Oct 112013
 

By James Petras, 99GetSmart

286161-01-08

Introduction

Obama’s rhetorical exercise in ‘peace talk’ at the United Nations General Assembly impressed few delegations and even fewer Americans: Far more eloquent are his five years of wars, military interventions, cyber-spying, drone murders, military coups and the merciless prosecution of patriotic truth tellers.

If his ‘peace message’ fell flat, the explicit affirmations of imperial prerogatives, threats of military interventions and over two dozen (25) references to Israel as a ‘strategic ally’, confirmed the suspicions and fears that Obama was preparing for even more deadly wars.

Playing the ‘War Card’ in the Face of Massive Opposition

Obama’s UN speech took place at a time when his war policies have hit rock bottom both at home and abroad. After suffering at least two major diplomatic defeats and a string of negative polls, which revealed that a strong majority of Americans rejected his entire approach to foreign policy, Obama made an overture to Iran. Up to that point few delegates or citizens were impressed or entertained by his ‘new vision for US diplomacy’. According to many experts, it was vintage Obama, the con-man: talking peace while preparing new wars.

Nothing in the past six years warranted any hope that Obama would respond to new overtures for peace emanating from Iran, Syria or Palestine; his habitual obedience to Israel would push for new wars on behalf of the Jewish State. At no point did Obama even acknowledge the sharp and outraged criticism by leading heads of state regarding his policy of cyber colonialism (massive spying) and his pursuit of imperial wars.

Obama’s Double Discourse: Talking Peace While Making War

At his 2009 inauguration, Barak Obama proclaimed, “We are going to have to take a new approach with a new emphasis on respect and a new willingness to talk.”  And then he proceeded to launch more wars, armed interventions, clandestine operations and assassination campaigns in more countries than any US President in the last fifty years.

Obama’s record over the past five years reads:

(1)    Continued war, slaughter and military bases in Iraq.

(2)    A 40,000 plus US “troop surge” in Afghanistan

(3)    An unprovoked assault against Libya, devastating the country, reducing oil production by 90%, throwing millions into chaos and poverty. and allowing a multitude of terrorist groups to divide the country and distribute its huge arsenal of weapons.

(4)    Over 400 un-manned aerial drone attacks, murdering over 4,000 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia.

(5)    Cross-border ground and air attacks in Pakistan and counter-insurgency warfare that forcing over 1.5 million refugees to flee the war zones.

(6)    The arming and financing of ‘African Union’ mercenaries to invade and occupy Somalia, sending hundreds of thousands of Somalis into refugee camps.

(7)    Unconditional support for Israel, including the ‘sale’ of advanced weapons and an annual $3 billion dollars ‘aid’ package to a racist regime intent on more land grabs in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as the displacing, killing, arresting and torturing of thousands of Palestinians and Bedouins.

(8)    The sending of the US Naval armada to the Persian Gulf while imposing even more brutal economic sanctions drafted by Israeli-Firsters in order to strangle the Iranian economy and starve its over 70 million citizens into submission.

(9)    Maintaining the notorious Guantanamo torture camp where hundreds of prisoners languish without trail (despite early promises to close it).

(10)    Arming and training Islamist terrorists and ‘pro-Western’ mercenaries to invade Syria, killing over 100,000 Syrians and driving over one million refugees from their homes.  Obama’s plans to bomb Syria are on hold, as of October 2013, thanks to Russian President Putin’s peace initiative.

(11)    Engaging in grotesque global cyber-spying and the massive theft of highly confidential military, economic and political communications within allied nations (from Germany to Brazil) at the highest levels.

(12)    Unleashing a violent destabilization campaign in democratic Venezuela, following the defeat of the US candidate; Obama was the only leader in the world to refuse to recognize the election.

Altogether, Obama’s five years in office have been marked by his relentless pursuit of imperial power through arms and domination; This has come at enormous economic cost to the American people in the form of huge fiscal deficits and significant overseas and domestic political losses.

As a result, Obama’s rising tide of militarism has had the opposite effect of provoking a countercurrent of peace initiatives to challenge the assumptions and prerogatives of the war-mongers in the White House. The dynamics of this immense clash between the global war and peace forces will be played out in the next several months.

The Dynamics of Obama’s Foreign Policy

Obama’s future policy reflects the interplay between a highly militarized past and the tremendous current pressure for peace and diplomacy. The changes emerging from these powerful conflicting forces will have a decisive impact on the global configuration of power, as well as on the trajectory of the US economy for the foreseeable future.

We have proceeded by outlining in telegraphic form the principle events and policies defining Obama’s embrace of a militarist policy over the past five years. We will now proceed to highlight the current countervailing forces and events pressuring the White House to adopt a diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts. We will identify the leading pro-war power configuration acting as an obstacle to peace. In the final section we will spell out the policy resulting from these conflicting forces.

The Dynamics of Peace against the Legacy of War

By the early fall 2013, powerful tendencies emerged which seemed to undermine or, at least, neutralize Washington’s drive to new and more deadly wars. Eight major events constrained Washington’s empire builders to temporarily rethink their immediate steps to war.

These include: (1)   President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for Syria to destroy its chemical weapons, under UN supervision, denying the US its current pretext for bombing Damascus. The subsequent UN Security Council resolution, which was unanimously approved, did not contain the ‘war clause’ (Chapter 7) – thereby removing Washington’s pretext to bomb Syria for ‘non-compliance’ to the tight time-table for disarming its chemical arsenal.

(2)   Iran’s President Rohani’s calls for peace and reconciliation, his offer to start prompt and consequential negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program has isolated Israel and its Zionist agents in the international arena and forced Obama to reciprocate, resulting in a move toward US-Iranian negotiations.

(3)   Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff’s, powerful denunciation of  US cyber spying against her government, economy and citizens before the General Assembly resonated with the vast majority of political leaders. Coming from the most powerful economy in Latin America, the sixth largest economy in the world and a leading member of the BRICs, Rousseff’s rejection of US cyber-colonialism and its IT and telecommunication corporations and her call for  national development, control  and ownership of these communication networks, set a clear anti-colonial tone to the proceedings. Washington’s response, its affirmation of its ‘right’ to spy on allies and their private citizens, as well as foes, has isolated Washington and found few supporters for such global cyber-imperial pretensions. To accommodate Brazil, Washington will be forced to enter into negotiations and acknowledge (if not comply with) Brazil’s demands.

(4)   US domestic public opinion, in the run-up to Putin’s diplomatic solution of the Syrian crisis, was overwhelmingly opposed to Obama’s moves to bomb Syria. By a margin of two to one, the American electorate opposed any new war; and Congress was prepared to heed its constituents, as letters were running nine to one against war. In other words, Obama lacked domestic support for attacking Syria and was under strong pressure to accept Putin’s diplomatic solution. The mass involvement of American citizens, at least temporarily, pushed back the war-mongers among Israel’s wealthy and influential backers in Washington.

(5)   Obama’s militarist foreign policy faces pressure from the Congressional deadlock over the budget and debt ceilings. Lacking a federal budget and with government offices closing, the White House has been forced to lay-off millions of military and civilian employees. Obama is not in a position to launch a costly new war, even if his Zionist patrons are “storming” Congress and clambering for one. The ‘fiscal crisis of the state’, which exploded in September 2013, is turning into a powerful political antidote to the policy of serial wars Obama undertook during his first five years in office. The debt-ceiling crisis and its aftermath further weaken the White House’s capacity and willingness to pursue an extended war agenda in the Middle East. Congress’s refusal to raise the debt ceiling, without budget reductions, could foreshadow a crisis in financial markets spreading to the world economy and leading to profound recession. The White House has its hands full trying to stabilize the domestic economy and placate Wall Street, thus weakening its willingness to engage in a new war.

One caveat: It is possible that, facing political divisions and an economic crisis, political adventurers and pro-Israel advisers might convince Obama to launch a war to ‘unify the country’ and ‘divert attention’ from his domestic debacle. A military distraction, of course, could backfire; it could be seen as a partisan ploy and deepen domestic divisions, especially if a US attack on Iran or Syria led to a wider war.

(6)   The Snowden revelations of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) global spying have weakened the White House’s ties to its allies and heightened antagonism with its adversaries. Trust and co-operation, especially with regard to intelligence, have been weakened in Asia, Latin America and, to a lesser degree, in Europe. Several countries are discontinuing the use of US-IT companies which had collaborated with the NSA.  By losing access to the communications of top officials in targeted countries, these revelations may have undermined Washington’s global reach. Obama and Kerry’s outrageous justifications for spying on their allies and private citizens and their defense of intervention in cyber space have stirred up powerful political currents of anti-imperialism among major trade partners. At the UN General Assembly Bolivian President Evo Morales asserted, ‘The US is mistaken if it thinks it is the owner of the world’. His attack on US military imperialism, “… terrorism is combatted through social policy not with military bases”…  resonated among the vast majority of UN delegates. In stark contrast, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s bellicose speech received a hostile reception among those heads of state who didn’t simply walk out in disgust.

The Snowden disclosures of cyber-imperialism has seriously weakened the US capacity for war by exposing its intelligence operations and discrediting the war mongers associated with the NSA, making war planning more difficult.

The domestic and foreign forces, as well as world conditions for peace, would be overwhelming in any normal imperial system. But there is a ‘special factor’, a powerful ‘undertow’, which opposes the forces for peace, i.e. Israel and its US-based billionaire funded, 300,000 member-strong national and local Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) deeply embedded in government and civil society.

Against the Winds of Peace:  The Zionist Power Configuration

On September 29, 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu landed in New York, as part of an Israeli campaign to undermine world-wide support for a peaceful resolution of the war against Syria and the US-Iranian conflict. On September 30, Netayanhu met with President Obama and addressed the United Nations General Assembly the next day. Israel and Netanyahu represent the biggest and most powerful obstacle to the growing “tide of peace”. Given its status as a pariah state and the global community’s negative view of Israel and its bullying Prime Minister, Netanyahu has to rely almost exclusively on the US to maintain its monopoly of nuclear weapons in the region, its vast stockpile of chemical weapons and its military supremacy in the Middle East. The White House and the US Congress are crucial institutions backing Israel’s ambition for uncontested hegemony in the Middle East. And the Zionist Power Configuration is decisive in setting US policy throughout the region.

The ZPC operates on several levels: (1)  dozens of Zionist billionaires and millionaires fund Washington-based propaganda mills (so-called ‘think tanks’), an army of pro-Israel Middle East ‘experts’ and Ivy League publicists, the 52 major American Zionist organizations and their 300,00 zealous militants. They pour tens of millions of dollars into electoral campaigns throughout the country, rewarding compliant politicians who support any legislation or resolution submitted by Zionist politicos and lobbyists (while brutally punishing any congressional ‘dissenters)’.

(2)  Dozens of Zionist zealots occupy key positions within the Administration, especially as appointees dealing with the Middle East and Treasury, ensuring that US policymakers  impose economic sanctions on Israel’s enemies and pursue wars in Israel’s interests. They unconditionally back Israel in of its attacks on its neighbors and block any sanctioning vote in the UN. They make sure that Israel receives the most advanced weapons and the US Treasury pays its annual $3 billion-plus dollar tribute to the Jewish State.

(3)  The Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations and their militants ensure local and national support for Israel, even at the expense of domestic US interests and priorities. The zealots actively intervene to ban, censor or threaten the employment of any critic of Israel or the ZPC – extending to the most mundane local level of harassment. They successfully limit the content and participants in the mass media, world affairs forums and university programs with their threats and bullying.

The mass media are controlled by pro-Israel moguls, news reporters and commentators who mold public perception of Israel claiming it to be a ‘bastion of democracy’ while labelling Iran a “terrorist Islamist dictatorship”. Media analyst Steve Lendman describes, in his article entitled, “Israel Launches Anti-Rohani Media Blitz”, Netanyahu’s repeated lies on questions pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program and how the major US news media parrot Israel’s bellicose propaganda. The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg back Netanyahu’s demand for harsh economic sanctions and threats of aggression against Iran. The Daily Alert , mouthpiece of the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organization, reproduces and circulates scores of libelous polemical diatribes denigrating President Rohani, and slavishly praise each and every bellicose eruption out from the mouths of Israeli politicians and generals. For example, leading Zionist propagandist, Jeffrey Goldberg calls President Rohani a “dishonest war monger” dismissing his peace overtures because he is not “ready to shut down his country’s nuclear program”. Aaron David Miller, another one of Israel’s Washington intellectuals, echoes Netanyahu’s “concerns about wily Iranian mullahs bearing gifts” while demanding that the US government “take care of Israel’s concerns”. The Zionist demand that the US “secure Israel’s concerns” is a no brainer because the Jewish state is determined to strip Iran of its sovereignty, surrender its entire medical and civilian nuclear program and submit to Israeli regional hegemony…

The US and British press reported that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has launched their own ‘full- scale invasion’ of the US Congress, sending over 300 full-time lobbyists to sabotage any form of rapprochement between the US and Iran. Just prior to the UN General Assembly meeting, AIPAC militants were writing legislation for the US Congress, which imposed new additional sanctions to further undermine Iranian oil exports; their efforts secured “bi-partisan” support of over 300 members of Congress. While President Obama faces a divided Congress, the Israel-Firsters from AIPAC easily secure a near unanimous vote to scupper any diplomatic dialog between Washington and Teheran. These new extremist sanctions were dictated by the Israeli Foreign Office and are designed to sabotage any White House negotiations.

While some mainstream newspapers, like the Financial Times, describe the “suspicions in Congress which raise the bar for a deal”, they fail to mention the extraordinary intervention and influence of AIPAC in sowing these “suspicions” – and authoring all anti-Iran legislation over the past two years! The mass media covers up the central role of the ZPC in opposing a US dialogue with Iran, and in subverting the push for peace favored by the vast majority of war-weary and economically-battered Americans. Even ‘progressive and leftist’ weeklies, monthlies and quarterlies are silent on the overwhelming role of the ZPC.  Leading left journalists systematically skirt around any in- depth discussion of the AIPAC and the 52 pro-Israel Jewish organizations in manipulating the US Congress, the mass media and the Executive branch.

Any writer who attends US legislative committee hearings on the Middle East or observes Congressional debates, or interviews Congressional staff-members and lobbyists, or reads AIPAC reports, can compile ample public documentation of the major role that Israel, through it US Zionist organizations and agents, plays in dictating US-Iran relations. Nothing illustrates the extreme power the ZPC exercises over US policy toward Iran than the thundering silence of ‘progressives’ over the central ZPC role in policymaking. Is it simply cowardice or fear of being slandered as an ‘anti-Semite’? Or is it fear of being excluded or blacklisted by major media and publications? Or is it complicity: Being ‘critical of privileges and power’ while selectively excluding mention of Zionist access and influence?

So we have the situation in the US today where the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu dictates the ‘negotiating terms’ to the Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations. According to Netanyahu’s dictates, the Islamic Republic of Iran must stop all uranium enrichment – including that for medical, research and energy use, close the enrichment facilities at Qom, remove all enriched uranium and halt the production of plutonium. Having set these ridiculous, sovereignty-killing conditions on Iran and having the unconditional support of the entire ZPC, Netanyahu proceeds to sabotage the peaceful, diplomatic process via the lap-puppies in the US Congress. As one Washington pundit noted the Obama regime “is very conscious of the fact that Israeli views on Iran have a large influence (sic) on opinion in the US Congress”.

No country on any continent would or could accept the terms dictated by Israel and its Fifth Column in the US – terms that undermine national sovereignty. In fact, all countries with nuclear power facilities and advanced medical and research institutions engage in some or all of these activities. By setting these extremist terms, Netanyahu is in effect dooming the negotiations from the start and setting the stage for war, the so-called “military option” that both he and Obama agree would follow from a collapse in negotiations.

In a rational democratic world, most experts would argue that the new alignment of forces for peace, including the vast and growing domestic opposition to new wars and world public opinion in favor of President Rohani’s overtures for negotiations, the US could easily ignore Israel’s war mongering. But a more realistic and reflective analysis, however, would argue that the negotiations will only proceed with great difficulty, especially in the face of ZPC sabotage in adding new sanctions rather than a good-faith act of cutting or reducing the current sanctions.

The Israeli-ZPC ‘war offensive’ went into high gear precisely at the moment when world public opinion, the UN and even the White House enthusiastically welcomed the peace overtures from newly elected Iranian President Rohani.

The purpose was to sabotage any dialogue with Iran before they even began.  The ZPC took the following measures:

1.    AIPAC and its clients in the US Congress have circulated new harsh sanctions and rapidly signed up dozens of Congressional supporters.  The entire Zionist apparatus, led by the ‘52 Presidents of the Major Jewish American Organizations’, backed the latest and most severe sanctions against the Iranian oil industry.  They followed Netanyahu’s dictate to make the Iranian economy collapse.  The purpose of the ZPC is to create the worst possible conditions for negotiations – undermining the ‘goodwill’ following Obama’s gestures (the phone conversation with Rohani) and sure to provoke widespread opposition among the sanction-weary Iranian population against a US-Iran dialogue.

2.    The notorious Israeli spy outfit, Mossad, was most probably involved in the brutal assassination of Iran’s official in charge of cyber-defense, Mojtaba Ahmadi.  Most experts agree that, since 2007, Israel’s intelligence agency has been behind the horrific assassinations of five Iranian nuclear engineers and scientists, as well as the head of their ballistic missile program.  The timing of the current Mossad outrage is designed to further poison the climate for US-Iranian negotiations, even though the victim this time is not directly linked to Iran’s nuclear program.

3.    Netanyahu’s speech to the General Assembly was pure corrosive vitriol, character assassination and fabrication.  He made constant reference to Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’, although on-site reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency and sixteen US intelligence agencies have repeatedly shown that no such program exists. Nevertheless, thanks to the power and influence of the ZPC, Netanyahu’s venomous message was relayed by all the major media and picked up and repeated by influential pro-Israel think tanks, academics and pundits.  Netanyahu unleashed the Zionist pro-war propaganda machine to energize Jewish powerbrokers to ‘put the squeeze’ on the White House.  The effect was immediate:  Obama rushed out to parrot Netanyahu’s lies that Iran had a nuclear weapons program.  Secretary of State Kerry obediently pledged to keep ‘the military option’ for dealing with Iran ‘on the table’ – in other words, the threat of a unilateral attack.  UN Ambassador Samantha Power demanded the newly elected President Rohani make immediate concessions in order to prove his “seriousness”.

Conclusion:  World Peace or Zionist War ?

Recent political and diplomatic changes provide the world community with a measure of optimism regarding the prospects for peace. Under intense pressure from US public opinion, Obama temporarily went along with Russian President Putin’s diplomatic approach over chemical weapons in Syria.

The UN General Assembly’s favorable response to Iranian President Rohani’s call for dialogue has compelled Obama to openly consider direct negotiations with Teheran over its nuclear program.

World public opinion, favorable interlocutors in Iran, bold diplomatic initiatives from Russia, and cooperative behavior from Damascus, all events pointing to a peaceful resolution of current Middle East conflicts, face a formidable enemy embedded in the very centers of power in the United States, the ZPC, which acts on behalf of the ultra-militarist Israeli state.

Over the years, the ZPC has successfully pushed for crippling sanctions and wars against a number of Israel’s regional opponents. Leading Zionists in the Bush regime fabricated the myth of Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’  leading the US to invade, occupy and destroy Iraq, despite massive opposition from the US public on the eve of the invasion. Zionists in US Treasury and in the White House slapped broad economic sanctions on Iraq, Iran and Syria –  preventing the biggest US oil companies from investing and trading with these resource-rich nations, which cost ‘Big Oil’ close to $500 billion in lost revenues. An empirical study of congressional committees, legislative debates, resolutions and voting behavior demonstrates that the ZPC co-authored the sanction legislation and administrators, linked to the ZPC, implemented the measures.

The popular notion that ‘Big Oil’ was responsible for these wars and sanctions, as part of some scheme to take over the oil production facilities of Iraq and Iran, lacks empirical basis. The ZPC defeated ‘Big Oil’: Exon, Mobil and Chevron were no match for the ZPC when it came to penetrating Congress, authoring legislation, mobilizing billionaires to fund Congressional campaigns, organizing thousands of zealous militants or influencing the mass media – including the Wall Street Journal. The governments of billions of poor people in Africa, Asia and Latin America can only dream of the annual $3 billion dollar tribute that the ZPC secures for Israel from the American tax-payers for the past 30-plus years.

The UN Security Council and its Human Rights Commission are powerless to sanction Israel for its  war crimes because the ZPC guarantees a US veto of any resolution. Despite the opposition of the entire Muslim world, the ZPC ensures that Washington will continue to support Israel’s colonial expansion and land grabs in the occupied Palestinian territory, and its bombing of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Sudan. In other words, the ZPC has successfully undermined the interests of the biggest US multi-national corporations, the position of the UN Security Council and the needs of billions of poor in the Third World. The ZPC induces the US to start prolonged brutal wars costing the US economy over a trillion dollars and totally destroying six sovereign countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia). Today Israel and the ZPC set the terms for US-Iran negotiations – dooming them to failure. The mass media echo Netanyahu’s scurrilous (and infantile) characterization of President Rohani as ‘untrustworthy’, and   a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. And US Secretary of State John Kerry parrots Netanyahu’s lies about Iran’s nuclear arms program. Shortly  after his talk with Rohani, US President Obama dutifully made his report of the entire conversation to Netanyahu – seeking Israel’s approval. Obama then met with his Israeli ‘handlers’ and pledged fealty to the interests of Israel, bleating out that ‘military option (to attack Iran) is still on the table’. For the one hundred and ninety-first time (over the past year) President Obama pledged the US’ unconditional support to defend Israel. Like a broken record (or broken political hack), Obama repeated that “Israel must (sic) reserve the right to take military action against Iran it if feels threatened by Iran”.

The Zionist propaganda apparatus has set the terms for the US government with regard to Iran. Tel Aviv orders and the ZPC demands that Obama ‘negotiate’ under Israeli terms. Iran, the ZPC insists, must provide detailed information on its military bases and defenses, end its legal enrichment of uranium for civilian use, turn over its existing stockpiles, end the production of plutonium at the Arak facility, dismantle the underground research facilities at Fordow and cease the conversion of first generation centrifuges to more efficient second generation ones.

President Obama might then permit the Iranians to enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent, operate a few primitive centrifuges and maintain a tiny stock of enriched uranium – for medical purposes …  These are condition which Israel and the ZPC know that no free and independent country or national leader would ever accept. The Zionists seek to sabotage diplomacy in order to push the US into another Gulf war which they believe will establish Israel as the un-challenged regional hegemon.

It is essential for the peace camp in the United States to expose the role of the ZPC in dictating the US negotiating terms with Iran and publicly repudiate its control over the US Congress and the White House.  Otherwise the majority of Americans who favor peace and diplomacy will have no influence in shaping US-Iran relations. The problem is that the majority of anti-war Americans and the international community cannot match the billionaire Jewish Zionists in buying and controlling the members of the US Congress. AIPAC has no rival among Christians, Muslims or even anti-Zionist Jews. The pro- peace Pope Francis from his pulpit in the Vatican cannot match the power of the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations whose militants can literally “storm Washington” and push the US into war!

Until the 99% of non-Zionist Americans (off all ethnicities and persuasions) organize as a coherent force to push back the tiny 1% – Israel’s Fifth Column – all the hopes for peace wakened by President Putin initiative on Syria and President Rohani’s diplomatic opening at the United Nation, will collapse. Worse, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will again lead an American President, Obama, by the nose, from sabotaged diplomacy into another costly Gulf War, one in which thousands of US soldiers (not a single Zionist among them) and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iranians will perish!

Jan 062012
 

 

* NDAA AND OBAMA: DEFENDERS ARE WRONG – HERE’S WHY

Source: Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, a decision being defended by some partisan Democrats. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks down specifics in the bill to refute the claims made by the defenders of Obama and the NDAA.

VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ&feature=youtu.be

———————————————————————–

* OCCUPY WALL STREET BUILDS FACEBOOK ALTERNATIVE

Source: Mobiledia, Forbes

Pasted Graphic 1.tiff

Occupy Wall Street activists are creating their own social networking site, hoping to establish protected digital protest space as physical camps continue to face legal problems.

The site, tentatively named The Global Square and expected to launch later this month, hopes to provide a place “where people of all nations can come together as equals to participate in the coordination of collective actions and the formulation of common goals and aspirations,” according to a post by Occupy-blog RoarMag.

The site’s creation arrives as Occupy movements around the globe face increasing scrutiny from politicians and law enforcement, with many physical locations forced to shut down due to concerns about hygiene, public safety, and environmental damage.

Activists also became nervous last week after a Massachusetts district attorney subpoenaed Twitter, forcing the social networking giant to disclose information from the @OccupyBoston account. Fearing a legal precedent, the Occupy development team is speeding up its efforts to carve out its own secure space on the Internet.

Social networking sites proved a valuable tool for large-scale protests in 2011, from Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street. In Egypt, leader Hosni Mubarak shut off the country’s internet in an attempt to quell protesters from organizing via social networks, and governments are increasingly taking notice of organizational protest sites on Facebook.

“We don’t want to trust Facebook with private messages among activists,” said developer Ed Knutson to Wired. “I don’t want to say we’re making our own Facebook…but, we’re making our own Facebook.”

The Global Square differs from other social networking sites because it will remain open-source, allowing developers to continuously create new content. Perhaps for this reason, the site will also require users be invited by a friend or fellow protester, and will be closed to the general public.

Other planned unique features include a map of uprisings taking place around the world, links to find movements close by, debate forums, and collaboration space.

The Global Square could provide activists with the means for even larger protests in 2012, but also draw criticism if such gatherings become violent or are deemed inappropriate. Either way, the site will likely serve as a niche central communication hub for protesters across the globe.

READ @ http://www.forbes.com/sites/mobiledia/2012/01/03/occupy-wall-street-builds-facebook-alternative/

———————————————————————–

* DAN SAVAGE ON RICK SANTORUM: HE’S NOT JUST ANTI-GAY, “HE HAS AN ANTI-STRAIGHT AGENDA TOO”

Source: youtube

On last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Dan Savage (of Santorum Google bomb fame) discussed how the candidate’s problematic views extend beyond homophobia. “One of the things I’m constantly reminding people about Rick Santorum is that he doesn’t have merely an anti-gay agenda — he has an anti-straight agenda too,” Savage told Olbermann. “He’s against birth control, he’s against abortion, he’s against pornography, he’s against all sorts of things that straight people use and enjoy frequently….You need to know, heterosexual Americans, that gay-bashing isn’t his only hobby.”

Watch the segment below:

VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimCRuvr8vE

———————————————————————–

* HOW MANY STEPHEN COLBERTS ARE THERE?

By Charles McGrath, NYTimes MagazinePasted Graphic 2.tiff

Stephen Colbert dressing for a rehearsal of “The Colbert Report.”

There used to be just two Stephen Colberts, and they were hard enough to distinguish. The main difference was that one thought the other was an idiot. The idiot Colbert was the one who made a nice paycheck by appearing four times a week on “The Colbert Report” (pronounced in the French fashion, with both t’s silent), the extremely popular fake news show on Comedy Central. The other Colbert, the non-idiot, was the 47-year-old South Carolinian, a practicing Catholic, who lives with his wife and three children in suburban Montclair, N.J., where, according to one of his neighbors, he is “extremely normal.” One of the pleasures of attending a live taping of “The Colbert Report” is watching this Colbert transform himself into a Republican superhero.

Suburban Colbert comes out dressed in the other Colbert’s guise — dark two-button suit, tasteful Brooks Brothersy tie, rimless Rumsfeldian glasses — and answers questions from the audience for a few minutes. (The questions are usually about things like Colbert’s favorite sport or favorite character from “The Lord of the Rings,” but on one memorable occasion a young black boy asked him, “Are you my father?” Colbert hesitated a moment and then said, “Kareem?”) Then he steps onstage, gets a last dab of makeup while someone sprays his hair into an unmussable Romney-like helmet, and turns himself into his alter ego. His body straightens, as if jolted by a shock. A self-satisfied smile creeps across his mouth, and a manically fatuous gleam steals into his eyes.

Lately, though, there has emerged a third Colbert. This one is a version of the TV-show Colbert, except he doesn’t exist just on screen anymore. He exists in the real world and has begun to meddle in it. In 2008, the old Colbert briefly ran for president, entering the Democratic primary in his native state of South Carolina. (He hadn’t really switched parties, but the filing fee for the Republican primary was too expensive.) In 2010, invited by Representative Zoe Lofgren, he testified before Congress about the problem of illegal-immigrant farmworkers and remarked that “the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables.”

But those forays into public life were spoofs, more or less. The new Colbert has crossed the line that separates a TV stunt from reality and a parody from what is being parodied. In June, after petitioning the Federal Election Commission, he started his own super PAC — a real one, with real money. He has run TV ads, endorsed (sort of) the presidential candidacy of Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana, and almost succeeded in hijacking and renaming the Republican primary in South Carolina. “Basically, the F.E.C. gave me the license to create a killer robot,” Colbert said to me in October, and there are times now when the robot seems to be running the television show instead of the other way around.

“It’s bizarre,” remarked an admiring Jon Stewart, whose own program, “The Daily Show,” immediately precedes “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central and is where the Colbert character got his start. “Here is this fictional character who is now suddenly interacting in the real world. It’s so far up its own rear end,” he said, or words to that effect, “that you don’t know what to do except get high and sit in a room with a black light and a poster.” […]

READ @ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/stephen-colbert.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

———————————————————————–

* AL GORE COMES OUT AGAINST SOPA/PIPA

By Mike Masnick, TechDirt

Well, check this out. Al Gore has come out strongly against SOPA and PIPA, angrily denouncing the bill and its supporters. It’s a quick 2-minute video taken at a CareerBuilder event, and it’s in response to an audience question. The actual question isn’t heard in the video, but he’s clearly talking about SOPA/PIPA and appears to be well-informed on the issue:

A quick transcript (the very beginning is cut off, so it comes in mid-sentence):

“… are now able to be shared digitally. There is a growing concern on the part of the companies and individuals who create that content, that they’re not getting compensated in a fair way, and so they want to impose a new set of requirements on those companies who provide access to the internet, like the browsers, the search engines, etc. And some of these new requirements, according to the experts on the internet, would very probably have the effect of really shutting down the vibrancy of the internet. As in all things, some compromise must be possible. The content creators and owners have a point and a legitimate complaint… But, in our country, in our world today, there is hardly anything more important — whether you want to solve global warming, as I do, whether you want to reinvigorate democracy as many of us do, whatever problem you want to fix — there is hardly anything more important to getting the right things done than to save and protect the vibrancy and freedom of the internet. The internet is bringing life back to democracy. We saw it in Egypt. We’re seeing it in Russia now. We’ve seen it in so many places…. If you look at the reform movements around the world, and in the US, more than likely they’re based on internet forms of organization. And anything that would threaten the vibrancy and freedom of the internet, I’m against!

There’s very loud applause at the end. If you watch it, you see he gets more and more animated and worked up towards the end. He’s also clearly familiar with the details, since he knows the real impact of the bill. Rather than just focusing on “foreign” sites, as supporters of these bills would like everyone to, he points out that the way in which this is done is to put new requirements on tons of domestic internet companies. He may not have invented the internet (and yes, I know that was taken out of context, but it’s a meme at this point, so live with it), but he certainly understands its importance… and he’s clearly not a fan of SOPA/PIPA. […]

READ and VIDEO @ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120105/18151717292/al-gore-comes-out-against-sopapipa.shtml

———————————————————————–

* U.S. WAR HISTORY IN 2 MINUTES: ARREST U.S. WAR CRIMINALS TO STOP WAR ON IRAN

By Carl Herman, Washington’s Blog

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” – James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.

We were all born into a century of total deaths from government violence of over 230 million human beings. After two world wars, the US was the chief author of the treaty that makes war unlawful unless attacked by another nation’s military. As the links below document in conservative and now non-controversial history, current US wars continue a pattern of lie-started and unlawful wars.

Importantly, now, US military and/or law enforcement must arrest the current War Criminals to end this history of murder. If not, it will repeat by mass-murdering Iranians, and more ignorant/gullible US soldiers. The basis of law provides US military and all with Oaths to defend the US Constitution to refuse unlawful orders and act to arrest those who issue them.

US war history brief to put the present in context:

1. The US regularly violated treaties with Native Americans, as well as manipulating their meaning for the purpose of stealing their land.

2. US President Polk lied to Congress to initiate a War of Aggression in Mexico. The result was the US taking 40% of Mexico in 1848. This occurred despite Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of Congress that the Adams-Onis Treaty placed the “border dispute” 400 miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as outside any US claim.

3. The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country in 1898.

4. The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War to impose our rule on the Philippines and install US-friendly dictators in Cuba.

5. The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US and put the 3rd party presidential candidate in prison for public speeches questioning the war.

6. The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator.  When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-stared unlawful war today? Upon confirmation of the lies (documented below), shouldn’t we arrest the US War Criminals rather than allow them to kill again?!?

7. The Vietnam War occurred after the US allowed the cancellation of an election to unify the country, as escalated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident: false intelligence at best, but then manipulated into a false-flag event for a “defensive” war.

8. Perhaps most disturbing is the King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King. Corporate media, including our text publishers, omit this history. The King family’s conclusion is that Martin was assassinated to prevent his “Occupy DC” plan beginning for the sumer of 1968 to end his version of today’s wars.

9. We now know from Congressional reports that all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false as they were told.

10. The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq. Beware a false flag attack by the US or Israel to blame on Iran as pretext for another “defensive” war:

  1. Iran’s president never physically threatened Israel.
  2. All of Iran’s nuclear material is fully accounted for peaceful and legal use for energy and medicine.

Want a brighter future? Recognize and end the “emperor has no clothes” obvious crimes of the present as a first step. Standing for a US government that defends unalienable rights that begin with “life,” the freedom that government will not murder, is a good place to start. […]

READ @ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/us-war-history-in-2-minutes-arrest-us-war-criminals-to-stop-war-on-iran.html

———————————————————————–

* FALLUJAH BABIES: UNDER A NEW KIND OF SIEGE

Doctors and residents blame US weapons for catastrophic levels of birth defects in Fallujah’s newborns

By Dahr Jamail, Aljazeera English

Pasted Graphic 4.tiff

Congenital abnormalities have mushroomed in the wake of devastating sieges in Fallujah in 2004 (EPA)
Fallujah, Iraq– While the US military has formally withdrawn from Iraq, doctors and residents of Fallujah are blaming weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous used during two devastating US attacks on Fallujah in 2004 for what are being described as “catastrophic” levels of birth defects and abnormalities.Dr Samira Alani, a paediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005.”We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine,” Alani told Al Jazeera at her office in the hospital, while showing countless photos of shocking birth defects.As of December 21, Alani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997, told Al Jazeera she had personally logged 677 cases of birth defects since October 2009. Just eight days later when Al Jazeera visited the city on December 29, that number had already risen to 699.”There are not even medical terms to describe some of these conditions because we’ve never seen them until now,” she said. “So when I describe it all I can do is describe the physical defects, but I’m unable to provide a medical term.”

‘Incompatible with life’

Most of these babies in Fallujah die within 20 to 30 minutes after being born, but not all.

Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed was born in October 2007. His clinical diagnosis includes dilation of two heart ventricles, and a growth on his lower back that doctors have not been able to remove.

Abdul has trouble controlling his muscles, struggles to walk, cannot control his bladder, and weakens easily. Doctors told his father, Mohamed Jaleel Abdul Rahim, that his son has severe nervous system problems, and could develop fluid build-up in his brain as he ages, which could prove fatal.

“This is the first instance of something like this in all our family,” Rahim told Al Jazeera. “We lived in an area that was heavily bombed by the Americans in 2004, and a missile landed right in front of our home. What else could cause these health problems besides this?”

Dr Alani told Al Jazeera that in the vast majority of cases she has documented, the family had no prior history of congenital abnormalities.

Alani showed Al Jazeera hundreds of photos of babies born with cleft palates, elongated heads, a baby born with one eye in the centre of its face, overgrown limbs, short limbs, and malformed ears, noses and spines.

She told Al Jazeera of cases of “thanatophoric dysplasia”, an abnormality in bones and the thoracic cage that “render the newborn incompatible with life”.

Rahim said many of his relatives that have had babies after 2004 are having problems as well.

“One of them was born and looks like a fish,” Rahim said. “I also personally know of at least three other families who live near us who have these problems also.”

For now, the family is worried how Abdul will fare in school when he is enrolled next year. Maloud Ahmed Jassim, Abdul’s grandfather, added, “We’ve seen so many miscarriages happen, and we don’t know why.”

“The growth on his back is so sensitive and painful for him,” Rahim said. “What will happen in school?”

Jassim is angered by a lack of thorough investigations into the health crisis.

“Why is the government not investigating this,” he asked. “Western media seem interested, but neither our local media nor the government are. Why not?”

In April 2011, Iraqi lawmakers debated whether the US attacks on the city constituted genocide. Resolutions that called for international prosecution, however, went nowhere.

Scientific proof

Alani, along with Dr Christopher Busby, a British scientist and activist who has carried out research into the risks of radioactive pollution, collected hair samples from 25 parents of families with children who have birth defects and sent them to a laboratory in Germany for analysis.

Alani and Busby, along with other doctors and researchers, published a study in September 2011 from data obtained by analysing the hair samples, as well as soil and water samples from the city.

Mercury, Uranium, Bizmuth and other trace elements were found.

The report’s conclusion states:

“Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields.” […]

NOTE: VIDEO / PHOTOS CONTAIN VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES

VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0B-7oT-DUJo

READ and PHOTOS @ http://dahrjamail.net/fallujah-babies-under-a-new-kind-of-siege

———————————————————————–

* WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE PERSIAN GULF EXPLAINED

Why Iran is talking tough, the US is maneuvering warships, and gasoline is getting more expensive by the hour

By Adam Weinstein and Hamed Aleaziz, Mother Jones

Pasted Graphic 3.tiffNATO/Flickr

The basics: Iran and the United States appear to be heading for a showdown in the Persian Gulf. Amid already-high tensions over Iran’s advancing nuclear program, the US has imposed harsh new economic sanctions on the regime in Tehran. The sanctions have throttled Iran’s economy, and the country has responded by threatening to shut down the Gulf to all shipping traffic. Iranian officials have also threatened military action against the United States and its allies in the region if they don’t back off. Two US aircraft carriers are en route to the region.

How has the situation escalated? Over New Year’s weekend, the Iranians announced that they’d made their first-ever nuclear fuel rods, potentially a major step forward in building a nuclear bomb.* Then they test-fired three anti-ship missiles in the Strait of Hormuz, a 34-mile-wide choke point in the Persian Gulf through which approximately 20 percent of the world’s crude oil is transported. An Iranian admiral told state TV that the shots were a warning to America: “The control of the Strait of Hormuz is completely under our authority [too],” he said, warning that Iran would attack “any enemy” that endangered Iranian interests. In response, the US has sent two aircraft carriers steaming toward the Gulf to replace the USS John C. Stennis, which just ended its own Mideast deployment. “Iran advises, recommends and warns them [the US] not to move its carrier back to the previous area in the Gulf because Iran is not used to repeating its warnings and warns just once,” a general told state media.

Will Iran actually shut down the Strait? It doesn’t seem likely. While Iran could certainly cause problems, closing down the Strait would in fact be difficult for it to do. According to Reuters, “Iran would not be able to sustain a line of ships to block the Strait because it mainly has smaller boats that do not have the ability to stay in open waters in a coordinated formation for days.” Meanwhile, both Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Navy have since backtracked on the threat. Mahmoud Mousavi, a Deputy Commander in the Iranian Navy, told state media Sunday that Iran “does not intend to impede maritime shipping in the area.” Threats to close the Strait are also nothing new; Iranian officials for years have claimed that they would shut down the Strait (it’s never happened). As Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a candidate for Iran’s parliament, told the Washington Post: “Our threat will not be realized. We are just responding to the US, nothing more.”

How does this affect me? Expect the price of gas to stay high. Crude oil futures jumped significantly Tuesday on international jitters over the brinkmanship, and some analysts are predicting that even a short Gulf blockade could send the cost of a barrel of crude over $150, a 40 percent spike from current levels. “The ever-growing frequency of intense sabre-rattling and muscle flexing between Iran and the US should keep the markets jittery and vulnerable to sudden price jumps,” market analyst JBC Energy reported Tuesday. Volatility in prices could get even worse in light of zero spare capacity among big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia.

Do the tensions involve those mysterious explosions in Iran lately? Possibly. In recent months, there have been three mysterious explosions at factories and warehouses across the country. Seventeen Iranian soldiers were reportedly killed by a blast at an ammunition depot outside Tehran in mid-November; that facility was run by the nation’s Revolutionary Guards, who have been implicated in uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons production. Later that month, a series of explosions leveled a key nuclear site in Isfahan, and anonymous Israeli sources disputed the Iranian explanation that it was an accident. And in December, seven people, including several foreigners, were killed when discarded ammunition reportedly exploded at a scrap-metal plant in Yazd. The blasts—in addition to the untimely deaths of three leading Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years, and a devastating cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear facilities—have led some analysts to believe that the United States and its allies are already deep into a covert war against the rogue state.

Don’t we already have sanctions on Iran? Yes—and under Obama, they’re harsher than they’ve been in decades. Over New Year’s weekend he signed a defense-spending bill with an amendment that effectively freezes international deals with Iran’s Central Bank. If successful, it would halt much of Iran’s oil sales and further destabilize its currency. It would also hurt European trade and likely cause global oil prices to soar. The threat posed by the amendment may help explain why Iran ratcheted up its rhetoric over the weekend. The White House had strongly opposed the legislation despite bipartisan support for it in Congress, but Obama went on to sign the bill anyway. Why? Apart from the fact that defense spending isn’t really optional, the politics of the situation didn’t seem to favor the White House. As Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of the amendment’s sponsors, put it, “[A]s you enter a presidential contest, there’s no upside to being soft on Iran.”

Haven’t we been through this before? Sort of. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, both countries targeted the other’s oil-tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf with missiles and mines. Starting in 1987, the US stepped into these “tanker wars” to protect oil shipments bound for the United States (or sold by US-based companies). During Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance, American naval ships protected convoys and kept the Iranians and Iraqis at bay. The global community had good reason to be on edge: During these operations, an American cruiser, the USS Vincennes, mistook an Iranian airliner for an incoming missile and shot it down, killing all 290 passengers. The engagement’s only US fatalities resulted from an unprovoked air-to-surface missile attack on the USS Stark, which killed 37 sailors. But the shooter wasn’t Iranian; he was Iraqi.

What’s different this time around? The United States has a much bigger strategic presence in the Middle East, and a lot of new military capabilities that weren’t around in 1987. The Navy’s 5th Fleet operates out of Bahrain, just 150 miles from Iran. The Navy has better-developed countermeasures for threats from mines and missiles. And our special operations capabilities are much more robust; remember that little 2011 operation in a Pakistani town called Abbottabad? Backed up by special boat units and mobile inshore underwater warfare units, the SEALs are even more effective at sea than they are in the middle of South Asia. In addition, the US hopes Middle East allies (and Iran rivals), like Saudi Arabia, will help deter Iran. To that end, the United States recently awarded a $15 billion arms contract to Saudi Arabia. […]

READ @ http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/whats-happening-persian-gulf-explained

———————————————————————–

* AMERICANS MUST UNDERSTAND THE IMF SCAM

Source: A New World Order Out of Chaos

By creating economic crises and the collapse of a nation’s economy, the Illuminati force those nations indebted to them to trade their assets — gold, natural resources, and land — for the backing of the International Monetary Fund, which they created and control. Once they own a nation’s land and resources, they own and control that nation. They have made much progress toward this goal. Already every nation in the world is backed by the International Monetary Fund except the United States. Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica, and other countries have been forced to trade assets and land to exonerate their debt. The specific plan to bring the U.S. under this monolithic control includes economic disruption, the collapse of more banks, and national bankruptcy. They believe that under these conditions most Americans will clamor for the “help” they offer, willingly trading our nation’s land and resources for the backing of the International Monetary Fund to bail us out of our predicament. Liberty Lost, F. Gregory Anderson, Circa 1993

My opinion is that economic turmoil, terrorist threats, rising food prices, rising unemployment, etc. are going to push many of the countries of the world (at the behest of elitists in positions of power who desire global government) to advocate consolidation of power into the control of the United Nations, IMF, the World Bank, and their affiliating institutions who have been behind the scenes pushing for a New World Order. – Sic Semper Tyrannis, Food Crisis 2010 and U.S. Dollar Impact, May 10, 2010

Once a country is indebted to the foreign banking cartel, even though the money is illusionary non-existent credit, the so indebted nation is forced to hand over control of their affairs to the international banking cartel’s World Bank and IMF, who then dictate the national economic and social policy at every level. Under this globalist financial system all roads not only lead to the same elite banking cabal, they also all lead to a nation’s control and enslavement. – Kelvyn Alp, Private bankers and their henchmen, Solomon Star, December 2, 2010

IMF Forcing Greece to Sell State Assets to Repay Bailout

February 14, 2011

UPI – Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou said Greece was committed to privatizing services to comply with terms of its international bailout.

Greece received a $148 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union in May. The terms include an agreement to sell $67 billion in state assets, the EUobserver reported Monday.

An assessment team from the IMF and the EU recently criticized Greece for its slow efforts to turn services over to private concerns.

In turn, a spokesman for the Greek government on Saturday said the assessment team had “behaved unacceptably.”

“We asked them for help … not to meddle in our internal affairs,” the spokesman said.

Papaconstantinou sought to calm tensions Sunday after a statement from the European Central Bank and the IMF applauded Greece’s effort to comply with the terms of the loan.

“We recognize the difficult challenge facing the Greek economy and we have the deepest respect for the tremendous efforts being made by the Greek people,” the IMF and the ECB said.

Papaconstantinou said Greece “will commercially exploit public property,” but drew the line at selling state land.

“We will not sell off state land,” he said.

“The decisions about how this will be done will be taken by the Greek government and nobody else,” he added.

Go to Hell IMF: What We Don’t Want Is Your Austerity and Taxes

Americans Must Understand the IMF Scam […]

READ @ http://www.lambslain.com/2011/02/imfs-plan-to-own-worlds-land-and.html

———————————————————————–

* INTERVIEW WITH ROCKY ANDERSON: JUSTICE PARTY CANDIDATE

By Rob Kall, OpEdNews

Rocky Anderson is running for president. His politics look like what progressives want, but he says that independents, Ron Paul supporters, and every one will like what he as to offer.

::::::::

Pasted Graphic.tiff

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson (born September 9, 1951) served two terms as the 33rd mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, between 2000 and 2008. He is the Executive Director of High Road for Human Rights. Prior to serving as Mayor, he practiced law for 21 years in Salt Lake City, during which time he was listed in Best Lawyers in America, was rated A-V (highest rating) by Martindale-Hubbell, served as Chair of the Utah State Bar Litigation Section and was Editor-in-Chief of, and a contributor to, Voir Dire legal journal.

As Mayor, Anderson rose to nationwide prominence as a champion of several national and international causes, including climate protection, immigration reform, restorative criminal justice, GLBT rights, and an end to the “war on drugs”. Before and after the invasion by the U.S. of Iraq in 2003, Anderson was a leading opponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and related human rights abuses. Anderson was the only mayor of a major U.S. city who advocated for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, which he did in many venues throughout the United States.

Anderson’s work and advocacy led to local, national, and international recognition in numerous spheres, including being named by Business Week as one of the top twenty activists in the world on climate change, serving on the Newsweek Global Environmental Leadership Advisory Board, and being recognised by the Human Rights Campaign as one of the top ten straight advocates in the United States for GLBT equality. He has also received numerous awards for his work, including the EPA Climate Protection Award, the Sierra Club Distinguished Service Award, the Respect the Earth Planet Defender Award, the National Association of Hispanic Publications Presidential Award, The Drug Policy Alliance Richard J. Dennis Drugpeace Award, the Progressive Democrats of America Spine Award, the League of United Latin American Citizens Profile in Courage Award, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee Patriot Award, the Code Pink (Salt Lake City) Pink Star honor, the Morehouse University Gandhi, King, Ikeda Award, and the World Leadership Award for environmental programs.

Formerly a member of the Democratic Party, Anderson expressed his disappointment with that Party in 2011, stating “(t)he Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.”

more from Rocky’s bio here. […]

READ @ http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=s&id=143