online poetition.. I do not support adam kokesh's armed march in dc! 27 May 2013 4:08 AM (11 years ago)

July 3, 2013

»

• 118 comments
• 
  
• Email this page
• Permalin

we are all russians now, by an unknown author 26 May 2013 2:15 AM (11 years ago)

Will Putin Save The World From Israel?

why disinformation works — paul craig roberts 26 May 2013 2:02 AM (11 years ago)

Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction?

What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.

The leftwing likes the official stories of Muslims creating terrorist mayhem in America, because it proves their blowback theory and satisfies them that the dispossessed and oppressed can fight back against imperialism.

The patriotic rightwing likes the official story, because it proves America is attacked for its goodness or because terrorists were allowed in by immigration authorities and nurtured by welfare, or because the government, which can’t do anything right, ignored plentiful warnings.

Whatever the government says, no matter how problematical, the official story gets its traction from its compatibility with existing predispositions and agendas.

In such a country, truth has no relevance. Only agendas are important.

A person can see this everywhere. I could write volumes illustrating how agenda-driven writers across the spectrum will support the most improbable government stories despite the absence of any evidence simply because the government’s line can be used to support their agendas.

For example, a conservative writer in the June issue of Chronicles uses the government’s story about the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, to argue against immigration, amnesty for illegals, and political asylum for Muslims. He writes: “Even the most high-tech security systems imaginable will inevitably fail as they are overwhelmed by a flood of often hostile and dangerous immigrants.”

The writer accepts all of the improbable government statements as proof that the brothers were guilty. The wounded brother who was unable to respond to the boat owner who discovered him and had to be put on life support somehow managed to write a confession on the inside of the boat.

As soon as the authorities have the brother locked up in a hospital on life support, “unnamed officials” and “authorities who remain anonymous” are planting the story in the media that the suspect is signing written confessions of his guilt while on life support. No one has seen any of these written confessions. But we know that they exist, because the government and media say so.

The conservative writer knows that Dzhokhar is guilty because he is Muslim and a Chechen. Therefore, it does not occur to the writer to wonder about the agenda of the unnamed sources who are busy at work creating belief in the brothers’ guilt. This insures that no juror would dare vote for acquittal and have to explain it to family and friends. Innocent until proven guilty in a court has been thrown out the window. This should disturb the conservative writer, but doesn’t.

The conservative writer sees Chechen ethnicity as an indication of guilt even though the brothers grew up in the US as normal Americans, because Chechens are “engaged in anti-Russian jihad.” But Chechens have no reason for hostility against the US. As evidence indicates, Washington supports the Chechens in their conflict with Russia. By supporting Chechen terrorism, Washington violates all of the laws that it ruthlessly applies to compassionate Americans who give donations to Palestinian charities that Washington alleges are run by Hamas, a Washington-declared terrorist organization.

It doesn’t occur to the conservative writer that something is amiss when martial law

is established over one of America’s main cities and its metropolitan area, 10,000 heavily armed troops are put on the streets with tanks, and citizens are ordered out of their homes with their hands over their heads, all of this just to search for one wounded 19-year old suspect. Instead the writer blames the “surveillance state” on “the inevitable consequences of suicidal liberalism” which has embraced “the oldest sin in the world: rebellion against authority.” The writer is so pleased to use the government’s story line as a way of indulging the conservative’s romance with authority and striking a blow at liberalism that he does not notice that he has lined up against the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence and rebelled against authority.

I could just as easily have used a left-wing writer to illustrate the point that improbable explanations are acceptable if they fit with predispositions and can be employed in behalf of an agenda.

Think about it. Do you not think that it is extraordinary that the only investigations we have of such events as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are private investigations, such as this investigation of the backpacks: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/20/official-story-has-odd-wrinkles-a-pack-of-questions-about-the-boston-bombing-backpacks/

There was no investigation of 9/11. Indeed, the White House resisted any inquiry at all for one year despite the insistent demands from the 9/11 families. NIST did not investigate anything. NIST simply constructed a computer model that was consistent with the government’s story. The 9/11 Commission simply sat and listened to the government’s explanation and wrote it down. These are not investigations.

The only investigations have come from a physicist who proved that WTC 7 came down at free fall and was thus the result of controlled demolition, from a team of scientists who examined dust from the WTC towers and found nano-thermite, from high-rise architects and structural engineers with decades of experience, and from first responders and firefighters who were in the towers and experienced explosions throughout the towers, even in the sub-basements.

We have reached the point where evidence is no longer required. The government’s statements suffice. Only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence.

In America, government statements have a unique authority. This authority comes from the white hat that the US wore in World War II and in the subsequent Cold War. It was easy to demonize Nazi Germany, Soviet Communism and Maoist China. Even today when Russian publications interview me about the perilous state of civil liberty in the US and Washington’s endless illegal military attacks abroad, I sometimes receive reports that some Russians believe that it was an impostor who was interviewed, not the real Paul Craig Roberts. There are Russians who believe that it was President Reagan who brought freedom to Russia, and as I served in the Reagan administration these Russians associate me with their vision of America as a light unto the world. Some Russians actually believe that Washington’s wars are truly wars of liberation.

The same illusions reign among Chinese dissidents. Chen Guangcheng is the Chinese dissident who sought refuge in the US Embassy in China. Recently he was interviewed by the BBC World Service. Chen Guangcheng believes that the US protects human rights while China suppresses human rights. He complained to the BBC that in China police can arrest citizens and detain them for as long as six months without accounting for their detainment. He thought that the US and UK should publicly protest this violation of due process, a human right. Apparently, Chen Guangcheng is unaware that US citizens are subject to indefinite detention without due process and even to assassination without due process.

The Chinese government allowed Chen Guangcheng safe passage to leave China and live in the US. Chen Guangcheng is so dazzled by his illusions of America as a human rights beacon that it has never occurred to him that the oppressive, human rights-violating Chinese government gave him safe passage, but that Julian Assange, after being given political asylum by Ecuador is still confined to the Ecuadoran embassy in London, because Washington will not allow its UK puppet state to permit his safe passage to Ecuador.

Perhaps Chen Guangcheng and the Chinese and Russian dissidents who are so enamored of the US could gain some needed perspective if they were to read US soldier Terry Holdbrooks’ book about the treatment given to the Guantanamo prisoners. Holdbrooks was there on the scene, part of the process, and this is what he told RT: “The torture and information extraction methods that we used certainly created a great deal of doubt and questions in my mind to whether or not this was my America. But when I thought about what we were doing there and how we go about doing it, it did not seem like the America I signed up to defend. It did not seem like the America I grew up in. And that in itself was a very disillusioning experience.” http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-guard-islam-torture-608/

In a May 17 Wall Street Journal.com article, Peggy Noonan wrote that President Obama has lost his patina of high-mindedness. What did Obama do that brought this loss upon himself? Is it because he sits in the Oval Office approving lists of US citizens to be assassinated without due process of law? Is it because he detains US citizens indefinitely in violation of habeas corpus? Is it because he has kept open the torture prison at Guantanamo? Is it because he continued the war that the neoconservatives started, despite his promise to end it, and started new wars?

Is it because he attacks with drones people in their homes, medical centers, and work places in countries with which the US is not at war? Is it because his corrupt administration spies on American citizens without warrants and without cause?

No. It is none of these reasons. In Noonan’s view these are not offenses for which presidents, even Democratic ones, lose their high-minded patina. Obama can no longer be trusted, because the IRS hassled some conservative political activists.

Noonan is a Republican, and what Obama did wrong was to use the IRS against some Republicans. Apparently, it has not occurred to Noonan that if Obama–or any president–can use the IRS against opponents, he can use Homeland Security and the police state against them. He can use indefinite detention against them. He can use drones against them.

All of these are much more drastic measures. Why isn’t Peggy Noonan concerned?

Because she thinks these measures will only be used against terrorists, just as the IRS is only supposed to be used against tax evaders.

When a public and the commentators who inform it accept the collapse of the Constitution’s authority and the demise of their civil liberties, to complain about the IRS is pointless.

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

obama: defending the indefensible 25 May 2013 8:56 AM (11 years ago)

Anthony Freda Art

Stephen Lendman

Activist Post

His doublespeak duplicity reflects the last refuge of a scoundrel. He's the worst in recent memory. Perhaps the worst ever. Forked tongue rhetoric can't disguise it.

Throughout his tenure, he governed lawlessly. He's done so at home and abroad. He spurns rule of law principles and other democratic values.

Nothing suggests change. Business as usual continues. War on humanity is policy. Rogue leaders govern that way. Obama threatens everyone.

On May 23, he spoke at Washington's National Defense University. He defended what he urged changing four years earlier. More on his Thursday address below.

On May 21, 2009, he spoke at the National Archives. He addressed national security. He said America can't be safe "unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values."

The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - these are not simply words written into aging parchment. 

They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world. 

(O)ur government made a series of hasty decisions. 

(O)ur government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. 

(W)e set (aside fundamental) principles as luxuries that we could no longer afford. 

In other words, we went off course. (Americans) called for a new approach - one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

We must act, he said, "with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability."

(D)ecisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach.

He called doing so "neither effective nor sustainable."

He pledged change. He said he took steps to prohibit torture. He ordered Guantanamo closed, he claimed.

He made other high-minded promises. He "swore an oath to uphold the Constitution," he said. He systematically spurned it. He did so across the board. He represents the worst of rogue leadership.

His Thursday address reflected same old, same old. It was beginning-to-end demagogic boilerplate. We've heard it throughout his tenure. He repeats it ad nauseam.

Promises made are broken. Defending the indefensible doesn't wash. CODEPINK Women for Peace co-founder Medea Benjamin challenged him.

She interrupted his speech. She did so several times. She called on him to close Guantanamo, release cleared detainees, and stop killer drone attacks.

"Will you apologize for the thousands of Muslims that you killed," she asked? "Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?"

Can you tell the Muslims that their lives are as precious as our lives? 

Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA? 

Can you stop (drone) strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activity? 

You are commander in chief! You can close Guantanamo today! You can release all cleared detainees. 

It's been 11 years. Abide by the rule of law. You're a constitutional lawyer.

Speaking truth to power has a price. Benjamin was forcibly removed. She was detained. She was interrogated by Secret Service, military and FBI personnel. She was then released.

Asked why she challenged Obama, she said:

We have been so disappointed with Obama. We expected him to to make serious changes like taking drones out of the hands of the CIA, stopping the signature strikes, apologizing to innocents who have been killed, families of the innocent, and announcing that he, as Commander-in-Chief, would close Guantanamo, so when he did not I felt compelled to speak out.

Obama defended drone strikes. He did so disingenuously. Extrajudicial killing is lawless. Weasel words fell short of explaining his failure to close Guantanamo. What he said didn't wash.

He lied. He blamed Congress for his own transgression. He bears full responsibility. He can close Guantanamo today. He can do so with a stroke of his pen.

As president and commander in chief, he's fully authorized to do so. Congress has no say. He can order all uncharged prisoners released. Indefinite detention is lawless.

He claimed a nonexistent terror threat. The only ones are those he and complicit allies invent. They've done so throughout his tenure. They continued what Bush officials began.

In 2009, Obama promised change. He spurned what he pledged to uphold. He did what core supporters thought impossible. He exceeded the worst of his predecessor.

He turned truth on its head. He claimed extrajudicial murder is legal. On 9/11, America was attacked, he said. Doing so was state-sponsored terrorism. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were wrongfully blamed.

Days later Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was introduced. Congress passed it near unanimously. Bush signed it into law. America's "war on terror" began.

Police state laws were enacted. Multiple direct and proxy wars were launched. They're lawless. They target humanity. They remain ongoing. Obama continues what he promised to stop.

Rule of law principles don't matter. Diktat authority is policy. Obama's weasel words belie his actions. His promises aren't worth the paper they're written on. He broke every major one made.

Nothing ahead suggests change. Straightaway in office he promised Guantanamo closure. Nothing whatever's been done to do so.

Innocent victims remain imprisoned. Indefinite detention is policy. So are lawless military commissions. America maintains a global gulag. Extraordinary renditions fill it. Torture continues.

Drone killing is prioritized. More of the same is planned. No one's secure anywhere. US citizens are vulnerable. Summary judgment is policy. Attacks can occur anywhere. US soil is unsafe. There's no place to hide.

Secrecy prevents public disclosure. Promised transparency's nonexistent. What's most important continues out of sight and mind. Media scoundrels suppress what demands highlighting.

Obama reflects the worst of rogue leadership. War on terror policy continues. It does so when no threat exists. It's lawless and unconscionable.

Obama's heading America for full-blown tyranny and ruin. He threatens humanity. Doublespeak duplicity reflects it. His speech didn't surprise. Same old, same old remains policy. Nothing he said suggests otherwise.

Following his address, the Center for Constitutional Rights responded as follows:

(U)nless (Obama) takes immediate steps to resume transfers and ultimately close (Guantanamo), his administration will not escape the 'harsh judgment' of history.

Lifting the ban on Yemeni transfers fell short. So far it's rhetoric, not policy. "(W)e are disappointed by (Obama's) comment that cleared men will only be released 'to the greatest extent possible.' "

Obama's "equivocation is troubling. After eleven years of detention without charge or trial, all of the men President Obama does not intend to give fair trials should be released and reunited with their families."

Anything short of that threatens to worsen a potentially deadly crisis unfolding at Guantanamo.

Targeted drone strikes remain policy. Reasserting the right is "legally flawed and dangerous."

Whether or not the United States can use lethal force under the laws of war is not a matter of policy preference - it is a matter of law and facts.

Continuing current policy in any forms "sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations and other countries."

Hundreds of activists endorsed a New York Times ad. It called on Obama to "Close Guantanamo Now" and "stop the torture."

Presidents cannot be allowed to arrogate to themselves the power of judge, jury and executioner. 

Fundamental civil liberties have been eviscerated. 

It is up to the people to stand up for principle and morality when their institutions and public officials refuse to do so. 

End the War Crimes and Violations of Fundamental Rights!

Nothing Obama said suggests change. Business as usual remains policy. War on humanity continues. No end in sight appears likely.

New world order harshness threatens everyone. It's a clear and present danger. It's much too great to ignore.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

in pursuit of happiness 23 May 2013 6:50 AM (11 years ago)

america and israel’s real concerns about iran’s nuclear activities 22 May 2013 8:48 PM (11 years ago)

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Kenneth Waltz, who was for decades a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley and is widely acknowledged as one of the most important modern theorists of international relations, died last week.  Neither of us ever studied at Berkeley, but anyone who studied international relations in the West (or in many non-Western venues) during the past half century was at least indirectly a student of Waltz.

There are a growing number of tributes to Waltz, by his students (see, for example, Steve Walt’s remembrance, here) and by others (see, for example, here).  We want to focus on Waltz’s relatively recent role in the American/Western debate on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.
Of course, the Islamic Republic denies that it is pursuing or wishes to obtain nuclear weapons, and even U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies acknowledge that the Islamic Republic is not currently trying to build them.  Nevertheless, most Western discussion simply assumes that nuclear weapons are the ultimate goal of Iran’s nuclear program—and that Iran’s acquisition of such weapons would further “destabilize” the Middle East.

In “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” published last year in Foreign Affairs, Waltz stood this discussion on its head.  Reviving an argument he first laid out over thirty years ago, Waltz posited that nuclear deterrence between competitive or even antagonistic states (think the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War) is uniquely stabilizing.  In his view, power that is unbalanced by countervailing power is the ultimate source of instability in international affairs, and nuclear deterrence is a very effective form of balancing.  Updating this assessment for the present-day Middle East, in his July/August 2012 Foreign Affairs article Waltz wrote that what is truly destabilizing for the region is unchecked Israeli power, especially Israel’s nuclear weapons monopoly.  From this perspective, he argued that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would actually enhance strategic stability in the Middle East.

Unlike Waltz, we do not assume that the Islamic Republic is trying to develop nuclear weapons—nor do we believe that Tehran should do so.  In our book, Going to Tehran, and in other venues, we put forward an alternative reading of the purposes of Iran’s nuclear program—a reading much more congruent with the way in which the program has actually been conducted, with strategic and religious debate in the Islamic Republic, and with Iranian public opinion.  We think, however, that Waltz’s argument highlights important aspects of what’s wrong with American and Western debate about the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities.

Much of the negative reaction to Waltz’s Foreign Affairs article has focused on the Islamic Republic’s alleged “irrationality.”  To work, deterrence requires instrumental, cost-benefit-calculating rationality.  The “mad mullahs” who run the Islamic Republic, it is held, hardly meet this standard.  No less than Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed this view, telling NBC’s Meet the Press in September 2012,

“I think Iran is very different.  They put their zealotry above their survival.  They have suicide bombers all over the place.  I wouldn’t rely on their rationality…Since the advent of nuclear weapons, you had countries that had access to nuclear weapons who always made a careful calculation of cost and benefit.  But Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism.  It’s the same fanaticism that you see storming your embassies today.”

Building on this polemical characterization, Netanyahu in the same interview directly attacked Waltz and his argument:
“You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?  I mean, I’ve heard some people suggest, David, I actually I read this in the American press.  They said, well, you know, if you take action, that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons.  Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East—stabilize the Middle East.  I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity.”

But even senior Israeli national security officials acknowledge that Netanyahu’s polemical characterization of Iranian decision-making is a caricature.  As former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in 2010, “I don’t think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, [would] drop it in the neighborhood.  They fully understand what might follow.  They are radical but not totally crazy.  They have a quite sophisticated decision-making process, and they understand reality.”
What, then, are the real reasons for the strongly negative reactions among American elites to Waltz’s argument?  In his remarks at our event at MIT last week, Noam Chomsky goes to the heart of this question.  Commenting on the regular briefings that U.S. intelligence agencies and the Pentagon provide to Congress, Prof. Chomsky noted,

“Of course, they talk about Iran as ‘the Iranian threat.’  And they point out that the threat is not military.  Iran has very low military spending, even by the standards of the region (of course, miniscule as compared to the United States).  It has a strategic doctrine, which is defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set in.  And they say that, if Iran is developing nuclear weapons—for which they have no evidence, but if it is—it would be part of their deterrent strategy.
And that’s crucial.  The U.S. cannot tolerate a deterrent strategy.  Israel, incidentally, is exactly the same.  You read a couple of weeks ago that Israel bombed military sites in Syria.  And the reason that was presented was because they might help a deterrent to an Israeli attack on Lebanon—namely that they might go to the only force that deters an attack:  Hizballah.

States—which are technically called ‘rogue states’—that believe they have the right to use force freely everywhere cannot tolerate deterrence, for obvious reasons.  That’s what the threat is.”
Prof. Chomsky’s explanation why the United States and Israel cannot tolerate deterrent strategies on the part of other Middle Eastern players is critical.  As we have written before, this is why the United States and Israel portray purely defensive prospective military preparations by the Islamic Republic—such as the acquisition of more sophisticated air defense systems—as somehow “threatening.”  It also highlights the real reason for American and Israeli concern over Iran’s nuclear activities—that an Iran with even a latent, theoretical capacity to develop a nuclear deterrent would rein in the ability of the United States and Israel to use force freely anywhere they want in the Middle East.

Those realities should prompt everyone to reconsider just what are the real threats to strategic stability in the region.

america is becoming a closed society 22 May 2013 8:33 PM (11 years ago)

May 22, 2013

Posted by Saman Mohammadi at 11:29 PM

the new world order is unimpeachable 22 May 2013 8:23 PM (11 years ago)

Sinclair Lewis once wrote that if fascism ever comes to the United States it will be wrapped in the American flag and carrying a cross. Lewis might have been describing our contemporary “political Christians,” the mostly evangelicals who believe that Washington has a manifest destiny to make the world behave while simultaneously expunging the constitution of all those troubling un-Biblical bits that were pulled together into the Bill of Rights. Well, it hasn’t quite happened that way. The “Moral Majority” remains influential in the Republican Party, but it has been replaced by the “moral hypocrisy” crowd that came in with change we could believe in in 2008. Who would have thought that a Democrat preaching inclusion and talking to one’s enemies would have gone on to complete the job begun by George W. Bush in transforming our republic into a full blown national security state? Well, someone should have thought of it if history is anything to go by. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, promised peace when he was elected in 1916 even as he was conniving to enter the First World War. Franklin D. Roosevelt, another Democrat, ran on a platform asserting that he had kept the nation out of war while he was colluding with Winston Churchill fight the Germans. The lesson that was apparently not learned well enough was to beware of politicians falsely proclaiming themselves to be peace candidates.
The Founding Fathers included impeachment in the constitution for a reason. Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his Secretary of War, surviving the process by one vote. Richard Nixon would have been impeached because of Watergate and Bill Clinton might have suffered the same fate over perjury connected with his inability to keep his trousers on. As much as I would like to see George W. Bush in jail for starting a war of aggression, he is more likely to be indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes than he is to face any retribution in the United States as he is now out of office. But we still have Obama.
As suggested above, President Obama was elected in 2008 almost certainly because of the perception, in spite of significant warning signs, that he was the antiwar candidate. Relative to John McCain and Sarah Palin he certainly looked to be the better option. But instead of making the United States a more normal country again post 9/11 Obama has instead done much to expand and institutionalize the deplorable aspects of the insecure and paranoid state that he inherited. He is the only president known to have ordered the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens, he has greatly expanding the killing by drone program initiated by his predecessor, and he has far exceed the record of Bush in using the government secrets privilege to cover up official malfeasance and to block any attempt at redress or rollback through the judiciary.
More than that, as if that were not bad enough, he is also looking for innovative ways to expand the federal government’s power. The recent revelations about the White House using the tax system to punish critics and the secret investigation of the Associated Press news service to find leaks from among the ranks of Obama’s own administration should deeply disturb every American. Nixon, who had his enemies list, behaved similarly using the IRS and it was one of the issues that would have told against him if he had been impeached. Abusing a government agency that has its legitimacy derived from the impression that it operates impartially has devastating consequences as it completely undermines any sense that the citizen is being treated fairly. The Obama response that he did not know that the selective screening of non-profits was taking place is pathetic on several levels. First of all the “buck stops” at his desk in terms of what the government agencies under his control are doing and second, the IRS action reeks of politicization. The president has pretended to be angry and has vowed that there will be accountability for what has occurred, announcing that the acting chief of IRS has been forced to resign. He knows as well as anyone that there has been no accountability in the federal government since 9/11 and almost certainly before that. Those he is forced to fire will leave with their pensions intact and another job waiting, while the real scoundrels in the White House will walk, as they always do.
The Associated Press (AP) incident is equally disconcerting. If President Obama is concerned about leaks relating to his illegal drone program in Yemen he should look first at the self-serving and sycophantic barracudas that he has surrounded himself with. If his Attorney General Eric Holder decided that an investigation of the Associated Press was in order to control leaks of information that the White House would prefer the public not to be made aware of, he should have sought the information directly from AP before obtaining a “secret” subpoena and demanding the information from the phone company. Taking legal action against press sources is reminiscent of the actions of several authoritarian regimes that were active in the twentieth century and which are frequently cited for the horrors they inflicted on their people, it should be. If Obama were serious about accountability and not just doing damage control, the AP and IRS scandals together should have impelled him to fire Holder and to consider the possibility of himself resigning to avoid impeachment as Nixon did.
And there are plenty of other indications that we are witnessing a transformation of government, and not for the better, including a warning that the war on terror will go on for at least twenty more years and the president can take whatever military action he deems appropriate during that time period. Remember the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program in 2002 that was intended to compile detailed dossiers on every American? Well, its back only the FBI and White House are now calling it “total internet surveillance” in an attempt to forestall “going dark” on the information transmitted by new technologies. It will provide real time access to all the data that moves or is accessible through over the web, which is nearly everything these days. Combine that with the NSA capability to tap all phones all the time and there is not a whole lot of room for privacy left, which is precisely the intention. A small percentage of investigations that are actually carried out with respect to the fourth amendment ban on illegal searches go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which always accepts the government argument that national security is involved and approves the search.
It would be hard to explain how the shenanigans engaged in by Bush and Obama have made us any safer. Perhaps something can be done before Obama sets up a FISC-like acquiescent drone court that will decide on the modalities for assassinating American citizens because they represent an “imminent threat.” Let’s face it, in the minds of many in Washington national security is perpetually at risk so there is always a completely plausible justification to zap someone. Even Senator Rand Paul seems to go along with the idea if one is detected exiting a liquor store, so it will likely be another bipartisan demonstration of how government vs. the people works. A secret court set up to do something that is manifestly illegal and unconstitutional will be a triumph for the current version of the New World Order originally envisioned by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. Always remember that the government knows best.

Read more by Philip Giraldi

• Boston Becomes Toxic – May 15th, 2013
• Gatekeeping for Zion – May 9th, 2013
• Kristol Clear – May 1st, 2013
• What Has Bibi Been Doing? – April 24th, 2013
• Drones and Death Lists: The New Face of Warfare – April 17th, 2013
  
• http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/05/22/the-new-world-order-is-unimpeachable/

u.s. military grants itself the power to police the Streets 21 May 2013 11:35 PM (11 years ago)

(FOXNEWS)   According to an article published on Tuesday in the Long Island Press, the Pentagon has “has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.” The story, by Jed Morey, refers to recent changes made by the Department of Defense to a U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies.” The changes, Morey argues, are the latest in what he calls the “militarization of domestic law enforcement” and further blur the lines between police SWAT teams and the military.

These changes, which have attracted media little attention, bring with them the worrying potential for greater involvement by the U.S. military in domestic affairs.

The changes clarify the rule for the involvement of military forces in civilian law enforcement and establishes “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States.” According to Morey, the most worrying part of the recent changes is the inclusion of vague-sounding language  which permits temporary military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances”:

“Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances because:

(1) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or

(2) Duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions.”

According to Morey, the military is currently “prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law.” Morey labels the recent changes as a “game-changer,” given that they undermine existing limits to military intervention in domestic
affairs. Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, is concerned about the lack of definition contained in the rule, including what constitutes “wanton destruction,” or under what circumstances prior authorization of the President would be considered “impossible.” ”These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” he say. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”
Civil disturbances are defined in the regulation as “Group acts of violence and disorder prejudicial to public law and order.” While Morey quotes an unnamed defense official who claims that the authorization has existed for over 100 years and just has not been exercised before, legal experts are concerned by the changes.

Afran argues that the rule is “a wanton power grab by the military. It’s quite shocking actually,” he continues, “because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.” Furthermore, he argues that the definition of civil disturbances is broad and vague enough that “all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also labelled the rule ”an unauthorized power grab.”

Morey notes that although the outcomes of previous domestic military interventions in the U.S. have varied:

“…the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military — specifically the National Guard — is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.” 

Freedman points out that the “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Meanwhile, Morey argues that this is exactly what is has just done, and that it is not the first time the Department has attempted to expand its domestic authority.

So is this a unilateral power grab by the Pentagon that has potentially worrying implications for the future, or is it simply a necessary precaution in case of a legitimate emergency that domestic law enforcement is unable to handle?

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

rand paul: there’s going to have to be an independent investigation of “un-american” irs scandal 21 May 2013 3:30 PM (11 years ago)

Daniel Jackson

Speaking at a GOP fundraiser in the important election state of New Hampshire, Senator Rand Paul called for an independent investigation into the IRS targeting scandal that has lead many to further distrust the government.

During his speech he called the IRS targeting the Obama Administrations political enemies totally un-American.

“Any person who would use the power or abuse the power of government to go after their political opponents, I don’t care if you are a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, to take that brute force, that bullying force of government and to use it against your opponents, there is something distinctly and profoundly un-American about that,” Paul stated.


Not wanting to let the scandal simply be forgotten by the corporate media and American people alike, Paul made it clear that someone has to go to prison. He also joked about the three different scandals currently rocking the White House.

ABC News reported:

The Republican senator joked that the trio of scandals hitting the Obama administration — the IRS’s admitted targeting of tea party groups, increased criticism and outrage at the administration’s response to last year’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, and news of the Department of Justice’s seizure of phone records of the Associated Press, as well as spying on a Fox News reporter as part of a leak investigation — all reminded him of the children’s song “Old MacDonald.”

“Old MacDonald’s Farm of Scandals: here’s a scandal, there’ s a scandal, everywhere a scandal,” Paul said. “So it’s hard to know which scandal we want to talk about, but I think they all sort of stem from one problem and that’s the government has accumulated too much power, the president has accumulated too much power. Not just this president, but maybe the last 10 presidents, because we allowed that power to go from Congress to the presidency. We’ve allowed the presidency to become too strong.”

Paul said the revelations from the IRS scandal will create “such a level of distrust” that there is “going to have to be some kind of independent commission” to investigate.
“I don’t see any way the president can gain back trust, and for goodness sake, somebody’s got to get fired or go to prison,” Paul said to cheers.

Clearly the IRS targeting political opponents should be taken very seriously, with those involved going to prison and an independent investigation into where the orders came from and if there was any connection to the White House. (which at this point should be obvious)
Any Senator or Congressman who doesn’t support an independent investigation should be exposed as enemies of democracy in America, for if we let the IRS get away with this, the future police state will make American unrecognizable.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

the irs's job is to violate our liberties 21 May 2013 2:02 AM (11 years ago)

clients denied gold at major banks as shortage intensifies 20 May 2013 11:08 PM (11 years ago)

KingWorldNews.com

Greyerz:  “This week I want to talk about what we are seeing in the physical gold market, and why there is a disconnect in that market.  We transfer a lot of gold from Swiss banks and other banks into private vaults for investors.

More often now, than ever, we are encountering incidents when the banks are putting up all kinds of obstacles for these transfers.  The first sign of the potential shortage of physical gold started with ABN AMRO a few weeks (when they) declared that they would renege on their commitment to redeem gold accounts in physical gold....

“Instead they would redeem in cash.  The custodian for ABN AMRO, for the gold, is UBS, and UBS decides to what extent they hedge the ABN paper gold position.

So as there is no more physical redemption of the ABN AMRO gold accounts, it seems these contracts are no longer backed by physical gold.  It’s just backed by paper, and this is of course typical for the paper market, Eric.  This paper market, which is 100 times bigger than the physical market, probably has zero percent backing of physical.  This is why ABN stopped redeeming in gold.

Then, last week we had an investor being refused to take his physical gold out of a major Swiss bank.  They told him that the regulatory authority prevented the bank from giving the client his physical gold.  That is of course total nonsense, and eventually we helped the client to get his gold out of the bank.

Another of our clients was told by a major Swiss bank that he can only take out 100,000 Swiss francs of physical gold every six months.  They blamed money laundering and terrorist activity for this decision.  Yet another client was again told by a major Swiss bank that his storage fees would be going up substantially.  When he complained he was told that he should convert to paper gold.

And finally, Eric, another big bank, which has an ETF, told a client who wanted to transfer gold out it that he would have to wait at least two weeks for the transfer.  You just wonder why a major bank that is supposed to hold substantial amounts of physical gold needs two weeks of more to transfer gold to a client.

So all of this, Eric, points to the fact that there is a major shortage of physical gold in the banks.  These banks obviously don’t want to lose customers, but their behavior and the reluctance to deliver also points to a real shortage in the physical market.

So the disconnect between the paper and the physical market (for gold) is continuing.  Refiners still have major production delays and demand continues to be very high, ‘No matter how much they produce,’ as one refiner told me today.  And premiums are still high also.”

This is only a small portion of what Greyerz had to say in his extraordinary audio interview.  The KWN audio interview with Egon von Greyerz is available now and you can listen to it by CLICKING HERE.

© 2013 by King World News®. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.  However, linking directly to the blog page is permitted and encouraged.

The audio interviews with Andrew Maguire, Art Cashin, William Kaye, James Turk, John Hathaway, John Embry, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Jean-Marie Eveillard and MEP Nigel Farage are available now.  Also, be sure to hear the other recent KWN interviews which include Eric Sprott, Marc Faber and Felix Zulauf by CLICKING HERE.

Eric King

KingWorldNews.com

To return to BLOG click here.

the missing word 20 May 2013 7:56 PM (11 years ago)

 John Kaminski

Created on 21 May 2013

Hits: 1234

charles hugh-smith: the decline of self-employment and small business 2 May 2013 2:05 PM (11 years ago)

Small business is the incubator of employment. As it declines, so too do opportunities for first jobs, second chances and economic independence.

Historically, in order for incorporated self-employment to grow, it requires an increasing share of the population that is inclined to, or capable of, first becoming unincorporated self-employed. A growing share of the incorporated self-employed since the ’00s are one-person S corporations (to take advantage of favorable tax treatment) or limited partnerships (LPs) and limited liability corporations (LLCs) in real estate for pass-through purposes that hire few, if any, employees.Consider that the US employment base is disproportionately dependent upon the viability of as few as 4% of the labor force and fewer than 2% of the population as the primary “job creators”, i.e., incorporated self-employed.

Spend some time walking through Silicon Valley or New York City, and you’ll likely leave under the impression that entre­pre­neur­ship is alive and well in the United States. But spend some time wading through some of the latest census data, and you may come away with a very different impression.

will no due process be the norm using dzhokhar tsarnaev as an excuse? 19 Apr 2013 8:35 PM (12 years ago)

 

by The Watchdog

On April 19, 1775, the brave men who stood against the British forces at Lexington green and later Concord stood up to stop the abuses by King George III. One was due process of law. I wonder if all the people who lived in Boston during that colonial period are rolling over in their graves seeing how Massachusetts has become the very place they tried to flee from.


Since Monday, the Boston marathon bombing. The US Government has been caught colluding with the Boston Police and other outside assets staging a false flag attack. They were hoping to pin the blame on one of Obama’s Political enemies like to tea party and gun owners. When it was found out of  operatives around the blast areas before and after the attack.  Blaming people who love liberty fell flat. The media and the system went into a panic trying to save face. Next thing we know two Russian Brothers were now public enemy number one.

As it is reported now. one brother is dead and the other is wounded. I wonder how the authorities will treat this suspect. Will the Feds and the Boston PD manufacture evidence linking him to the bombing? Will there be a trial and discovery if he gets his day in court? I just hope it does not end like it did with David Koresh, and Chris Dorner where they were burned alive without a day in court.

I do not believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had anything to do with the bombing at the Boston marathon. He must have the right of due process under the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments. I hope the Federal government has a much luck trying to convict Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as they did with Hutaree militia.  I pray to God this man does not go before a Kangaroo Court with a jury that is so incompetent they do not know about the law and due process, but knows what happens during the daytime soap operas. The government would love to have a jury in place to render the desired verdict of guilty. I hope Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gets an attorney who will vigorously put up a defense furthering discrediting the government’s case against him.

We are seeing the government try to save face after they have been caught in a false flag attack. The government will try to use this an excuse to bring a more cruel Police State and tyranny in America. Lets not let Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be a victim of a corrupt government who might try to use him to advance an agenda.

If we do not stand up for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev right to due process to have his day in court. We all lose and the Terrorist win. He has a right to bring forth witnesses in his defense and the right to discovery. If we do not make a stand for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev right to due process under the law and the Constitution.  The consequence will be. There will be no one to speak for us when we are on trial being set up. Stand for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev right to a speedy and fair trial or the tyrants win.

If due process was good enough for Obama’s buddies of the weathermen under ground when they were caught carrying out terrorist attacks nationwide killing Police officers. Then due process is good enough for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. If we do not stand for another person right to due process even though we might not agree with them or like them. if we do not stand up for them No one will stand up for us.

morris dees, advisor to army intelligence, fbi and homeland security 18 Apr 2013 9:09 AM (12 years ago)

Morris Dees, Advisor to Army Intelligence, FBI and Homeland Security on Domestic Terror/Patriot Groups

—

by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

—
In recent weeks, it has come to light that the US Army, DHS and FBI are compiling lists of organizations listed as “terrorist.” 
Some are politically extremist but many are veterans groups, totally innocent historical organizations with octogenarian membership and more are legitimate and reasonable groups who oppose government censorship and spying.
The primary organizations supplying the lists, lists that leave out real terror groups for some reasons are the ADL under Abraham Foxman and the SPLC under Morris Dees.
Foxman is closely aligned with AIPAC, long involved in espionage and terrorism against the US.

Now, Veterans Today, a notoriously liberal and progressive organization, broadly multi-cultural and deeply infiltrated with Jews, Muslims and American Patriots, takes offense at Dees, Foxman and the others who are pushing America “over a cliff.”

Dees, well, this court document barely touches the surface:

Related Posts:

• Buzzards Descend on Norway Tragedy Corpses
• A “Superhighway” to Israeli Rule in America
• Boston Bombs, The Fed Goes “Terminator”
• Iran Foils New Sedition Ploy Hatched by BBC
• Zionists Drown In Their Own Hatred: The Photos

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=248530

COMMENTS

al-qaeda, us irregular infantry in syria: wesbter tarpley 18 Apr 2013 8:39 AM (12 years ago)

Youtube  Apr 18, 2013

An analyst tells Press TV that the Obama administration is using al-Qaeda terrorists as its irregular infantry in its proxy war against Syria.


Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said that the West "will pay a heavy price" for pitting al-Qaeda militants against the Syrian government. He also condemned measures taken by Turkey and some of the country's Arab neighbors to support the anti-Syria terrorists, and their attempts to start a sectarian civil war in the country.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and historian from Washington DC.

surreal: us troops stage in jordan to defend al qaeda in syria 18 Apr 2013 8:09 AM (12 years ago)

an open letter to the police commisioner of boston. 17 Apr 2013 8:07 AM (12 years ago)

zippittydodah les visible

brought to you by cops posing as terrorists: the big sleep 17 Apr 2013 7:41 AM (12 years ago)

THE REBL

John Kaminski

 1 81 107 1Tumblr1Technorati0StumbleUpon0 1Reddit21

http://therebel.org/kaminski/604732-the-big-sleep

bombs from boston to baghdad: what Is the value of a human life?: 16 Apr 2013 5:46 PM (12 years ago)

Judged by the media coverage, it is hard not to conclude that western lives are valued much more highly than those of people in Afghanistan, Iraq or the Middle East.

By Lindsey German

April 16, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"Stop The War" - The bombing in Boston is a tragedy, and everyone should condemn the actions of people who have destroyed the lives of people enjoying themselves watching the marathon.

But last week in Afghanistan a US airstrike killed eleven children and several women. This Afghan bombing is only one of many that are killing civilians every week.

In Iraq bombs go off in crowded areas regularly. A wave of bombings across the country yesterday left at least 75 Iraqis dead.

And in Syria too, there is a daily repetition of carnage that is killing countless civilians.

Judged by the media coverage, it is hard not to conclude that western lives are valued much more highly than those of people in Afghanistan or the Middle East, and that bombs in the middle of major US cities are regarded as more newsworthy than those in the Afghan countryside or in Baghdad.

When commentators and journalists empathise with the victims of the Boston bomb, many will wonder why they give hardly a passing thought for those other victims who were also caught in the middle of their everyday lives, enjoying themselves in the sunshine, shopping in markets or celebrating weddings.

The general rule seems to be 'out of sight, out of mind'.

But the mayhem wreaked by western intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and elsewhere is not out of the minds of the millions who witness it and live with it every day. Nor is it forgotten by those in the west who opposed these policies and predicted they would create more terrorism, not less.

It is unclear who was responsible for the Boston bombs, with the reports suggesting either a group from the Middle East, or home grown right wing extremists marking Patriot Day.

That hasn't stopped right wing commentators (step forward Fox News' commentator) from blaming the Muslims and from Muslims worldwide expressing fears that this new attack would lead to further scapegoating and racism towards them.

Terrorism is now routinely blamed on Muslims even though most Muslims are as horrified by such attacks as anyone else. And even though the most serious terror attack in Europe in recent years was from a right wing extremist in Norway trying to advance his anti immigration and anti Muslim agenda.

Whatever the truth about this latest bombing, the continued refusal to acknowledge the widespread grievances against the US and its allies caused by the wars and US policies in the Middle East will lead to turmoil until political solutions are found.

That solution includes getting all foreign troops out of Afghanistan and the Middle East, ending discrimination against Muslims and supporting justice for the Palestinians.

Not coming any time soon, then?

What's your response? -  Scroll down to add / read comments



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34636.htm?utm_source=ICH%3A+Boston%2C+Cowardice+%26+America+the+Blind&utm_campaign=FIRST&utm_medium=email

   

















We are testing a new comment software and would appreciate your opinion. Please click here

Please read our  Comment Policy before posting -
     
2 comments
Livefyre
Sign in or Post as Guest
14 people listening
yuri gagarindangerman1973
Newest | Oldest
dangerman1973
dangerman1973
39 minutes ago

This is all that is, American exceptionalism. In the mainstream media, our lives are more valuable than Muslim ones.
ShareFlag
LikeReply
yuri gagarin
yuri gagarin
1 hour ago

People are always divided into artificial groups by leaders who seek to use them for exploitation or as murderer-soldiers. The division is made possible by propaganda which paints their group as good and the other as bad. Everyone knows this and yet our capacity to be fooled by leaders seems infnite. So when our people are killed it is tragic and when theirs are killed it is either good or if its children then its collateral damage.
ShareFlag
LikeReply
    

obama quietly strips anti-corruption provisions from stock act 16 Apr 2013 5:15 PM (12 years ago)

Comments

Add comment

new york times v. north korea 15 Apr 2013 9:34 PM (12 years ago)

us turns to domestic extremism as new counterterrorism focus 15 Apr 2013 8:57 PM (12 years ago)

two deadly explosions rock boston marathon 15 Apr 2013 8:40 PM (12 years ago)