batteries.

And here’s what’s even more impressive. The paper is open to anyone interested in reading about how this new and improved battery works. Why? Because, as one former member of the Dalhousie University team told Wired, Tesla patented an even superior battery before the paper came out. The carmaker announced it had received a patent for a battery very similar to the one described in the paper, with team leader Jeff Dahn listed as one of its inventors.

So, it seems it’s true. Tesla has made a battery capable of lasting a million miles even if other components of the car might not be able to survive that long. Now all it needs to do is make this battery cheap enough to turn it into something that is actually usable in a car. This may take a while given that most carmakers have yet to make current batteries more affordable to bring down the price of an EV enough to motivate more people to buy one.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

The Trump administration today dismissed protests and made a formal decision to open 725,500 acres of public lands and mineral estate across California’s Central Coast and the Bay Area to new oil and gas drilling and fracking.

The public lands the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has earmarked for leasing are in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Stanislaus.

“This reckless move is the toxic convergence of Trump’s climate denial, loyalty to the oil industry and grudge against California,” said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Turning over these spectacular wild places to dirty drilling and fracking will sicken Californians, harm endangered species and fuel climate chaos. We’ll fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn’t happen.”

The move will end a more than five-year-old moratorium on leasing federal public land and mineral estate in the state to oil companies.

The BLM has not held a single lease sale in California since 2013, when a judge ruled that the agency violated the law when it issued oil leases in Monterey and Fresno Counties without considering the risks of fracking. The ruling responded to a suit brought by the Center and the Sierra Club challenging a BLM decision to auction off about 2,500 acres of land in those counties to oil companies.

“The Trump administration is putting California’s communities and our climate at risk as they prioritize fossil fuel industry profits over our public lands and the health and safety of our families,” said Sierra Club campaign representative Jenny Binstock. “We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to push back against this irresponsible decision and to protect our public lands from fracking.”

Fracking is an extreme oil-extraction process that blasts toxic chemicals mixed with water underground to crack rocks. According to the BLM, about 90 percent of new oil and gas wells on public lands are fracked.

A 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology concluded that fracking in California happens at unusually shallow depths, dangerously close to underground drinking water supplies, with unusually high concentrations of toxic chemicals.

In 2016 Monterey County voters passed Measure Z, which bans fracking, new oil and gas wells and new waste-injection wells. San Benito County voters have also passed a ballot measure banning fracking. Alameda County has passed an ordinance banning fracking, and Santa Cruz County has passed an ordinance banning fracking and all other oil and gas development.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

 

The Netherlands Government is resisting an effort by Dutch victims’ families to find out why Ukraine’s Government, on 17 July 2014 — when the Malaysian airliner MH17 was shot down while flying over Ukraine’s civil-war zone — this passenger-plane had been guided by Ukraine’s air-traffic control to fly through, instead of around (as it instructed other airliners), the war-zone.

On 1 October 2019, now more than five years after 196 Dutch nationals had died from that incident, Holland’s RTL News headlined (as autotranslated into English) “Cabinet considers research into Ukraine’s role in disaster MH17”, and reported that

“The cabinet will examine whether further research is possible on the role of Ukraine in the disaster with flight MH17,” [because]

“A proposal … for the investigation received the support of all Parties present in the second chamber” of Holland’s parliament.

See Dutch original source RTL article on MH17 here (October 1) 

Second October 1 RTL article 

This news-report said that,

“So far, the cabinet has not taken any steps against Ukraine. As far as we know, nothing is happening behind the scenes.” Furthermore: “Last year, the Netherlands, together with Australia, decided to make Russia as a country liable. For the liability of Ukraine, according to the cabinet, there was ‘no evidence’ and also ‘no research needed’.” (emphasis added)

Moreover, Dutch Foreign Minister Stefan Blok said that: 

We don’t see any reason for an investigation” into that, because “The government is trying to maintain its relationship with Ukraine,” and “because then both the airspace of Ukraine and that of Russia should be looked at,” and because “there are still no indications that Ukraine can also be held liable.”

But actually, from the very start of that investigation, there was a secret agreement not to blame Ukraine for anything having to do with the incident.

This agreement is kept secret from the Dutch people. Blok, in resisting to investigate why the MH17 was guided over the civil-war zone, was simply adhering to the secret agreement that Netherlands had signed with Ukraine on 8 August 2014. 

If he were to agree to the families’ demand, he still would be obligated, by The Netherlands August 8, 2014 agreement with Ukraine, to find Ukraine not to have perpetrated the downing. But the families don’t know this.

As I reported back on 24 August 2014, a secret agreement had been signed on August 8th between Netherlands, Ukraine, Belgium, and Australia, that Ukraine would have veto-power over any finding that their official “Joint Investigation Team” (“JIT”) would issue regarding the shoot-down of the MH17.

Malaysia was excluded from the Team, but was finally admitted, after agreeing to their secret terms — including not to blame Ukraine. Russia’s RT headlined on 20 November 2014 “Dutch government refuses to reveal ‘secret deal’ into MH17 crash probe” and revealed that the Dutch Government was refusing to comply with its own Freedom of Information law by keeping this agreement secret.

On 14 June 2016, the website “What Happened to Flight MH17” headlined “The vague role of Malaysia in the Joint Investigation Team” and reported that the JIT had actually been officially formed on 7 August 2014, and noted that, “In the limited number of public communications by JIT it is not mentioned what the role of Malaysia is in the criminal investigation.” (Malaysia, unlike those other four nations, isn’t a member of America’s core anti-Russia alliance, which includes NATO and Australia, but is instead a neutral nation and therefore considered untrustworthy by the others.) Subsequently, on 21 July 2019, John Helmer and Max van der Werff revealed that Malaysia’s Government rejects the ‘findings’ by the JIT (which, with no reservations, blame Russia for downing the MH17), but that Malaysia isn’t violating the 8 August 2014 secret agreement, since Malaysia isn’t saying Ukraine did it. Instead, Malaysia is saying that further investigations are needed, and that Malaysia possesses the black boxes and other crucial evidence.

Update

The present report is an update regarding the entire matter of the shoot-down on 17 July 2014 of the MH17 Malaysian airliner over the breakaway Donetsk region of Ukraine. The additional facts which will be reported here regarding the MH17 incident shock me.

I knew that U.S. President Barack Obama had become desperate for something to happen that would persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to endorse added sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine, but I had no idea, until now, as to what direct involvement, if any, he had had in the actual setting-up of the MH17 shoot-down.

All of the source-evidence for the following can be clicked-through-to here by the reader, and this is important to do, for any reader who is skeptical (as all ought to be) and who wants to see source-evidence, for any assertion that seems outlandish. It’s important especially because the case which will be presented here stuns even me, who had voted three times for Obama, first in his 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton, then once again in his 2008 general election contest against Republican John McCain; and then, finally, once more, yet again, in his 2012 general election contest against Republican Mitt Romney (who, incidentally, right now, is arguing for Trump’s impeachment and replacement by Mike Pence; and who is famous for having said, in his 2012 campaign against Obama, that “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”).

I knew that Obama was the lesser of two evils, but I now recognize that I had had no idea of how evil that actually was. Here I shall report what I now know. This extensively documented reconstruction, of the MH17 incident and of how it came about, seems to me to disprove the fundamental Western ‘historical’ narrative about contemporary international relations, and to signal the necessity for a fundamental rewrite of the mainstream view of world history in our era. At the very least, it disproves that view — the mainstream view or ‘history’ of our time. Whatever the truth might be, it certainly cannot be anything even approximating that ‘historical’ mainstream. Mainstream recent ‘history’ is, now more clearly than ever before, a sinister and carefully orchestrated myth, as will be demonstrated here in what follows. 

The essential background information regarding the MH17 must be presented at the start, and it’s accurately portrayed in an 11-minute video. The first-ever news-report to display and assemble in an easily comprehensible way all of the crucial facts constituting the background context that’s necessary in order to understand the MH17 event and what caused it, was an 11-minute video compilation, which was uploaded to youtube on 12 March 2014, and which you can see here.

It’s 100% true, nothing at all deceptive in any way, and it still remains, in my opinion (after my seeing it around 50 times and considering it from a multitude of different perspectives), absolutely a masterpiece, the only perfect public-affairs video that I have ever seen. Beyond that essential background information to the MH17 event, now follows (and entirely within that factual background-context), a summary in more detail, focusing in, or zooming onto, the MH17 event itself, more closely: 

This will be a summary, which — since it might seem incredible to anyone who doesn’t already know the evidence — will immediately be followed by the evidence, all clickable here to each source (though not necessarily via only a single click). The first sentence of the summary will summarize the essential background information to the MH17 event — meaning here only information on the background that’s essential in order to be able to understand the context in which the information that is to be newly introduced here regarding the MH17 event will fit into that bigger picture — and this opening sentence will therefore itself be linked to more-detailed summaries of key aspects of that background part, each aspect of which itself contains links to all of the source-evidences there regarding that aspect of the deepest background, so that the full background will be accessible from the links that are provided here, and the new information, which is to be provided at the end, will be entirely understandable within the context of that full background. 

Here, then, is the overall summary, including the heavily-linked opening sentence regarding this event’s deep background:

President Obama not only perpetrated the February 2014 bloody coup in Ukraine which he had started by no later than 2011 to plan and placed into operation on 1 March 2013 inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev (months before the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom he was to overthrow decided for Ukraine not to accept the EU’s offer of membership), but Obama and his NATO were so determined to reverse the coup’s resulting breakaway, from Ukraine, of Ukraine’s two most anti-nazi districts, Crimea and Donetsk, that Obama and his NATO then set up the shoot-down of the MH17 airliner by Obama’s newly-installed nazi Ukrainian government, with the objective being to promptly blame it against Russia. Obama was, at that time, in early July 2014, desperate for there to be a pretext on which the European Union would join the U.S. in greatly hiking sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine.

What the most-recent information will show is this: Obama and his NATO were intending to use this false accusation against Russia as a pretext not only to hike anti-Russia sanctions but ultimately to invade both Donetsk and Crimea and risk WW III in order to coerce those two regions back again into Ukraine — now to become (like the rest of Ukraine) under the control of the U.S. regime.

The reasons why that plan failed (was aborted) were, first, that Malaysia’s Government held in international law the unchallengeable right of ownership over the airliner’s black boxes; and, second, that there was especially one member of NATO, Angela Merkel, who refused to risk WW III and to join into Obama’s extremely psychopathic scheme, since it risked the whole world over his determination to grab the entirety of Ukraine.

Obama always refused to proceed forward with a geostrategic plan if it was strongly opposed by at least one core ally — in this particular instance, he knew enough not to drive Germany to abandon NATO and to ally with Russia (especially since Russia itself was his actual target in his coup to take over Ukraine). By declining to move forward without Merkel, all of those immediate risks to the world were avoided.

Furthermore, Malaysia’s holding the black boxes was especially a problem for Obama and NATO, because any preparation for a U.S.-NATO invasion of Donbass and Crimea would spark Malaysia to go public with what it already knew about the U.S.-NATO lies regarding the MH17 incident. Obama possessed no ability to prevent that response from Malaysia. Not only Germany, but also Malaysia, possessed power in this situation, and Obama, fortunately, yielded to it. (Of course, the great worry about Trump is that if he gets into a similar situation, he might move forward regardless.) 

Also noteworthy — especially for Dutch citizens and the families of the passengers on that airliner — the Netherlands Government had been one of the largest financial backers of the February 2014 U.S.-planned overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President.

For example, it was the largest single donor, listed at $793,089, to Hromadske TV, which was the leading station that advocated for forcing that President out of power. Whereas the U.S. Government had organized and ran the overthrow, and spent far more on it (over $5 billion) than did any other nation or individual, the U.S. was only the second-largest donor to that station, at $399,650.

So: Holland’s government had a significant investment in the post-coup regime, even before that post-coup regime shot down the MH17 plane and thereby slaughtered its 283 passengers, of whom 196 were Dutch. This is yet another reason why the Dutch Government’s heading this investigation in which Ukraine — another member — should be a suspect but is instead a juror, nullifies any rational authority to its ‘findings’.

One of my more important early news-reports regarding the MH17 case was the 24 August 2014 “MH-17 ‘Investigation’: Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out”, which article, referenced near the opening of the present article, documented that the secret agreement amongst the 4-party official MH17 ‘investigative’ team — Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, and Ukraine — gave each one of those governments an absolute veto over any public announcement or ‘finding’ from the ‘investigation’, so that if Ukraine, which was a prime suspect in the incident, were to disapprove a ‘finding’, then the team wouldn’t be allowed to issue it. This is like giving a murder-suspect veto-power over the investigation into the murder. It shows how poisoned that whole official ‘investigation’ was, even at its very start. This is important to understand.

Another especially relevant news-report from me was the 7 June 2015 “Obama Sidelines Kerry on Ukraine Policy”, which noted that Obama supported the position of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who favored the U.S. backing an all-out invasion of Crimea and Donbass by Ukraine, and that Obama rejected the position of her boss, John Kerry, the Secretary of State, who opposed that policy.

“Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit … or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate.”

This wasn’t the only instance when Obama trashed Kerry’s work: he likewise did it when Kerry favored the U.S. agreeing with Russia that, in a Syrian-war cease-fire, not only ISIS but also Al Qaeda-led forces in Syria could continue to be bombed. Russia was bombing both, but Obama refused to accept a ceasefire in which Russia would be allowed to continue its bombing of Al Qaeda, not only of ISIS. It was the ultimate humiliation of Kerry, and effectively ended his career in government.) This displays Obama’s profound hatred of Russia. 

My last major report on MH17 was on 31 December 2018, “MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine’s Guilt Now Proven”. That presents conclusive checkmate against the U.S.-NATO case blaming Russia for MH17 (that case being run by the Netherlands Government, which simply ignores its case having become disproven by that evidence). 

Here’s the more-recent report, what I did not previously know, which comes from the great independent Western journalist living in Moscow, John Helmer; and presented here are the highlights from his report — a report that fills-in crucial additional details of the same historical narrative that I have previously documented regarding the MH17 incident

*

[The John Helmer article was previously posted by Global Research]

“MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt to Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephone Tapes; Ukrainian Air Force Hid Radar Records; Crash Site Witness Testimony Misreported”  by John Helmer, 27 July 2019

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Netherlands-Ukraine “Secret Agreement” Regarding the July 2014 Shoot Down of Malaysian Airlines MH17
  • Tags: , ,


Climate and the “Little Green Women and Men”

October 6th, 2019 by Peter Koenig

The Little Green Women and Men (LGWM) are us, humanoids, especially those living in the west, believing we command Mother Earth. Well, no wonder, there is a group among us, who claims to be “God’s Chosen People” – and they act it all the way. So much so, that they and their influence on LGWMs, have almost managed to dominate all the women, men and resources of Mother Earth.

Humanoids, LGWMs, are easily manipulated. They have chosen to be green, because “green” is IN. They are ‘little’, because in the big scheme of things, as compared to Mother Nature, for example, they are diminutive. Very. Yet, they pretend to command the climate. Green parties all over the western world are multiplying fast; almost like the legendary grain on a chessboard. They are called green but they come in all shades, from brown to green to red, and everything in between. In Germany the Greens have become so popular that during the next elections they may catch up to 30 % of the votes.

Question is: What will they do when they come to real power, when they are in Government, confronted with the interests of big business? Will they bend over, cave in – as did the Socialist parties throughout Europe during the last half of the 20th Century?

Today, one has to be green to belong.

Who is green, (pretends) fighting for the environment, for the protection of the environment – which is good, per se. But fighting for the environment is not a linear affair, as they, the LGWMs, are made to believe – and many of them believe, as “science” tells them to believe. When they believe, they create a comfort zone for themselves, where guilt disappears. They don’t question anymore. THE authority, called “science”, tells them the “facts” to believe. And if they do, they are almost absolved from guilt.

Almost – because to be really absolved in our western ultra-capitalist world, only money can really absolve you. So, they – or we, collectively, whether we believe in the propaganda or not (fortunately some of us don’t), will be asked to pay – to pay environmental fees and taxes of all kinds and shapes. To be more attractive they may be called ‘climate taxes’ – for using fossil fuel, for buying plastic, for flying in airplanes, for consuming no end – and-so-on. Hardly anybody asks what will be done with this new tax money.

As it cannot stop climate from changing, it will most likely end up in private banks, mostly Wall Street banks, where the billons collected will grow into speculative multi-trillions-dollar bubbles. And we know what eventually happens with bubbles. We all remember the Carbon Funds – which apparently are not dead yet, but will rather be resuscitated in this new fervor to fight climate change.

Stamped by our western Judeo-Christian guilt culture, we truly believe from the bottom of our hearts that paying a climate tax will free us from environmental responsibilities and put us back into our comfort zones. We then comfortably and guiltlessly continue driving our huge gas guzzling, CO2-emitting SUVs. That’s why the corporate manipulators – BIG-BIG money and their media tells us every day, the Climate Armageddon is coming. So, we pay, to postpone it.

It was coming already at the first UN-sponsored Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1992 which was extended to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, an international treaty that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on scientific consensus that

(1) global warming is occurring and

(2) it is extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have predominantly caused it.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997, by 192 nations. The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005.

But despite all the warnings of Armageddon, nothing has happened. Even if mankind was responsible for the CO2 production that changes climate – mankind, or rather the LGWMs have ignored it. Climate Armageddon is still written all over the walls. But it moves from wall to wall, further into the future, as nobody seems to be interested in preventing it.

After Kyoto followed Copenhagen, the next UN-sponsored Climate Change Conference, also called the Copenhagen Summit, in December 2009. Similar discourse, and new targets were set and propagated; billions of dollars were pledged by governments – but few paid-in, mostly because already then it was not quite clear who should administer the funds and who should invest in what and where to stop the climate from changing. Copenhagen also coined the 350-slogan. It stands for 350 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide (CO2) which has been identified as the safe upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point. As of today, there is a climate NGO called 350.org.

In 2019, CO2 is expected to pass the 410-ppm level. 

As per the New Scientist (25 January 2019)  , Carbon dioxide levels will soar past the 410 ppm milestone in 2019. We will pass yet another unwelcome milestone this year. The average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is likely to rise by 2.8 parts per million to 411 ppm in 2019 – passing 410 ppm just a few years after first passing the 400 ppm mark.

No stopping of climate change is happening – and Armageddon is moving on.

What this climate movement doesn’t seem to understand, or those that manage it do not want the world to know that climate is a complex structure of ever shifting values and natural phenomena; that climate is influenced by many factors which are all inter-related and orders of magnitude more important than what man can ever contribute.
There is the sun with its constantly changing eruptions and radiation emissions, perhaps the most important influence; then the oceans, while they absorb CO2, they also emit CO2 – and most important according to a 30-year NASA study  the oceans themselves change temperatures in natural intervals of roughly ten years, which is called El Niño in the Pacific and the Nrth Atlantic Oscillation in the Atlantic. They are responsible for large-scale weather patterns, also orders of magnitude larger than what man could ever create. In addition, there are the volcanos around the world, many of which are active. A massive eruption of one of them, i.e. Iceland, the Philippines, Italy, Hawaii – may produce a multiple of CO2 levels of what man produces in one year.

And we should also be aware of what is not much talked about, that the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), have developed since the sixties a weather control-program that functions with electromagnetic waves emitted in the Ionosphere, altering ionospheric temperatures to create specific weather patterns. The intention is to weaponize the weather so as to control entire regions by weather, floods, droughts, hurricanes… you name it.

Weather warfare has a long history; Earlier technologies were applied during the Vietnam war, when it was capable to prolong and enhance the Monsoon season, so as to make the paths the Vietcong used to transit from the North to the South were made impassable. That is really man-made.

The program used to be called HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and was stationed in Alaska. It has now nominally been dismantled, but continuous more clandestinely to be sophisticated enough, to allow the US to control the world’s weather by 2030, according to the Pentagon.

Talking about military and climate – the wars and conflicts mostly inspired by the US and carried out by the Pentagon, NATO or their mercenary proxies, cause more than half of the man-made CO2 emissions. This is a fact that may never be discussed in these UN-sponsored climate conferences – a strict rule imposed by Washington.

These are just a few climate-influencing elements, the composite of which is much larger than each one acting linearly on its own, because they are all inter-related, they are all acting holistically and dynamically – in other words, not predictably – and with a power orders of magnitude larger than CO2 by itself, let alone man-made CO2 which is but a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases produced by nature. And these ever-occurring climate changes, are well controlled by nature, as NASA’s Earth Observatory found out by studying the oceans for over 30 years (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon). They are kept in balance by our Mother Earth, no matter how much we would like to influence them.

Nuclear War vs Climate

Notice this: We are today threatened by nuclear war, a nuclear war that could wipe out mankind within a few days – yet we talk and demonstrate for climate change prevention, mand-made CO2 reduction. Public Icon, the Swedish teenager, Greta, and her followers, the Friday for the Future kids and those that call themselves “Extinction Rebellion”, took to the streets in so-called climate strikes by the hundreds of thousands throughout the world.

Seriously, imagine – the use of CO2 producing fossil fuel and an industrial agriculture infesting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the engine for 90% of the world’s economy – and let’s not forget the CO2 produced by wars and hostilities around the globe – all of which is also the engine for huge corporate profits! –

Does anyone seriously believe that hundreds of thousands, or even millions, demonstrating against climate change – will have an iota of influence on corporate behavior and profit oriented growth policies?

These kids – the LGWMs – are dreaming. Most of them anyway. Some of their leaders are directed by the same corporations they pretend to fight and to demonstrate against. Generally, the LGWM movement doesn’t have a clear agenda, other than talking loosely and abstractly about CO2 reduction. But they don’t really know how to go about it and what this means, what steps need to be taken and by whom, what implications and consequences this would have for our today’s civilization and every-day life, yes, theirs too, the climate kids’ every-day life. Thy have no program of what has to change; they just believe the change has to come from ‘outside’, i.e. the politicians.

No idea either that these same politicians are captured by the same industrial, financial and specifically the war industrial complex and that this highly capitalist money-making machinery also commands the propaganda apparatus on which they drive and thrive.

These climate folks managed to organize a special UN Climate event preceding the 2019 UN General Assembly, during which the most powerful and obnoxious representatives of nations and heads of states, notably of the US of A, talked aggression no end to those countries that do not bend to their orders and do not want to submit their people and natural resources for exploitation and profit of the western elite. In the special firing line are the usual condemned and sanctioned – but almost the only true sovereign countries left on this globe – Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea – and of course Russia and China.

Instead of seeking peace, the essence of the UN Charter, the UN has become a forum for war declarations and climate change. If ever man wants to make a true contribution to climate change – it can only be done by PEACE, through peaceful cooperation and solidarity among nations across the globe.

The LGWM movement has to wake up to a reality which is not propaganda based and has to do with our behavior, with our entire attitude, with our socioeconomic system – with a turbo-capitalist system that is growth based with ever larger profit margins. The system to survive has to expand every day, every year – it induces extreme consumerism, thrives on fashion trends – and on generation of massive waste, most of which is not biodegradable, but accumulates and – yes, influences our ambiance, living conditions – and eventually being part of a holistic world, also influences the climate.

We are living in a throw-away society, driven by an industrial apparatus that uses obsolescence as a tool for consumerism and growth, to generate more profit, no matter how much more non-renewable resources will have to be sacrificed and wasted – ending up as waste, rotting away, polluting the air we breathe, the soil we use to grow our food and the water – the all-important water, without which no life is possible.

To slow down and eventually stop the rapid decline of our existence on this lovely and generous planet, we ALL have to contribute in solidarity to PEACE. A life in peace is a sine qua non for improving our planets environment – and thereby our sheer living conditions, quality of life – and foremost to bring about more societal equality, less poverty a better distribution of wealth. All of this requires a massive awakening, an awakening towards a consciousness that is immune to egocentricity to fake propaganda – that is 180 degrees opposite to the current selfie-culture.

In the 1950s, I’m old enough to remember, we wrote letters to our friends and relatives, shopped in corner grocery stores, bought beverages in recycled glass bottles, filled our staple food from bulk containers into recycled paper bags, and wrapped fresh vegetables into newspapers (not plastic), went to public phone booths to call our girlfriends, walked, or biked to school, and if at all, our parents had small cars, no SUVs, prepared our sandwiches for school, used the same cloths for years, talked with each other eye-to-eye, enjoyed nature.

Today, nature is the same in the city or the countryside, because we stumble through nature wherever we go watching the little screen of an obsolescence disposable smartphone, with which we chat, smile and also make some phone calls. Then, in the post WWII fifties, our lives were more modest and happier. Then, we consumed less than what Mother Earth could sustainably provide us with. In the 1960s we started exceeded that threshold. Today, we, in the west, use three to four times what nature can give us (Africa about 0.6) – and that for sure will not go on forever.

Perhaps we have to think about jumping forward to a life style of the fifties and that consciously and conscientiously – and we won’t have to worry about 350-ppm CO2 as the limit for sustainable climate, because it will happen naturally and climate change will continue to happen naturally, as it always did for 4 billion years of our planet’s existence – and never bothered us. And most importantly, we have to learn to consciously remind ourselves that we are a solidary peaceful society, and we have to consciously disconnect from MSM, turn off our ears to the ever blaring and lying media propaganda lyrics. Consciousness is our integrity and base for social cohesiveness.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 
Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 
Climate and the “Little Green Women and Men”

An Open Letter to “Science and Global Security”

October 6th, 2019 by Rick Sterling

Dear Editors at Science and Global Security,

“Science and Global Security” (SGS)  has been publishing technical articles on arms control and related issues since 1989. I urge you not to succumb to political censorship.

Recently it was announced you are withholding publication of an article titled “Computational Forensic Analysis for the Chemical Weapons Attack  at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017”. The article presents evidence that a crater in the road in the town of Khan Sheikhoun (Syria) could have been caused by an “improvised rocket-propelled  artillery round with a high explosive warhead” rather than an aerial bomb dropped by a Syrian plane. The paper was authored by seven scientists from prominent universities and laboratories in the USA and China and based on advanced modelling techniques and computer simulations.

According to the article “Scientists clash over paper that questions Syrian government’s role in sarin attack” a campaign to stop you from publishing the analysis was launched by Gregory Koblentz.  He is a political scientist not an engineer or physical scientist.  His criticism of the article is because of the conclusion.

The political bias of Koblentz is clear from his article titled “Syria’s Chemical Weapons Kill Chain”. It accuses the Syrian government of using chemical weapons and speculates on the chain of command. It distorts the findings of the UN report on the attack of August 21, 2013. Actually, the UN lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom,  suggested  that it was a “fair guess” that the rockets carrying the sarin travelled 2 kilometers. This would have put the launch firmly in opposition held territory, directly contradicting Koblentz’s assertions that the Syrian government was to blame.

Facts and Investigations

You may not be aware of the following facts:

  • The report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism was not definitive about the crater. On page 7/33 it says, “the Mechanism assessed that the crater was most probably caused by a heavy object travelling at a high rate of velocity, such as an aerial bomb with a small explosive charge… The Mechanism also examined whether an IED could have caused the crater. While this possibility could not be completed ruled out, the experts assessed that that scenario was less likely…..” (highlight added).
  • Some of the most proven investigative journalists have concluded that the incident was staged by the opposition. For example, the late Robert Parry wrote an article titled “Did Al Qaeda Dupe Trump on Syrian Attack”. He noted that “Buried deep inside a new U.N. report is evidence that could exonerate the Syrian government in the April 4 sarin atrocity.”  As Parry wrote, “More than 100 patients would appear to have been exposed to sarin before the alleged warplane could have dropped the alleged bomb and the victims could be evacuated, a finding that alone would have destroyed the JIM’s case against the Syrian government. But the JIM seemed more interested in burying this evidence of Al Qaeda staging the incident …”
  • Seymour Hersh is another proven journalist. His research confirmed that no chemical bomb was used at Khan Sheikhoun. The Russians had even informed the US military ahead of time that they would be bombing an important meeting of groups that even the US defined as “terrorist”. Hersh’s conclusions are outlined in the article “Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried from View”.
  • Yet another proven journalist, Gareth Porter, did a detailed investigation including confidential interviews with scientists with close ties to the OPCW.  His in depth report is titled “Have We Been Deceived Over Syrian Sarin Attack? Scrutinizing the Evidence …”.  Among many points he debunks the notion that the crater could have been caused by a chemical weapons bomb which is designed to release chemicals and NOT burn them in a large explosion.
  • Finally, yet another proven journalist, Robert Fisk, has written about bias at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). One year after the incident at Khan Sheikhoun, another chemical weapons incident happened in Syria. In his article titled “The Evidence We Were Never Meant to See About the Douma Gas Attack” Robert Fisk reports,

“there has emerged disturbing evidence that in its final report on the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the city of Douma last year, the OPCW deliberately concealed from both the public and the press the existence of a dissenting 15-page assessment of two cylinders which had supposedly contained molecular chlorine …The OPCW officially maintains that these canisters were probably dropped by an aircraft – probably a helicopter, presumably Syrian – over Douma on 7 April 2018. But the dissenting assessment, which the OPCW made no reference to in its published conclusions, finds there is a ‘higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.’ It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.”

Why SGS Should Publish the Article

On the SGS website you question “the value of publishing the article given the sensitive and contested issue of the use of chemical weapons in Syria.” That is precisely the reason that you SHOULD publish the article, to be relevant and contribute to important public debate.

Global security is being threatened by claims and counter-claims about weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on such claims. The “intelligence community” was certain but wrong. Now, in Syria there are similar claims and counter-claims. Two nuclear armed countries, the US and Russia, are involved.

The US has already attacked Syria on the basis of media reports to the approval  of people like Gregory Koblentz. The pattern of aggression on the basis of dubious or false evidence is very dangerous and could lead to much greater conflict.

Political censorship does not serve science or global security.  Publish the article.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Open Letter to “Science and Global Security”
  • Tags:

Americans were horrified to hear that Trump wanted to have US forces at the US-Mexico border to charge migrants with bayonets or shoot them in the legs. Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis at the New York Times reported that Trump wanted US forces to fire on migrants as they sought to come into the country, aiming for their legs so as to injure but not kill them. Trump has denied that he urged these courses of action, but the Washington Post was able to confirm the conversation with staffers (who objected that these steps would be illegal and who simply disregarded Trump’s instructions. Among those who pushed back was then Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who is said to have insisted that US troops not “interact” with the migrants in any way.)

The Jupiter-sized blind spot of US media, however, managed to report on all this with horror without mentioning that this procedure, of shooting people massing on the border in the legs has over the past 18 months become the routine Israeli policy, so routine that the deaths and injuries inflicted by Israeli army snipers on largely peaceful Gaza Palestinian protesters no longer make the news for the most part in the United States.

Oh, you can find the carefully, clinically worded wire service reports on the Internet if you look for them, but they seem never to come on US cable “news” and if they appear in newspapers at all they are buried in back pages. Reuters reported on September 6, for instance,

    “Israeli forces shot and killed two Palestinian teenagers including a 14-year-old during protests along the Gaza-Israel border on Friday, Palestinian health officials said. They named the dead as Khaled Al-Rabai, 14, and Ali Al-Ashqar, 17. Seventy protesters were wounded, 38 of them by live fire, medical officials said.”

But here is the long version of the past two weeks of Israeli mayhem against the protesters, via the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

And, note these absolutely horrific numbers from Electronic Intifada:

    • “More than 210 Palestinians, including 46 children, have been killed during Great March of Return protests since their launch in early 2018. Some 9,200 others have been wounded by live fire, including 1,900 children.

At least 1,200 of those injured will require limb reconstruction, according to the World Health Organization.”

Israeli military PR people say that in the course of the past 18 months, some molotov cocktails, grenades and improvised explosive devices were lobbed at Israeli troops massed at the border from the direction of the protesters. There have also been occasional rockets fired from Gaza at Israel, but not by the protesters, and most of those rockets land harmlessly in the desert (they are more or less 8th grade chemistry experiments, lacking any sophistication or range, though they do occasionally manage to cause damage and have over two decades killed a handful of Israelis, which is also a war crime). The rockets are not connected to the Great March of Return protests, with the latter being mostly peaceful.

The fact is, then, that almost all those nearly 10,000 persons shot by live fire by Israeli professional snipers have been unarmed civilians posing no threat to anyone. This includes the 46 children killed and the 1,900 children carefully targeted by the snipers. They have high-powered scopes and the pattern of injuries proves that they are deliberately hitting those children, and targeting their legs.

The Israeli military doctrine is now that Palestinians can be shot like dogs whether they pose an immediate danger or not, if they simply stand near the Israeli barbed wire that herds Palestinians in Gaza into the world’s largest open-air prison. Some 70% of Gaza’s families were kicked out of their homes by militant Zionist militias in 1948, and many of the Palestinians there could walk home to their former houses (now occupied by settler colonialists who never paid a dime in reparations) in an hour or two.

In February of this year, an independent Commission of Inquiry established by by the United Nations Human Rights Council, pointed out that shooting protesters who pose no danger is a war crime.

A systematic pattern of war crimes amounts to a crime against humanity, according to the 2002 Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court, ratified by most of the countries in the world.

The Statue says,

“For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack…” It goes on to mention murder, “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

The notorious thug Binyamin Netanyahu, now on trial for corruption, implicitly threatened reprisals against the International Criminal Court if it ever took up Israeli actions. Given the rah-rah attitude of the US Congress toward far right wing Israeli governments, and given that the US provides substantial funding to the United Nations Organization, Netanyahu’s threat was anything but idle. The US senate also threatened the ICC over this issue, at the urging of the Israel lobbies.

So the ICC may be intimidated, focusing instead on seedy deposed African dictators, but if an objective court of law were to take up Israel’s policy of sniping at will at innocent harmless civilians in Gaza, the country’s officials who ordered the sniping would certainly be convicted of crimes against humanity.

The Israeli army and government are now officially worse that the worst elements of the Trump administration, who told our president “no” when he wanted to do to Central American migrants what Israel is doing to the people they turned into homeless refugees.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Razan al-Najjar, the 21 year old Gaza medic killed by an Israeli sniper on June 1, treating an injured man, undated photo from Palestine Live on twitter.

Canadian Imperialism in Haiti in the Spotlight

October 6th, 2019 by Yves Engler

Sustained committed activism is unraveling the dominant media’s shameful blackout of Canadian imperialism in Haiti. But, the bias against putting Canadian policy in a negative light is such that small breakthroughs require tremendous effort.

On Monday 15 Haitian community members and allies occupied Justin Trudeau’s election office for a little over three hours. The Solidarité Québec-Haiti #Petrochallenge 2019 activists called on the PM to withdraw Canada’s backing of a repressive, corrupt and illegitimate president of Haiti. Trudeau’s government has provided financial, policing and diplomatic support to Jovenel Moïse whose presidency is dependent on Washington, Ottawa and other members of the Core Group.

The office occupation took place in solidarity with mobilizations in Haiti and elsewhere against Moïse and an apartheid-like class/race system enforced by Washington, Paris and Ottawa. In recent days massive protests in Haiti have demanded Moïse go. Last week protesters shuttered the Port-au-Prince airport, stopping Moïse from speaking at the UN and forming a new government. Over the past year, there have been multiple general strikes and massive protests demanding the corrupt president leave.

To convince us to end the sit in, the Liberals dispatched a backroom operator of Haitian descent. Chief of staff to Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development, Marjorie Michel offered to have the government make a declaration on the subject within 24 hours if we left the office (the Montréal police and RCMP came to Trudeau’s office just after Michel to highlight what would happen if we didn’t leave). Midday Tuesday Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland tweeted a vague statement about the situation in Haiti, which at least didn’t endorse Moïse (unlike some previous statements).

Michel was clearly disturbed that Trudeau was asked “are you aware that your campaign office in Montreal is now occupied by Haiti solidarity activists and what would you say to those who ask why you back the undemocratic regime of Jovenel Moïse” at a concurrent press conference in Toronto. Global TV broadcast a somewhat perplexed PM responding to activist/journalist Barry Weisleder’s question about the hypocritical nature of Canadian policy in the Americas. Trudeau ignored the Haiti part of the question and criticized the Venezuelan government.

As a follow-up to the occupation of his office, we organized a last-minute 10-person rally on Wednesday outside a community boxing ring where Trudeau put on his gloves for a photo-op. We chanted loudly “Jovenel repressif, Trudeau complice”. The PM’s large RCMP detail called the Montréal police, which dispatched a dozen officers who arrested organizer Marie Dimanche. In one of the weirder rally/media situations I’ve seen, the police organized a protected pathway for the media inside the gym following Trudeau to get back on the election campaign bus. It was as if we were a threat to members of the media and it effectively blocked them from interviewing us.

Unlike previous Solidarité Québec-Haiti actions, the dominant media didn’t (almost completely) ignore our office occupation and follow-up rally. The Montréal Gazette published a good article on the sit in, which was picked up by a half dozen outlets. Part of it was translated into French and published by La Presse. Journal Métro, Ricochet and Telesur all ran their own articles on the office occupation. A few days later Le Devoir published a good article promoting our demand titled “Le Canada appelé à lâcher le président haïtien Jovenel Moïse.” A slew of Haitian news sites and community radio programs covered the occupation. As with previous Solidarité Québec-Haiti actions, they both received substantial attention on social media.

On August 18 a member of Solidarité Québec-Haiti interrupted Trudeau at a press conference to ask why Canada supported a corrupt, repressive and illegitimate president in Haiti. Since July 15 members of the Haiti solidarity group have interrupted two press conferences (and a barbecue) by Minister of La Francophonie and Tourism Mélanie Joly to call on the Liberals to stop propping up Moïse. Solidarité Québec-Haiti has also directly questioned Liberal MP Emmanuel Dubourg, Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and former International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau over the government’s policy in Haiti. But, even when media outlets were at these events, they mostly ignored our interventions.

From the Liberal’s perspective media silence is vital. Unlike the 2004 Liberal backed coup, which included significant demonization of Jean Bertrand-Aristide by the Haitian and Haitian-Canadian intellectual elite, few among Montréal’s Haitian establishment seem keen on defending Moïse. So, the Liberals have to justify their support for Moïse.

Through bold activism Solidarité Québec-Haiti has forced the dominant media to cover Canadian imperialism in Haiti. But, a great deal more work will be needed to force a shift in government policy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Imperialism in Haiti in the Spotlight
  • Tags: ,

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history. a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11. September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11. 

Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” were set in motion. September 11, 2001 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest. (Michel Chossudovsky)

Broadcast on WBAI, New York
.

We discuss the broader geopolitical ramifications of the September 11th terrorist attacks, including the attack on Afghanistan, the Global War on Terror, and the Western Military Alliance support for the terrorists; attack on Afghanistan prepared long before 9/11; 

Osama bin Laden an intelligence asset; Bushes, et.al., business partners with the bin Ladens;
 .
Image: Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of  Osama with George H. W Bush, the dad of  President George W. Bush  (archive; date unconfirmed)
 .
Earlier history of Afghanistan before the Soviet intervention; Afghanistan becoming a modern nation; 
.
US imperialism the destroyer of countries; assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance,  Ahmad Shah Massoud; the cultivation of opium poppy;  Afghanistan a major transport corridor for oil and gas; mineral resources; 
 .
Islamic fundamentalism a strategy of US intelligence to indoctrinate and recruit jihadists; extension of al Qaeda worldwide;
 .
US losing control of Afghanistan and Pakistan to China; pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine.
.
*******
 The transcript of this interview will be published shortly

***

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan  “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?

According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last 18 years.

1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;

2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.

 U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld:  “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.

October 7, 2001: Waging America’s 9/11 War of Retribution against Afghanistan

The immediate response of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden. By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Taliban were complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.

Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.

This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) is an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security. Under any stretch of the imagination, the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon cannot be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.

Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.

The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away. Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. The war on Afghanistan was already in the advanced planning stages prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, almost immediately following 9/11 with the adoption of the PATRIOT legislation and the setting up of a Homeland Security apparatus, under the pretext of protecting Americans. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset

Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Post 9/11 Era and The “Global War on Terrorism”: “You are Either with Us, or with the Terrorists”

Since Kyriakos Mitsotakis was elected Prime Minister, the Church of Greece can breathe a bit freely. Threat of expelling faith from state education system blew over, as did the financial cuts for civilian services provided by the church.

However, there is another problem, long-standing and very serious one. It’s called the New Lands – ecclesiastical territories within the boundaries of Greece – namely Crete, the Dodecanese Islands, and northern Greece – that belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1928, but are administered by the Holy Synod of the Greek Church now. That is, bishops of corresponding dioceses canonically report to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but form a part of the Standing Holy Synod of the Church of Greece.

This situation is jeopardized by the fact that the Old Greece and New lands are unjustly represented imparity in representation in the Holy Synod. There are 64 metropolises, titular metropolises and titular dioceses under the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece and 36 metropolises of the New Lands. However, the latter are disproportionally represented by 6 of the 12 bishops of the Standing Holy Synod.

Of course, that wouldn’t be so much a problem, if this situation didn’t prompt another Local Church to use it as a leverage of control over our autocephalous Church. Unfortunately, it did: there is nothing easier than lobbyism via those under your control when they are overrepresented in the governing body.

For example, as Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira wrote for Vima Orthodoxias, in January this year, the New Lands hierarchs received letters from the Phanar explaining that they should agree to the bestowal of autocephaly to the so-called Orthodox Church of Ukraine which formally took place on January 6. So, being under the reign of another Local Church Primate, that is His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, these bishops voted respectively.

In contrast, among members of the Holy Synod who represent the Old Greece, only one believed the Patriarch of Constantinople has the rights in question! The remaining five metropolitans from the Old Greece and the oldest members of the Standing Synod were more cautious about recognizing unlimited rights for Constantinople.

It clearly shows that bishops of the New Lands are constrained in their decisions by the Phanar that use them as a tool against the autocephalous Orthodox Church. Being equal to other bishops who serve in Greece, they don’t enjoy the same freedom of thought and can’t act accordingly to their conscience. Seems unfair, doesn’t it?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sophia Iliadi is a freelance blogger from Athens, currently based in US.

Featured image is from the author

125 Million Dead + Global Starvation in Any Nuclear War

October 6th, 2019 by Hans Stehling

Today’s London Daily Telegraph (04/10) carries a report that any nuclear war between Pakistan and India could mean up to 125 million people would die and that the consequent fires would likely cause smoke to spread across the world blocking out sunlight and tipping everywhere into a decade of starvation.

It goes on to say that surface sunlight could fall by up to 35% thereby causing a reduction in global surface temperature by between 2 and 5 degrees C. The estimated recovery being more than 10 years.

However, the report says little or nothing about the extensive radioactive contamination of the land, animals and crops and the radiation sickness in the human population that would be the consequent inevitability for generations.

In this context, it is a well to appreciate that a nuclear war between Israel and its Muslim Arab neighbours, including Pakistan, is far more likely than a war with India.  The Israeli government being determined to attack Iran having first dealt with Hezbollah in Lebanon, it is accepted that it would be only a matter of time and multiple casualties in Tel Aviv from long-range missiles, that Israel would deploy its secret nuclear warheads against Iran and Iranian-backed troops. Once that comes about, it would only be a matter of probability before Pakistan would come to the aid of its Muslim brothers, with its own nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Then there would be global devastation on a scale never before experienced in the annals of mankind. However, that horrific scenario can be avoided through a determination to reduce and eventually remove all nuclear weapons. Tragically, however, the world led by U.S. President Trump, is now proceeding to increase and proliferate its nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Such is the historic tragedy of this American administration in Washington.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 125 Million Dead + Global Starvation in Any Nuclear War

Turkey is fortifying its border with the Syrian province of Idlib with cement blocks, barbed wires, and other military-style structures. According to Ankara, Idlib is in the hands of the so-called moderate opposition. However, it is for some reason concerned over the presence of these moderate activists in the border area.

During the past months, the Turkish military deployed notable forces, including heavy military equipment, on the Turkish side of the border with the Syrian province. Most of these forces are located near the opposition-controlled border crossings.

Meanwhile, the situation once again escalated in the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone. On October 3, the Syrian Army shelled militant positions near the town of Kafr Nabudah and Baarbu in southern Idlib with heavy rockets. On the same day, helicopters of the Syrian Air Force delivered a fresh round of strikes in northern Lattakia targeting Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near Kabani.

Pro-militant sources also reported that the Syrian Army shelled area near a Turkish observation point in Maarat.

Watch the video here.

Despite efforts of Turkey, Iran and Russia in the framework of the Astana format, Idlib militant groups continue shelling positions of the Syrian Army along the contact line in southern Idlib and northern Lattakia on a regular basis. This forces the army to respond and fuels instability in the area.

The Intelligence Service of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that it had foiled an “Israeli-Arabic” plot to assassinate Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Qods Force of the IRGC. According to Hojjatoleslam Hossein Taeb, the assassination squad bought a house next to the shrine of Gen. Soleimani’s father, prepared 350-500kg of explosives and planted them in a tunnel under the shrine. The squad planned to carry out the attack on September 8 or 9, which are the 9th and 10th days of the holy Islamic month of Muharram. Gen. Soleimani was supposed to visit his father shrine on one of these days. The IRGC arrested the entire squad consisting of 3 operatives. G_3

Iran is yet to name the side responsible for the supposed assassination attempt. However, most likely, Teheran will accuse Israel and Saudi Arabia.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Secret Mueller Discussions Uncovered. Judicial Watch

October 6th, 2019 by Judicial Watch

Rod Rosenstein, who was once a deputy attorney general, is a key figure in enabling, at a minimum, the Deep State’s seditious attacks on President Trump.

More proof is in new documents uncovered by a Judicial Watch lawsuit. Specifically, we forced the release of 145 pages of Rosenstein’s communications that include a one-line email from Rosenstein to Mueller stating, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” They also include “off the record” emails with major media outlets around the date of Mueller’s appointment.

We filed a lawsuit to get these documents after the Department of Justice failed to respond to our September 21, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). We were seeking:

Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.

The time period referred to in this suit is critical. On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. That day, President Trump fired Comey. Just three days later, on May 12, Rosenstein sent an email assuring Robert Mueller that, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” (It is not clear if the “boss” is then-AG Sessions or President Trump.)

In a May 16, 2017, email, sent the day before Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein emailed former Bush administration Deputy Attorney General and current Kirkland & Ellis Partner Mark Filip stating, “I am with Mueller. He shares my views. Duty Calls. Sometimes the moment chooses us.”

The next day, May 17, Rosenstein  appointed  former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

During the same period, between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein  met with  then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials to discuss wearing a wire and invoking the 25th  Amendment to remove President Trump.

The documents also show that, again during the same time period, Rod Rosenstein was in direct communication with reporters from 60 Minutes, The New York Times and The Washington Post. In an email exchange dated May 2017, Rosenstein communicated with New York Times reporter Rebecca Ruiz to provide background for this article about himself. Ruiz emailed Rosenstein a draft of the article, and he responded with off-the-record comments and clarifications.

  • In an email exchange on May 17, 2017, the day of Mueller’s appointment, Rosenstein exchanged emails with 60 Minutes producer Katherine Davis in which he answered off-the-record questions about Mueller’s scope of authority and chain of command:

Rosenstein: “Off the record: This special counsel is a DOJ employee. His status is similar to a US Attorney.”

Davis: “Good call on Mueller. Although I obviously thought you’d be great at leading the investigation too.”

  • On May 17, 2017, in an email exchange with Washington Post journalist Sari Horwitz with the subject line “Special Counsel,” Rosenstein and Horwitz exchanged:

Rosenstein “At some point, I owe you a long story. But this is not the right time for me to talk to anybody.”

Horwitz: “Now, I see why you couldn’t talk today! Obviously, we’re writing a big story about this Is there any chance I could talk to you on background about your decision?”

These astonishing emails further confirm the corruption behind Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller. They also show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media reporters.

Here’s some more background on the incredible finds from this one Judicial Watch lawsuit.

On September 11, we released 14 pages  of records from the Department of Justice showing officials’ efforts in responding to media inquiries about DOJ/FBI talks allegedly invoking the 25th Amendment to “remove” President Donald Trump from office and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a “wire” to record his conversations with the president.

On September 23, we released a two-page memo, dated May 16, 2017, by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe detailing how then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire into the Oval Office “to collect additional evidence on the president’s true intentions.” McCabe writes that Rosenstein said he thought it was possible because “he was not searched when he entered the White House.”

As the “coup” targeting President Trump continues through the House impeachment abuse, it is important to remember that its origins are in the Deep State agencies – especially the FBI and DOJ.

Court Forces State Dept To Release Smoking Gun Clinton Email

The Clinton email scandal is far from over. A federal court ordered discovery in a major Judicial Watch lawsuit that will ultimately result in nearly 20 witnesses having to testify under oath to our attorneys. And, and thanks to the court’s orders, we’re also getting new documents proving the Clinton email cover-up. Specifically, the State Department released a previously hidden email showing that top State Department officials used and were aware of Hillary Clinton’s email account.

On December 24, 2010, Daniel Baer, an Obama State Department deputy assistant secretary of state, writes to Michael Posner, a then-assistant secretary of state about Clinton’s private email address:

Baer: “Be careful, you just gave the secretary’s personal email address to a bunch of folks …”

Posner answers: “Should I say don’t forward? Did not notice”

Baer responds: “Yeah-I just know that she guards it pretty closely”

Posner had forwarded Clinton’s email address, which was contained in an email sent to State Department senior leadership, about WikiLeaks.

It appears that the State Department produced this email in 2016 in redacted form, blacking out Clinton’s personal email address and the discussion about Clinton’s wanting to keep her email address closely guarded.

We sought the email after a former top Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) State Department official testified to us about reviewing it between late 2013 and early 2014.

The testimony and the email production come in discovery granted to us on the Clinton email issue in a FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Clinton also faces potential questioning under oath in this lawsuit.

Despite a recent court order requiring production of the email, the DOJ and State Departments only produced it 10 days ago after we threatened to seek a court order to compel its production.

In other words, we just caught the State Department and DOJ red-handed in another email cover-up. They all knew about the Clinton email account but covered up the smoking-gun email showing this guilty knowledge for years.

The scope of court-ordered discovery that produced this email find includes: whether Secretary Clinton used private email in an effort to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); whether the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 and 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our FOIA request.

During a recent hearing, Judge Lamberth specifically raised concerns about a Clinton email cache, [email protected], discussed in a letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and wants Judicial Watch to “shake this tree” on this issue.

Judge Lamberth also criticized the State Department’s handling and production of Clinton’s emails in this case stating, “There is no FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.”

The court rejected DOJ and State efforts to derail further Judicial Watch discovery. Judge Lamberth called their arguments “preposterous” and cited a prior Judicial Watch FOIA case in which he ordered U.S. Marshals to seize records from a Clinton administration official.

Judge Lamberth detailed how the State Department “spent three months from November 2014 trying to make this case disappear,” and that after discovering the State Department’s actions and omissions, “Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now.”

Judge Lamberth stated his goal was to restore the public’s faith in their government, which may have been damaged because of the Clinton email investigation.

The court granted us seven additional depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Hillary Clinton and her former top aide and current lawyer Cheryl Mills were given 30 days to oppose our depositions of them.

On December 6, 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:

  • John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS), testified under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
  • Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
  • Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
  • In the interrogatory responses of E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically the Executive Office of the President.
  • Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testifiedthat both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
  • Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.

The court will next decide will whether Judicial Watch attorneys can question Mrs. Clinton directly under oath – so stay tuned….

A Judicial Watch Election Law Victory in California

We thwarted Leftist Californians’ efforts to keep President Trump off the 2020 ballot.

A federal judge enjoined a California law requiring presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns. The injunction was requested by Judicial Watch, President Trump, and other challengers to the law.

California’s Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act (“SB 27”) requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns for the past five years for public posting on the internet. Candidates who refuse to do so are barred from having their names printed on California’s March 2020 primary ballot.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenged the law on behalf of four California voters, including two Republicans, a Democrat, and an Independent. The lawsuit alleged that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and that it violates voters  First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to associate with like-minded voters and to express their preferences by means of their votes (Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477)). President Trump, the Republican National Committee, and other candidates and private litigants also filed legal challenges.

In his decision, Judge Morrison C. England of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California observed that “there has never been a legal requirement that any candidate for federal office disclose their tax returns.” While he noted that SB 27 “was primarily intended to force President Trump to disclose his tax returns,” Judge England agreed with Judicial Watch that the law particularly harmed California voters by diminishing their ability “to cast an effective vote” and to select the “presidential candidate of their choice.”

Judge England ruled that Judicial Watch was likely to succeed on every one of its claims. He stated that California’s scheme “tramples the Framers’ vision of having uniform standards” for candidate qualifications. He also found that the public had an “extraordinary” interest in “ensuring that individual voters may associate for the advancement of political beliefs and cast a vote for their preferred candidate for President.” And he agreed with President Trump that SB 27 was preempted by the federal Ethics in Government Act.

As Judge England noted, nonpartisan counsel for the California legislature had issued a written opinion stating that a prior version of SB 27 was unconstitutional. Then-Governor Jerry Brown had vetoed that prior version, also citing constitutional concerns.

Leftist California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters and the U.S. Constitution. The court found this anti-Trump scheme to game the 2020 elections to be obviously unconstitutional.

Outrageously, California’s political leadership will continue to abuse and waste taxpayer money by trying to appeal this sensible decision. They should give up and stop trying to prevent voters from being able to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice next year.

Until next week …

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Flickr/CC

Hong Kong versus Iraq Protests

October 6th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

US dirty hands are all over months of protests in Hong Kong, including orchestrated violence and chaos, targeting China’s soft underbelly.

Opposition elements met with House Speaker Pelosi and Pompeo in Washington. They also met with US lawmakers in Montana and with a US consulate official in Hong Kong.

Likely CIA/National Endowment for Democracy-orchestrated protests last spring turned violent weeks after initiated, creating intolerable conditions for majority city residents opposed to what’s going on endlessly.

Beijing has largely let Hong Kong police and security forces handle things. On October 5, the South China Morning Post reported that a “wave of destruction le(ft) businesses picking up pieces as (the) city braces for another weekend of unrest,” adding:

Hong Kong is “reel(ing) from” what’s going on. Numerous security forces have been injured along with demonstrators, only one death reported since protests began last March.

Given the intensity and duration of US-orchestrated anti-government violence and chaos since June, Hong Kong security forces have been far more restrained than what might be expected.

Compare what’s going on in Hong Kong to public outrage in Iraq over US-allied regime corruption and neoliberal harshness, making life intolerable for ordinary Iraqis.

A Gan Business Anti-Corruption Portal report on Iraqi corruption said the following:

“Corruption in the public and private sectors” is widespread, including “a deeply entrenched patronage network,” adding:

“(T)he Iraqi government failed to implement anti-corruption laws effectively, and public officials engage in corruption with impunity. Bribery and giving gifts to ‘get things done’ are widespread practices in Iraq, despite being illegal.”

Iraq’s judicial system…is plagued by corruption and political interference…There were reports of investigations of corrupt judges.”

“Interior Ministry and Justice Ministry employees often extorted bribes from detainees to release them even if the courts had already accorded them the right to be released.”

Police corruption is widespread throughout its chain of command. “Corruption and impunity are…serious problems within Iraq’s security apparatus…”

The same goes for Iraqi public services. Its “public administration is…corrupt, weak and inefficient. The institution is plagued by nepotism, politically motivated appointments, and payroll corruption.”

“In a widely published corruption case, several Iraqi high-ranking officials including senior officials at the oil ministry, such as ex-oil minister Hussein al-Shahristani, have been accused of receiving bribes from large corporations in return for winning business.”

The report covers many more examples of widespread corruption in Iraq, the nation’s wealth used to enrich US-led Western interests and the nation’s privileged class at the expense ordinary people.

That cuts to the heart of why protests erupted on Tuesday. What began peacefully turned violent in response to repressive actions by security forces, using lethal force, polar opposite of containment tactics in Hong Kong.

Reportedly in the past four days, 60 or more Iraqis perished from live fire by military force snipers on rooftops overlooking Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, another 1,600 injured, according to the Iraqi Human Rights Commission.

Protesters want jobs, essential to life public services denied them, and rampant corruption curbed.

One demonstrator unnamed for his or her safety said:

“There’s no electricity, no jobs. People are dying of starvation, and people are sick. It is a curse.”

On Friday, senior Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said

“(t)he government and the political sides have not fulfilled the demands of the people to fight corruption” and provide vital public services.

Well-known Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi to resign and hold new elections, saying shedding Iraqi blood “cannot be ignored.”

An unnamed jobless protester said

“(i)f the government is not dissolved, we will avenge our martyrs.”

Establishment media coverage of Hong Kong and Iraqi protests are world’s apart — NYT headlines typical of widespread misreporting.

Recent Times headlines on Hong Kong Protests were as follows:

“Hong Kong Takes Symbolic Stand Against China’s High-Tech Controls”

“Hong Kong Police Shot a Protester at Point-Blank Range”

“Celebrations in Beijing. Violence in Hong Kong”

“Is China Heading for Crisis? The protests in Hong Kong accelerate the contradictions in Beijing”

“Hong Kong Police, Seen as ‘Hounds After Rabbits,’ Face Rising Rage”

The above headlines and many others like them ignore US-orchestrated violence, war on China by other means — along with trade war unrelated to trade, and hostile US incursions by Pentagon warships and aircraft near Chinese territory.

Compare the above Times’ headlines to its coverage of protests in Baghdad:

“Iraq Struggles to Contain Wave of Deadly Protests” — largely blaming demonstrators for violence ordered by the US-installed regime against ordinary Iraqis, demanding essential to life and welfare public services from the oil-rich country, with the world’s 5th largest reserves.

“Two Killed in Anti-Government Protests — injuring more than 200, according to (unnamed) officials”

“Thousands in Iraq Protest Corruption — Police in Iraq use tear gas and rubber bullets…in some cases by live ammunition”

The Times quoted US-installed puppet president Adel Abdul Mahdi, accusing protesters of violence committed against them by regime forces — saying they’re using knives and hand grenades that “threaten the general order and civil peace.”

The Times ignored regime military forces positioned on rooftops, using live fire on demonstrators, killing scores.

What began in Baghdad spread elsewhere in the country, protesting against hugely corrupt and repressive rule, ordinary Iraqis exploited and otherwise abused, their fundamental rights ignored.

Coverage by establishment media differs markedly throughout months of US-orchestrated violence in Hong Kong — falsely blaming city authorities and Beijing for what Trump regime hardliners initiated.

In Iraq, ordinary people are largely blamed for regime high crimes committed against them.

It’s been this way since the US installed pro-Western puppet rule, following Bush/Cheney’s 2003 aggression.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hong Kong versus Iraq Protests

 

“Let the dogs of the empire bark, that’s their job; ours is to battle to achieve the true liberation of our people.”

– Hugo Chavez (February, 2006) [1]

.

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

When political talking heads and mainstream media reporting analyze the crisis in Venezuela, they typically present the government of Nicolás Maduro, and that of his predecessor Hugo Chavez as the sole actors with any agency with regard to the program in place and the problems besetting the country. [2]

On the latter point, it is rare that you hear much mention of the economic war that has been waged on the country by the U.S., Canada, and the European Union.[3]

On the former point, however, the general population, from all walks of life, are far from the hapless victims of ideologically-driven dictators. Masses of people, largely encompassing racially and economically marginalized individuals, have not only been crucial in terms of getting Chavez and Maduro elected and re-elected, but also in terms of taking an active role in the development of policies and programs affecting them in their local communities, putting citizen-involvement in self-described democracies like Canada and the U.S. to shame. [4]

President Maduro, and Hugo Chavez before him, could therefore arguably be described as less the authors, but rather the face of the modern Bolivarian Revolution. The revolution, of course is named after and inspired by the legendary 19th century figure Simón Bolivar, recognized for liberating the population of the Latin American region from Spanish control and taking a leading role in bringing Venezuela and the countries now known as Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Panama and Bolivia to independence. [5]

This 21st Century Bolivarian Revolution has not only been pivotal in advancing the social and economic prospects of the population, it has also raised the ire of certain foreign interests with a plan for the Latin American country more aligned with that of the Spanish ruling class during the colonial period than the will of the people. [6]

This week’s Global Research News Hour radio program showcases the successes and challenges of the twenty year old Bolivarian Revolution with three exceptional guests.

In our first half hour, Venezuelan born Canadian academic and activist Maria Páez Victor speaks to how the Bolivarian Revolution has affected the population of her home country, and how they have impacted divisions along the lines of class and race. We next hear from Montreal-based author and activist Yves Engler about Canada’s role in the January 2019 coup attempt against Maduro and why it might be threatened by the Bolivarian Revolution. Our third guest, Nino Pagliccia, a Canadian writer and activist also born in Venezuela, talks about the role of the January 2019 coup in the larger imperial geo-strategy for the region.

Interviews conduted this week by special guest host Brendan Devlin.

Maria Paez Victor is a Venezuelan-born sociologist, and a former member-at-large of the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) Board of Governor. She is also the author of “Liberty or Death! – the life and campaigns of Richard L. Vowell, British Legionnaire and Commander, hero and patriot of the Americas” (2013) (Tattered Flag, UK).

Yves Engler is a Montreal based political activist and writer specializing in dissident perspectives on Canadian foreign policy. He has authored close to a dozen books over the last decade. His most recent book is Left, Right — Marching to the Beat of Imperial Canada. More of Engler’s articles can be found at the site yvesengler.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 271)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/02/200849131653979736.html
  2. https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-is-the-cbc-lying-about-venezuela-trudeau-government-favors-us-intervention/5657040
  3. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14335
  4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-new-moves-to-build-workers-power/18507/amp
  5. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Simon-Bolivar/Bolivia
  6. https://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuelas-bolivarian-revolution-crosshairs-us-imperialism/5680247

The arrest of Russian anti-government journalist Yulia Yuzik by the IRGC on suspicion of spying for “Israel” and her subsequently promised release following pressure from Moscow puts Iran in the uncomfortable position of being seen as “compromising” on its ideological resistance to Zionism and even its own internal security, which runs the risk of exacerbating its ongoing “deep state” tensions between the Reformist (“moderate”) and Principalist (“conservative”) factions.

***

Russian-Iranian relations were unexpectedly shaken Friday afternoon following reports that the IRGC arrested Russian anti-government journalist Yulia Yuzik on suspicion of spying for “Israel” during her latest trip to the Islamic Republic, but the international dimension of this scandal quickly subsided after Moscow put pressure on Tehran to secure her release, which the Iranian Ambassador to Russia promised would soon be forthcoming. It was a shock in the first place that a Russian was suspected of spying on Iran, let alone on behalf of “Israel”, but it was even more shocking that Iran promised to let her go in what might be the first-ever instance of an “Israeli” spy being let off scot-free by the authorities since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Evidently, the only reason why that decision was made was because of the alleged spy’s connection to Russia, which resulted in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoning the Iranian Ambassador “to briefly clarify the circumstances of the incident and ensure the rights of the Russian female”, according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova.

Importantly, it didn’t matter that Yuzik is a vehement critic of the Russian government (as a quick skimming of her Facebook profile shows), as her nationality compelled Russia to defend the rights of its citizen in line with its international legal obligations. In addition, it was also irrelevant to the Russian authorities that she was suspected of spying on behalf of a third country, and if anything, it might even be precisely because she was supposedly employed by “Israel” that Russia immediately worked to secure her promised release. It’s taboo to talk about in the Alt-Media Community, but Russia and “Israel” have become so close over the past few years that it’s possible to speak about them as the single entity of “Putinyahu’s Rusrael“, which the author elaborated upon in his recent analysis about “Russia’s Middle East Strategy: ‘Balance’ vs. ‘Betrayal’?” In summary, Russia’s regional “balancing” act has seen it unofficially ally with the self-professed “Jewish State” due to the commonality of strategic interests between them, which relevantly include curtailing the expansion of Iranian influence throughout the Mideast in spite of Moscow’s excellent bilateral state-to-state relations with Tehran.

The Islamic Republic is under considerable Hybrid War pressure by the US, “Israel”, and the GCC, so it’s desperately in need of the “pressure valve” that its ties with Russia afford it. Nevertheless, Iran is the “junior partner” in that relationship like this latest scandal shows because Moscow was somehow or another able to leverage its influence in order to convince Tehran to “compromise” on its globally known ideological resistance to Zionism. It was hitherto impossible to imagine that anyone could have gotten Iran to promise to release a foreign national who was arrested on suspicion of spying for “Israel”, but that’s exactly what Russia just did. This dramatic outcome demonstrates the powerful sway that Moscow holds over the Islamic Republic nowadays even concerning matters of its own internal security, to say nothing of its regional counterpart that Iran also “compromised” on in summer 2018 after Russia carved out an anti-Iranian buffer zone 140 kilometers beyond the occupied Golan Heights at “Israel’s” request according to the Russian Ministry of Defense as reported upon by RT in September 2018.

Iran’s Russian-“Israeli” spy scandal isn’t going away anytime soon, however, since theInternational Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) called upon the country to clarify the reasons behind Yuzik’s arrest, which means that Iran might end up publicly sharing the evidence that it has against her. Should that happen, then Iran would be confirming that it “compromised” on its anti-Zionist ideology and even internal security after heavy Russian pressure was put upon it to secure her promised release, further undermining the Islamic Republic’s international reputation but also running the risk of exacerbating the “deep state” tensions between its “Reformist” (moderate) and “Principalist” (conservative) factions. That scenario could be offset somewhat, however, if Iran walks back the reasons for her arrest and unconvincingly concedes that it made a “mistake”, though it’s unlikely that anyone inside and outside of the country would believe it even though that represents the best “face-saving” option under the circumstances. Still, it might not be enough to repair the damage that’s already been done and prevent it from spreading.

The proverbial genie is already out of the bottle, so to speak, and the world sees that Iran’s first reaction to Russian pressure to secure the release of its citizen who’s suspected of spying for “Israel” was to capitulate and promise that Moscow’s demand will be met very soon. It can only be speculated what Russia hinted could happen if this didn’t occur, but whatever it said obviously succeeded in scaring Iran, unless of course the “Principalists” intervene to derail her planned release on national security grounds and then force Russia to “put its money where its mouth is” and follow through on whatever it might have threatened. In any case, whether it’s visible or not, this incident definitely influenced Iran’s “deep state” war even if its impact on bilateral relations with Russia is ultimately negligible for reasons of realpolitik connected to the Islamic Republic’s desperate need for some form of sanctions relief that only Russia can reliably provide due to simple geographic factors if it had the political will to do so. It’ll therefore be interesting for observers to follow the domestic political aftermath of this scandal and see if it eventually shifts the internal balance of power in Iran.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld 

What happens when a Latin American priest suspended by the Pope for his involvement in revolutionary politics becomes President of the General Assembly of the United Nations?

A year in the life of our only global parliament – an institution in deep crisis – through the eyes of [the late] Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, a man whose directness and plain speaking clashes with the protocols and polished diplomatic language of this venerable, dying 66 year old institution. A man determined to wake up the “G192”- a term he coined for the UN General Assembly and its 192 nations, two-thirds developing countries – and give them a real say in a new world order.

With unique access inside the UN the film takes the viewer behind the scenes, shedding light on its opaque mechanisms and power dynamics. D’Escoto was President of the General Assembly in 2008/2009 but his story is timeless and allows us to take stock of the UN today.

By no means a newcomer to UN diplomacy, D’Escoto was for over a decade the international face of Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, in which he served as foreign minister after the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship. A liberation theologian, Marxist and promoter of non-violence, D’Escoto took charge in the last few months of the Bush Administration, when the reputation of the UN was at an all time low.

On D’Escoto’s arrival in New York the UN building itself was falling apart, a powerful metaphor for its crumbling moral authority. Just days into his mandate the US financial markets collapsed, setting off a global economic recession that is still with us, and that seriously diminished the status of the United States as the world’s only superpower. The whole system of global governance created by the winners of the Second World War was under fire. For father Miguel it was a window of opportunity: “The future will be better,” he said, “this idolatry of the market was a false god.”

D’Escoto had no illusions about who pulls the strings at the UN, but believed fervently in the General Assembly’s potential as a parliament of humanity, able to give voice to the powerless, the dispossessed, the majority of the earth’s people. In his 70s, with a hearing problem, a kind of grandfather figure and unlikely prophet, he was still an idealist, a utopian, convinced that he could turn things around and set the course for the G192 to reclaim their place in determining the future of our world, our planet.

At the UN no one quite knew what was coming. On paper the President of the General Assembly is the UN’s highest official, but in practice this office had in recent years come to reflect the increasing irrelevance of the General Assembly. No one imagined this retired revolutionary would actually take the job seriously.

This is the story of his one-year battle inside the Glass House.

The film is written and directed by Roberto Salinas, and produced by GA&A productions.

Watch the trailer below.

the Troublemaker – behind the scenes of the United Nations from Roberto Salinas on Vimeo.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the official website of The Troublemaker

The Latest on the Diplomatic War Against Venezuela

October 6th, 2019 by Leonardo Flores

According to conventional wisdom, the Trump administration, as well as its regional allies in the Lima Group and the Venezuelan opposition, were set to intensify the diplomatic war on the Venezuelan government at the U.N. General Assembly. However, they only managed to demonstrate how far removed their coalition against President Maduro is from convincing the international community that deadly sanctions and a coup are the way forward for Venezuela. 

Their plan had several goals: increase the number of countries that recognize Juan Guaidó (the president of the National Assembly who was anointed interim president of Venezuela by the Trump administration); link Venezuela to Colombian guerrilla groups; and convince more countries to impose sanctions. There was even a plot “to revoke Venezuela’s status at the United Nations,” as The Grayzone’s Anya Parampil reported.

On the first point, the Trump administration remains unsuccessful. 54 countries announced their support for Guaidó’s coup over a period of weeks in January and February of this year, leading Trump officials to believe that more countries would join every week. Now, eight months after the coup began, the number has remained almost stagnant; it is currently at 55 after El Salvador elected a neoliberal government. In fact, as it has become clearer that the Guaidó coup has failed, several European governments, including Spain, Portugal and Germany, have tried to play it both ways: recognizing Guaidó while carrying on relations with the Maduro government.

Although 55 seems like a large coalition, it is dwarfed by the rest of the world. The other 138 countries in the United Nations – representing 80% of humanity – have refused to back the coup. This includes countries such as Norway, Italy, Mexico, Uruguay, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, South Africa and Nigeria.

While there is a lot of hand wringing over China and Russia recognizing Nicolás Maduro as president, there has been very little scrutiny of the countries that are included in the 55 nation coalition, which features human rights violators and governments in crisis. In particular, it is worth looking at the human rights records of the coalition members within the region. In Colombia, for example, more than 700 social leaders and human rights activists have been murdered in the past three years. The Ecuadorian government declared a state of emergency as mass protests are rocking the country following an announcement of neoliberal reforms mandated by the International Monetary Fund. The Honduran government is mired in allegations of drug trafficking at the highest levels. The Argentinean government has seen poverty double during its economic crisis (and will likely be voted out on October 27; the new government is expected to recognize the Maduro government). In Peru, their unelected president has just dissolved the legislature as state-backed xenophobia terrorizes Venezuelan migrants. In Brazil, the Amazon burns, black people are killed with impunity and massive protests flood the streets. These countries use Venezuela as a prop to divert attention from their own problems, much like President Trump, whose anti-socialist discourse on the campaign trail consistently features Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

At the United Nations and its dozens of affiliated institutions, like the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council, there is no doubt who Venezuela’s legitimate leaders are. At the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, the Venezuelan opposition sought a Commission of Inquiry into the country’s human rights record. Instead, what they got was a fact-finding mission (which is of a lesser category than a commission) and an unintended consequence: the Council reiterated that Venezuela “needs a solution reached by Venezuelans without foreign interference” and denounced the impact of U.S. sanctions on the Venezuelan people’s human rights.

In New York, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez addressed the U.N. General Assembly and met with U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, to whom she presented the recently signed agreement between the government and opposition sectors. In a blow to the opposition, the Secretary General refused to meet with Juan Guaidó. Instead, the governments of Honduras, Brazil and Colombia invited opposition representatives to sit with their delegations.

The presidents of these three countries joined President Trump in mentioning Venezuela in their U.N. speeches, though in fairness, their addresses were not as isolationistnationalist and frankly, as boring, as Mr. Trump’s. The Honduran president – in power because of a coup and subsequent fraudulent elections – astonished listeners by accusing Venezuela of engaging in “fourth generation warfare” against his government. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil – another coup beneficiary who was elected because the country’s most popular politician is in jail– denounced the alleged presence of 60,000 Cuban “agents” in Venezuela, although considering his country’s health care policies, perhaps he was referring to Cuban doctors. His speech was condemned by Amazon Watch as “outrageous, undemocratic, racist, and deeply violent.”

But it was Colombian President Iván Duque who ended up embarrassing himself the most. For several weeks, the Colombian government and the Venezuelan opposition had been hyping President Duque’s speech, where he was to present a report and show definitive proof of Colombian guerrillas in Venezuela. The report, which has yet to be released to the public, is based on an article in Colombian magazine Semana that has already been debunked. The “proof” consisted of four photographs of guerilla training camps, which Mr. Duque claimed were taken in Venezuela. Within hours of his speech, it was revealed that one of the photographs was taken by newspaper El Colombiano in the Colombian region of Cauca in 2015. The other three were later proven to have been taken in Colombia by AFP. This is not the first time that fake or mislabeled images have been used in attempts to discredit Venezuela. The blunder cost Colombia’s Chief of Military Intelligence his job and has led to international mockery of President Duque.

Just prior to the U.N. General Assembly, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic joined the United States and Guaidó’s representatives in invoking the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, or Rio Treaty. This treaty, a Cold War relic signed in 1947, was last invoked after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and establishes that an attack on one country is an attack on all. However, the treaty’s validity is undermined by the fact that it has been losing members left and right. Mexico withdrew in 2004, followed by Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua in 2012. The latest to withdraw is Uruguay, which denounced the treaty days after it was activated against Venezuela and warned that it was “opening a path to armed intervention.” For its part, the State Department claims the treaty will allow regional countries to have a framework for imposing broad economic sanctions against Venezuela. Yet its own rhetoric leaves open the possibility that it can be used for an invasion, with language declaring the treaty as the “supreme law of the land,” raising questions of whether the Rio Treaty could be used to circumvent Congress and the War Powers Act.

Even if the treaty is only used for the imposition of sanctions, one of the immediate goals of its invocation is to pressure European countries to follow the U.S.’s agenda against Venezuela. Although the European Union has imposed sanctions on individuals and on the sale of arms, they have so far refused to apply economic sanctions. Broader sanctions from Latin American countries would give the Europeans cover for imposing similar sanctions. Elliott Abrams, U.S. Special Envoy for Venezuela, travelled to Europe in September as part of this pressure campaign and made the ridiculous claim that sanctions would offer “abetter chance for negotiations to succeed.” (The sanctions are the greatest impediment to a negotiated agreement, as the Venezuelan government insists upon the lifting of sanctions, yet the opposition has no control over them.) The Europeans refused to take the bait, even while they imposed travel and financial restrictions on seven intelligence officials. These sorts of individual sanctions have a much lesser impact on the population at large than President Trump’s killer sanctions and they are far from what the Trump administration and Venezuelan opposition desired.

It is a wonder that more heads haven’t rolled at the White House and State Department over their repeated failures to overthrow the Maduro government, especially considering the most recent humiliations at the U.N. General Assembly. The State Department’s primary responsibility has been to carry out the diplomatic front of the war on Venezuela, yet the coalition they have built has been unable to convince the world to join them, has failed at imposing multilateral sanctions, and relies almost entirely on regional allies that are undergoing crises of their own. So far, the diplomatic war is being won by the Maduro government, but the Venezuelan people continue to suffer from the brutal U.S. sanctions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Latest on the Diplomatic War Against Venezuela
  • Tags:

The seemingly never-ending spectacle of Britain’s attempted exit from the European Union is part of a broader malaise affecting this association of European states. The EU is in growing difficulty and much of this is unfortunately due to its own making. The EU has become destabilised from within through a not altogether dissimilar manner to the Soviet Union, whose economy had been stagnating from the 1970s under Leonid Brezhnev’s inflexible policies, before the complete collapse eventually arrived in December 1991.

Since the EU was founded under its present name in November 1993, its leaders in Brussels have pursued increasingly harmful neoliberal programs, with the results of these actions truly coming to bear this decade. In many EU countries, living standards for the majority of their populations have stagnated, or even slightly declined, over the past generation.

As a consequence of austerity measures implemented against the advice of economists, growing numbers of people have become bitter and disillusioned. Austerity itself cuts away at economic development, which is no secret. This has in turn led to potential voters flocking in greater numbers to far-right parties and other once isolated groups, undermining the EU’s structures.

As was intended from the outset, the neoliberal drive has damaged the foundations of democracy across different continents. Wealth has accumulated in the top bracket of human society, with the bulk of populations cut adrift and isolated.

In 1978 Douglas Fraser, the Scottish-American union chief, said that US businessmen had “chosen to wage a one-sided class war in this country, a war against working people, the unemployed, the poor, the minorities, the very young and the very old, and even many in the middle class of our society”.

Governments have become largely unresponsive to the opinions of their electorate, and instead serve wealthy and powerful interests to a greater degree than prior to the neoliberal age.

People’s aspirations for the future have been dashed due to the particularly harsh, discriminatory nature of these financial strategies. Out of desperation or isolation some have indeed turned to supporting fascist groups, previously fringe organisations – leading to the decline of traditional parties such as Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), whose support has sunk to its lowest ever level, while the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has seen its popularity rise steadily.

The far-right has also enjoyed an upsurge in backing in other countries such as France, the Netherlands, Italy and Austria. The symptoms for this disturbing trend can again be traced to the neoliberal assaults upon general populaces: Big tax cuts for the rich, growing privatisation, deregulation, abolition of trade unions, bank bailouts, offshoring of production. The richest 26 people in the world now own the same wealth as half of the entire human population.
In France, the Yellow Vests movement comprises a broad mix of French society; and to dismiss the marchers as extremist is far from the truth. The Yellow Vests’ protestations are a reflection of the destructive austerity and neoliberal programs which have been affecting a large part of the French population. Emmanuel Macron has sometimes been labelled by his critics as “a president of the rich” since his election victory in May 2017.

Although this title may be a rather simplistic one, president Macron’s background in elite finance with Rothschild & Co, through which he became a millionaire, has not endeared him to the French working-class. Nor have Macron’s financial “reforms” improved his standing, which are heaping further pressure on the beleaguered French electorate – borne out by Macron’s low approval ratings which have hovered in and around 30%.

Another factor strengthening the support of extremist parties is the influx of immigrants to Europe, who some feel to be a threat to their nation’s stability and identity. Many of the migrants are, however, escaping wars and famines caused by a combination of often Western-led military intervention – such as in Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) – along with people fleeing climate change events like drought, floods, oppressive heat, etc.

Those countries producing the highest emissions each year (China, America, Russia) should surely be required to take in the greatest number of climate refugees. The level of people fleeing inhospitable weather conditions in future is expected to rise to millions, as the climate crisis deepens.

Among EU states, Germany has taken in the greatest total of migrants at more than one million people. Yet the Germans have a declining fertility rate along with an aging population – and is therefore a country that requires the extra numbers with German companies in need of more employees. Many of the migrants which Angela Merkel accepted since 2015 have found employment, more than half of them in skilled roles.

The major decisions in Europe are made by an unelected Troika: the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These institutions are unaccountable to public scrutiny and work in virtual secrecy, which again infringes upon democratic ideals.

People have become disillusioned too by the failure of parties on the left, most recently in Latin America this century. Left-wing administrations such as in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina based their economic policies on a rise in commodity prices like oil, which was merely a temporary phenomenon. They failed to diversify their economies away from fossil fuels, or to seek a sustainable structure dependent on manufacturing or agriculture. Leftist governments have also been dogged by corruption, particularly in Brazil where the Workers’ Party could simply not keep its hand out of the till.

Britain’s impending exit from the EU is another symptom of the malady afflicting Europe. Large sections of populations, particularly in England and Wales, have suffered like others from neoliberal programs – and Britain, once the home of the Industrial Revolution, has experienced the effects of de-industrialisation much like those in America. The process of moving production overseas to Third World countries, in order to increase profits, was accelerated during the tenures of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The British public’s decision to leave the EU in June 2016, by an overall margin of 52% to 48%, was if anything a protest vote about the direction their state was taking – with rising levels of inequality and homelessness in the United Kingdom, along with declining standards in health and education.

However, the social crises plaguing Britain are more closely related to Thatcher-era policies that favoured the rich, which was later carried on with vigour by prime ministers like Tony Blair and David Cameron. Britain’s problems were more of a domestic nature, rather than that which could be blamed on EU policies. Those in Britain who feel their exit from the EU will somehow improve living conditions are likely to be misled.

Britain was never wholeheartedly part of the EU, as seen by her refusal to adopt the Euro as a currency. Britain’s position as an island nation separate from the European continent, which for centuries kept almost entirely independent policies and territorial possessions in far-flung areas of the world, meant that British governments contained somewhat different outlooks to their European rivals.

The UK’s exit vote was an unexpected blow to the EU, shaking Brussels to its core; as Britain still represents a major power, despite its decline over the past century.

It is difficult to see what good can come of Britain’s departure, as it is likely to leave both London and Brussels more vulnerable than before. Brexit will result in Britain turning towards developing closer relations with America, as it becomes somewhat estranged from the European bloc.

The long process of Britain departing the EU has constituted an unseemly affair. Leaders in Brussels are undoubtedly bitter about the loss of a sizeable European country from the union, and do not wish to lose face in providing Britain with a smooth passage. Were the EU to have allowed Britain in withdrawing easily from their organisation, it may have encouraged other European states with disgruntled populations to pursue the same path.

Theresa May and associates also proved incapable of following an unwavering path towards Brexit, as infighting and self interests prevailed among her Conservative cabinet members. The prospects do not look much brighter under May’s successor, Boris Johnson, who has a history of committing high profile blunders. Shortly before the Brexit vote took place, Johnson drew vague comparisons between the EU project and past policies pursued by Napoleon and Hitler on the European mainland.

Johnson has recently pursued ill advised actions such as suspending parliament, an act which has since been ruled by the British Supreme Court as “unlawful”. It has placed Johnson in an uncomfortable place, leading to calls for him to consider his position as prime minister.

An agreement between Britain and the EU for Brexit can certainly be reached, but a combination of preserving prestige, mutual antipathy and political incompetence have led to a precarious situation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Geopolitica.ru.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Who would have believed, just a few months ago, that the SNC-Lavalin scandal would scarcely have been registered so far as one of the key issues in the current Federal election? This has nothing to do with the short memories of our politicians or the voters. Rather it depressingly speaks to the narrow range of political discourse and policy options in this country.

The extraordinary lengths to which the Prime Minister’s Office went to prevent the prosecution of Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin certainly was related to protecting the jobs of those workers it employs in Quebec. But what makes Canada’s largest construction company ‘too big to fail’ is, of course, much more than this. SNC-Lavalin’s infrastructural engineering and productive capacities are unique not only in terms of their centrality to the mining and metallurgy as well as the oil and gas industries, but also to this country’s ecological infrastructure – from transportation and hospitals to water and clean power.

The two corporations that merged in 1991 to comprise SNC-Lavalin were sustained through most of the twentieth century by municipal, provincial and federal government procurement and subsidies. Indeed, with this corporate concentration the dependence on the state over the following three decades became, if anything, even greater. This is why SNC-Lavalin is ‘too big to fail’ today.

Public Ownership?

In the USA ‘too big to fail’ usually implies a demand for governments to break up concentrated corporate power into smaller competitive enterprises. But this can be counterproductive insofar as these smaller firms cannot sustain themselves, leading to a new round of corporate concentration or, even worse, the actual loss of crucial infrastructural capacity. This is one of the main reasons why so many respectably capitalist governments historically resorted to public ownership, not least in Canada from railways to hydro-electric power, and in fact much more.

The privatizations of recent decades have resulted in the loss of essential public capacities. This is especially serious in the face of the scale of the environmental crisis we face today. That the neoliberal mania is wearing off is clear from the way the deficit obsession that dominated previous federal elections now suddenly seems a thing of the past. Yet with the Liberals $4.5-billion Trans Mountain pipeline nationalization, and the Conservatives astronomically more expensive pan-Canadian energy corridor proposal, it appears their only interest in public infrastructural capacities pertain to sustaining the very industry that is at the root of the climate crisis.

This is of course par for the course. The $3-billion left unpaid by General Motors from the $12-billion public bailout provided to it a decade ago could have covered all the costs entailed in implementing the Oshawa worker-environmental alliance plan to save the GM plant by taking it into public ownership and converting it into producing battery electric powered vehicles for Canada Post and other public fleets. That not even Unifor, let alone the NDP or the Green Party, has championed this plan only goes to show how bereft of big ideas are the foremost institutions that pass for the left in Canada today.

To really implement a Green New Deal of the scale required by the climate emergency would require developing the kind of public engineering and construction capacities that underpinned FDR’s New Deal during the Great Depression. It is the merest illusion to imagine that this crisis can be addressed through regulatory and tax inducements rather than the acquisition and application in the public interest of precisely the kind of engineering and construction capacities that are concentrated in SNC-Lavalin – the too big to fail corporation that the Trudeau government turned itself into knots to keep from failing.

The half million Montrealers who joined the global student-led climate strike at the end of September probably comprised the largest proportion of the population of any city in the world. Yet during the leader’s election debate staged in that city less than a week later no one connected the dots to raise the efficacy of turning SNC-Lavalin into a public utility. This marked, at least to this point, the most depressing moment of this entirely uninspiring election.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article first published on the Toronto Star.com website.

Leo Panitch is emeritus professor of political science at York University, co-editor (with Greg Albo) of the Socialist Register and co-author (with Sam Gindin) of The Making of Global Capitalism (Verso).

Featured image is from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bringing SNC-Lavalin to Mind in this Uninspiring Federal Election
  • Tags: ,

Israel is an Undeclared Nuclear Weapons State

October 5th, 2019 by Hans Stehling

The state of Israel must not be allowed to remain outside the requirements of international law. The U.N. requires all countries to be a party to the NPT and that Israel must conform to the lawful requirements of U.N. Security Council 2334 which requires the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. Israel is one of only four U.N. Member States who refuses to be a party to nuclear Non-proliferation. The others are Pakistan, India and North Korea. All other 190 states are a party to the NPT and the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

On 18 September 2009 the General Conference of the IAEA called upon Israel to open its nuclear facilities to official inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on “Israeli nuclear capabilities” which passed by a narrow margin of 49–45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that “Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution.” However, similar resolutions were defeated in 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2015. As with Pakistan, the NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to Israel.

The attempt by Israel’s Netanyahu to provoke the United States into a war with non-nuclear Iran, is not only unlawful but is an attempt to use American soldiers to change the balance of power in the Middle East with the objective of Israel becoming the nuclear hegemon controlling the entire Gulf Region with its threat of nuclear WMD.

There is a consensus in European capitals that the Middle East should be a nuclear weapons free zone (NWFZ) and economic pressure should be brought upon Israel to accede to nuclear disarmament, in the interest of regional co-existence and world peace.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. MI5 has said the affair (of Cyril Wybrow in 1950) was “the first complete case of Israeli espionage in the UK”.

“The most important conclusion to be drawn from this case is that the Israeli intelligence service is hostile and attaches values to obtaining intelligence from this country”. 

2. MI5 concluded that “doubt must now be thrown on the loyalty of those .. whose racial and ideological ties with Israel may be at variance with the allegiance they owe to the Crown.”

The Rise of China and the Decline of American Power

October 5th, 2019 by Christopher Black

First published in August 2019.

October 1st 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)

The imperialist powers have a long history of colonialism in China, of reducing its people to beggars in their own land. The British, the French, the Germans, the Americans, the Japanese, all are guilty of crimes against China that cannot be expiated or expunged from the record. Defeated finally in 1949, the colonial powers have never abandoned their ambitions to reduce China to a colony once again and are, once again, actively engaged in trying to undermine China as a sovereign nation, to slander it, to sabotage its economy, to threaten it with armed force, to break it into manageable pieces, as they want to do with Russia.

The range of attack is wide. The Canadians, on US orders, have essentially kidnapped and still hold hostage Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer of the technology company, Huawei. At the same time, the US used the arrest as a warning to others trading with Iran. They have increased their military provocations off the Chinese coast with the US and its vassal states sending naval ships, time and again, through the Taiwan Strait, claiming to be enforcing “freedom of navigation” but in reality declaring that Taiwan, a province of China, is their protectorate.

They have allowed the premier of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, to meet high level officials in the US, in violation of the avowed US One-China policy, providing recognition to her as the head of an independent nation instead of governor of a Chinese province, and have sold billions of dollars worth of military equipment to the regime in Taiwan against Chinese protests. The US even claimed that Taiwan gave their guided missile cruiser, Antietam, permission to sail through the Strait, authority Taiwan does not have, further exacerbating the situation.

Very large-scale military exercises, that appear to involve all branches of the Peoples Liberation Army, that is land, air, naval, rocket and strategic forces began on Sunday, July 28. They will last most of the week and begin one day after China’s J20 advanced stealth fighter-bombers were moved to the east coast. They are meant to convey the message to the US and to Taiwan that China will not tolerate any more interference and is prepared to take military action to solve the issue once and for all and achieve the final reunification of the country and the defeat the remnants of the reactionary regime that fled the mainland in 1949. The Chinese government has closed vast swathes of the coastal seas to marine and air traffic to carry out the exercises. The Global Times quoted an “insider” source as stating,

“The more Taiwan secessionists stir up trouble and the more foreign support Taiwan secessionists receive, the sooner the day arrives when China becomes reunified.”

The Chinese defence ministry issued a warning on July 25, the same day that the Antietam transited the Strait, a week after a Canadian destroyer and support ship did the same, and just after the completion of joint Chinese-Russian air force exercises, that any move toward Taiwan’s secession could lead to war. The on-going exercises are clearly meant to send the message that China is prepared for the worst-case scenario in defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On Wednesday, July 24, China warned that it could use force against anyone who intervenes in its efforts to reunify Taiwan. Wu Qian, a spokesman for the defence ministry stated, during a briefing on the new national defence white paper, that

“If anyone dares to separate Taiwan from China, the Chinese army will certainly fight, resolutely defending the country’s sovereign unity and territorial integrity.”

But it is worthwhile to quote the paper itself:

To solve the Taiwan question and achieve complete reunification of the country is in the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation and essential to realizing national rejuvenation. China adheres to the principles of “peaceful reunification”, and “one country, two systems”, promotes peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, and advances peaceful reunification of the country. Meanwhile, China resolutely opposes any attempts or actions to split the country and any foreign interference to this end. China must be and will be reunited. China has the firm resolve and the ability to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and will never allow the secession of any part of its territory by anyone, any organization or any political party by any means at any time. We make no promise to renounce the use of force, and reserve the option of taking all necessary measures. This is by no means targeted at our compatriots in Taiwan, but at the interference of external forces and the very small number of “Taiwan independence” separatists and their activities. The PLA will resolutely defeat anyone attempting to separate Taiwan from China and safeguard national unity at all costs. “

And,

Though a country may become strong, bellicosity will lead to its ruin. The Chinese nation has always loved peace. Since the beginning of modern times, the Chinese people have suffered from aggressions and wars, and have learned the value of peace and the pressing need for development. Therefore, China will never inflict such sufferings on any other country. Since its founding 70 years ago, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never started any war or conflict. Since the introduction of reform and opening-up, China has been committed to promoting world peace, and has voluntarily downsized the PLA by over 4 million troops. China has grown from a poor and weak country to be the world’s second largest economy neither by receiving handouts from others nor by engaging in military expansion or colonial plunder. Instead, it has developed through its people’s hard work and its efforts to maintain peace. China has made every effort to create favorable conditions for its development through maintaining world peace, and has equally endeavored to promote world peace through its own development. China sincerely hopes that all countries will choose the path of peaceful development and jointly prevent conflicts and wars.”

And,

The socialist system of China, the strategic decision to follow the path of peaceful development, the independent foreign policy of peace, and the best of cultural traditions, considering peace and harmony as fundamentals, determine that China will pursue a national defense policy that is defensive in nature.”

Then comes the central tenet of the new Chinese defense strategy,

The military strategic guideline for a new era adheres to the principles of defense, self-defense and post-strike response, and adopts active defense. It keeps to the stance that “we will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counterattack if attacked.”

And,

China is always committed to a nuclear policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones unconditionally. China advocates the ultimate complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. China does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country and keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. China pursues a nuclear strategy of self-defense, the goal of which is to maintain national strategic security by deterring other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China.”

It concludes,

Peace is an aspiration for all peoples, and development is an eternal theme of humanity. Faced with global security challenges that are becoming ever more intricate and choices that have to be made at a crossroads of human development, China firmly believes that hegemony and expansion are doomed to failure, and security and prosperity shall be shared. China will remain committed to peaceful development and work with people of all countries to safeguard world peace and promote common development.”

Yet, the western imperialist powers continue to do the opposite. The pressure on China continues in Hong Kong with US and British backed 5th column elements taking to the streets, attacking government buildings, police, Chinese government symbols, anything they can do to create chaos, undermine order, embarrass China, and act as provocateurs to try to spread the chaos further into China. On July 30 the western stooges in Hong Kong succeeded in paralyzing the subway system, by blocking doors and harassing passengers, all applauded and supported by western leaders and media who at the same time support Macron’s repressive police tactics against protestors who do not engage in the violence and the vandalism we see in Hong Kong.

I wrote earlier on the political and financial connections between a number of the leaders of the rioters and US and UK governments, agencies and high level officials including meetings of some of them with Mike Pompeo and Paul Wolfowitz. But their orientation is apparent when they carry British flags or the old British colonial Hong Kong flag. They are the usual opportunists and traitors available in any country for the right price. But they are a serious threat and the central Chinese government and Hong Kong government have made a series of statements warning the 5th columnists that their patience is wearing very thin; that they will act in accordance with the threat they pose.

The western powers, by their aggressive actions and support of 5th column elements, their active agents, are in violation of the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, and the long established principle of international law of non-interference in the affairs of another state. Supporting political parties that seek to overthrow a government and insurrection by them is a major breach of international law, yet the American arrogance has reached heights where it assumes the right to do so wherever it wishes, while its vassal states, from NATO to Australia to Japan, follow the American path of collective ruin in hope of catching some crumbs falling from Uncle Sam’s beard.

Reasonable people ask what can be done about the aggressive policies of the United States leadership. Russia and China talk about containment of the threat, renew calls for peaceful diplomacy, support dialogue with Iran to reduce the imminent danger of war in the Persian Gulf, with Venezuela, with respect to all the nations attacked occupied or threatened by the United States. But the Trumps and Obamas, the Bushes and Clintons of the American world, respond with all the more arrogance and fall all over themselves as to who among them is the most bellicose, the most ready to go to war to “make America great again, the most able to “support the spread of democracy,” that is, their rule over the world.

History teaches us lessons and one is that leaderships that become inflated with their own vanity, egoism, and omnipotence while regarding their own people as useful pawns, bring ruin on themselves and their nation. Napoleon thought he had the world, until Russian arms, a Russian winter, and a Czar with intelligence defeated him, a defeat that led to British troops humiliating the French by restoring the Bourbon monarchy in 1815, to Napoleon begging favours from Wellington. Hitler thought he too could conquer the world, but again, like Napoleon, his ambition was defeated by the reality of Soviet Russia, his nation destroyed, his body reduced to a pile of ashes.

When the conclusion of American power will take place no one can predict. But we can predict it will be bloody for the Americans only remember their victories and excuse their defeats. They have a morbid faith in war as a means of policy, a naïve belief in their superiority, and a contempt for other nations that is the corollary of that superiority. So the logic of the situation leads us to foresee a catastrophe, barring some miracle of diplomacy or a miraculous and fundamental change in the nature of American society, but then, I don’t believe in miracles.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The government of president Jacques Chirac was a historical watershed. It was the last French government which refused to align itself with US foreign policy.  It was the expression of an independent nation.

France had extensive oil interests in Iraq which were jeopardized by the US sponsored sanctions regime as well as the US-UK No Fly Zone imposed on Iraq in the wake of the Gulf War.

“French oil companies Total and Elf-Aquitaine won the rights to develop the $3.4 billion Bin Umar project and the vast Majnoon field in southern Iraq. Total, which acquired Elf, had been unable to exploit these fields while the UN trade embargo against Iraq was still in place.” (Guardian)

France was considered a rival of the US. One of the unspoken objectives of the Iraq war was to exclude French oil companies from Iraq.

France through Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin opposed to the US-led invasion of Iraq at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Video (French) Excerpts of Transcript (English) below

VILLEPIN (through translator): Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, ministers, distinguished ambassadors. I would like to begin by telling you how pleased France is and how pleased I am that on this decisive day the presidency of the Security Council is held by Guinea (inaudible).

I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the presentation they have just given us. Their reports testified to regular progress in the disarmament of Iraq.

And what have the inspectors told us? That for a month Iraq has been actively cooperating with them, that substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of al-Samoud II missiles and their equipment, that new prospects are opening up with the recent question of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed, and that is indeed the key to Resolution 1441.

Therefore, I would like solemnly to address a question to this body, and it’s the very same question being asked by people all over the world. Why should we now engage in war with Iraq?

In response to the inspectors’ questions, Iraq must give us further information in timely fashion so that we may obtain the most precise knowledge possible about any existing inventories or programs. On the basis of that information, we will destroy all the components that are discovered, as we’ve done for the missiles, and we’ll determine the truth of the matter.

With regard to nuclear weapons, Mr. ElBaradei’s statement confirmed that we are approaching the time where the IAEA will be able to certify the dismantlement of Iraq’s program.

What conclusions can we draw? That Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991, that we can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country. Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad.

First, let us ask the inspectors to establish a hierarchy of tasks for disarmament, and, on that basis, to present us, as quickly as possible, with the work program provided for by Resolution 1284. We need to know immediately which priority issues could constitute the key disarmament tasks to be carried out by Iraq.

Secondly, we propose that the inspectors give us a progress report every three weeks. This will make the Iraqi authorities understand that in no case may they interrupt their efforts.

We do not subscribe to what may be the other objectives of a war. Is it a matter of regime change in Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship or the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. But this is not the objective of Resolution 1441. And force is certainly not the best way of bringing about democracy. Here and elsewhere it would encourage dangerous instability.

Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence.

Let us beware of playing into the hands of those who do want a clash of civilizations or a clash of religions.

Is it finally a matter of recasting the political landscape of the Middle East? In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability, not to mention that in Iraq itself the large number of communities and religions already represents a danger of a potential breakup.

We all have the same demands: We want more security and more democracy. But there is another logic other than the logic of force. There is another path. There are other solutions.

We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America struck in the heart. And I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom, justice, tolerance.

But there is nothing today to indicate a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country’s conviction is: It will not.

Four months ago, we unanimously adopted a system of inspections to eliminate the threat of potential weapons of mass destruction and to guarantee our security. Today we cannot accept without contradicting ourselves a conflict that might well weaken it.

Yes, we also want more democracy in the world, but we can only achieve this objective within the framework of a true global democracy based on respect, sharing, the awareness of a true community of values and a common destiny. And its core is the United Nations.

Let us make no mistake. In the face of multiple and complex threats, there is no single response, but there is a single necessity: We must remain united. Today, we must together invent a new future for the Middle East.

Let us not forget the immense hope created by the efforts of the Madrid conference and the Oslo Agreement. Let us not forget that the Mideast crisis represents our greatest challenge in terms of security and justice.

For us, the Middle East, like Iraq, represents a priority commitment. And this calls for even greater ambition and boldness. We should envision a region transformed through peace; civilizations that, through the courage of reaching out to each other, rediscover their self-confidence and an international prestige equal to their long history and their aspirations.

Mr. President, in a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial choice implies others. It implies the international community’s ability to resolve current or future crisis. It implies a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations.

France therefore believes that to make this choice, to make it in good conscience in this forum of international democracy, before our people and before the world, the heads of state and government must meet again here in New York at the Security Council. This is in everyone’s interest.

We must rediscover the fundamental vocation of the United Nations, which is to allow each of its members to assume responsibilities in the face of the Iraqi crisis, but also to seize together the destiny of a world in crisis, and thus to recreate the conditions for our future unity.

Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France Said No to US Led War against Iraq: Dominique de Villepin at the UN Security Council, February 14, 2003

People across China are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China on October 1st 1949.

Mao Zedong’s historic declaration. See video below

****

****

 

This article first published five years ago on October 1, 2014 is of particular relevance to an understanding of recent developments in Hong Kong.

***

Just as the US admitted shortly after the so-called “Arab Spring” began spreading chaos across the Middle East that it had fully funded, trained, and equipped both mob leaders and heavily armed terrorists years in advance, it is now admitted that the US State Department through a myriad of organizations and NGOs is behind the so-called “Occupy Central” protests in Hong Kong. 

The Washington Post would report in an article titled, “Hong Kong erupts even as China tightens screws on civil society,” that:

Chinese leaders unnerved by protests elsewhere this year have been steadily tightening controls over civic organizations on the mainland suspected of carrying out the work of foreign powers.

The campaign aims to insulate China from subversive Western ideas such as democracy and freedom of expression, and from the influence, specifically, of U.S. groups that may be trying to promote those values here, experts say. That campaign is long-standing, but it has been prosecuted with renewed vigor under President Xi Jinping, especially after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych following months of street demonstrations in Kiev that were viewed here as explicitly backed by the West.

The Washington Post would also report (emphasis added):

One foreign policy expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, said Putin had called Xi to share his concern about the West’s role in Ukraine. Those concerns appear to have filtered down into conversations held over cups of tea in China, according to civil society group members.

“They are very concerned about Color Revolutions, they are very concerned about what is going on in Ukraine,” said the international NGO manager, whose organization is partly financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), blamed here for supporting the protests in Kiev’s central Maidan square. “They say, ‘Your money is coming from the same people. Clearly you want to overthrow China.’ ”

Congressionally funded with the explicit goal of promoting democracy abroad, NED has long been viewed with suspicion or hostility by the authorities here. But the net of suspicion has widened to encompass such U.S. groups as the Ford Foundation, the International Republican Institute, the Carter Center and the Asia Foundation. 

Of course, NED and its many subsidiaries including the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute do no such thing as “promoting democracy,” and instead are in the business of constructing a global network of neo-imperial administration termed “civil society” that interlocks with the West’s many so-called “international institutions” which in turn  are completely controlled by interests in Washington, upon Wall Street, and in the cities of London and Brussels.

Image: While the Washington Post would have readers believe NED is in the business of promoting “freedom of expression” and “democracy” the corporate-financier interests represented on NED’s board of directors are anything but champions of such principles, and are instead notorious for principles precisely the opposite. 

The very concept of the United States “promoting democracy” is scandalous when considering it is embroiled in an invasive global surveillance scandal, guilty of persecuting one unpopular war after another around the planet against the will of its own people and based on verified lies, and brutalizing and abusing its own citizens at home with militarized police cracking down on civilians in towns like Ferguson, Missouri – making China’s police actions against “Occupy Central” protesters pale in comparison. “Promoting democracy” is clearly cover for simply expanding its hegemonic agenda far beyond its borders and at the expense of national sovereignty for all subjected to it, including Americans themselves.

In 2011, similar revelations were made public of the US’ meddling in the so-called “Arab Spring” when the New York Times would report in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” that:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.

The article would also add, regarding NED specifically, that:

The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.

 

Image: US Senator John McCain on stage in Kiev, Ukraine cheerleading US
funded sedition in Eastern Europe. In 2011, McCain would famously taunt
both Russia and China that US-funded subversion was coming their way.
“Occupy Central” is one of many waves that have hit China’s shores since.

 

Pro-war and interventionist US Senator John McCain had famously taunted both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping’s predecessor in 2011 that the US subversion sweeping the Middle East was soon headed toward Moscow and Beijing. The Atlantic in a 2011 article titled, “The Arab Spring: ‘A Virus That Will Attack Moscow and Beijing’,” would report that:

He [McCain] said, “A year ago, Ben-Ali and Gaddafi were not in power. Assad won’t be in power this time next year. This Arab Spring is a virus that will attack Moscow and Beijing.” McCain then walked off the stage.

Considering the overt foreign-funded nature of not only the “Arab Spring,” but now “Occupy Central,” and considering the chaos, death, destabilization, and collapse suffered by victims of previous US subversion, “Occupy Central” can be painted in a new light – a mob of dupes being used to destroy their own home – all while abusing the principles of “democracy” behind which is couched an insidious, diametrically opposed foreign imposed tyranny driven by immense, global spanning corporate-financier interests that fear and actively destroy competition. In particular, this global hegemon seeks to suppress the reemergence of Russia as a global power, and prevent the rise of China itself upon the world’s stage.

The regressive agenda of “Occupy Central’s” US-backed leadership, and their shameless exploitation of the good intentions of the many young people ensnared by their gimmicks, poses a threat in reality every bit as dangerous as the “threat” they claim Beijing poses to the island of Hong Kong and its people. Hopefully the people of China, and the many people around the world looking on as “Occupy Central” unfolds, will realize this foreign-driven gambit and stop it before it exacts the heavy toll it has on nations that have fallen victim to it before – Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, and many others.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was first published on February 21, 2017, one month after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, more than two-and-a half years ago.  What was true then is even truer now, and so I am reprinting it with this brief introduction since I think it describes what is happening in plain sight today. 

Now that years of Russia-gate accusations have finally fallen apart, those forces intent on driving Trump from office have had to find another pretext. Now it is Ukraine-gate, an issue similar in many ways to Russia-gate in that both were set into motion by the same forces aligned with the Democratic Party and the CIA-led Obama administration. 

It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in a 2015 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” 

This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. 

But it is fact, and the fact that so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic. Over the past few years the public has heard even more about the so-called “deep state,” only to see its methods of propaganda become even more perversely cynical in their shallowness.  No one needs to support the vile Trump to understand that the United States is undergoing a fundamental shift wherein tens of millions of Americans who say they believe in democracy support the activities of gangsters who operate out in the open with their efforts to oust an elected president.

We have crossed the Rubicon and there will be no going back.

Edward Curtin, October 5, 2019

***

“In irony a man annihilates what he posits within one and the same act; he leads us to believe in order not to be believed; he affirms to deny and denies to affirm; he creates a positive object but it has no being other than its nothingness.”— Jean-Paul Sartre

It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide.  Voters’ preferences are considered beside the point.  Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past.  Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine.  It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It’s our “democratic” tradition – like waging war.

What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments in the United States.  One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest within the ruling elites.

Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state’s imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions within the shadow government.  Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate.  Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission’s deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages.  The emcee for the neo-liberal agenda, Bill Clinton, was rendered politically impotent via the Lewinsky affair, a matter never fully investigated by any media.

Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling assassin who symbolized “diversity,” could speak well, and played hoops. Hit them with the right hand; hit them with the left. Same coin: Take your pick – heads or tails.  Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity.

But surprises happen, and now we have Trump, who is suffering the same fate – albeit at an exponentially faster rate – as his predecessors that failed to follow the complete script. The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render him more controllable.  These efforts, run out of interconnected power centers, including the liberal corporate legal boardrooms that were the backers of Obama and Hillary Clinton, had no compunction in planning the overthrow of a legally elected president.  Soon they were joined by their conservative conspirators in doing the necessary work of “democracy” – making certain that only one of their hand-picked and anointed henchmen was at the helm of state.  Of course, the intelligence agencies coordinated their efforts and their media scribes wrote the cover stories.  The pink Pussyhats took to the streets.  The deep state was working overtime.

Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the election and before taking office.  Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration.  Not his derogatory remarks about minorities, immigrants, or women.  Not his promise to cut corporate taxes, support energy companies, oppose strict environmental standards.  Not his slogan to “make America great again.”  Not his promise to build a “wall” along the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. Not his vow to deport immigrants.  Not his anti-Muslim pledges.   Not his insistence that NATO countries contribute more to NATO’s “defense” of their own countries.  Not even his crude rantings and Tweets and his hypersensitive defensiveness.  Not his reality-TV celebrity status, his eponymous golden tower and palatial hotels and sundry real estate holdings.  Not his orange hair and often comical and disturbing demeanor, accentuated by his off the cuff speaking style.  Surely not his massive wealth.

While much of this was viewed with dismay, it was generally acceptable to the power elites who transcend party lines and run the country.  Offensive to hysterical liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans, all this about Trump could be tolerated, if only he would cooperate on the key issue.

Trump’s fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars.  This was verboten.  And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the Rubicon.  That sealed his fate.  Misogyny, racism, support for Republican conservative positions on a host of issues – all fine.  Opposing foreign wars, especially with Russia – not fine.

Now we have a reality-TV president and a reality-TV coup d’etat in prime time.  Hidden in plain sight, the deep-state has gone shallow.  What was once covert is now overt. Once it was necessary to blame a coup on a secretive “crazy lone assassin,” Lee Harvey Oswald.  But in this “post-modern” society of the spectacle, the manifest is latent; the obvious, non-obvious; what you see you don’t see.  Everyone knows those reality-TV shows aren’t real, right?  It may seem like it is a coup against Trump in plain sight, but these shows are tricky, aren’t they?  He’s the TV guy.  He runs the show.  He’s the sorcerer’s apprentice.   He wants you to believe in the illusion of the obvious. He’s the master media manipulator. You see it but don’t believe it because you are so astute, while he is so blatant. He’s brought it upon himself.  He’s bringing himself down. Everyone who knows, knows that.

I am reminded of being in a movie theatre in 1998, watching The Truman Show, about a guy who slowly “discovers” that he has been living in the bubble of a television show his whole life.  At the end of the film he makes his “escape” through a door in the constructed dome that is the studio set.  The liberal audience in a very liberal town stood up and applauded Truman’s dash to freedom.  I was startled since I had never before heard an audience applaud in a movie theatre – and a standing ovation at that.  I wondered what they were applauding.  I quickly realized they were applauding themselves, their knowingness, their insider astuteness that Truman had finally caught on to what they already thought they knew.  Now he would be free like they were. They couldn’t be taken in; now he couldn’t. Except, of course, they were applauding an illusion, a film about being trapped in a reality-TV world, a world in which they stood in that theatre – their world, their frame. Frames within frames. Truman escapes from one fake frame into another – the movie. The joke was on them. The film had done its magic as its obvious content concealed its deeper truth: the spectator and the spectacle were wed. McLuhan was here right: the medium was the message.

This is what George Trow in 1980 called “the context of no context.”  Candor as concealment, truth as lies, knowingness as stupidity.  Making reality unreal in the service of an agenda that is so obvious it isn’t, even as the cognoscenti applaud themselves for being so smart and in the know.

The more we hear about “the deep state” and begin to grasp its definition, the more we will have descended down the rabbit hole.  Soon this “deep state” will be offering courses on what it is, how it operates, and why it must stay hidden while it “exposes” itself.

Right-wing pundit Bill Krystal tweets: “Obviously [I] prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics.  But if it comes to it, [I] prefer the deep state to Trump state.”

Liberal CIA critic and JFK assassination researcher, Jefferson Morley, after defining the deep state, writes, “With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most – perhaps the only – credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump’s “wrecking ball presidency.”

These are men who ostensibly share different ideologies, yet agree, and state it publically, that the “deep state” should take out Trump.  Both believe, without evidence, that the Russians intervened to try to get Trump elected. Therefore, both no doubt feel justified in openly espousing a coup d’etat. They match Trump’s blatancy with their own.  Nothing deep about this.

Liberals and conservatives are now publically allied in demonizing Putin and Russia, and supporting a very dangerous military confrontation initiated by Obama and championed by the defeated Hillary Clinton.  In the past these opposed political factions accepted that they would rotate their titular leaders into and out of the White House, and whenever the need arose to depose one or the other, that business would be left to deep state forces to effect in secret and everyone would play dumb.

Now the game has changed.  It’s all “obvious.”  The deep state has seemingly gone shallow. Its supporters say so.  All the smart people can see what’s happening.  Even when what’s happening isn’t really happening.

“Only the shallow know themselves,” said Oscar Wilde.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Deep State Goes Shallow. “Reality-TV Coup d’etat in Prime Time”

Pour la version française de cet article

In early October, The French Police conducted La March de la colère, (The “March of Anger”) directed against President Macron’s deadly economic austerity measures. “The center of Paris was paralyzed by the largest rally of police officers in years; they say they are in total despair after being abandoned by the government.” We have no money, salaries are falling, our pension funds are threatened.

Police “activists” pointed to abysmal working conditions, poverty as well as suicide within their ranks. 

More than 20,000 police officers marched from Place de la Bastille to Place de la République.

In a bitter irony, the “dirty economic medicine” which is hitting France’s population at large is also affecting the police officers whose mandate is to repress those who question the legitimacy of the government’s austerity measures. 

Screenshots from TV Report

Since last November, police repression against the Gilets Jaunes has been undertaken with utmost brutality leading to thousands of arbitrary arrests and detentions.

The leader of the Yellow Vests Eric Drouet was present on the sidelines of the police protest movement, while underscoring and condemning the acts of police violence directed against the Yellow Vest movement. (RT)

“The police have no money. Salaries keep falling. Our status and our pensions are being attacked,”

While actively repressing the Yellow Vests, the (legitimate) demands of the police protest movement are directed against the French government’s economic austerity measures. Ironically the demands of the police officers are in many regards similar to those of the Yellow Vests (see list) 

A contradictory process is unfolding. The French police are both the protagonists as well as the victims of the French government’s “dirty economic medicine”.

The police officers say that that they have been abandoned by the government. But so has everybody else. And the French government which is committed to neoliberal economic policies desperately needs the police to repress the legitimate demands of French citizens. Without the police state apparatus, the enforcement of these deadly economic reforms fall flat.

There are no doubt many police officers who are in favor of the demands of the Gilets Jaunes but who fear reprisals from their commanding officers.

Our message to France’s police officers: if you want to effectively confront the Macron government, refuse to repress the Yellow Vests,  put an end to arbitrary arrests.

Enter into dialogue with the Yellow Yests.

If you want to get higher salaries and better working conditions, join the mass movement against the French government.

Exercise your constitutional mandate of “guardiens de la paix” (guardians of peace) in response to a government which has violated the very foundations of French democracy.

Video ( French)

<
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France’s Police Protest Movement: The Unspoken Truth is that their Demands are Similar to those of the Yellow Vests
  • Tags: ,

The real Axis of Evil consists of Washington-led NATO and its allies. The magnitude of the human and environmental catastrophe is unimaginable in scope. Western governments and their agencies send strong delusion to North Americans, who remain largely ignorant to the reality of the catastrophe being committed in their names.

The Western War Of Terror, to which our governments remain committed, loots public treasuries to commit and sustain an overseas holocaust, wherein the West and its agencies support, command and control the very same terrorism that they proclaim to be fighting.

Dr. Gideon Polya notes in “An Iraqi Holocaust/ 2.7 Million Iraqi Dead From Violence Or War-imposed Deprivation” that the West’s supremely criminal war against Iraq alone

“led to 2.7 million Iraqi deaths from  violence (1.5 million) or from violently-imposed deprivation (1.2 million),” and that, “the West has now commenced its Seventh Iraq War since 1914 in over a century of Western violence in which Iraqi deaths from violence or violently-imposed deprivation have totaled  9 million. However Western Mainstream media have resolutely ignored the carnage, this tragically illustrating the adage ‘History ignored yields history repeated’.“

The West and its allies support al Qaeda and ISIS globally. They are the proxies, the “boots on the ground” that destroy sovereign, independent countries for their Western permanent-state masters. They are the essence of barbarism and evil, shrouded in torn veils of “plausible deniability” that deceive only those who willfully choose to be deceived.

Happily, the Axis of Resistance is becoming stronger. Each victory for those countries that oppose Western barbarism (including Yemen, Syria and Iraq) is a victory for nation-state sovereignty and territorial integrity, a victory for international law, a victory for dignity and civilization, a victory for truth, justice, peace, and a livable planet.

A multi-polar world order will impose restraints on the lunacy of the U.S-led New World Order, its global war, its predatory, anti-Life political economies, its poverty, and its growing holocaust.  Stripped of its war propaganda, the US-led monster is a global dictatorship that extracts disproportionate wealth from the world to a minute, transnational oligarch class.

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Yemen are all on the front lines against the West’s cancerous foreign policies of normalized Supreme International war crimes, of criminal blockades, of widespread, genocidal mass-murder, and the on-going destruction of a livable planet.

The crimes and their consequences are pre-planned and monstrous. The West murdered almost 600,000 Iraqi children when it intentionally destroyed water plants in Iraq through economic blockades. They bombed water infrastructure in Libya and Syria, and they are using the same tactics in Yemen, as well.  Civilian deaths are intended, planned for, they are mass murder. The predicted diseases, the cholera, are also anticipated.  The UN itself has condemned the cholera epidemic in Yemen as a “man-made disaster.”

Journalist David Pear notes in “The US-Led Genocide and Destruction of Yemen”:

“Since 2015 the cholera epidemic has been spread by biological warfare against Yemen. US bombs dropped by Saudi pilots destroyed Yemen’s public water and sewage systems. The parts, chemicals and fuel to operate Yemen’s water purification and sewage plants are blockaded. Potable water, cholera vaccine, and even individual water purification tablets cannot get in ….

The sewage from non-working treatment plants overflows into streams that run onto agricultural land, thus contaminating vegetables before they go to market. Sewage flows into the cities, residential areas and the refugee camps. Flies swarm over the sewage and spread cholera everywhere. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and Doctors Without Borders; hospitals, clinics and disaster relief organizations, and human rights workers have been deliberately bombed.”

Yemen, like its counterparts in the Resistance, seeks its own sovereign political economy, free from externally-imposed “neoliberal” diktats, the privatizations, the international financing and impoverishing “Structural Adjustment Programs”.

Yemen seeks to use its resources for the social uplift of its peoples, as guaranteed by the UN Charter and International law. Yemen seeks justice and truth and peace, as it fights the West’s al Qaeda terrorists, as it withstands the bombs furnished by the West, delivered by Saudi planes, commanded and controlled by the West. And Yemen is winning the war.

Shortly after the Aramco attacks, falsely blamed on Iran, Houthi forces defeated a large Saudi force in the Najran province, capturing 1000’s of soldiers, and littering the battlefield with light armored vehicles (LAVs) – manufactured by General Dynamics Lands Systems in London, Ontario, Canada.

(Instead of making environmentally-friendly fast trains, successive Canadian governments chose instead to manufacture LAVs for their Saudi and al Qaeda allies.)

In Phase Two of the offensive, Yemeni Armed Forces reportedly overtook three Saudi military bases and now control more than 150 square kilometers of Saudi territory.

These victories, as with Syria’s on-going victories over international terrorism, are ushering in a new era of multipolarity, an era that promises to be more resistant to the West’s terrorism, more resistant to the shackles of globalizing “neoliberal” parasitism, and more resistant to Washington’s unipolar agenda of permanent war and poverty – a cancerous agenda , toxic to humanity and toxic to a livable planet.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Axis of Resistance.The West and its Allies Support al Qaeda and ISIS Globally

My America: Raised by the Perpetual War Empire

October 4th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

One must surmise that any ‘thinking’ citizen of ancient Rome probably felt as this writer does concerning my America, the Empire. Perpetual wars, invasions, occupations and colonization of foreign lands either were greeted with a cheerleading feeling, or with apathy or perhaps with sadness. Such it is in the waning months of 2019. This writer thinks that the feelings of apathy are mostly prevalent among our fellow consumers… Oh sorry, I mean citizens. It seems this Military Corporate Empire has inculcated with propaganda anyone under the age of 90. The buying and having of mostly unnecessary  things becomes  one’s mission in life… including the $ billions spent from watching the saturation ads on television and internet screens by Big Pharma.

Like robots in some futuristic Sci Fi movie, most of the public, the ones who actually still vote in elections, choose to see themselves as either  Column A or Column B on the 2 Party/1 Party menu. Those that label themselves as ‘independents’ usually push that lever or touch that screen for one of the above anyhow. For those with  strong feelings of apathy towards what the empire is doing, why go crazy researching alternative ways to think, let alone vote? There you have it. Thus, when confronted with theories or facts to counteract the status quo on topics like who killed JFK, RFK and MLK (and of course Malcolm X), or what really went down on 9/11 and the subsequent (illegal and immoral) invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan… APATHY. You see, to many in that ‘apathy’ category why bother to care? After all, what only matters to those  people is their job, residence, kids, health…. and only from day to day. Forward thinking is for those who can afford to plan ahead because they have enough money to do so. The majority of working stiffs are financially forced to remain in the here and now.

William Shirer, when he was a news correspondent in Berlin during the early Nazi era, made an astute observation about many Berliners. This was a major international city, full of many sophisticated and well educated people. In 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland, Shirer was somewhat shocked when he saw the returning soldiers march into Berlin with not too much of a fuss by the public, excluding the usual ‘true believers’. Many Berliners just went about their business. Yes, many Berliners, if they were doing well under the Nazi regime, only cared about their own personal concerns. If they knew Jews and perhaps did not really like how they were being treated, maybe a little sighing in private. Others, like the great dissidents of this empire, vented more vociferously but kept their mouths shut in public, hoping for the best. Once again, apathy within ‘military mad empires’ is and was the norm. What should have occurred in Weimar Germany should have occurred before the Nazi menace took root. This should have been done by the majority of Germans during the mid to late 1920s, when the rule of law was still in effect. Then, with enough popular support Hitler and his minions would have been stifled. Alas, it was the general apathy of too many good and decent German citizens that allowed the madness to percolate. Also, factor in that too many of those apathetic Germans feared the Communists too much to get involved in stopping the Brown shirts.

Sadly, our nation, which became Amerika right after WW2 by the disease called The Cold War, has right up until now been in what the late, great Gore Vidal called Permanent War. We baby boomers were raised by ‘Duck and Cover’ drills under our elementary school desks in the 1950s. The 1960s began with the ‘A Bomb Scare’ (funny how we are the only nation to drop the big one) which proceeded, from the famous ‘Domino Theory’ (Communism’s spread would see nations falling like dominos) of the 1950s, into the cauldron of Vietnam. When that phony war was finally ended, the Perpetual War Empire found villains to justify the obscene and ever increasing military spending (which for this new century is 50% or higher of our tax revenues). Everyone knows the rest, with the two phony Iraq invasions and our current (never ending) ‘War On Terror’. The rule always being “Nurture and subsidize a new enemy and then go after it full throttle.” When those millions of apathetic Amerikans and Europeans wake up enough to see that the refugees are just too many, they only have Uncle Sam and NATO to thank for all that… period!

2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on My America: Raised by the Perpetual War Empire

Former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko failed to appear at the Kiev Research Institute of Forensic Expertise for a polygraph test on October 1st. The test was scheduled to be conducted by Ukraine’s National Bureau of Investigations, having been authorized by a Kiev court on August 13th. The polygraph test was scheduled to be conducted in connection with a tax-evasion investigation being carried out by NBI. Poroshenko is currently the focus of over a dozen criminal investigations which have been opened by multiple Ukrainian law-enforcement bodies since he lost the presidential election to Volodymyr Zelensky on a landslide in April. These investigations are in connection with indictments for tax-evasion, embezzlement, illegal abuse of authority, interference in judicial proceedings, forgery of documents and of lawmakers’ signatures, money-laundering, and other corruption-schemes.

The criminal exploits of the Yanukovich family seem quite modest by comparison.

On August 1st, the Vesti Ukraine newspaper reported that Poroshenko had made appeals to American lobbyists for protection from prosecution, including to the BGR Group, where former US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker acts as a senior advisor. This is a shrewd move on Poroshenko’s part. Over the past 70 years, between the United States government and its myriad puppets, there has been an unspoken agreement.

If you do our dirty work for us, impunity is guaranteed.

And indeed Poroshenko did a lot of dirty work. As president, he was an extremely loyal servant of US foreign policy. Even if President Trump has consistently indicated that he has little interest in Ukraine, there will doubtlessly be voices in the State Department advising him that it sets an extremely unhelpful precedent for the future if the US fails to protect Poroshenko now.

This latest controversy involving Poroshenko is just one instance of a pattern which has emerged steadily in Ukraine, in particular over the past 5 years – the country has developed a love-affair with the polygraph. In January, Ukraine’s most senior military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, announced that he planned to develop a “polygraph program” in order to identify Russian collaborators and “separatists.”

Used in this way, the technology’s express purpose will be to identify thought-criminals.

As it currently stands, polygraph tests have already been made standard components within job-interviews for many positions in banking, the tax-service, anti-corruption agencies and the military. In addition, polygraph-results are admissible as evidence in Ukrainian courts, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists worldwide who are familiar with the methodology and theory behind polygraphy regard it as a pseudo-science. There is very little evidence that polygraph-results are reliable, and lots of empirical evidence to the contrary.

The legal codes of the Sumerian king Ur-Nammu and the Babylonian Hammurabi stipulated the practice of “trial by ordeal,” a practice which survived well into the medieval period in Europe. Polygraphy, which involves monitoring physiological reactions during a line of questioning, is obviously a less physically dangerous method of establishing a person’s innocence or guilt than trial by ordeal, but no less superstitious. Honestly, you may as well be attempting to determine a person’s truthfulness or deception by entrails-divination.

The Ukrainian psychotherapist Irina Muzychuk, a vocal critic of polygraphy, has argued that the proliferation of this pseudo-scientific fad has partially ideological and emotional roots. She argues that in what she calls “highly unstable societies” such as Ukraine, the polygraph offers “hope that the truth will be found.” In a society which has been mired in oligarchism and corruption since it untethered itself from the Soviet Union in 1991, with the result that trust has completely broken down not only on the societal level but also on the interpersonal level, the polygraph operates as a fetishistic, pseudo-scientific substitute for trust.

However, if we were to analyze the phenomenon genealogically, we might also admit that it had deeper roots. Every society, every distinct ideological order, has its own ideologically driven, privileged pseudo-sciences. For example, in the United States, the most privileged pseudo-sciences are psychology and macro-economics. In the post-Soviet space, many privileged or legally mandated pseudo-sciences are hangovers from the “scientism” (in Russian “naukoobrazye”) which inhered in “scientific communism.”

For example, the disciplines which we call “political science” (in Russian “politologia”) and “geo-politics” are pseudo-sciences, insofar as they do not have methodologies which essentially distinguish them from the study of history. Their methodologies essentially centre on making historically-grounded comparisons. Nothing essentially wrong with that in itself – this would make “politologia” essentially a sub-discipline within the venerable study of history. The problem is that most political scientists don’t think as deeply or as long-term as historians. They compensate for this by maintaining scientific pretensions.

In the post-Soviet world, most high-profile purveyors of “politologia” are people who managed to crawl from the epistemological wreckage of “scientific communism” 30 years ago.

I would contend that the widespread use of the polygraph in Ukraine’s juridical process is another clear example of a particular type of “scientism,” this naïve trust in methodologies which purport to be “scientific.” As previously stated, almost every ideological order has its own privileged pseudo-sciences. “Scientism” is certainly not unique to the post-communist world. In the case of Ukraine’s contemporary polygraphy-craze, rather than “scientific communism,” it would count as an example of “pseudo-scientific post-communism.” For those under criminal investigation in Ukraine today, this is a somewhat brutal irony, when we consider the spate of “anti-communization” statutes which have been signed into law in Ukraine since the 2014 coup d’etat. Ukrainian society is just the flip-side of everything it thinks it’s reacting against.

You see, just like religions, secular ideologies cannot simply be erased or surgically removed. They can only morph or mutate. In spite of “secularization,” religion never really culturally disappears – it simply morphs into some post-religious form.

Precisely the same point holds for ostensibly secular ideologies such as communism or liberalism.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Padraig McGrath is a political analyst.

As Global Economy Weakens, Trump Escalates Trade War

October 4th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Multiple rounds of Sino/US trade talks failed over unacceptable Trump regime demands and aims.

They’re unrelated to the bilateral trade imbalance — caused by corporate America shifting operations to China and other low-wage countries. 

Another round of US/China talks are scheduled for October 10 in Washington, impasse likely to continue — ahead of an October 15 Trump regime deadline for imposing new US tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports — from 25  to 30%.

Earlier talks were followed by US tariff increases, not progress on resolving bilateral differences — this time likely to be no different.

At the same time, the Trump regime imposed new tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of European commercial aircraft, agricultural, and industrial goods — ranging from 10 – 25%, effective October 18.

Brussels will surely retaliate in kind, imposing duties on US imports. Escalated US tariffs war on two fronts comes as global economic conditions are softening, the worst time, likely to weaken things further.

Last March, the study for the US Chamber of Commerce estimated that protracted Sino/US trade war could cut US economic growth by $1 trillion over the next decade.

An analysis by the Rhodium Group found that US tariffs up to 25% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports would negatively impact US GDP, investments, employment and inflation — the US tech sector to be one of the hardest hit.

US tariffs up to 25% or higher on all Chinese imports would make things much worse — where things may be heading as bilateral impasse continues.

China’s economy is also negatively affected, its growth slowing. In Q II, it was at the lowest year-over-year increase in at least the past 27 years.

On Tuesday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) cut its April global trade forecast from 2.6% to 1.2%. For 2020, it estimates 2.7% global growth, down from an earlier 3% estimate.

It cited protracted Sino/US trade war and a broad global economic slowdown, a WTO statement saying:

“The darkening outlook for trade is discouraging but not unexpected. Beyond their direct effects, trade conflicts heighten uncertainty,” adding:

“Job creation may also be hampered as firms employ fewer workers to produce goods and services for export.”

If US trade tensions with China and Europe escalate, the above forecast could be revised much lower, Brexit uncertainty another negative factor, causing UK investment to slump.

Global recession seems likely. Industrial giant Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is currently in recession. So is Italy.

Brazil, Latin America’s largest economy, appears slipping into negative growth, Argentina already in sharp downturn, its GDP forecasted to shrink around 3% this year, inflation at 55% hitting ordinary people hard.

In September, US manufacturing slumped to the lowest level since June 2009, things likely to worsen if US trade wars continue and escalate.

Weakness in the US, China and Germany negatively affect global economic conditions. At 41%, the new US export orders index was at its lowest level since March 2009, the bottom of financial crisis conditions.

In 2019, global container shipping rates are down 34% — 43% down year-over-year in September, forcing carriers to cut back sharply, according to FreightWaves.

Global economic deterioration is worse than since the onset of the 2008-09 Great Recession.

Two days of sharply down equity valuations on Wall Street do not a trend make. Yet October so far is the weakest Q IV start in the past decade, a worrisome sign if continues.

US/global slowdown appears increasing, bad news outweighing positive signs. US auto sales declined sharply in September.

Last week, economist John Williams said risks are “sharply elevated (for) a near-term stock market crash (because of) a confluence of unusual risk factors, either developing or already in play.”

He cited “increasingly unstable global political and economic conditions…trade and oil market turmoil, a still-deepening and unfolding US recession, (and) unstable Federal Reserve policies.

Interest rate cuts and quantitative easing (QE) won’t turn weakening economic conditions around.

Williams expects “major downside revisions to headline economic activity” ahead.

Main street never recovered from the decade-earlier recession, ordinary Americans still suffering from real unemployment at over 20%, the vast majority of US workers burdened with punishing underemployment.

The wealth gap between the nation’s privileged class and ordinary Americans is greatest since the late 19th/early 20th century gilded (robber barons) age.

Another severe protracted recession will likely further thirdworldize the US, more greatly exacerbating current ruler-serf conditions in the world’s richest country — serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Conspiracy Against Trump Is Now Out in the Open

October 4th, 2019 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

I am beginning to wonder if fluoridation hasn’t dropped the US IQ by much more than 5 points.

The reports, such as this one, which provide clear evidence that the alleged whistleblower spent a month arranging his complaint with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, media, and other Democrats, thus revealing that it is nothing but another orchestrated hoax to use against President Trump, miss the main point.

The main point is that the “whistleblower” complaint is false.  The falsity of the complaint is proven by the released unredacted transcript and by the statements of Ukrainian President Zelensky.  

What the “whistleblower” complaint actually reveals is that there is a conspiracy within the government to produce false evidence and false charges against President Trump.

Schiff lied before the TV cameras at the Maguire hearing when he read his false version of the telephone transcript.  How can a man who lies so brazenly in front of people who know he is lying be trusted with the chairmanship of an intelligence committee or any committee?   

Atkinson violated the law that requires first-hand knowledge by the complainant by altering the form to permit second-hand hearsay. Atkinson made this change in order to accommodate the false charge against Trump.  Why is such a crooked official allowed to remain in office?

Government in the United States is falling apart in front of our eyes.  

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Syrian, Iranian and Russian forces started a joint military drill, involving heavy military equipment, rocket launchers and warplanes, on October 1, al-Watan newspaper reported on October 2. According to al-Watan, the drills coincided with a series of protests against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in northeastern Syria.

Pro-government sources speculate that the military drill is a warning to the US-backed group. During the past few months, several sources claimed that the US-led coalition and the SDF is planning an attack on the Syrian Army on the western bank of the Euphrates.

Russia has successfully tested its advanced S-500 air-defense system in Syria, Russian daily Izvestia reported citing sources in the country’s defense ministry. The report claimed that the tests involved the “most important elements of the S-500.” Izvestia said that the testing allowed to identify “certain problems” that were immediately fixed. A serial production of the S-500 is set to begin in the second half of 2020.

Watch the video here.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups continued efforts to prevent civilians from leaving the militant-held part of Greater Idlib. In September, the Syrian Army established the Abu al-Duhur corridor in order to facilitate evacuation of civilians from the militant-held area. However, the terrorists blocked their side of the corridor with berms, mines and military posts. The corridor itself was repeatedly shelled.

On October 2, the Turkish military launched several rockets at positions of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) north of the occupied area of Afrin. According to pro-Turkish sources, the shelling hit the area of Menagh Air Base and the countryside of the city of Tall Rifaat.

According to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, his country is not satisfied with the progress of implementation of the ‘safe zone’ deal with the United States. So, Ankara will have to act on its own. This sets conditions for a further escalation in northern Syria.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russia Tested Elements of Advanced S-500 Air Defense in Syria
  • Tags: , ,

Torture and Killing of Palestinians in Israeli Prisons

October 4th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

B’Tselem published numerous reports on Israeli use of torture and other forms of abuse against Palestinian detainees — arrested and imprisoned for political reasons.

In November 2017, the organization said the following:

“The Israel Security Agency’s (ISA) interrogation regime relies on isolating interrogatees from the outside world and uses holding conditions to weaken interrogatees in body and spirit.”

“The cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment – at times amounting to torture – is a blatant violation of international law and basic moral standards.”

“Many authorities facilitate the ISA’s operations, including the Israel Prison Service, which creates inhuman holding conditions, the Attorney General who gives ISA agents immunity, and the Supreme Court which sanctions the interrogatees’ isolation.”

Young children isolated from parents are treated as viciously as adults, women as ruthlessly as men.

Former Palestinian prisoners explain they were beaten and otherwise abused during interrogations, held under inhuman conditions in windowless, foul-smelling, insect infested cells — many in solitary confinement.

They’re forced to endure extreme heat and/or cold, sleep deprivation, while denied showers, a change of clothes, basic hygiene, even toilet paper.

Food is limited and inedible. During interrogations, they’re forced to sit bound to a chair for hours or days, or stand for similar painful periods — intermittently threatened and screamed at, their relatives also threatened with harm.

They’re commonly denied access to legal counsel — for prolonged periods or not at all.

Inflicting pain and suffering on Palestinian detainees is “dictated from above, not set by interrogators,” B’Tselem explained.

In an earlier “No Minor Matter” report, B’Tselem explained how young Palestinian children are criminally abused in detention — the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child flagrantly ignored.

Israeli military law virtually ignores the Convention and other international laws. Most often children are arrested and detained for stone-throwing in response to Israeli abuses, likely believing it’s their only recourse.

They’re usually abducted at home pre-dawn, parents not allowed to accompany them — during brutal interrogations denied food, water, sleep, and right to go to the bathroom.

Children and adults, women and men, are judged guilty by accusation most always, the vast majority of charges politicized — convictions when handed down invalid by legitimate tribunal standards.

Last month, B’Tselem reported that 185 Palestinians under age-14 languish in Israeli prisons, others held in IDF detention facilities.

In August, the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Organization reported that “there were 4,787 Palestinian security detainees and prisoners being held in Israel Prison Service (IPS) facilities.” Including others held in jails and other facilities, the number exceeds 7,000.

On October 1, Addameer condemned Israel for “torturing and brutally injuring Samer al Arbeed.” He’s in critical condition because of his barbaric mistreatment.

In early September, Addameer explained that Bassam al-Sayeh was the third Palestinian (political) prisoner to die in an Israeli prison this year.

“Due to torture, medical negligence, and stalling in giving him the medical care he needed, his health deteriorated and led to 80% failure in his heart and inability to move or speak. Still, he was detained waiting a trail until his death was announced,” said Addameer, adding:

Since 1967, 221 Palestinian (political) prisoners died while incarcerated from torture, medical neglect, and other mistreatment.

Currently, the number of ill Palestinian prisoners is around 750, many in serious condition, yet largely or entirely denied treatment.

Addameer: “Medical negligence is (longstanding) systematic Israeli policy used against Palestinian prisoners which should force international bodies including the ICRC and WHO to pressure towards holding the Israeli authorities accountable to their crimes.”

On Wednesday, Press TV cited a Palestinian Prisoners Club (PPC) report on Israeli torture, other physical abuses, and deaths of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, saying:

“The PPC said Israeli forces exercise psychological and physical torture against Palestinian detainees from the very first moment of their arrest, by beating them with rifle butts on different parts of their bodies, without any consideration to the injury of some detainees. This practice has resulted in severe injuries, which has caused amputations and diseases that accompanied the prisoners even after their release.”

In detention, Palestinians endure virtually every imaginable form of abuse and indignity — intended to break their bodies and will.

Press TV said “at least 13 Palestinian lawmakers are currently imprisoned in Israeli detention facilities. Nine of them are being held without trial under administrative detention” — none guilty of any criminal offense.

Israeli viciousness is well-documented, accountability never forthcoming for any political or senior military official throughout Jewish state history.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from TruePublica