FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

There is no valid argument for the destruction of our planet and any form of life on it.As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves. Be the change that you want to see in the world. This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience. Some articles republished here "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

THE OLIVE BRANCH

THE OLIVE BRANCH

Freedom Adds

Monday, September 15, 2014

Bin Laden Transcript Outlines Plan to Bankrupt U.S. Through War

Bin Laden Transcript Outlines Plan to Bankrupt U.S. Through War 



Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said he is trying to bankrupt the U.S. through its war on terror, a strategy he says felled the Soviet Union two decades ago in Afghanistan, according to a translation by al-Jazeera television of his full, videotaped statement.

``The mujahedeen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan -- with Allah's permission,'' bin Laden said in the video that aired on the Qatar-based satellite network, according to the translation, posted today to al-Jazeera's Web site. The channel aired portions of the statement on Oct. 29.

President George W. Bush's administration plans to seek an additional $70 billion from lawmakers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the head of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, General Paul Kern, said on Oct. 26. The U.S. Congress last year approved $87 billion for military operations and rebuilding in the two countries.

Bin Laden's video appearance, his first since September 2003, came four days before the Nov. 2 presidential vote in which Bush's anti-terrorism policies will play a central role. Bush's challenger, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in debates and campaign speeches that the president should have focused on capturing bin Laden rather than invading Iraq.

Financial Impact 

Saudi-born bin Laden, who aided the Muslim resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, boasts in his latest message of how little the Sept. 11 attacks cost and how large a financial impact they had on the U.S. Bin Laden accuses Bush of waging war to benefit Halliburton Co. and other contractors, and leaving American taxpayers with the bill. The Bush administration has rejected such linkages.

The terror leader cites a speech by an unidentified British diplomat at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which he says outlines the financial impact of Sept. 11 by comparing the estimated $500,000 spent to carry out the assault with the damage caused.

Bin Laden said ``every dollar of al-Qaeda defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.''

The Bush policy of mounting a global war on terror has made it easy for al-Qaeda to ``bait'' the U.S. government, bin Laden said.

``All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin Laden said, according to the al-Jazeera transcript.

To contact the reporter on this story: Demian McLean in Washington at dmclean8@bloomberg.net.

Nation of Cowards

Nation of Cowards



What else can you fairly call a people who attack a population of refugees confined to a small space surrounded on every side by fences and machine-gun towers, a population with nowhere to run? No, that is not put strongly enough. Not just attack, but use the latest and most ferocious weapons from the American arsenal to slaughter more than 2100 people, including more than 500 children, destroying along the way a major portion of the housing, businesses, and institutions of a poor people.

The definition of a coward is not the traditional military one of a soldier who won’t fight. No, that’s far too simplistic and self-serving. The genuine meaning of the word, the meaning that warrants our full sense of revulsion and contempt, is someone who attacks someone far weaker than themselves. A large man who beats a woman or a child with his fists or a policeman who clubs a handcuffed prisoner – that is the accurate and meaningful definition of the word. And the people of Israel responsible for Operation Protective Edge are as sadly perfect examples of genuine cowards as you can find in the world.

What remarkable courage it takes – outfitted as the IDF is with Kevlar armor, the latest intelligence gadgets, satellites, radios, support of every imaginable kind, and immensely powerful weapons (they even get hot pizzas delivered as they pause in their gruesome work) – to shoot people who cannot run away, are often poorly fed and clothed, and who mostly have no weapons. And the courage of the Israeli pilots who make bombing runs over homes, schools, apartments, and stores from the safety of their supersonic fighters is surely remarkable. They remind me of the American pilots who shot and incinerated countless retreating Iraqi soldiers in the (engineered) First Gulf War while the television broadcasts caught their gleeful shouts of “Wow, it’s just like shooting fish in a barrel!”

Yes, Americans are the only comparable example of Israel’s cowardice, the Americans who literally enable Israel’s savagery but also themselves have given the world the best part of half a century of savagery abroad, the deaths of literally millions of civilians in half a dozen countries – deaths by carpet bombing, napalm, missiles, white phosphorus, various poisons, and the razor-like shards of cluster bombs.

The United States, like Israel, is never called to account for the worst record on the planet of mass killing and destruction. You simply cannot name a contemporary criminal enterprise or a so-called terrorist organization which has a record so steeped in horrors as those two.

Wholesale death inflicted with utter disregard for international law and custom has become standard policy for both countries. Yes, there are always excuses for mass murder, the weasel words such as communists or terrorists or dictators and weapons of mass destruction (Americans ironically being the only people on earth who actually used them, twice, on civilians) – all of them having no more real meaning than Stalin’s chilling wreckers, a word he used to signal his creatures that it was time for a new bloody purge. In some cases those purged were simply people Stalin did not like or of whom he felt jealous, but in most cases of the millions smashed or consigned to hell on earth, the only motive was to terrify a population into submission, and that is exactly what Israel’s motive is for its periodic massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese.

Anyone of moderate intelligence who reads and thinks must know Israel is in no danger from anyone, least of all the Palestinians who have no organized army, no navy, and no air force, not to mention very little of anything else. Israel is armed to the teeth with conventional and non-conventional weapons, it leans back arrogantly into the arms of super-power America and plays the victim in a land it victimizes, and it functions as a garrison state whose major purpose is to hold down and make miserable millions of people who happen not to be Jewish, all the while hoping they will one day pick up and leave. It is absurd to say Israel’s security is endangered by anyone, and especially by the hopeless, lifetime prisoners of Palestine.

Turning a blind eye to the Holocaust three-quarters of a century ago was an unforgivable thing, but in at least one very real sense, it is now even more culpable the way the West turns a blind eye to Israel’s horrors. The Holocaust was perpetrated in great secrecy, and there was no Internet or international media equipped with satellites to tell the world what was happening. There was no United Nations or other international organizations watching. Today, what Israel does is everywhere to be seen. People in America eat their suppers watching Israeli jets bombing homes. Without much effort you can find images of Palestinian children with portions of their heads missing. And we all saw the Israelis from Sderot sit in lawn chairs on a bluff in the evening breeze laughing and applauding as women and children writhed in agony far below much like ants being stepped on.

America’s Deadliest Export - Democracy

America’s Deadliest Export - Democracy

A safer world for Americans… if they don’t leave home




This is an extract from America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy — The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else by William Blum (Zed Books, 2014). Zed Books have just reissued Blum’s three classic books, America’s Deadliest Export, Rogue State and Killing Hope in new updated editions.
September 15, 2014 "ICH" - Supporters of US foreign policy have been repeating the point ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001: US counterterrorism policy has worked. How do they know? Because there haven’t been any successful terrorist attacks in the United States in all the years since that infamous day.

True, but there weren’t any terrorist attacks in the United States in the six years before September 11, 2001 either, the last one being the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995. The absence of terrorist attacks in the US appears to be the norm, with or without a War on Terror.

More significantly, in the years since 9/11 the United States has been the target of terrorist attacks on scores of occasions, not even counting those in Iraq or Afghanistan — attacks on military, diplomatic, civilian, Christian, and other targets as­sociated with the United States; in the Middle East, South Asia, and the Pacific; more than a dozen times in Pakistan alone. The attacks include the October 2002 bombings of two nightclubs in Bali, Indonesia, which killed more than 200 people, almost all of them Americans and citizens of their Australian and British war allies; the following year brought the heavy bombing of the US-managed Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic receptions and 4th of July celebrations held by the American embassy; and other horrendous attacks in later years on US allies in Madrid and London because of the war.

Land of the Free, Home of the War on Terror


David Hicks is a 31-year-old Australian who in a plea-bargain with a US military court served nine months in prison, largely in Australia. That was after five years at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without being charged with a crime, without a trial, without a conviction. Under the deal, Hicks agreed not to talk to reporters for one year (a terrible slap in the face of free speech), to forever waive any profit from telling his story (a slap – mon Dieu! – in the face of free enterprise), to submit to US interrogation and testify at future US trials or international tribunals (an open invitation to the US government to hound the young man for the rest of his life), to renounce any claims of mistreatment or unlawful deten­tion (a requirement which would be unconstitutional in a civilian US court). ‘If the United States were not ashamed of its conduct, it wouldn’t hide behind a gag order,’ said Hicks’s attorney Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Like so many other ‘terrorists’ held by the United States in recent years, Hicks had been ‘sold’ to the American military for a bounty offered by the US, a phenomenon repeated frequently in Afghanistan and Pakistan. US officials had to know that, once they offered payments to a very poor area to turn in bodies, almost anyone was fair game.

Other ‘terrorists’ have been turned in as reprisals for all sorts of personal hatreds and feuds. Many others — abroad and in the United States — have been incarcerated by the United States simply for working for, or merely contributing money to, charitable organizations with alleged or real ties to a ‘terrorist organization,’ as determined by a list kept by the State Depart­ment, a list conspicuously political.

It was recently disclosed that an Iraqi resident of Britain is being released from Guantánamo after four years. His crime? He refused to work as an informer for the CIA and MI5, the British security service. His business partner is still being held in Guantánamo, for the same crime.

Finally, there are those many other poor souls who have been picked up simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ‘Most of these guys weren’t fighting. They were running,’ General Martin Lucenti, former deputy commander of Guantánamo, has pointed out.

Thousands of people have been thrown into hell on earth for no earthly reason. The world media have been overflowing with their individual tales of horror and sadness for years. Guantá­namo’s former commander, General Jay Hood, said: ‘Sometimes we just didn’t get the right folks.’ Not that the torture they were put through would be justified if they were in fact ‘the right folks.’

Hicks was taken into custody in Afghanistan in 2001. He was a convert to Islam and like others from many countries had gone to Afghanistan for religious reasons, had wound up on the side of the Taliban in the civil war that had been going on since the early 1990s, and had received military training at a Taliban camp. The United States has insisted on calling such camps ‘terrorist training camps,’ or ‘anti-American terrorist training camps,’ or ‘al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.’ Almost every individual or group not in love with US foreign policy that Washington wants to stigmatize is charged with being associated with, or being a member of, al-Qaeda, as if there’s a precise and meaningful distinction between people retaliating against the atrocities of American imperialism while being a member of al-Qaeda and retaliating against the atrocities of American imperialism while not being a member of al-Qaeda; as if al-Qaeda gives out membership cards to fit into your wallet, and there are chapters of al-Qaeda that put out a weekly newsletter and hold a potluck on the first Monday of each month.

It should be noted that for nearly half a century much of southern Florida has been one big training camp for anti-Castro terrorists. None of their groups — which have carried out many hundreds of serious terrorist acts in the US as well as abroad, including bombing a passenger airplane in flight — is on the State Department list. Nor were the Contras of Nicaragua in the 1980s, heavily supported by the United States, about whom former CIA director Stansfield Turner testified: ‘I believe it is irrefutable that a number of the Contras’ actions have to be characterized as terrorism, as State-supported terrorism.’

The same applies to groups in Kosovo and Bosnia, with close ties to al-Qaeda, includ­ing Osama bin Laden, in the recent past, but which have allied themselves with Washington’s agenda in the former Yugoslavia since the 1990s. Now we learn of US support for a Pakistani group called Jundullah and led by a Taliban, which has taken responsibility for the kidnappings and deaths and of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials in cross-border attacks. Do not hold your breath waiting for the name Jundullah to appear on the State Department list of terrorist organizations; nor any of the several other ethnic militias being supported by the CIA to carry out terrorist bombing and assassination attacks in Iran.

The same political selectivity applies to many of the groups which are on the list, particularly those opposed to American or Israeli policies.

Amid growing pressure from their home countries and inter­national human rights advocates, scores of Guantánamo detainees have been quietly repatriated in recent years. Now a new analysis by lawyers who have represented detainees at this 21st century Devil’s Island says this policy undermines Washington’s own claims about the threat posed by many of the prison camp’s residents. The report, based on US government case files for Saudi detainees sent home over the past three years, shows inmates being systematically freed from custody within weeks of their return.

In half the cases studied, the detainees had been turned over to US forces by Pakistani police or troops in return for financial rewards. Many others were accused of terror­ism connections in part because their Arab nicknames matched those found in a computer database of al-Qaeda members, docu­ments show. In December, a survey by the Associated Press found that 84 percent of released detainees — 205 out of 245 individuals whose cases could be tracked — were set free after being released to the custody of their native countries.

There are certainly bad people in Guantanamo Bay, but there are also other cases where it’s hard to understand why the people are still there, said Anant Raut, co-author of the report, who has visited the detention camp three times. ‘We were struggling to find some rationality, something to comfort us that it wasn’t just random. But we didn’t find it.’

The report states that many of the US attempts to link the detainees to terrorist groups were based on evidence the authors describe as circumstantial and ‘highly questionable,’ such as the travel routes the detainees had followed in flying commercially from one Middle Eastern country to another. American officials have associated certain travel routes with al-Qaeda, when in fact, says the report, the routes ‘involve ordinary connecting flights in major international airports.’ With regard to accusations based on similar names, the report states: ‘This accusation appears to be based upon little more than similarities in the transliterations of a detainee’s name and a name found on one of the hard drives.’

Raut said he was most struck by the high percentage of Saudi detainees who had been captured and turned over by Pakistani forces. In effect, he said, for at least half the individuals in his report the United States ‘had no first-hand knowledge of their activities’ in Afghanistan before their capture and imprisonment.

When Michael Scheuer, the former CIA officer who headed the Agency’s Osama bin Laden unit, was told that the largest group in Guantánamo came from custody in Pakistan, he declared: ‘We absolutely got the wrong people.’ Never mind. They were all treated equally: all thrown into solitary confinement; shackled blindfolded, forced to undergo excruciating physical contortions for long periods, denied medicine; sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation were used, along with two dozen other methods of torture which American officials do not call torture. (If you tortured these officials, they might admit that it’s ‘torture lite.’)

‘The idea is to build an anti-terrorist global environment,’ a senior American defense official said in 2003, ‘so that in 20 to 30 years, terrorism will be like slave-trading, completely discredited.’

When will the dropping of bombs on innocent civilians by the United States, and invading and occupying their country, without their country attacking or threatening the US, become completely discredited? When will the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs and CIA torture renditions become things that even men like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld will be too embarrassed to defend?

Australian/British journalist John Pilger has noted that in George Orwell’s 1984 ‘three slogans dominate society: war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Today’s slogan, war on terrorism, also reverses meaning. The war is terrorism.’

Saved again, thank the Lord, saved again (August 18, 2006)

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

So now we’ve (choke) just been (gasp) saved from the simultane­ous blowing up of as many as ten airplanes headed toward the United States from the UK. Wow, thank you Brits, thank you Homeland Security. And thanks for preventing the destruction of the Sears Tower in Chicago, saving lower Manhattan from a terrorist-unleashed flood, smashing the frightful Canadian ‘terror plot’ with seventeen arrested, ditto the three Toledo terrorists, and squashing the Los Angeles al-Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airliner into a skyscraper.

The Los Angeles plot of 2002 was proudly announced by George W. in 2006. It has since been totally discredited. Declared one senior counter terrorism official: ‘There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage.’

And the scare about ricin in the UK, which our own Mr Cheney used as part of the build-up for the invasion of Iraq, telling an audience on January 10, 2003: ‘The gravity of the threat we face was underscored in recent days when British police arrested … suspected terrorists in London and discovered a small quantity of ricin, one of the world’s deadliest poisons.’ It turned out there was not only no plot, there was no ricin. The Brits discovered almost immediately that the substance wasn’t ricin but kept that secret for more than two years.

From what is typical in terrorist scares, it is likely that the individuals arrested in the UK on August 10, 2006 were guilty of what George Orwell, in 1984, called thought crimes.’ That is to say, they haven’t actually done anything. At most, they've thought about doing something the government would label ‘terrorism.’ Perhaps not even very serious thoughts, perhaps just venting their anger at the exceptionally violent role played by the UK and the US in the Middle East and thinking out loud how nice it would be to throw some of that violence back in the face of Blair and Bush. And then, the fatal moment for them that ruins their lives forever: their angry words are heard by the wrong person, who reports them to the authorities. (In the Manhattan flood case the formidable, dangerous ‘terrorists’ made mention on an Internet chat room about blowing something up.)

Soon a government agent provocateur appears, infiltrates the group, and then actually encourages the individuals to think and talk further about terrorist acts, to develop real plans instead of youthful fantasizing, and even provides the individuals with some of the means for carrying out these terrorist acts, like explosive material and technical know-how, money and trans­portation, whatever is needed to advance the plot. It’s known as ‘entrapment,’ and it’s supposed to be illegal, it’s supposed to be a powerful defense for the accused, but the authorities get away with it all the time; and the accused get put away for a very long time.

And because of the role played by the agent provocateur, we may never know whether any of the accused, on their own, would have gone much further, if at all, like actually making a bomb, or, in the present case, even making transatlantic flight reservations, since many of the accused reportedly did not even have passports. Government infiltrating and monitoring is one thing; encouragement, pushing the plot forward, and scaring the public to make political capital from it are quite something else.





Prosecutors have said that the seven men in Miami charged with conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and FBI buildings in other cities had sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda. This came after meeting with a confidential government informant who was posing as a representative of the terrorist group. Did they swear or hold such allegiance, one must wonder, before meeting with the informant? ‘In essence,’ reported the Independent, ‘the entire case rests upon conversations between Narseal Batiste, the apparent ringleader of the group, with the informant, who was posing as a member of al-Qaeda but in fact belonged to the [FBI] South Florida Terrorist Task Force.’

Batiste told the informant that ‘he was organizing a mission to build an “Islamic army” in order to wage jihad.’ He provided a list of things he needed: boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, vehicles, binoculars, bullet-proof vests, firearms, and $50,000 in cash. Oddly enough, one thing that was not asked for was any kind of explosive material. After sweeps of various locations in Miami, government agents found no explosives or weapons. ‘This group was more aspirational than operational,’ said the FBI’s deputy director, while one FBI agent described them as ‘social misfits.’ And, added the New York Times, investigators openly acknowledged that the suspects ‘had only the most preliminary discussions about an attack.’ Yet Cheney later hailed the arrests at a political fundraiser, calling the group a ‘very real threat.’

It was perhaps as great a threat as the suspects in the plot to unleash a catastrophic flood in lower Manhattan by destroying a huge underground wall that holds back the Hudson River. That was the story first released by the authorities; after a while it was replaced by the claim that the suspects were actually plot­ting something aimed at the subway tunnels that run under the river.16 Which is more reliable, one must wonder, information on Internet chat rooms or WMD tips provided by CIA Iraqi informers? Or information obtained, as in the current case in the UK, from Pakistani interrogators of the suspects, none of the interrogators being known to be ardent supporters of Amnesty International.

And the three men arrested in Toledo, Ohio, in February 2006 were accused of — are you ready? — plotting to recruit and train terrorists to attack US and allied troops overseas. For saving us from this horror we have a paid FBI witness to thank. He had been an informer with the FBI for four years, and most likely was paid for each new lead he brought in. In the Sears case, the FBI paid almost $56,000 to two confidential informants, and government officials also granted one of them immigration parole so he could remain in the country.

There must be millions of people in the United States and elsewhere who have thoughts about ‘terrorist acts.’ I might well be one of them when I read about a gathering of Bush, Cheney, and assorted neocons that’s going to take place. Given the daily horror of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine in recent times, little of which would occur if not for the government of the United States of America and its allies, the numbers of people having such thoughts must be multiplying rapidly. If I had been at an American or British airport as the latest scare story unfolded, waiting in an interminable line, having my flight canceled, or being told I can’t have any carry-on luggage, I may have found it irresistible at some point to declare loudly to my fellow suffering passengers: ‘Y’know, folks, this security crap is only gonna get worse and worse as long as the United States and Britain continue to invade, bomb, overthrow, occupy, and torture the world!’ How long would it be before I was pulled out of line and thrown into some kind of custody?

If General MacArthur were alive today, would he dare to publicly express the thoughts cited above?

Policymakers and security experts, reports the Associated Press, say that ‘Law enforcers are now willing to act swiftly against al-Qaeda sympathizers, even if it means grabbing wannabe terrorists whose plots may be only pipe dreams.’ The capture of dangerous would-be terrorists has been a growth industry in the United States ever since the events of Sep­tember 11, 2001. Do you remember the ‘shoe bomber’? Richard Reid was his name and he was aboard an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001; he tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes, didn’t succeed, and was overpowered by attendants and passengers. It’s because of him that we have to take our shoes off at the airport.















There was also ‘the underwear bomber,’ Umar Farouk Abdul­mutallab, referred to above, who tried to set off plastic explosives sewn into his underwear while aboard a Northwest Airlines flight as the plane approached Detroit airport in 2009. But he failed to detonate them properly, producing only some popping noises and a flame; another passenger jumped him and restrained him as others put out the fire. It’s because of Mr Abdulmutallab that we now virtually have to take our underwear off at airports.

And the reason we have strict rules about carrying liquids and gels aboard an airplane? We can thank some other young clowns in Europe in 2006 with pipe dreams about blowing up ten airliners with liquid explosives; they scarcely made it to step one. Since the ‘bomb made from liquids and gels’ story was foisted upon the public, several chemists and other experts have pointed out the technical near-impossibility of manufacturing such a bomb in a moving airplane, if for no other reason than the necessity of spending at least an hour or two in the airplane bathroom.

Then there was Faisal Shahzad, the ‘Times Square bomber,’ who on May 1, 2010 parked his car in the heart of New York City, tried to detonate various explosive devices in the car, but succeeded in producing only smoke. He then walked away from the car, after which he was arrested. It’s because of him that cars are no longer permitted in Times Square. (No, that’s a joke, but maybe not for long.)


The incompetence of these would-be bombers in being unable to detonate their explosives is remarkable. You’d think they could have easily gotten that critical and relatively simple part of the operation down pat beforehand. What I find even more remark­able is that neither of the two men aboard the airplanes thought of going into the bathroom, closing the door, and then trying to detonate the explosives. An 8-year-old child would have thought of that. Are we supposed to take the ‘threat’ posed by such men seriously?

‘The Department of Homeland Security would like to remind passengers that you may not take any liquids onto the plane. This includes ice cream, as the ice cream will melt and turn into a liquid.’ This was actually heard by one of my readers at Atlanta airport in 2012. He laughed out loud. He informs me that he didn’t know what was more bizarre, that such an announcement was made or that he was the only person that he could see who reacted to its absurdity.

Another example of the frightful terrorist threat was in October 2010 when we were told that two packages addressed to Chicago had been found aboard American cargo planes, one in Dubai, the other in England, containing what might, or might not, be an explosive device; which might, or might not, have exploded. Authorities said it was not known if the intent was to detonate the packages in flight or in Chicago.

Now get this. Terrorists, we are told, are shipping bombs in packages to the United States. They of course would want to make the packages as innocuous looking as can be, right? Nothing that would provoke any suspicion in the mind of an already very suspicious American security establishment, right? So what do we have? The packages were mailed from Yemen… and addressed to Jewish synagogues in Chicago… Well folks, nothing to see here, just keep moving.

A tale of two terrorists

Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person ever charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks, tes­tifying at his 2006 trial in Alexandria, Virginia: the sobbing September 11 survivors and family members who testified against him were ‘disgusting’… He and other Muslims want to ‘extermi­nate’ American Jews… executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was ‘the greatest American.’ Moussaoui expressed his willingness to kill Americans ‘any time, anywhere’… ‘I wish it had happened not only on the 11th, but the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th.’

Orlando Bosch, one of the masterminds behind the October 6, 1976 bombing of a Cuban passenger plane, blown out of the sky with seventy-three people on board, including the entire young Cuban fencing team, interviewed on April 8, 2006 by Juan Manuel Cao of Channel 41 in Miami:

Cao: Did you down that plane in 1976?
Bosch: If I tell you that I was involved, I will be inculpating myself … and if I tell you that I did not participate in that action, you would say that I am lying. I am therefore not going to answer one thing or the other.
Cao: In that action 73 persons were killed…
Bosch: No chico, in a war such as us Cubans who love liberty wage against the tyrant [Fidel Castro], you have to down planes, you have to sink ships, you have to be prepared to attack anything that is within your reach.
Cao: But don’t you feel a little bit for those who were killed there, for their families?
Bosch: Who was on board that plane? Four members of the Communist Party, five North Koreans, five Guyanese… Who was there? Our enemies.
Cao: And the fencers? The young people on board?
Bosch: I saw the young girls on television. There were six of them. After the end of the competition, the leader of the six dedicated their triumph to the tyrant. She gave a speech filled with praise for the tyrant. We had already agreed in Santo Domingo, that everyone who comes from Cuba to glorify the tyrant had to run the same risks as those men and women that fight alongside the tyranny.
Cao: If you ran into the family members who were killed in that plane, wouldn’t you think it difficult … ?
Bosch: No, because in the end those who were there had to know that they were cooperating with the tyranny in Cuba.

The difference between Zacarias Moussaoui and Orlando Bosch is that one of them was put on trial and sentenced to life in prison while the other walks around Miami a free man, free enough to be interviewed on television. In 1983 the City Commis­sion of Miami declared a ‘Dr Orlando Bosch Day.’

Bosch had a partner in plotting the bombing of the Cuban airliner: Luis Posada, a Cuban-born citizen of Venezuela. He lives as a free man in the United States. His extradition has been requested by Venezuela for several crimes, including the downing of the airliner, part of the plotting having taken place in Venezuela. But the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to send him to Venezuela, for, despite his horrible crime, he’s an ally of the empire; Venezuela and Cuba are not. Nor will Washington try him in the US for the crime. However, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1973), of which the United States is a signatory, gives Washington no discretion. Article 7 says that the state in which ‘the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offense was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.’

Extradite or prosecute. The United States does neither

Washington’s War Against Russia

Washington’s War Against Russia

 

The new sanctions against Russia announced by Washington and Europe do not make sense as merely economic measures. I would be surprised if Russian oil and military industries were dependent on European capital markets in a meaningful way. Such a dependence would indicate a failure in Russian strategic thinking. The Russian companies should be able to secure adequate financing from Russian Banks or from the Russian government. If foreign loans are needed, Russia can borrow from China.

If critical Russian industries are dependent on European capital markets, the sanctions will help Russia by forcing an end to this debilitating dependence. Russia should not be dependent on the West in any way.

The real question is the purpose of the sanctions. My conclusion is that the purpose of the sanctions is to break up and undermine Europe’s economic and political relations with Russia. When international relations are intentionally undermined, war can be the result. Washington will continue to push sanctions against Russia until Russia shows Europe that there is a heavy cost of serving as Washington’s tool.

Russia needs to break up this process of ever more sanctions in order to derail the drive toward war. In my opinion this is easy for Russia to do. Russia can tell Europe that since you do not like our oil companies, you must not like our gas company, so we are turning off the gas. Or Russia can tell Europe, we don’t sell natural gas to NATO members, or Russia can say we will continue to sell you gas, but you must pay in rubles, not in dollars. This would have the additional benefit of increasing the demand for rubles in exchange markets, thus making it harder for speculators and the US government to drive down the ruble.

The real danger to Russia is a continuation of its low-key, moderate response to the sanctions. This is a response that encourages more sanctions. To stop the sanctions, Russia needs to show Europe that the sanctions have serious costs for Europe.

A Russian response to Washington would be to stop selling to the US the Russian rocket engines on which the US satellite program is dependent. This could leave the US without rockets for its satellites for six years between the period 2016 and 2022.

Possibly the Russian government is worried about losing the earnings from gas and rocket engine sales. However, Europe cannot do without the gas and would quickly abandon its participation in the sanctions, so no gas revenues would be lost. The Americans are going to develop their own rocket engine anyhow, so the Russian sales of rocket engines to the US have at most about 6 more years. But the US with an impaired satellite program for six years would mean a great relief to the entire world from the American spy program. It would also make difficult US military aggression against Russia during the period.

Russian President Putin and his government have been very low-key and unprovocative in responding to the sanctions and to the trouble that Washington continues to cause for Russia in Ukraine. The low-key Russian behavior can be understood as a strategy for undermining Washington’s use of Europe against Russia by presenting a non-threatening face to Europe. However, another explanation is the presence inside Russia of a fifth column that represents Washington’s interest and constrains the power of the Russian government.

Strelkov describes the American fifth column here: http://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/12/we-will-not-allow-for-russia-to-be-ripped-asunder-and-ruined/

Saker describes the two power groups inside Russia as the Eurasian Sovereignists who stand behind Putin and an independent Russia and the Atlantic Integrationists, the fifth column that works to incorporate Russia in Europe under US hegemony or, failing that, to help Washington break up the Russian Federation into several weaker countries that are too weak to constrain Washington’s use of power. http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.br/2014/09/strelkov-from-swimming-with-piranhas-to.html

Russia’s Atlantic Integrationists share the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines with Washington. These doctrines are the basis for US foreign policy. The doctrines define the goal of US foreign policy in terms of preventing the rise of other countries, such as Russia and China, that could limit Washington’s hegemony.

Washington is in a position to exploit the tensions between these two Russian power groups. Washington’s fifth column is not best positioned to prevail. However, Washington can at least count on the struggle causing dissent within the Eurasian Sovereignists over Putin’s low-key response to Western provocations. Some of this dissent can be seen in Strelkov’s defense of Russia and more can be seen here:
http://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/13/the-new-round-of-sanctions-the-pre-war-period/#more-3665

Russia, thinking the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, opened herself to the West. Russian governments trusted the West, and as a result of Russia’s gullibility, the West was able to purchase numerous allies among the Russian elites. Depending on the alignment of the media, these compromised elites are capable of assassinating Putin and attempting a coup.

One would think that by now Putin’s government would recognize the danger and arrest the main elements of the fifth column, followed by trial and execution for treason, in order that Russia can stand united against the Western Threat. If Putin does not take this step, it means either than Putin does not recognize the extent of the threat or that his government lacks the power to protect Russia from the internal threat.

It is clear that Putin has not achieved any respite for his government from the West’s propaganda and economic assault by refusing to defend the Donbass area from Ukrainian attack and by pressuring the Donetsk Republic into a ceasefire when its military forces were on the verge of a major defeat of the disintegrating Ukrainian army. All Putin has achieved is to open himself to criticism among his supporters for betraying the Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The European politicians and elites are so deeply in Washington’s pocket that Putin has little chance of courting Europe with a Russian show of good will. I have never believed that this strategy could work, although I would be pleased if it did. Only a direct threat todeprive Europe of energy has a chance of producing within Europe a foreign policy independent of Washington. I do not think Europe can survive a cutoff of the Russian natural gas. Europe would abandon sanctions in order to guarantee the flow of gas. If Washington’s hold on Europe is so powerful that Europe is willing to endure a major disruption of its energy supply as the price of its vassalage, Russia will know to cease its futile attempts at diplomacy and to prepare for war.

If China sits on the sidelines, China will be the next isolated target and will receive the same treatment.

Washington intends to defeat both countries, either through internal dissent or through war.

Nothing said by Obama or any member of his government or any influential voice in Congress has signaled any pullback in Washington’s drive for hegemony over the world.

The US economy is now dependent on looting and plunder, and Washingtons hegemony is 
essential to this corrupted form of capitalism.


By Paul Craig Roberts

Convenient Genocide: Another Failed War to Re-arrange The Middle East

Convenient Genocide: Another Failed War to Re-arrange The Middle East



A few months ago, not many Americans, in fact Europeans as well, knew that a Yazidi sect in fact existed in northwest Iraq. Even in the Middle East itself, the Yazidis and their way of life have been an enigma, shrouded by mystery and mostly grasped through stereotypes and fictitious evidence. Yet in no time, the fate of the Yazidis became a rally cry for another US-led Iraq military campaign.

It was not a surprise that the small Iraqi minority found itself a target for fanatical Islamic State (IS) militants, who had reportedly carried out unspeakable crimes against Yazidis, driving them to Dohuk, Irbil and other northern Iraqi regions. According to UN and other groups, 40,000 Yazidi had been stranded on Mount Sinjar, awaiting imminent “genocide” if the US and other powers didn’t take action to save them.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat

The rest of the story was spun from that point on, as the Yazidis - whose very existence was rarely acknowledged in most international media - became a rally cry for US-western intervention in Iraq. The logic for intervention that preceded the latest US bombing campaign of IS targets, which started in mid-June, is similar to what took place in Libya over three years ago. Early 2011, imminent “genocide” awaiting Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi was the rally cry that mobilised western powers to a war that wrought wanton killings and destruction in Libya. Since NATO’s intervention in Libya, which killed and wounded tens of thousands, the country has fallen prey to an endless and ruthless fight involving numerous militias, armed, and financially and politically-backed by various regional and international powers. Libya is now ruled by two governments, two parliaments, and a thousand militia.


When US special forces arrived to the top of Mount Sinjar, they realized that the Yazidis had either been rescued by Kurdish militias, or were already living there. They found less than 5,000 Yazidis there, half of them refugees. The mountain is revered in local legend, as the final resting place of Noah’s ark. It was also the final resting place for the Yazidi genocide story. The finding hardly received much coverage in the media, which used the original claim to create fervour in anticipation for Western intervention in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/14/did-the-pentagon-misjudge-the-danger-on-iraqs-mount-sinjar/

We all know how the first intervention worked out. Not that IS’ brutal tactics in eastern, northern and central Iraq should be tolerated. But a true act of genocide had already taken place in Iraq for nearly two decades, starting with the US war in 1990-91, a decade-long embargo and a most destructive war and occupation starting in 2003. Not once did a major newspaper editorial in the US bestow the term “genocide” on the killing and maiming of millions of Iraqis. In fact, the IS campaign is actually  part of a larger Sunni rebellion in Iraq, in response to the US war and Shite-led government oppression over the course of years. That context is hardly relevant in the selective reporting on the current violence in Iraq.

It goes without saying, US policymakers care little for the Yazidis, for they don’t serve US interests in any way. However, experience has taught that such groups only become relevant in a specially tailored narrative, in a specific point in time, to be exploited for political and strategic objectives. They will cease to exist the moment the objective is met. Consider for example, the fact that IS has been committing horrific war crimes in western and northern Syria for years, as did forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and militants belonging to the various opposition groups there. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed and wounded. Various minority groups there faced and continue to face genocide. Yet, somehow, the horrifying bloodshed there was not only tolerated, but in fact encouraged.

For over three years, little effort was put forward to find or impose a fair political solution to the Syria civil war. The Syrians were killing each other and thousands of foreigners, thanks to a purposely porous Turkish borders were allowed to join in, in a perpetual “Guernica” that, with time, grew to become another Middle Eastern status quo. In fact, all of us are guilty in permitting the Syrian genocide to perpetuate with all of its barbarity and gruesomeness to this day. It is as if we learned to co-exist with some acts of genocide, but not others. Many fortified themselves behind a mountain of self-tailored evidence that one party was committing all the crimes, and the others and their supporters were, in fact, innocent or in a state of self-defence.
http://www.stripes.com/news/europe-s-fear-turkey-s-porous-border-serves-as-gateway-for-isil-s-spread-1.291646


Werent the massacres of Aleppo in fact genocide? The siege of Yarmouk? The wiping out of entire villages, the beheading and dismembering of people for belonging to the wrong sect or religion?

Even if they were, it definitely was not the kind of genocide that would propel action, specifically western-led action. In recent days, as it was becoming clear that the US was up to its old interventionist games, countries were being lined up to fight IS. US Secretary of State John Kerry was shuttling the globe once more, from US to Europe, to Turkey, to Iraq to Saudi Arabia, and still going. "We believe we can take on ISIL (previous name for IS) in the current coalition that we have," he said. But why now?http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29172524

The French are also keen on fighting IS. After all, France was one of the two main parties in the Asia Minor (Sykes-Picot) Agreement in 1916, which divided Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between France and Britain. Major wars and upheavals didn’t alter the old colonial borders imposed on the Arabs since then, as much as the IS, whose numbers are being artfully overstated from 10 thousand up to 31 thousand, according to the CIA. Francois Hollande flew to Baghdad in a reported show of support for Iraq’s new government. In actuality, he was there, ahead of a Paris conference on Iraq, to show a united western front, and that the Obama administration was not alone in this war. France, of course, has its own calculations in Syria and Lebanon, and will find the right moment to cease in its support of the US war.http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/index.html

In his speech on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Obama declared war on IS. Obama’s tangled foreign policy agenda became even more confused in his 13-minute speech from the White House. He promised to “hunt down” IS fighters “whenever they are” until the US ultimately destroys the group, as supposedly, it has down with al-Qaeda. IS, of course, is a splinter al-Qaeda group, which began as an idea, and thanks to the US global “war on terror”, has morphed into an army of many branches. The US never destroyed al-Qaeda; but it inadvertently allowed the creation of IS.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/barack-obama-tv-speech-on-isis-full-text

"That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven," Obama said. Of course, he needed to say that, as his Republican rivals have accused him of lack of decisiveness and his presidency of being weak. His democratic party could possibly lose control over the Senate come the November elections. His fight against IS is meant to help rebrand the president as resolute and decisive, and perhaps create some distraction from economic woes at home. Obama is using the same language that his predecessor, George W. Bush used, and is appealing to the same fear and trepidation of the foreign menace created by the media and fed to the US public for many years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738962/House-Senate-intel-chiefs-flag-Islamic-State-risk.html

That same media has also cleverly devalued and branded conflicts, and acts of genocide in ways consistent with US foreign policy agendas. While the Yazidis were purportedly stranded on mount Sinjar, Israel was carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Over 2,150 were killed, mostly civilians, hundreds of them children, and over 11,000 wounded, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Not an alleged 40,000 but a confirmed 520,000 thousand were on the run, and along with the rest of Gaza’s 1.8 million, were entrapped in an open-air prison with no escape. But that was not an act of genocide either, as far as the US-western governments and media were concerned. Worse, they actively defended, and, especially in the case of the US, UK, France and Italy, armed and funded the Israeli aggression. Just as the Israeli army was running out of badly needed ammunition to carry out its war crimes, the US was quick to ship more weapons to Israel. Thanks to US aid and backing, the Gaza genocide was finalised to perfection.
https://twitter.com/oxfamgb/status/498559625705562113

http://rt.com/usa/176820-pentagon-idf-unrwa-ammunition/

Experience has taught us that not all “acts of genocide” are created equal: Some are fabricated, and others are exaggerated. Some are useful to start wars, and others, no matter how atrocious, are not worth mentioning. Some acts of genocide are branded as wars to liberate, free and democratize. In that case, body count is not important. Other acts of genocide are to be encouraged, defended and financed.

But as far as the US involvement in the Middle East is concerned, the only real genocide is the one that serves the interests of the west, by offering an opportunity for military intervention, followed by political and strategic meddling to re-arrange the region. The first Bush Administration tried but failed, the second Bush Administration flirted with the New Middle East idea and also failed, and now, Obama.


The US experience in Iraq also taught us that its effort will only succeed in exacerbating an already difficult situation, yielding yet more disenfranchised groups, political despair and greater violence. If the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan failed so miserably to achieve any long term political objectives, despite the trillions of dollars spent there and the hundreds of thousands of lives taken, Obama’s chances of success now are close to nil.

Ramzy Baroud is a PhD scholar in People's History at the University of Exeter. He is the Managing Editor of Middle East Eye. Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

Economic Reality of a Wealth Tax

Economic Reality of a Wealth Tax
WealthPerceptionVsReality.jpg
Proponents of big government, from both the left and right, share one important trait; namely, both spend their waking hours dreaming up new schemes to tax wealth. Only a blind, deaf and dumb observer of economic imbalance would deny that the massive accumulation of worldly assets into the hands of the smallest number of robber barons in all of history is at the core of most social unrest and global instability. However, adopting a Marxist outlook on the evils of the bourgeoisie simply confuses the nature of the financial magnates, while blaming the hard pressed merchant class for conducting beneficial business. Creation of tangible wealth is the greatest achievement in the uplifting and improvement of the human condition, when that stream of riches flows between and among entrepreneurs and business proprietors.

A viable middle class only exists, when the velocity of money grows, as expectation of future prosperity becomes the cornerstone of economic development. Wealth is not the problem. Only the crony capitalists, who game the political system and fix the financial markets, present the fundamental reason why sharing of wealth has become an intangible for most people.

The bighearted collectivists have a champion for their cause. Sen. Sanders calls for wealth tax at AFL-CIO convention, and presents a time tested onslaught on the opulent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/6/sen-sanders-calls-wealth-tax-afl-cio-convention//l!
"Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, called for a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaires and billionaires during a speech on Saturday.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bernie-sanders/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/6/sen-sanders-calls-wealth-tax-afl-cio-convention/

"A nation will not survive morally or economically when so few have so much while so many have so little," Mr. Sanders said at the Vermont AFL-CIO annual convention.

"We need a tax system which asks the billionaire class to pay its fair share of taxes and which reduces the obscene degree of wealth inequality in America," said Mr. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.According to Mr. Sanders, taxing the top .25 percent of wealthiest Americans is the fairest way to reduce wealth inequality, lower the $17 trillion national debt and pay for investments in infrastructure,
education and other neglected national priorities.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/6/sen-sanders-calls-wealth-tax-afl-cio-convention/

Mr. Sanders‘ proposal would not raise taxes for the remaining 99.75 percent of Americans."


If you are disturbed by such an assault on those nasty rich, the "so called" right wing refuses to be outdone or out maneuvered.

Stanford University published Ronald McKinnon argument, The Conservative Case for a Wealth Tax. "In order to have a fairer tax system, we should implement a new federal wealth tax in addition to the federal income tax."
http://web.stanford.edu/~mckinnon/briefs/The%20conservative%20Case%20for%20a%20Wealth%20Tax%20(Rev).pdf

Mr. McKinnon goes on to propose that:

"With a large exemption of say $6 million that effectively excludes more than 95 percent of the population, a moderate flat tax, say 3 percent, on wealth so defined could then be imposed . . . The new wealth tax would be levied on the global personal domestic and foreign wealth of American residents."

Note the apparent common ground in both positions. The income tax remains and a new revenue enhancement, levied on the assessed value of all wealth and possessions, becomes law. Guess Sanders’ confiscation looks like a bargain, compared to the approach taken by the "so called" fiscal conservatives.

TrickleDownTaxCon.jpg
Completely absent from these trial balloons is political and economic reality. Can anyone imagine a circumstance whereby a George Soros or a Sheldon Adelson would volunteer to surrender any additional portion of their wealth, when much of their fortunes are devoted to the manipulation of social causes and political king making?http://batr.org/gulag/112503.html

http://batr.org/view/010211.html

Do you really believe that the Warren Buffet and Bill Gates ‘Giving Pledge’ along with the 115 Billionaires sign to give away more than half of their fortunes are for real? Even, Mr. McKinnon acknowledges two sacrosanct loopholes in the current code, "charitable or philanthropic contributions to be deducted, and not to tax the imputed rental value of owner-occupied homes while allowing full deductions for mortgage interest rates."http://givingpledge.org/

http://topinfopost.com/2013/11/20/115-billionaires-sign-to-give-away-more-than-half-of-their-fortunes

A wealth tax assessed, while you are living, will alter tax planning often and significantly, as opposed to the estate tax that usually is prepared for well in advance.

The Rates of Wealth Tax in France serves as an example to keep in mind.


Fraction Taxable          Rate of Tax:
http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/wealth-tax/rate/

€0 - €800,000                       0%
€800,000 - €1,300,000   0.50%
€1,300,000 - €2,570,000   0.70%
€2,570,000 - €5,000,000       1%
€5,000,000 - €10,000,000  1.25%
€10,000,000+                    1.50%

When such a tax rate is, half or less in France from that proposed by Mr. McKinnon, you know we are in trouble.

The underlying objective in these fake wealth tax schemes has nothing to do with closing the gap between Sanders’ .25 percent of wealthiest Americans, and the working class. In essence, the goal is simply to raise more revenue for big government.

The only true and factual way to stop the insatiable greed of the crony political alliance that underpins the state/capitalist establishment is to break up the financial despotism of the banksters Federal Reserve fiat money swindle.

Taxes are forced expropriation of funds. A blueblood aristocracy once ruled society. Today the market insiders, counterfeit their ill-gotten gains, using super computer algorithmic trading systems. Just because much of this theft originates from a nouveau riche breed of jackals, it does not exempt their predecessor generations from the horrendous crimes of the 19th and 20th century feudal lords of the monetary system.

Until society comprehends that, the wealth disparity can only be narrowed through the dismantling of the fraudulent favoritism of political special treatment, which includes the claw back of stolen wealth, will the ordinary man regain an opportunity to reap the rewards of his own labor and risk taking.

Instead of swelling the coffers of the state treasury, recompense the architects, managers and visionaries of small business, who create the real jobs in useful and productive endeavors. They deserve access to the confiscated wealth of the elite criminal class, not government.

Let actual free enterprise compete by encouraging a culture of rewarding hard work and honest commerce. Decades of social engineering, by technocratic regulation, only favored the 1/4 of the 1%. This is the literal path to social and economic justice.

Learning to Speak Barry’s Language

Fundamental Transformation of America is Obama's REAL War

Learning to Speak Barry’s Language








Learning to Speak Barry’s Language, Fundamental Transformation of America is Obama's REAL War, Marxist dialectic, ISIS, Islamic State

Pertinent, if not downright cheeky question to the leaders of the now dwindling 40 nations blindly following President Barack Obama into the Machiavellian ISIS war he deceptively tags: “a very significant counter-terrorism operation”:

Are you aware of the war that totally consumes Obama, the one he is waging against America?

That’s a question that sorely needs asking when it is so patently obvious that Obama shows far more gusto on the war deceptively called ‘The Fundamental Transformation of America’ than he displays toward the pretend war on ISIS, and one he’s been able to mastermind with no intervention for the past six years.

After all Obama hasn’t done to come to the aid of Israel against ISIS-supporting Hamas, why are you following Obama’s lead on the “very significant counter-operation”, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

As so many job-providing businesses operate from Canadian soil, with the day-to-day worry about the Marxist misery Obama inflicts on their friends and family, why is Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper one of the core coalition lemmings following Obama’s ISIS lead with a war that puts advisors rather than boots on the ground?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel lists possible participants of the ISIS Core Coalition as Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark.

And that’s not to mention the columnist David Huntwork-described 10 Arab “frenemy” states that committed on Thursday to the fight against ISIS,  including the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, or that the new coalition also includes Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq.

Harsh reality can always be counted on to shake rhetoric to its wobbly foundation
The duped broad Coalition of the Willing is already unravelling as the Coalition of the Balking Unwilling. Harsh reality can always be counted on to shake rhetoric to its wobbly foundation.

“In less than a day after Obama’s speech, both the UK and Germany (despite their earlier saber-rattling and tough guy talk) announced they have no interest in actually actively participating in any Obama led coalition to go after ISIS’ main bases of power in Syria. France has announced that they will not participate in any land or air actions at all. NATO member Turkey abstained from even pretending to join the anti-ISIS coalition and will not let the US use their airbases to attack ISIS targets in Syria. And now the Saudi’s probably won’t either. (David Huntwork, Sept. 14, 2014)

You don’t have to have the military acumen of a General Douglas MacArthur to know that Obama’s use of the term “very significant counter-terrorism that will have many different moving parts”  parroted zombie-like by his Secretary of State John Kerry, is nothing but a pathetic cop out.

Obama speaks a very different language from those among the 40 nations marching lemming-like off to war against ISIS.  Obama speaks in the language of doublespeak and in the Marxist dialectic.

A perfect example of Obama’s doublespeak Marxist dialectic is his self-coined con phrase, “The Fundamental Transformation of America” (FTOA)

In reality, the FTOA is essentially the absolute destruction of America from within.  Obama knew when he came up with the FTOA term that it would sound far less ominous than the utter destruction of an America much of the rest of the world counts on.

Had Obama honestly enunciated his true intentions for America pre-2008, describing the fundamental transformation of America exactly as it is, he likely never would have been propelled into the Oval Office.

People the mainstream media encouraged to vote for Obama would have thought of him as a despotic mad man.


Mainstream media, true life’s real Coalition of the Willing
But coy and cunning, Obama gave a lofty and deceiving description of his intentions, and did so in full view of a largely unresponsive mainstream media, true life’s real Coalition of the Willing.

By identifying his so-called attack on ISIS a ‘counter-terrorism operation’, Obama ducks antagonizing the anti-war hysterics, including Code Pink activists who donate generously to his never-ending campaigns.

There’s a method in the madness of his doublespeak.  By watering down the word ‘war’ to ‘counter-terrorism’, he is sending a message that reads he is more than simpatico with the decapitating terrorists of ISIS.

Members of the international coalition who go marching off to fight ISIS should look up to the front of the ISIS attack line to see for themselves that Obama isn’t anywhere in sight.  Obama’s not there because even as Western leaders line up behind him to tackle the terrorists of the Islamic State, insincere President Barack Obama continues to spout meaningless doublespeak from the safety of the rear.

Another example of Obama doublespeak came during the so-called “Arab Spring” for which the mainstream media credits him.  The watching world was left with the false impression that the Arab Spring would be returning enemy nations to democracy.  Instead Arab Spring sprang fully-funded terrorists on an unsuspecting West.

Do nation leaders need to be told that only cowards and liars hide behind the doublespeak of Marxist dialectic?

Obama hides behind his words the same way smarmy carnival hucksters did in past eras.  If plain folk got to realize that the elixir they had paid for was nothing but sugared water that did not cure the ills that prompted them to buy it,  the hucksters always had the same comeback:  “I didn’t promise it would cure you, I only said it was good for you.”

The core coalition marching behind Obama is in the wrong battle because without America there is no free world.

Take stock of what has been happening in the USA for the past six years and this is the only conclusion: if Obama had put the same vigour he spends on his war against America on the Battle Against ISIS, beheading-crazed ISIS would be no more.

By Judi McLeod

Liberated Women and the Traditional Family

It’s about generations of young men and women growing up in a society where a father is not an integral part of the family and the price our society pays for that

Liberated Women and the Traditional Family



My generation, born in the late 1930s and the 1940s, has witnessed a dramatic change in the role and the rights of women in America. A significant result of the women’s liberation movement is a change in the role of traditional marriage that was reported in early September.

“If you count a generation as spanning 20 years,” wrote Terence P. Jeffery, an editor of CNSnews.com, “then approximately 36 percent of the American generation born from 1993 through 2012—which has begun turning 21 this year and will continue turning 21 through 2033—were born to unmarried mothers.”http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/36-generation-starting-turn-21-year-born-unmarried-mothers

By comparison, Jeffrey noted that “Back in 1940, only 3.8 percent of American babies were born to unmarried mothers. By 1960, it was still only 5.3 percent.” There was a time when being a single mother was regarded as a reflection of the woman’s moral values. How a society deals with issues affecting the family as its single most important factor reflects its attitudes regarding marriage.

“It is a statistical fact that the institution of the family,” wrote Jeffrey, “has been collapsing in American over the past 45 years.”

Another statistic has significance as well. Today 51% of the U.S. population is single. A new generation of Americans, men and women, have decided that a committed relationship holds little allure.

The call for women’s rights has a long history. In 1794, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women.” She would have felt at home in today’s society. After affairs with two men, giving birth to a daughter by one of them, she married William Godwin, one of the forefathers of the anarchist movement. She died ten days after giving birth to a daughter, Mary Shelley, who grew up to be the author of “Frankenstein.”

Militant political action in Britain began with the formation of the Woman’s Social and Political Union in 1903. Following World War I when women participated in the war industries and support services, they were granted the right to vote in 1918, but it would take until 1928 for the age to be lowered to 21. In the United States in 1848 Elizabeth Cady Stanton led a Women’s Rights Convention followed in 1863 of the Women’s National Loyal League by Susan B. Anthony who wrote and submitted a proposed right-to-vote amendment in 1878. It would take until 1920 for it to be ratified as the 19th Amendment.

The women’s rights movement as we know it gained momentum in the 1960s. It was led by a feminist, fellow writer and friend, Betty Friedan, who was also a committed Leftist and, in 1966, she would help create the National Organization for Women (NOW). In 1971, the National Women’s Political Caucus emerged, led by Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem. Other groups were created as well. The effort to secure an Equal Rights Amendment, however, failed.

Aside from political rights, the issue that most concerned feminists was reproductive rights with the repeal of laws against abortion being the priority. The issue was decided, not by Congress or the states, but by a 1973 decision of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, that ruled 7-2 that the 14th Amendment extended a right of privacy and by extension the right of a woman to opt for an abortion.

That decision freed women both within and outside of marriage to abort an unwanted child. Unforeseen by the Court, was the rise of single-parent families led primarily by women.

As Jeffery noted “In the latest annual report to Congress on “Welfare Indicators and High Risk Factors,” the Department of health and Human Services pointed to the high rate of births to unmarried mothers, saying ‘data on non-marital births are important since historically a high proportion of welfare recipients first became parents outside of marriage.’”

We have reached a point in just over a few decades in which the government, through bad economic policies and a myriad number of programs, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and others, has produced 109,631,000 people receiving benefits. They represent 35.4 percent of the overall population.

That’s a long way from the traditional family and it means that half of the working population is providing the funds for those who are unemployed or have stopped looking for work thanks to a stagnate economy.

The single-parent family led by women has denied generations of the young men they are raising the male role models they need to understand that being a father is as great a responsibility as being a mother.

Men have become dispensable except as sperm donors.

Male values of courage, comradeship, and leadership have to be learned from sources outside the single-mother unit.

Then, too, the feminist goal of being in the workplace also frequently means that pre-school children’s early formative years are handed over to strangers in childcare centers whether they come from one or two-parent families. The economy has required that both parents have to work—if work can be found in a society where more than 92 million Americans are unemployed or have, as noted above, ceased looking for a job.

This is not a screed against women’s rights. It is a look at the consequences of the goals feminists have fought to achieve over the past decades.

It’s not about their right to vote or to secure an education to achieve success in the business sector.

It’s about generations of young men and women growing up in a society where a “father” is not an integral part of the “family” and the price our society pays for that.

Alan Caruba

Open Letter To Millennials: The Time To Act Is Now

Open Letter To Millennials: The Time To Act Is Now
activistyouth_brownuniversity

EDUCATE! MILLENIALS, SOCIAL CHANGE, YOUTH 

By Stephan DaSung Wallace, www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com


It is the dream of a pompous and dreadfully short-sighted individual – the desire to become a voice for their generation. This is a letter to those idealistic egoists, who I can only hope will be able to express with total honesty that they have spoken for a boy like me, one day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is not the happiest days of our young life that determine our place in history. If you are a millennial, I hope to God that you have retired the delusion that we all ought to die young. I hope even that, by now, the desire to live a meaningful life, perhaps to live to a ripe old age and look back with pride at a life well-lived has become the dream of yours. I hope that the aggressive hubris and desire to be the best at things has subsided, and that, at least by now, serious contemplation of what it means to be a good person in this world has given you a new direction. This is important for the conventional reasons – one does not wish to look back at their life at the end and be crushed by total uncertainty of its worth.

For our generation, the meaning of a life well-lived has an additional criteria – we need a moral courage that we have yet to fully realize. Let’s generate a thought experiment, on the idea that we want to live an amoral life.

Imagine you go to University to become a historian. You do very well in your studies, and have researched the works of Samuel Huntington, Gordon Wood, Francis Fukuyama and the other standard histories of the United States – the great biographies of the Founding Fathers, and some of the works that touch on social movements in the United States. You may read, for example, The Fall of the House of Labor by David Montgomery. You do well in classes. Due to your reading on the side, a notable institution gives you a position which allows you to write freely about your perspective on current events in the political theatre. You begin to notice some things seem very wrong with our system.

You are compelled to act, but given your allegiance to this honorable profession, you are made immobile – condemned to produce reports with the static and unmoved presentation of a “neutral” entity.

The decades go by, and you have lived a good life. You are given a contract by a noteworthy publisher, for a memoir on your incredible career in journalism, or in historical analysis, or intellectual commentary, or for your in-depth work – extrapolations about Keynesian economics in American history. As the decades have gone by, and the reality of painful social conditions has chiseled away at your ideals – the decay of the institutions has given birth to a deep worry about the future of the rising generation. You decide to dedicate your memoir to the children of 2100:

Please do not make the mistakes my generation made.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the political world, and in the world of conventional truth, we are told that compromise will lead to the best solution. But given the current social reality, one can’t help but think that that is a superficial truth – and today, such wisdom amounts to meeting in the middle of a broken system. It seems that the end result of surrendering so much of our moral core has only deepened the reality of inadequacies of bureaucracy, and tightened the grip on the levers of power by the financial sector of the world. Compromise did not mean meaningful co-operation between two opposing parties to agree to work for the greater good. Compromise, it turned out, meant compromise of our integrity.

The rhetoric of the active community paints a pretty clear picture. The idea, for example, that millennials are “saddled with debt” and the assumed degradation of one’s life is certainly true. Perhaps if we were historians from the year 2100, we would have said that this generation lived in a labor system of Neo-Indentured Servitude.

Assessing it from a systematic standpoint is important. It says something that the pattern of our life seems to be to dream of a life of freedom and then to be woken up by a reality of financial obligations. And again, it is conventional wisdom that will accept artificially-sourced misery such as this as “simply a part of life – the way things are.” Convention as usual serves to enable a network of powerful people to operate freely, at the expense of the majority of the population, which is standard institutional behavior. So, one comes to the conclusion that this process of ambition and soul-crushing burdens of work is not a product of natural order, but something devised, something planned. (There are reasons and a lot of details. It’s a long story, for another day. Here again, conventional truth is simply a falsehood.

Another obstacle to honest assessment is the immediate surrender to contrived gratitude – that we ought to be grateful for the work of our parents and grandparents for the work that has preceded us. Immediately I think of the statement above, that many of them carry a regret for the mistakes of their generation, for generating a cynical and disempowered culture, for not doing enough. And if there is not regret or reflection, then surely it is actually us who ought to be ashamed of ourselves and them – for allowing this to go on further. For this generation and the previous, surrendering to the series of convenient myths, and conventional truths. For reducing existence to a succession of static experiences.

If this generation is to truly send a message, and if we do not want to become lost – we must accept our responsibility – for ourselves and for those who have come before us. We cannot delay it any longer – the time to really act and build society is now. We have the clarity to think and operate on our own accord. We have perspective enough to resist replicating the actions of the hesitant, the tragically despairing, the ones who are ensnared by malaise, the ones who hold the whip over themselves.

If we are to hold to our capacity to dream, and if we are to bring those dreams to light, we must also avoid falling in love with ourselves. We must find a way, as artists do, to break our ideas out of the prison of our imagination. There are opportunities – it is not that we must “tear the whole thing down” – it is that there are already tears, holes, in the system – and as those cracks open wider, there is space for the new ideas to grow. This is how progress happens. This is how we will claim our place in history.

To be truly good in this world, we must not only treat each other with love and respect – but we must also treat each other with truthful assessments about the state of things. And the truth is that work individually, singular and isolated actions will only replenish
the individual, while the whole of the generation continues in its ways.

The way our generation will find itself, find itself in history – is if it truly generates its idea for the society it wants to inhabit. It is not just a desire, but a need – to live in a fundamentally different, and fundamentally better world.

When Rulers Can’t Understand the Ruled

When Rulers Can’t Understand the Ruled

Johns Hopkins study finds significant gap in demographics, experience and partisanship between Washingtonians and the Americans they govern

Johns Hopkins University political scientists wanted to know if America’s unelected officials have enough in common with the people they govern to understand them.

The answer: Not really.

Surveying 850 people who either work in government or directly with it, researchers found that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has very little in common with America at large. Washington insiders are more likely to be white. They are more educated. Their salaries are higher, they vote more and have more faith in the fairness of elections. They are probably Democrat and liberal. They more diligently follow the news. And they think the mechanizations of government couldn’t be easier to comprehend.

Jennifer Bachner and Benjamin Ginsberg asked hundreds of questions in 2013 of those who work in federal agencies, on Capitol Hill and in other Washington policy jobs. They presented some of their findings recently at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in a talk called The Civic Distance Between the Rulers and Ruled. Complete results of their research will be featured in their forthcoming book What the Government Thinks of the People.

“The elements of difference we have identified between the rulers and the ruled — demographic, experiential, partisan and ideological — give us some reason to suspect that the two groups may not perceive the political world in the same way,” the authors write. “Taken together, these elements could well create a substantial cognitive and perceptual gulf between official and quasi-official Washington on the one hand and the American public on the other.”

Americans and federal workers couldn’t be more different they found:

Ninety-one percent of those who work for federal agencies are white, versus 78 percent of the public.

In 2012, federal workers compensation averaged $81,704, or 48 percent more than the private sector average of $54,995, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That puts federal workers in the top 10 percent of American earners.

Sixty percent of those who work on The Hill are Democrats versus 35 percent of Americans at large.

In the 2012 presidential election, 97 percent of Congressional and White House staffers voted versus 80 percent of other Americans. Sixty-two percent of those Hill staffers believe election votes are counted fairly “very often” compared with 33 percent of other Americans.

Washingtonians are reading the news at least five days a week compared with about three days a week for the rest of the country.

And while a hearty 100 percent of Congressional and White House staffers believe government and politics can be understood by people like them, only 30 percent of regular Americans feel that way.

The data on “average Americans” is largely drawn from the 2012 American National Election Study.

All told, Bachner and Ginsberg found if a random American were dropped into the offices of a Washington administrative agency or into a lunch at Washington’s power-broking Palm Restaurant, it would feel and sound like another planet. These crucial differences, they say, lead to entirely divergent philosophies on policies, priorities and government’s ultimate purpose.

“Official Washington views the public through jaundiced eyes, believing that ordinary Americans are uninformed and misguided and that policy makers should ignore them,” Ginsberg says. “The government’s lack of trust in the people reflects the civic distance between the American people and their government as much as any political reality. Nevertheless, what the government thinks of the people affects how it governs, especially the chance that policy will be influenced by citizen preferences.”

“Some say American democracy would be strengthened if the people received better civic education,” Ginsberg continues. “We argue that it is America’s governing elite that needs civic education, focusing on the responsibilities of officials in a democracy.

Bachner is director of the Master of Science in Government Analytics program. She teaches courses in statistical analysis, survey research, public opinion, elections and American political behavior. Her research examines coalition building in Congress, government responsiveness and the growth of online education.

Ginsberg is a professor of political science and director of the Washington Center for the Study of American Government. His research interests include American politics, Jewish history, higher education policy, and the societal impact of war and violence. He is the author of 24 books, most recently The Worth of War.