| Britain: Government Plans Radical Privatization for Police Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:47 AM PST I like this moment of clarity from the unnamed West Midlands police authority spokesman: "Combining with the business sector is aimed at totally transforming the way the force currently does business – improving the service provided to the public."
Law enforcement = business. If you start thinking about Mussolini and corporatism as you read the piece below, I think you're on the right track. And here's a fun little fact that many people don't know about Il Duce: In 1917, Mussolini got his start in politics with the help of a £100 weekly wage from MI5, the British Security Service; this help was authorised by Sir Samuel Hoare.
Via: Guardian: Private companies could take responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and even detaining suspects under a radical privatisation plan being put forward by two of the largest police forces in the country. West Midlands and Surrey have invited bids from G4S and other major security companies on behalf of all forces across England and Wales to take over the delivery of a wide range of services previously carried out by the police. The contract is the largest on police privatisation so far, with a potential value of £1.5bn over seven years, rising to a possible £3.5bn depending on how many other forces get involved. This scale dwarfs the recent £200m contract between Lincolnshire police and G4S, under which half the force's civilian staff are to join the private security company, which will also build and run a police station for the first time. … The joint West Midlands/Surrey "transformation" programme, which has strong backing from the Home Office, looks set to completely redraw the accepted boundaries between public and private and the definition of frontline and back-office policing. The programme has the potential to become the main vehicle for outsourcing police services in England and Wales. It has been pioneered by the West Midlands chief constable, Chris Sims, and Mark Rowley, who has just moved to the Metropolitan police from the post of Surrey chief constable. The pair lead on these matters for the Association of Chief Police Officers. The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources. A West Midlands police authority spokesman said: "Combining with the business sector is aimed at totally transforming the way the force currently does business – improving the service provided to the public. "The areas of service listed in this notice are deliberately broad to allow the force to explore the skills, expertise and solutions a partnership could bring." He said not all the activities listed would necessarily be included in the final scope of the contract, but if the force added other activities later a "new and costly procurement exercise" would be needed. The contract notice does state that "bidders should note that not all these activities will necessarily be included in the final scope, and that each police force will select some activities from these areas where they see the best opportunities for transformation". But the police clearly want to test whether it is possible for new areas of policing to be provided by private companies. Source.  |
| US to Attempt Overthrow of Putin Government Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:45 AM PST As predicted – the Western media and US State Department-funded “opposition” inside Russia have called Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory a “fraud.” It was stated on Thursday March 1, that the Western media had “already determined how Russia’s elections will unfold, creating the pretext in the minds of impressionable viewers to justify the unrest the US is undoubtedly planning.” This is similar to what took place during the 2009 Iranian elections where US State Department-funded opposition groups also claimed the elections were “illegitimate” and took to the streets in an attempt to reverse the democratic process through ochlocraticmeans. In Egypt, directly before the US-engineered Arab Spring, elections that predictably overlooked the suspicious Mohamed ElBaradei were likewise called “fraudulent” and used as the rhetorical justification to execute destabilization long-planned by the US State Department since 2008. Proceeding Thailand’s July, 2011 elections, as explained in ““Stolen Elections” Battle Cry of the Color Revolution,” Wall Street and London’s operatives laid the groundwork to likewise call any result aside from their proxies’ full installation to power “fraud,” to then be used as impetus to justify street mobs, destabilization, and violence. And already, before Sunday’s elections, US State Department-funded Freedom House, through an article written by its “president” David Kramer, stated in Foreign Policy magazine: “Even if the system delivers the required results, clear evidence of rigging may lead voters to reject the election as unfair and illegitimate. Moreover, the authorities’ stifling of the Russian public’s voice runs the risk of creating an even more combustible environment in the period after March 4. The balloting, whatever its outcome, is therefore unlikely to extinguish the rising desire for real change. Unless and until that change is permitted, Putin’s continued pursuit of simulated democracy will fail to achieve even a simulation of stability.”
Kramer’s veiled threats of instability brought about by the opposition he, his Freedom House organization, and its parent organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have long been cultivating would then be repeated almost verbatim throughout the Western press on Sunday – also predictably. It was stated on March 1 that, “It is important to keep in mind Freedom House president David Kramer’s words, knowing that both the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House are self-serving frauds, when listening to these very same talking points regurgitated by the Western media during the elections this coming Sunday.” The LA Times would feature an editorial by the Wall Street-funded American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled, “Putin’s Pyrrhic victory,” which stated, “Putin’s win “will be a Pyrrhic victory. Far from enhancing the Putin regime’s legitimacy, the election will diminish it further in the eyes of a significant part of the Russian population.” The corporate-funded hit piece would go on to admit that the “revolution” clearly constituted a minority but maintained: “…few, if any, regime changes, let alone revolutions, have been started by the majority. The majority has families to feed and a living to make. It is the younger, the urban, the better educated who have led successful modern revolutions. People who start them are getting uncensored news and opinions from the Internet and social media, not state-controlled television.And make no mistake about it: This is a young, middle-class revolt. “
This frightening stamp of approval for lawless ochlocratic “regime change” would then be followed by a comparison to the now admittedly fraudulent US-engineered “Arab Spring.” Joining the LA Times was a myriad of headlines regurgitating Freedom House president David Kramer’s predetermined conclusions, with the Wall Street Journal reporting, “Putin Claims Election Win as Observers Claim Fraud,” Fox News reporting, “Putin claims victory in Russia’s presidential election amid allegations of violations in election,” Reuters reporting, “Vladimir Putin ‘elected Russian president‘, opponents allege fraud,” and the London Guardian reporting, “Vladimir Putin’s critics cry foul over alleged voter fraud in Russian election.” Each report mentions either US-funded fraud Alexey Navalny or US-funded “independent election monitor” GOLOS, or both. Alexey Navalny is fully subsidized by the US State Department through the National Endowment of Democracy (NED). And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for “exposing corruption,” at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states: “Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.”
The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list “youth movements” operating in Russia: “DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.”
Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian “activist” opposition group. GOLOS, also mentioned endlessly by the Western media, is directly listed on the US State Department-run National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website as a recipient of funding. A NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI), chaired by Senator John McCain, openly desires the ousting of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin while the US State Department itself is publicly accused by Moscow of trying to incite unrest across Russia. It is then difficult to fathom how GOLOS can claim to be an “independent” poll monitor when they are funded by a foreign nation actively seeking to manipulate Russia’s political landscape. It is also difficult to then understand why any reputable journalist would cite GOLOS as a reliable source of information, when clearly they are compromised. Difficult to understand, that is, unless one accepts that the Western media is nothing more than paid-propagandist serving Wall Street and London interests. The next step will be to fill the streets of Russia’s cities with the NED-funded opposition’s mobs of “young, educated urban youths,” just as they did in Egypt. AEI’s op-ed in the LA Times clearly states an intent to leverage a minority magnified through “social media” to enact “regime change.” Whether Russia’s security apparatus is capable of quickly and decisively dealing with this foreign-funded sedition, and how far Wall Street and London are willing to go are the only remaining variables that will determine the outcome of what was from the beginning the Wall Street-London “Arab Spring’s” final destination. Conclusion By understanding this process by which the neo-imperialists of Wall Street and London manipulate both domestic and international opinion through a clearly compromised media and network of disingenuous, insidious NGOs and “pro-democracy opposition” movements, this geopolitical gambit can be exposed and balked. The intended purpose of the US State Department is to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries – not project American hegemony around the globe. Meddling and subverting a sovereign nation is an act of war, and the potential conflict America’s ruling elite threaten to trigger will be one paid for by the American people, not the corporate-fascists on Wall Street, or their proxies in Washington. Study and understand how the US State Department has manipulated and destabilized nations from the Middle East, to Thailand, and now across Russia through foreign-funded NGOs like GOLOS, and treasonous opposition movements like those led by Alexey Navalny, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and Boris Nemtsov. Then spread the word. A well-informed population is inoculated from crass, demagogic and ultimately self-destructive manipulation by a degenerate and dangerous ruling elite. Source.  |
| Understanding the Mad Leaders: Barack Obama’s Gay Transgender Prostitute Nanny Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:44 AM PST - Evie, 66, cared for future Commander in Chief she called Barry in late 60s
- Offered job after she impressed Obama’s mother with steak and rice
- When family left Indonesia, she became a sex worker and now lives in a slum
Barack Obama’s former nanny has been revealed as a gay transgender man who made the future president laugh by trying on his mother’s lipstick. ‘Evie’ cared for the boy she called Barry when his mother Ann Dunham moved to the Indonesian capital of Jakarta in the late 1960s. Openly gay, she would leave the house dressed in full drag – but was very careful that Barack never saw her.
‘He was so young and I never let him see me wearing women’s clothes,’ Evie said. ‘But he did see me trying on his mother’s lipstick, sometimes. That used to really crack him up.’ The nanny, who turned to prostitution after the family left and now lives in a slum, met the future commander-in-chief’s mother at a cocktail party in 1969. Dunham, who had moved to the country two years earlier with her second husband Lolo Soetoro, sampled Evie’s beef steak and fried rice and was so impressed that she offered her a job.
It did not take long before she was also eight-year-old Barack’s carer, playing with him and bringing him to and from school. Neighbours recalled they often saw Evie, who believes she is really a woman, leave the house in the evening fully made up and dressed in drag. But when the family left in the early 1970s, things started going downhill. Evie moved in with a boyfriend. That relationship ended three years later, and she became a sex worker. She said: ‘I tried to get a job as a maid, but no one would hire me. I needed money to buy food, get a place to stay.’ It was a cat-and-mouse game with security guards and – because the country was still under the dictatorship of General Suharto – soldiers. They often rounded up ‘banshees’ or ‘warias’, as they are known locally, loaded them into trucks, and brought them to a field where they were kicked, hit and otherwise abused. INDONESIA’S ‘COMPLEX’ ATTITUDE TO TRANSGENDERS Indonesia’s attitude toward transgenders is complex. Nobody knows how many of them live in the sprawling nation of 240million, but activists estimate seven million. Because Indonesia is home to more Muslims than any other country in the world, the perversion of men who live as women and vice versa often catches newcomers by surprise. They hold the occasional pageant, work as singers or at salons and include well-known celebrity talk show host Dorce Gamalama. But societal disdain still runs deep – when transgenders act in TV comedies, they are invariably the brunt of the joke. They have taken a much lower profile in recent years, following a series of attacks by Muslim hard-liners. And the country’s highest Islamic body has decreed that they are required to live as they were born because each gender has obligations to fulfil, such as reproduction. ‘They must learn to accept their nature,’ says Ichwan Syam, a prominent Muslim cleric at the influential Indonesian Ulema Council. ‘If they are not willing to cure themselves medically and religiously’ they have ‘to accept their fate to be ridiculed and harassed’. Many transgenders turn to prostitution because jobs are hard to find and because they want to live according to what they believe is their true gender. In doing so, they put themselves at risk of contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The raid that changed everything came in 1985.
Evie and her friends scattered into dark alleys to escape the swinging batons. One particularly beautiful girl, Susi, jumped into a canal strewn with garbage. When things quieted, those who ran went back to look for her. ‘We searched all night,’ said Evie, who is still haunted by the memory of her friend’s face. ‘Finally … we found her. It was horrible. Her body swollen, face bashed in.’ Evie decided, then and there, to live the rest of her life as a man. She ditched her tight, flowery dresses, brocade vest and bras. Now 66, she said: ‘I knew in my heart I was a woman, but I didn’t want to die like that. So I decided to just accept it. I’ve been living like this, a man, ever since.’ Several longtime residents of Obama’s old Menteng neighbourhood confirmed Turdi had worked there as Barack’s nanny for two years, also caring for his baby sister Maya. Evie, who like many Indonesians goes by a single name, now lives in a closet-sized hovel in a tightly packed slum in an eastern corner of Jakarta, collecting and scrubbing dirty laundry to pay for food. She wears baggy blue jeans and a white T-shirt advertising a tranquil beach resort far away in a place she has never been. She speaks softly, politely, and a deep worry line is etched between her eyes. As a child, Evie was often beaten by a father who could not stand having such a ‘sissy’ for a son. She said: ‘He wanted me to act like a boy, even though I didn’t feel it in my soul.’ Teased and bullied, she dropped out of school after the third grade and decided to learn how to cook.
She made her way into the kitchens of several high-ranking officials by the time she was a teenager. And then she met Obama’s mother. Evie now seeks solace in religion, going regularly to the mosque and praying five times a day. She said she is just waiting to die. She added that she did not know the boy she helped raise won the 2008 U.S. presidential election until she saw a picture of the family in local newspapers and on TV. She blurted out that she knew him. Her friends at first laughed and thought she was crazy, but those who live in the family’s old neighbourhood confirmed it is true. ‘Many neighbours would remember Turdi. She was popular here at that time,’ said Rudy Yara, who still lives across the street from Obama’s former house. ‘She was a nice person and was always patient and caring in keeping young Barry.’ Evie hopes her former charge will use his power to fight for people like her. Obama named Amanda Simpson, the first openly transgender appointee, as a senior technical adviser in the Commerce Department in 2010. For Evie, who’s now just trying to earn enough to survive each day on Jakarta’s streets, the election victory itself was enough to give her a reason – for the first time in a long time – to feel proud. ‘Now when people call me scum,’ she says, ‘I can just say: ‘But I was the nanny for the President of the United States! Source.  |
| North Korea vows “sacred war” on South Korea Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:32 AM PST North Korea threatened “sacred war” against the South in a huge rally in the capital on Sunday just days after the secretive state agreed with the United States to suspend its nuclear weapons tests and allow back international nuclear inspectors. Tens of thousands of slogan-chanting North Koreans rallied in Pyongyang vowing to “wipe out” South Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s “traitors” whom they accused of defaming their new leader, Kim Jong-un, and of staging inflammatory war games with the United States. About 150,000 protesters, including many soldiers and students, shouted “Destroy Lee Myung-bak” and “Let’s safeguard Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un”. The rally, broadcast live by state TV, appeared to be the largest such event since the young Kim took power after the death of long-time dictator Kim Jong-il in December. Ri Yong-ho, an army general believed to be one of the fledgling leader Kim’s closest confidants in the army, recited a statement issued by the military on Friday, threatening again to wage a “sacred war” against the South. “The Supreme Command of the Korean People’s Army solemnly declares once again that it will indiscriminately stage its own-style sacred war to wipe out the group of traitors,” Ri read. The rally ended with a series of military-style marches in groups of hundreds, with protesters waving huge banners and flags in response to cheers from the crowds. North and South Korea are still technically at war after their 1950-53 conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. Pyongyang’s state media has recently beefed up the rhetoric against South Korea’s Lee and military leaders, accusing them of allowing an army unit to hang portraits of the two Kims and “scrawl unspeakable defamatory words” below them. The North also accused Lee of “the hideous act aimed at escalating confrontation” during mourning for Kim Jong-il. South Korean media has said soldiers at a military unit in the western city of Incheon posted the photos of both Kim Jong-un and his father inside a building, along with the inscription: “Let’s kill Kim Jong-un”. North Korea regularly warns of retaliation against Seoul and Washington for joint military drills, currently under way, which it sees as an unforgivable provocation. In 2010, the North shelled a South Korean island near the disputed inter-Korean sea border, killing four people, in retaliation for live-fire exercises by the South. Many North Korea watchers say the sabre-rattling is aimed at consolidating Kim’s grip on power and attaining an advantage in the latest round of disarmament-for-aid talks with the United States. On Wednesday, Washington and Pyongyang announced the North had agreed to suspend nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches and to allow checks by international nuclear watchdog inspectors in return for food aid. The agreement has been hailed as a path to resuming long-stalled six-party talks, joining the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia, designed to block the North from nuclear arms development. But North Korea has walked out of such talks many times before, claiming lack of sincerity by the United States. In the latest sabre-rattling, state TV said on Saturday Kim Jong-un had visited Panmunjom, the village overseeing the armistice along the world’s most heavily-fortified border between the two Koreas. It was Kim’s first trip to the village since his father’s death. KCNA said Kim told soldiers there to “maintain the maximum alertness as they are standing in confrontation with the enemy at all times”. Source.  |
| Report: 13 French officers captured in Syria Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:27 AM PST The UN Security Council has yet to decide on an official military campaign in Syria, but according to the Beirut media, it is possible some western forces have already been deployed on the ground. The Lebanon-based Daily Star reported Monday that 13 French Soldiers have been captured by Syrian forces.
According to London's Daily Telegraph, however, the French Foreign Ministry dismissed the report, insisting that "not a single French soldier is on Syrian soil." A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "We deny the idea that there are French troops on the ground in Syria. A Defense Ministry spokesman added: "We have no information on this. We neither confirm nor deny it." Source.  |
| Oil prices could soar to $440 a barrel if Strait of Hormuz closed Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:23 AM PST Faced with trade embargoes and a possible attack on its nuclear installations, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is one of the world’s most strategic shipping channels. It connects the vast majority of the world’s countries with the crude oil that fuels their economies. The oil is not just from Iran but also from oil-rich producers Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates that feed energy-hungry consumers. At its narrowest point, the strait is 21 miles wide, with a two-mile shipping lane on either side. Iran controls the north, but the south is controlled by Oman. Daily, 14 supertankers sail through the strait. The largest can carry more than 320,000 tons of cargo. Roughly 40 percent of all U.S. crude imports sail through the Strait of Hormuz. What could happen if the strait is closed? What about the hundreds of ships, not all oil tankers, that pass through every day? 17 million barrels a day Bob Bandos, president and CEO of GAC North America, a marine logistics and service company headquartered in Dubai, said tankers can haul 1.8 million barrels of oil a day through the strait. The U.S. Energy Information Administration said that’s the equivalent of 17 million barrels of oil. If it that supply is choked off, the effect would be similar to the fuel shortages of the 1970s – but more extreme, Bandos said. “That would be nothing compared to this,” Bandos said, who added the shortage would be global. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel, Egypt and Syria, Arab oil exporters declared an embargo from October 1973 that lasted until April 1974. World oil prices shot up from $3.40 a barrel to $12. Overall, the world shut off 7 percent of daily production. This week, by contrast, oil has been selling for about $109 a barrel. Iranian officials have said they could hold the strait for at least a month. They boast of a missile defense system that prevents ships from traveling through the area. “If that were the case, you’re talking about millions and millions of barrels of oil that will not get out,” Bandos said. “It’s going to create more havoc on oil.” War games triggered a jump A closure would have a devastating effect on the global economy because oil shortages will hit countries where they are most vulnerable. To prove a point, Iran in January held war games in the strait. The mere rumor of a temporary closure sent crude oil prices soaring to more than $112 a barrel. Crude oil prices have since dropped, but fed by fears of war, prices on Thursday climbed to $109.15 “Iran has a lot of leverage here,” said GAC’s Bandos, who added he believes a closure would trigger U.S. intervention. A closure would also violate international law. The shockwaves would ripple far beyond global stock markets. Companies that charter shippers to haul their goods will be in a particular bind, Bandos said. Companies usually spend anywhere between $30,000 and $120,000 a day to charter a tanker ship, and that does not include bunkering and fuel costs. A closed waterway might also trigger a slew of litigation. Depending on how long the strait remains closed, tons of materiel and cargo could sit in limbo in port, or idle in the water. The closure of the strait would also hurt local Middle Eastern economies that would be deprived of non-oil trade going through the strait, Bandos said. One thing is clear: If the strait closes, global economies would suffer. Oil prices are sure to hit record highs. If the 1973 embargo experience repeats itself, the price of a barrel of oil could soar to $440 a barrel. Source.  |
| WikiLeaks Email: Bin Laden’s Corpse Not Dumped at Sea Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:12 AM PST In May of last year, the US killing of Osama bin Laden was immediately followed by debate over the disposal of his corpse. The Obama Administration claimed bin Laden was put in a bag and hurled into the sea, which it insisted was "in keeping with Islamic practices," whereas some were calling for his body to be kept around so it could be overtly desecrated. WikiLeaks's release of Stratfor emails, however, shows that the company's Vice President Fred Burton did not believe that was the case, and told members of the company's mailing list that bin Laden's corpse was "Dover bound," referring to the Dover Air Force Base which is also the site to which US soldiers slain overseas are brought. Another email from Burton said bin Laden's body was "bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane" and "onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda." Technically this would have meant the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, since the AFIP operations were folded into Walter Reed as part of a consolidation plan. If confirmed, this revelation would be significant for a number of reasons, including the Obama Administration's repeated claims to the American public that the body was disposed of at sea. It would add yet more intrigue to Dover Air Force Base, already under enormous scrutiny for its mishandling of corpses and disposal of remains at a Virginia landfill. Source.  |
| Is Bibi the Bully wagging the American dog? Posted: 05 Mar 2012 10:00 AM PST Even before their fateful encounter at the White House this Monday, US President Barack Obama made it clear, on the record, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu wouldn’t face him down. Or did he? No matter what the rhetorical gymnastics performed by Obama, a case can be made that Bibi the Bully wags the American dog full-time. Worse; the Likud-dominated Israeli administration, single-handedly, is playing with dispatching vast spheres of the global economy into total depression, as its hysterics progressively hurl oil prices towards the stratosphere. The world is a hostage of Israel’s whims even as the 120-plus members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) support Iran’s right to enrich uranium and BRICS members Russia, China and India, as well as Turkey, dismiss the US and the EU’s oil embargo – a true declaration of economic war – on Iran. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) get-together in Washington takes place in an intimidating, cavernous Colosseum where the wealthy crowd ululates in unison for Iranian blood. A passable tactician but a lousy strategist, Bibi the Bully’s only game in town is “Bomb Iran”. This is justified by the “existential threat” posed by non-nuclear Iran to a nuclear-armed garrison state/settler colony that is literally, graphically wiping a whole people (the Palestinians) off the map. Still one more proof of the “existential threat” fallacy was provided last week by Iran’s Supreme Leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, even before the absolute victory of his supporters in Friday’s parliamentary elections – which effectively turned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into a lame duck. Khamenei’s words must be reproduced again and again and again – because the baying-for-blood US corporate media simply won’t do it. He said, “The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.” Mr president, tear down this wall Yet once again, the graphic proof that Israel exercises virtual complete control of US foreign policy was the sight of an American president defensively addressing the AIPAC Colosseum. Apart from a festival of Orwellian intimations, to his credit at least Obama emphasized the word “diplomacy”, did not specify any “red lines”, nor endorsed the mere “capability” of Iran to build a nuclear weapon as a casus belli. After all, he knows he already has more American Jewish voters in the bag than among the US electorate as a whole. But ultimately Obama did cave in to Bibi the Bully – as the rhetoric was not unlike Tony Soprano’s and the ominous “military component” remained very much on the table. Still, Bibi the Bully – mimicking his voracity in devouring Palestinian land – wants more. Whatever route they take – overflying Syria and Turkey, and even if they hit the crucial targets of Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and Fordow – Israel’s Jericho missiles have zero chances of paralyzing, not to mention destroying, the complex decision apparatus of the Islamic Republic. Forget about “humiliation” and regime change. Even Major General Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau, acknowledged last October that Israel cannot win. That’s why Bibi the Bully badly wants to extract a formal promise that the US will do the dirty work. According to a recent poll in Israel, 34% are against bombing Iran. But 42% are in favor if the US is at least supporting it. How sweet it is to enrol a superpower to fight your fictional “existential threats”. Bibi the Bully badly wants a Republican to take out Obama in November. Obama knows he can’t be defeated by King of Flip Flop Mitt Romney or Ayatollah Rick Santorum. But he can be defeated by the proverbial US gas pump. The problem is, submitting or not to Bibi the Bully’s absolutist demands, oil prices go up; they have already have by 20%, and this growth may reach 50% or more if speculators deem an attack imminent. Tehran may hold the key to defuse the whole psychodrama – and the demented speculation on oil prices. By late March or early April, with his authority immensely strengthened, negotiators on behalf of Ayatollah Khamenei will be back on the table discussing the nuclear dossier with the P5+1 – US, France, Britain, Russia and China, plus Germany. Obama himself may also hold the key. He could pull a Nixon – as in going to China to meet Mao in 1972 – and offer a face-to-face to Khamenei. The industrial-military-media complex, Big Oil, the Israeli firsters and especially Bibi the Bully will be seeing all shades of red. But it does take balls to really earn a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama, will you tear down this wall (of mistrust)? This is the section of Obama’s speech at AIPAC centered on Iran: Today there is no doubt – anywhere in the world – that the United States will insist upon Israel’s security and legitimacy. That will also be true as we continue our efforts to our pursuit of peace. And that will be true when it comes to the issue that is such a focus for all of us today: Iran’s nuclear program – a threat that has the potential to bring together the worst rhetoric about Israel’s destruction with the world’s most dangerous weapons. Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and all of Israel’s leaders. A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we have done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. It would embolden a regime that has brutalized its own people, and it would embolden Iran’s proxies, who have carried out terrorist attacks from the Levant to southwest Asia. That is why, four years ago, I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is what we have done. When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant – increasingly popular, and extending its reach. In other words, the Iranian leadership was united and on the move, and the international community was divided about how to go forward. And so from my first months in office, we put forward a very clear choice to the Iranian regime: a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t. In fact, our policy of engagement – quickly rebuffed by the Iranian regime – allowed us to rally the international community as never before; to expose Iran’s intransigence; and to apply pressure that goes far beyond anything that the United States could do on our own. Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before. People predicted that Russia and China wouldn’t join us in moving toward pressure. They did, and in 2010 the UN Security Council overwhelmingly supported a comprehensive sanctions effort. Few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on the Iranian regime. They have, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt in 2011. Many questioned whether we could hold our coalition together as we moved against Iran’s Central Bank and oil exports. But our friends in Europe and Asia and elsewhere are joining us. And in 2012, the Iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions. That is where we are today. Iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure. And the Arab Spring has only increased these trends, as the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is exposed, and its ally – the Assad regime – is crumbling. Of course, so long as Iran fails to meet its obligations, this problem remains unsolved. The effective implementation of our policy is not enough – we must accomplish our objective. In that effort, I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed. The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program. Now, the international community has a responsibility to use the time and space that exists. Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July – thanks to our diplomatic coordination – a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold. Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end. Given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us. Moreover, as President and Commander-in-Chief, I have a deeply held preference for peace over war. I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. Long after I leave this office, I will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency. For this reason, as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it. And I know that Israeli leaders also know all too well the costs and consequences of war, even as they recognize their obligation to defend their country. We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests. Moving forward, I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues; the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick. As we do, rest assured that the Iranian government will know our resolve, and that our coordination with Israel will continue. “
Source.  |
| NATO Invasion Of Syria Set For This Month? Posted: 05 Mar 2012 09:53 AM PST NATO member Turkey is arming Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups as part of the international community's efforts to help Syrian rebels overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, with a possible military invasion set for March, almost exactly a year after a virtually identical assault on Libya that was also achieved with the aid of Al-Qaeda terrorists. Egyptian security officials told World Net Daily that, "Turkey has been arming al-Qaida and its affiliated group, Jihadiya Salafia, as part of efforts to support the so-called rebels in Syria." The officials also revealed that arms and training for the rebels is being provided by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, dovetailing with former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' report that hundreds of NATO and US troops arrived on the Jordanian and Syrian border back in December for the purpose of training militants to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. "Several knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region," states the WND report. A March NATO bombardment of Syria, euphemistically termed a "no fly zone" by the mainstream media, would mirror almost precisely the timing and circumstances of the attack on Libya a year ago, which first came under assault on March 19, 2011, after NATO powers had spent weeks arming and directing Al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels. "According to the Middle Eastern diplomatic and security officials speaking to WND, the international community is considering launching NATO air strikes on Assad's forces as soon as this month if the opposition does not make major strides toward ending Assad's regime," states the report,. Turkey's involvement in arming terrorist groups to aid rebel fighters follows reports that France and the United States have provided the Free Syria Army with weapons and anti-aircraft missiles. As we reported last week, during a BBC interview U.S. Secretary of State admitted that the United States and Al-Qaeda were on the same side when it came to achieving regime change in Syria. Just as in Libya, where the overthrow of Gaddafi was achieved through the use of Al-Qaeda groups, NATO and the United States are once again turning to terrorists as a means of achieving their geopolitical objectives in the region. Indeed, as we reported back in November, some of the same Al-Qaeda terrorists who fought U.S. troops in Iraq were airlifted into Syria to aid rebels. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri's has also publicly expressed support for Syrian rebel forces. A UN report found that the invasion of Libya led to a huge number of weapons finding their way into the hands of Al-Qaeda groups in North Africa. Those weapons are now being used to carry out bombing attacks against Syrian government targets, even as the mainstream media still refuses to acknowledge, as the Arab League report made clear, that there is indiscriminate violence occurring on both sides. The corporate press has dutifully echoed the official talking point that only Assad's forces are responsible for violence against "innocent demonstrators," even as those "demonstrators" are seen firing rocket-propelled grenades, while showcasing dubious "activists" like 'Syria Danny' who are given ample time by the likes of CNN to beg for a US-led military invasion. Source.  |
| US Congress Passes Authoritarian Anti-protest Law Bill H.R. 347 Posted: 05 Mar 2012 09:46 AM PST A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the "anti-Occupy" law, but its implications are far broader. The bill—H.R. 347, or the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011"—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill. The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year's popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility. Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to "enter or remain in" an area designated as "restricted." The bill defines the areas that qualify as "restricted" in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include "a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" and "a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance." The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries. Even more sinister is the provision regarding events of "national significance." What circumstances constitute events of "national significance" is left to the unbridled discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. The occasion for virtually any large protest could be designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an event of "national significance," making any demonstrations in the vicinity illegal. For certain, included among such events would be the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, which have been classified as National Special Security Events (NSSE), a category created under the Clinton administration. These conventions have been the occasion for protests that have been subjected to ever increasing police restrictions and repression. Under H.R. 347, future protests at such events could be outright criminalized. The standard punishment under the new law is a fine and up to one year in prison. If a weapon or serious physical injury is involved, the penalty may be increased to up to ten years. Also criminalized by the bill is conduct "that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" and "obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds." These provisions, even more so than the provisions creating "restricted areas," threaten to criminalize a broad range of protest activities that were previously perfectly legal. In order to appreciate the unprecedented sweep of H.R. 347, it is necessary to consider a few examples: A wide area around the next G-20 meeting or other global summit could be designated "restricted" by the Secret Service, such that any person who "enters" that area can be subject to a fine and a year in jail under Section 1752(a)(1) (making it a felony to enter any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so). Senator Rick Santorum, the ultra-right Republican presidential candidate, enjoys the protection of the Secret Service. Accordingly, a person who shouts "boo!" during a speech by Santorum could be subject to arrest and a year of imprisonment under Section 1752(a)(2) (making it a felony to "engag[e] in disorderly or disruptive conduct in" a restricted area). Striking government workers who form a picket line near any event of "national significance" can be locked up under Section 1752(a)(3) (making it a crime to imped[e] ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds). Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the "unwashed masses" were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, H.R. 347 creates for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or "no-free-speech zone" that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering—what part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?) H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed by President Obama into law on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the assassination and incarceration of any person—including a US citizen—anywhere in the world without charge or trial. The passage of H.R. 347 has been the subject of a virtual blackout in the media. In light of the unprecedented nature of the bill, which would effectively overturn the First Amendment, this blackout cannot be innocent. The media silence therefore represents a conscious effort to keep the American population in the dark as to the government's efforts to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. The bill would vastly expand a previous law making it misdemeanor to trespass on the grounds of the White House. An earlier version of the bill would have made it a felony just to "conspire" to engage in any of the conduct described above. The bill now awaits President Obama's signature before it becomes the law of the land. What lies behind the unprecedented attack underway on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more and more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more impossible for the working class. The virtually unanimous support in Congress H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule. This sentiment was most directly expressed this week by Wyoming Republican legislator David Miller, who recently introduced a bill into the state legislature that would give the state the power, in an "emergency," to create its own standing army through conscription, print its own currency, acquire military aircraft, suspend the legislature, and establish martial law. "Things happen quickly sometimes—look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations," Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming. Repeating arguments employed by every military dictatorship over the past century, Miller declared, "We wouldn't have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond." Miller's so-called "doomsday law" was defeated in the Wyoming legislature Tuesday by the narrow margin of 30-27. Source.  |
