Flesh and Stone

Just Short of Treason in Georgia and Kansas

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:59:00 -0700

By Michael Collins

It's official. The crazies have arrived for the 2012 presidential race, florid in their deviant and repulsive rhetoric. Andrew B. Adler, editor of The Atlanta Jewish Times, called on Israel's President Benjamin Netanyahu to "Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence." This reference to President Barack Obama appeared in the print edition of the paper on January 13 and was first published online by Gawker on the 20th (alternate links here and here).

Right wing Republican Mike O'Neal, speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives, forwarded an email referring to the president that quoted (approximately) Psalm 109.8: “Let his days be few and brief; and let others step forward to replace him." The Lawrence Journal World noted that the very next verse, 109.9, indicates how the president should be replaced: "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow." (Image SND)

The First Amendment is ignored when reactionary mayors want to stop the free speech and assemblies of Occupy Wall Street. However, free speech is expanded beyond the limits of the law when religious extremists in Atlanta and Kansas step well outside of the boundaries of U.S. Code.

The U.S. Code states:

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

"Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States … by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; …

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both …" U.S. Code

Adler's argument seems to be exactly what the law describes:

"…give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies." Andrew B Adler, January 13

The Reaction So Far

The American Jewish Congress (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) were quick to respond to Adler's statements.

AJC put out a release condemning Adler's inflammatory remarks:

"While we acknowledge Mr. Adler’s apology, we are flabbergasted that he could ever say such a thing in the first place. How could he even conceive of such a twisted idea?" said Wilker. [AJC Atlanta's director], "Mr. Adler surely owes immediate apologies to President Obama, as well as to the State of Israel and his readership, the Atlanta Jewish community." AJC Global Jewish Advocacy, January 20

Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, referred to the statement as "dangerous" and stated, "Mr. Adler's lack of judgment as a publisher, editor and columnist raises serious questions as to whether he's fit to run a newspaper." ADL January 20

Why don't the organizations just say this? Adler is no different than anyone else and should be investigated immediately for these illegal threats.

Apologies and clearly inaccurate statements about the president being anti-Israel are of interest but beside the point. Adler's remarks look like a precise fit to the language of the U.S. Code on "Advocating the overthrow of Government."

Will Adler be investigated, charged and tried for his statements?

On a lesser note, where are the demands that Adler sell the paper (he's the owner) and for a reader and advertiser boycott?

Kansas House Speaker Mike O'Neal's message was slightly more circumspect than Adler's ranting, although the message was clear.

The reaction to O'Neal's barely veiled reference to killing the president generated immediate action by two Topeka, Kansas ministers. They delivered 30,000 signed petitions on January 18 demanding that O'Neal resign from the legislature. The organization sponsoring the petition, Faithful America, made this key point:

"As people of faith, we believe that scripture should never be used to justify praying for the death of anyone. Speaker O'Neal's hateful abuse of scripture is unacceptable and a disgrace to his office, and he should immediately resign."

The Kansas Republican Senators, Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, have yet to issue a press release demanding O'Neal's resignation. Governor Sam Brownback, a self-described man of God, made no such request. While the Kansas Democratic Party objected to a racist email O'Neal sent out about Michelle Obama, there is nothing on their blog about O'Neal's fitness for office.

Where's the Outrage?

The lack of immediate outrage over the remarks by the deviants Adler and O'Neal is not surprising. Every day, millions play Call of Duty and other first person shooter video games that are all about killing people. Local news outlets prioritize reporting based on the saying, if it bleeds, it leads. Year in and year out, the level of military aggression overseas makes it seem like death and destruction are a normal feature of national security. The gap is narrowing between the foreign and domestic application of the Bush "take him out" doctrine

Prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a flyer was distributed listing the president's supposed treasonous acts. While the flyer was no secret, it wasn't proclaimed proudly as a feature of the rabid anti-JFK movement. The hate mongers knew that their true intent needed to be kept under wraps. (Image: WikiCommons)

Today, the absence of outrage and censure makes it perfectly acceptable for people like Mike O'Neal and Andrew B. Adler to openly proclaim their homicidal urgings.

This is just the start of the campaign season. It will get much worse.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

Respect urged for Japan's tsunami flotsam landing on U.S. coastlines

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:32:00 -0700

A floating black 55-gallon drum was found by a cleaning crew on a beach at the northwest tip of Washington state recently. What's interesting about the flotsam is that it is the first known bit of debris from the March 11, 2011 tsumnami that hit Japan to land on a U.S. beach.

Curtis Ebbesmeyer and Jim Ingraham, oceanographic consultants say that people should be on alert for more floating debris and that they should treat it with respect beacuse it could be valuable to Japanese who were affected by the tsunami.

"All debris should be treated with a great reverence and respect," Ebbesmeyer told an audience in Port Angeles, Washington. Anything that’s found by beach combers should be left in place and authorities called, especially any items that could be identified by victims of the Japanese tsunami.

“If the debris has any kind of identifiable marking, such as numbers or Japanese writing, it may be traceable,” Ebbesmeyer said. “Families in Japan are waiting to hear of any items that may have been associated with their loved ones.” Ebbesmeyer also warned that the debris could be contaminated by radiation.

The flotsam could include fishing boats, houses, car parts and possibly human remains, Ebbesmeyer said. Some floating masses could be a hazard to boats and ships, and some shipping lanes have been rerouted around the debris, according to Ebbesmeyer.

Up to one-quarter of the 100 million tons of debris from Japan is expected to make landfall on U.S. beaches from Alaska to California. Traveling in a current, flotsam moves at speeds from 7 to 20 miles per hour, Ebbesmeyer said.

ABCNews.com reported in October that a Russian training ship had encountered a "1,000-mile-long mass of tsunami debris" in September near Midway Island, a U.S. territory about 1,700 miles from Hawaii.

More Japanese floats reported — now that West End residents know what they are

Video:

Presentation by Oceanographers Ebbesmeyer and Ingraham given at Peninsula College

Oops, We're Doomed!

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:12:00 -0700

By Michael Collins

We don’t have a substantial cushion between today's climate and dangerous warming. James E. Hanson

The head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James E. Hansen, announced the results of break through global warming research last week. The earth's temperature is rising at a much quicker pace than previously anticipated according to research by the nation's preeminent climate scientist. We have little time to reverse the trend. (Image)

An example of the dangerous pace of change is emerging on Russia's Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf. Long-frozen permafrost is beginning to melt due to global warming. This threat was identified years ago due to the potential for highly toxic releases of heat-trapping methane gas. Recent changes are both a surprise and a cause for alarm. There is more methane gas released from the Russian cauldron "than the CH4 emissions estimate for the entire world ocean." Methane is a "far more potent GHG [greenhouse gas] than CO2" with a greater potential to cause "abrupt climate change."

At the same time, researchers at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich developed a more efficient analysis of contributors to global warming. They found man-made causes can now be linked with at least 75% of global warming.

Hansen's warning is brought to life by the methane gas event starting in the Arctic. We are in the danger zone. By the time we know it's too late, it won't matter. Without prompt, concerted action through readily available technologies and programs, we face increasing calamities through midcentury. After that, the displacement, destruction, and death assume unthinkable proportions.

As these evidence-based warnings were issued, the military effort to seize effective control of oil and natural gas regions of the Middle East and Central Asia continued unabated. Ironically, as our rulers engage in endless military conflicts to secure access to oil, they are delivering a weapon of mass destruction, an oil-based economy that will create massive disasters and dislocations that plunge the world into chaos.

Domestic policies have the same anti life outcome. The Keystone XL pipeline to accommodate tar sands oil production ensures continued CO2 pollution resulting in a collapsing world social and economic structure.

We are headed for a new world disorder of epic proportions. Past performance indicates that the current power structure is unable to handle disasters on a much smaller scale. The August 2003 heat wave in Europe killed 35,000, devastated crops, and sparked massive forest fires. It had never occurred to these nations to plan for or even consider the impact of heat waves. The failed response to the New Orleans disaster in 2005 offers a sneak preview of one hapless response after another to tragedies of ever increasing magnitude. How will we plan for consequences we can't predict?

What will the rulers do when entire agricultural regions disappear due to accelerating global warming?

How will the planet offset these losses as the world climate system becomes more hostile to agricultural output even in those areas where growing can be sustained?

What will the people do when drinking water becomes scarce due to the evaporation of runoff and water sources? What happens when the glaciers melt down and cease to store fresh water?

How will the world economy function as the flawed the assumption of endless growth becomes painfully apparent?

These were all questions that we were told were a generation or two away. That is no longer the case according to the new evidence, analytic and empirical.

An Example of the New World Disorder

Florida, the coastline of China, the Netherlands, and the entire nation of Bangladesh will be acutely affected by sea level changes should the world slip into Dr. Hansen's danger zone.

With just a 2 meter rise in sea level around 530 million people around the world will need to find new homes because theirs will be gone. (United States Geological Survey) The impact on Florida is evident in the image. There will be 3.5 million people in need of new homes.

The time between now and midcentury will be marked by ever-increasing devastation and displacement for human beings in coastal areas. About 40% of the earth's population lives within 60 miles of a coastal area.

Where will the millions left homeless in Florida go?

What's the response when tens of millions in Bangladesh have no place to go?

What will China do with tens of millions seeking shelter?

It won't happen all at once. Incremental changes will produce a spectacle of suffering on a daily basis.

The debate on global warming as a factor in all of this should be over as well. Man-made influence and effects account for about 75% of the increases in the earth's temperature. The mantra of the coming death cycle will be the blinded effort to produce more and more of the very toxins that allow fewer to live.

The Pathetic Response of Those in Charge

If we were grading the current crop of world leaders on any aspect of their records, the result would surely be F, with a recommendation to drop the course of study. The laws required to prevent industry from harming citizens are virtually nonexistent. If U.S. courts took corporate personhood seriously, we'd all have massive law suits and the corporate leaders would be charged with assault with intent to maim and kill.

One hundred and ninety one nations joined the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The goal of the effort was to avoid global catastrophe through a coordinated effort. Hansen and others tell us that the protocol will have no real effect given the acceleration of changes. But even Kyoto's inadequate goal was not suitable for the world's largest polluter, the U.S. Both the Bush and Obama administrations failed to endorse the now-known-to-be-inadequate target. A follow-up conference on Kyoto was held in Durban South Africa recently. It amounted to nothing more than fiddling while Rome burns.

As citizens of the planet, we and our children have the right to expect a rational response by those controlling the levers of power. What is government for, if not for this? Can't the powers that be stop their triumphal spread of democracy at the barrel of a gun long enough to fix the greatest threat ever to the people of the world? The earth will survive but we may not.

The logical path would be a working group of highly competent engineers and climate scientists tasked to outline a solution, one that could be put in place soon. Instead, morally and criminally negligent inaction is the rule under the cover of nicely named programs of no account with the additional excuse provided by a wink and a nod in the direction of unimaginably cynical or ignorant climate change deniers.

Do these world leaders live on the same planet as the rest of us?

Do they care about their friends and families?

Don't they worry that there might be a final judgment after their final acts ensuring mass destruction?

Lead or get out of the way should be our message to these authors of our current troubles.

END

This article can be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Special thanks to Jill Hayroot for her input.

The Money Party

Is Iran Preparing to Strike Back?

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 03:18:00 -0700

By Brian M. Downing

These attacks are almost certainly directed by Israeli, Saudi, and US intelligence services. They may also be acts of war.

"This business will get out of control."
– The Hunt for Red October

In the last few years diplomatic pressures and economic sanctions have been imposed to convince Iran to allow international inspection of its nuclear research facilities. A number of states have also pursued a violent clandestine campaign of bombings and assassinations that have killed scores of Iranians, including nuclear scientists. These attacks are almost certainly directed by Israeli, Saudi, and US intelligence services. They may also be acts of war.

In recent weeks Iran has decried terrorism around the world (somewhat paradoxically, to be sure), put up a clumsy plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador, boasted of its missile strength, and briefly seized the British embassy in Tehran – an act done not by students as with the US embassy in 1979, but by toughs of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Most recently, the IRGC went on alert, ostensibly to brace for more attacks inside the country.

These responses indicate rising ire in the Iranian government, the political ascendancy of the IRGC, and most ominously, the likelihood of sharper hostilities in the region. In the absence of candid dialogue and in the oblique language of stern diplomacy, Iran is signaling the possibility of violent responses well beyond the quotidian rocket attacks on Israel from Hamas and Hizbullah. These could include encouraging Shiite uprisings in the Gulf and attacking Israeli, Saudi, and US targets. US targets would include troops in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan.

Foreign efforts to press Iran to abandon its nuclear program – sanctions and covert operations – have thus far been unsuccessful. They are getting out of control and are leading to violent retaliation and regional conflict. Indeed, they may be presently intended to elicit a violent response from Iran which will then be used as a pretext for stronger attacks – perhaps devastating ones on Iran’s air defenses and military bases to be followed on with strikes on nuclear sites.

These efforts only firming government and popular support for nuclear research and solidifying IRGC power in the state. Iran is moving from a theocracy with a zealous military to a military-dominated bureaucracy with a clerical body legitimizing it. And of course militaries usually prefer violent actions to diplomatic ones.

The American public is blissfully unaware of what is going on and will see a violent Iranian response as unprovoked and calling for decisive action. And any US attack on Iran will be widely judged as measured and just.

Brian M. Downing is a political/military analyst and author of The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com.

This Beat Down is for Your Health - The Money Party Must Stop Occupy Movements

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:13:00 -0700

By Michael Collins

"The problems we are facing were not created by us, but we deign to shed light on them and so we are blamed for them. The truth is, every person at our protest is there because the system is broken." Samuel Rutledge, Open Newswire, Portland Indymedia

The fascist financiers of the Money Party are growing restless. Occupy Wall Street gained steam folowing a call to action from the activist online group Anonymous in August. It was barely featured in the mainstream or alternate media. Instead of a small crowd that could easily be ignored then disbursed, fifty thousand citizens showed up at the headquarters for the world financial system, Wall Street. Despite the best efforts of Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD, the Occupy Wall Street continues. The message went out to the country and the world. Now, there are over 100 occupy events in Oakland, Kansas City, Washington, DC, and elsewhere. (Image: K. Kendall)

Occupy Portland began on October 6, 2011. It has maintained a steady presence in downtown Portland, a major West Coast center of commerce. The participants refuse to leave until the government addresses their grievances. Police scare tactics, planted provocateurs, and the elements are no barrier.

Portland evicted occupiers from their camps on Sunday morning. The occupy forces regrouped. Drawing local support, the crowd grew throughout the day. Sunday evening, the police tried a forced eviction from the downtown area that involved mounted police, shoving and pushing, and pepper spray. The police effort failed. The occupation continues, albeit with fewer places for citizens to assemble and the expectation of more police harassment.

There were police actions in other cities against occupy movements. These include Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Denver, San Francisco, and Albany, New York.

Frequent Money Party propagandist, the New York Times explained away local government police actions against demonstrators as arising "amid growing concerns over health and public safety." Establishment tool, Mayor Sam Adams, used this excuse to attack Occupy Portland last night. The occupy camps were not "sustainable." They had to be shut "to restore public health and safety." Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia is massing police around Occupy Philadelphia due to his concern about "growing public health and safety concerns" Note the similarity of statements by Adams and Nutter to the New York Times talking points.

What other public health problems cause mayors to amass police and attack citizens?

If the mayors were so concerned about public health, they'd provide facilities and personnel to deal with public health, not mounted police beating protesters with truncheons?

In case the public health excuse fails, the Portland Police Department is seeding the media with stories that Occupy Portland participants were "fashioning makeshift weapons with wood and nails, in advance of a planned move by authorities to clear their two encampments over the weekend."

No use of "makeshift weapons" was reported during the police actions against protesters Sunday.

Also, keep in mind that the Portland Police have extremely low credibility when it comes to telling the truth and respecting the constitutional right of assembly. After the August 22, 2002 protests against the International Monetary Fund in Portland, police videos tape were released that showed planned harassment and violence against demonstrators without any provocation -- other than the exercise of free speech to protest the international organization behind the global financial crisis on August 22, 2002 (Portland indymedia video collective)

They Can't Stand the Truth

The occupy movements across the country are exercising their First Amendment right to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Money Party can't stand that. Even worse, the occupy movement targets and methods are meeting with broad based approval. In a recent poll, "43 percent agree with views of Occupy Wall Street,"

When they use excuses like public health to stop peaceful assemblies, the mayors are liars, plain and simple, tools of the Money Party. They're following orders to disburse a movement that's just a little too real for the fascist financiers. It doesn't matter if the mayors are Democrats or Republicans. Both Adams and Nutter are Democrats. The city government of St. Paul, Minnesota was dominated by Democrats when it fabricated excuses to ban public protests at that event. They're elected officials through the contributions of the wealthy and powerful. They enjoy being on both the public and private dole. And they anticipate cashing in, like many elected officials, with a sweet position when their public service is over.

Time to Shut It Down

The fascist financiers of The Money Party are now paying attention. They're using the normal tactics they employ against domestic assemblies of citizens who present grievances: lies, misinformation, police bullying, police attacks, claims of "safety and public health" concerns. They'll ramp up soon to massive police actions and claim that citizens caused the coming police riots.

They have no other choice at this point. What if that 43% pubic sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement becomes 53% or 63%.

What if there is the possibility, no matter how slim, that real change will occur?

What if they're investigated, tried and put in jail?

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Here's a timeline from Portland Indymedia along with two videos:

Breaking news - November 13

4:57PM: Reinforcements coming to pin us in from behind
4:57PM: Police have name badges covered. They have been brought in from Salem.
4:59PM: There are several children & elderly on the front line
5:02PM: Police line retreated. One arrest so far.
5:13PM: Just as people were given a better strategic position for the park. A march was called to leave & go to Pioneer Square.
5:14PM: Several hundred now gathered in Pioneer Square. Many more people would be needed to retake the parks.
5:30PM: 16 riot cops gathering by Starbucks & pulling out pepper spray + less lethal guns
5:38PM: Got report that cops have been brought in from Clackamas [near Portland]
7:08PM: Arrestees had been taken to Hollywood TC & were released there.

Interview with Occupy Portland on police actions (including mounted police) and pepper spray attacks

Hello Wall Street - We Are Anonymous

Memo to Mayors

Just in case the mayors and city attorneys in the occupy cities forget, here's the prevailing law applying to public assemblies. It supersedes local health ordinances and requests by wealthy donors and patrons to disburse demonstrations that disturb their sense of security and safety.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Pennsylvania Sexual Assault Scandal, the Second Mile Foundation, and Penn State

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:08:00 -0700

By Michael Collins

The current focus on Pennsylvania State University, its football program, and former coach Joe Paterno will be replaced by a more pervasive sexual assault scandal in the coming days and weeks. At-risk children and their often disadvantaged single parents were delivered up to a relentless sexual predator with exhibitionist tendencies as described in the findings of a special Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grand jury.

The relentless deviate, former PSU defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, is accused of sexually assaulting children for years. According to the grand jury, he gained easy access to children and early adolescents through the Second Mile Foundation which he founded in 1977 as a group home for "troubled boys." He continued the assaults at his home and in the PSU showers on at least one occasion. Since hiring Jack Raykovitz, PhD, a licensed psychologist, as president, the foundation has grown into a multimillion enterprise serving over 100,000 at-risk children throughout the state.

A picture of alleged serial abuser Sandusky came into clear focus in the Pennsylvania Statewide Investigating Grand Jury release of findings about victims 1 through 8. Sandusky selected the eight boys from the population of those served by the Second Mile Foundation, it is alleged. He would start with mentoring, move onto hosting the boys for overnights in a bedroom at his home, and initiate oral copulation and anal sex, according to the grand jury report.

A critical fact listed in by the grand jury concerns the legal counsel for both the foundation and PSU. Wendell Courtney was the legal counsel for both PSU and the Second Mile Foundation during the period covering 1998 through the end of 2009. Courtney served as PSU's primary legal counsel as a member of the law firm of McQuaide-Blasko. In January 2010, PSU hired a full time, in house counsel. During Courtney's service to the organizations, Second Mile founder, PSU coach (in 1998), and PSU coach emeritus (in 2002) Sandusky was twice investigated on charges of sexual assault. Neither investigation resulted in either organization terminating Sandusky's employment or access to facilities.

Where is the Sexual Assault Scandal Headed?

Penn State Scandal: Jerry Sandusky Rumored To Have 'Pimped' Boys To Donors: REPORT Huffington Post headline, November 10

This is a remarkable headline since it features rumors of incomplete investigations by unidentified reporters. The story that HuffPost says should break soon concerns Sandusky's Second Mile Foundation and its donors. There were other reports concerning this new direction of the story.

The foundation raises millions of dollars a year from corporate and individual donors in Pennsylvania for the most part. Funds support educational and "leadership" programs and retreats for at-risk youth throughout the state.

The 2010 foundation annual report features a county map of Pennsylvania with total individuals serviced by county. For some reason, the totals are about even for individuals served in Allegheny County, population 1.2 million, and Centre County, population, 153,000 (and home of PSU).

Was Jerry Sandusky procuring at-risk youth for foundation donors as suggested in the headline? If so which donors? Where and when did this happen?

PSU summarily fired the university president, senior executives, and Joe Paterno this week. As of today, long time Second Mile president, Jack Raykovitz, PhD, retains his position as foundation president. The members of the Honorary Board of Trustees, a list of Pennsylvania notables, are in the uncomfortable position of endorsing a tarnished foundation. Major donors listed in the annual report are seen as offering public financial support for a foundation that remains passive despite the clear need for organizational change.

Link

What about Victims 1 through 8 (and more)?

We have no way of knowing the level of help received by the reported Sandusky victims reviewed by the statewide grand jury. Any delays to much needed evaluation and treatment is a true shame.

There is a wealth of data concerning the mid and long term impact of adult sexual assaults on children. In summary, victims of childhood sexual abuse have a much higher incidence of depression (major depression, dysthymia), anxiety disorders, including posttraumatic stress syndrome, and substance related disorders. Bipolar youth are more likely to have their first mood episode earlier as a result of sexual assault as are youth with schizophrenia.

Long term problems trusting any authority (Judith Herman, MD) are common if the assailant is a trusted individual, as Sandusky was at the start of his alleged abusive relationships.

Sexual assaults victims are also more likely to be victimized again (revictimization) than are those without this history.

The full impact of adult sexual assault of children is inherently limited by the reluctance of victims to report the crimes.

At the very least, the reported Sandusky victims deserve immediate assistance with medical and psychotherapeutic care, without any strings attached by the organizations who so thoroughly neglected to identify, report, and stop the abuse. Victims should not be asked to wave future compensation to receive this care.

Any victims associated with programs of Second Mile Foundation, Sandusky, or PSU should have free court guardians appointed to assure that they're not victimized again by the wealthy and powerful through coercive legal tactics. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should establish a fund immediately and a master of the fund who from out of state. Trials and settlements must be handled by competent courts outside of Pennsylvania.

The focus needs to shift to immediate identification and help for all victims and prompt investigation and prosecution of perpetrators.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party RSS

Abandoned Youth - No More Future

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:39:00 -0700

By Michael Collins

If you are twenty four or younger, you are likely either under or unemployed. Only about 60% of those 16 to 24 years old are in the labor force (those employed or seeking jobs). Their unemployment rate is 18%.

For years, Money Party lackeys, our (s)elected officials, put out a propaganda line that said, Get an education or there's no future for you. Well, lots of people got a college or trade school education or on the job training and there are no jobs for them.

Here's why.

There has been no increase in jobs in the United States since 2000. In fact, the number of jobs relative to the total workforce has actually declined. Negative job growth for eleven years shows that the current economic system has failed miserably. Here's the ugly picture the rulers won't talk about.

Negative job growth for over an entire decade: how could that be?

The Money Party had enough in the bank to spend $5 trillion and counting on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The party had enough to provide Wall Street with several trillion in loans and with guarantees of $100 trillion ($24 trillion at risk for the bailouts and $75 trillion for Bank of America derivatives).

The Money Party was particularly generous with foreign countries with free trade agreements and outsourcing all sorts of jobs.

Why aren’t there jobs for you? Where's the commitment to those entering the job market?

They've picked every apple in the orchard and they're not stopping. They got their war on in Libya with no problem. They build weapons that cost trillions of dollars. There are tax breaks for the largest corporations (GE paid no taxes in 2010). The generosity of the money party is endless until it comes to the people who do the work, make the sacrifices, and bear the burden. Then the party says it's time for you to sacrifice. What they're really telling us is this: We are nothing to them.

Here's how bad it is if your 16 to 24 years old.

The situation for citizens 16 to 24 years old is even worse. Only about 60% of the youth population is in the work force, working or seeking a job. 18% are unemployed. Work for this group involves predominantly low paying jobs. It's getting worse by the year. Youth unemployment was 14% in 2008. At 18%, the 2011 rate is up 29% since then. In absolute numbers, there are 2.4 million fewer youth employed in 2011 compared to 2008.

Employment and Unemployment Among Youth -- Summer 2011

Free trade agreements and off-shoring have assured that many good paying jobs were exported to other countries, never to return. For those jobs remaining, the anti-union campaign by the Money Party over the past decades assures that the remaining jobs will continue to offer the lowest pay possible. Many jobs are part time assuring no health or other benefits. Many full time jobs for younger workers have reduced benefits. And try being self-employed and having health insurance. The costs are brutal.

Big Promises, No Return

The politicians of parties, big bankers, and Wall Street types like to talk about how things will keep getting better. When they don't, they haul out the "S" word - sacrifice. They're not the ones who will sacrifice their privileges, position, and power. It's you. You sacrifice a decent paying job that will allow you to start your life. You sacrifice benefits that protect your health, and a future that will improve with hard work, creativity, and a little luck.

What do you get for your sacrifice?

More unemployment, fewer good jobs, and less opportunity.

No More Future … for Anyone

In case you run across one of those idiotic articles about youth resenting the older generations for the state of the economy, remember this. The real overall unemployment rate in the entire country is 23% when you count everyone who wants a job and can't get it! The blue line on the chart below includes the official unemployment rate plus: short and long term discouraged workers, " as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment." Shadow Government Statistics, November 4, 2011

Link

When the real unemployment rate (the SGS alternate above) reaches 23%, we're not far from numbers seen in the Great Depression.

The only serious public call to address the ravages of unemployment was issued by Anonymous when it called for the occupation of Wall Street (Hello Wall Street - We Are Anonymous). The numbers don't lie. The spread of the occupation throughout the country is a reflection of a reality that The Money Party just can't face. The party is over. The decades of greed, theft, endless wars, and neglect have hit a wall that won't move -- the people.

Stop giving away the country to Wall Street and the big banks. Quit shipping jobs overseas. End needless wars and military adventures and bring the troops home from the 700 bases around the world. Encourage small to medium size businesses and entrepreneurs. Start fixing the roads, bridges, and buildings falling apart. That represents the best path to job growth. Provide quality low cost or free education for all. And stop wasting time.

Make all politicians and government officials sign an iron clad contract against fraud and nepotism with 10 year sentences in federal prison for those who violate the public trust. Then we'll see who is left to help us out of this mess.

END

This article may be reproduced with a link to the article and attribution of authorship.

The Money Party RSS

War Crimes in Libya - The Smoking Guns

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 01:32:00 -0600

The UN said in its resolution said that they wanted to protect civilians. I am a civilian. I'm asking the United Nations and the National Transition Council for help for the citizens of Sirte. Ali Salah Arzaga, Sirte, Libya. (His home and business were destroyed in the final assault on his city.)

There are very public smoking guns that inculpate the rulers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others in war crimes in Libya.

The rationale for NATO's entry into the Libyan conflict was based on humanitarian principles, correctly noted by Mr. Arzaga. (left, text and image: VOA video). The United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 on March 17 and NATO followed up with actions that the alliance and its partner Qatar claimed conformed to the resolution. The sole purpose of NATO’s involvement was to "protect the Libyan population," we were told.

The outcome has been anything but humanitarian. Tens of thousands of Libyans are injured or dead. The nation's infrastructure is in tatters. One city, Sirte, was destroyed during the final push while another city, the non-Arab Black Libyan town of Tawergha, is absent its entire population, 25,000 residents. They were there just a few weeks ago.

To understand what was done by participating NATO nations and Qatar, which joined the effort, and answer questions about war crimes, consider the following: the United Nations authorization for NATO assistance, the NATO declarations of intent and actions, plus reports of behavior, and the Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention, 1977. With this foundation, it will be possible to evaluate the behavior of NATO and Qatar.

The following evidence will demonstrate that the UN, NATO, and Qatar donned the mask of humanitarian aid while engaging in a systematic act of war against Libya to achieve regime change. Furthermore, it will be abundantly clear that the participants by their own admission actively collaborated in acts of war that were not authorized by the UN and that resulted in violence against civilians and the infrastructure of the nation.

Please note that criticisms and negative judgment concerning the behavior of the NATO do not imply support for the actions over time or for the human rights record of the late Muammar Gaddafi and his government. Regardless of Gaddafi’s record, clear analysis is required when the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France make war the way they did in Libya. This was done in the name of the citizens of those nations, without consultation or formal consent.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya

The overriding purpose of the Security Council resolution was to protect civilians. The resolution affirmed that member states of the UN will, "take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory…" UN, March 17

The first military action authorized by the mandate was a no-fly zone. Participating nations were mandated to "establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians" and "to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights." UN, March 17

The second military action was an arms embargo: "ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo" outlined in UN Security Council resolution 1970 (2011). That resolution is clear: "all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types." UN, February 25, 2011

Additionally resolution 1973 required that any flights originating in Libya be cleared by NATO, froze all Libyan government funds overseas, and authorized the creation of a panel of experts to inform the UN of any deviation from the NATO action’s main mission of protecting the people of Libya.

At no point did any UN Security Council resolution authorize NATO and Qatar to take sides in the conflict, to commit acts of war that benefitted one side, or to assure that one side or the other emerged victorious.

NATO Declarations

NATO's main web page on its Libyan effort states that its mission conforms precisely to the authorizing resolutions from the UN:

"Since March 24, an unprecedented coalition of NATO Allies and non-NATO contributors have been protecting civilians under threat of attack in Libya, enforcing an arms embargo and maintaining a no-fly zone. As NATO Secretary General Rasmussen explained, under Operation Unified Protector, NATO is doing 'nothing more, nothing less' than meeting its mandates under United Nations Security Council resolutions." NATO, October 2011

A NATO fact sheet describes the use of military assets and personnel employed in the Libyan effort:

"NATO conducts reconnaissance, surveillance and information-gathering operations to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians. NATO air assets can then engage targets on the ground, at sea or in the air. Ships and submarines policing the arms embargo contribute to the mission on a case-by-case basis." NATO, October 2011 (author's emphasis)

NATO's task was to bring to life the UN resolution designed to "protect civilians." There was no mention of assisting the military operations of the Libyan rebels fighting the Gaddafi regime. There was no authorization to attack and destroy civilian targets. Most importantly, there was no authorization whatsoever, no matter how tortured the logic, that enabled the coordination of land and air forces to win a military victory. The stated purpose of the UN resolution was to protect civilians.

What Really Happened in Libya - the Smoking Guns

Three smoking guns destroy the claim that the UN and NATO intervened in Libya to protect civilians. They are the brutal bombardment and sacking of Sirte, the recently revealed supply of arms to the rebels by coalition partner Qatar, and the coordination and link between Libyan rebel land forces and NATO air efforts. These events took place. They are acknowledged by the parties in public media. The actions represent violations of Protocol 1 of the 1977 Geneva accord on protecting civilians and violations of the UN mandate and stated principles of NATO. Taking sides with the National Transition Council (NTC), the umbrella group for the Libyan rebels, is clearly outside the bounds of preemptive wars, even as allowed in very narrow cases in the UN Charter.

Destroying the City of Sirte

In early September, the commander of the NTC demanded that the town of Sirte surrender. While town leaders tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution, the presence of Gaddafi loyalists prevented this from happening. The population of Sirte was 80,000, the vast majority of them civilians. On October 8, NATO began a furious aerial bombing of Sirte. The entire city was affected.

The Associated Press reported on October 27 that, "Resistance in Sirte was fierce, and three weeks into the battle, anti-Gadhafi forces had advanced only a few hundred yards (meters) into the city." NATO's air bombardment broke the stalemate on the ground:

"It all changed after a NATO bombing assault on October 8, when the ground did not stop shaking all night. Next morning the rebels pushed forwards, expecting the usual fierce resistance. There was none." The Australian, October 24

Even without resistance, upon entering Sirte, "the rebels flattened the area with everything they had, bringing their tanks and heavy guns into the city and blazing away at every building standing between their own positions and the sea." The Australian, October 24

The city of Sirte was not an aggressor in the civil war in Libya. The city did not organize attacks or officially endorse attacks. It was filled with civilians. There were also remnants of Gaddafi forces that resisted the NTC rebels’ entrance into the city. These were defensive actions, at this point in the conflict. No aggressive campaign by these forces could have been envisioned. The city just happened to be Gaddafi's hometown and unable to join the new government. This was understandable since it had been bombed by the NATO-NTC alliance.

Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians by NATO

Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, outlines the protections for civilians in war zones agreed to by the signatories. All of the NATO participants as well as Qatar had signed Protocol 1 concerning "any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land" (Article 49).

The fact that there were Gaddafi loyalists among the 80,000 civilians in Sirte did not provide NATO and the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) fighters with an excuse to attack the city indiscriminately. Article 50 states that "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

The attacks by NATO and the NTC were indiscriminate according to Article 51: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; [or] b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective." When an entire city is devastated and systematically demolished by military forces, as reported, the attack is on the entire city, not just a specific military target.

The bombing was so comprehensive that it eliminated both resistance and most of the people of the city, who either fled or were killed or injured. It was indiscriminate. In Sirte, "the ground did not stop shaking all night" before the NTC troops entered and began their destruction.

NATO knew or should have known that fierce bombing would impact civilians. The fact that many were killed and many more fled is further evidence of the indiscriminate nature of the attacks. NATO acted in coordination with the NTC rebels and those rebels likely used Qatar-supplied arms, as admitted by the commander of Qatar's forces (see below).

NATO alliance partner Qatar provided arms to the NTC rebels and put troops on the ground to train the NTC. Those troops coordinated between NTC rebel and NATO military forces. This violates the UN mandates for NATO and contradicts NATO's own claims about its behavior in Libya.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) stated that the goal of the Libyan intervention was to protect civilians. It authorized the creation of a no-fly zone, an arms embargo, a freezing of Libyan assets, a ban on all flights from Libya of any type without NATO permission, and a panel of experts to assure that the resolution was followed by NATO.

NATO claimed to follow the UN resolution to the letter. On its web page, NATO asserted: "No NATO ground troops have participated in the operation – NATO’s success to date has been achieved solely with air and sea assets." NATO, October 2011

But Qatari ground troops were on the ground training and coordinating NTC ground efforts with NATO air power. "NATO's success to date" had an additional essential and highly relevant component -- the coordination of its air efforts with ground strategies, tactics, and information that that was offered by Qatar as described by Qatar's Major General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya on October 26 (see below).

The resolution did not authorize NATO to take sides in the conflict since that would have been an act of war, a preemptive war to be specific.

But isn't aligning with the NTC rebels taking sides? Qatar was part of the NATO effort in Libya.

"We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on ground were hundreds in every region," said Qatari chief of staff Major General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting in Doha of military allies of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC), Atiya said the Qataris had been 'running the training and communication operations.'

'Qatar had supervised the rebels' plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience. We acted as the link between the rebels and NATO forces,' he said.

Libya’s interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil told the meeting that Qatar had been "a major partner in all the battles we fought." Al Arabiya News, October 26 (author's emphasis)

The scenario outlined by General Hamad was confirmed by an extensive report in the Wall Street Journal by Sam Dagher and Charles Levinson in Tripoli and Margaret Coker in Doha, Qatar.

"Qatar provided anti-Gadhafi rebels with what Libyan officials now estimate are tens of millions of dollars in aid, military training and more than 20,000 tons of weapons. Qatar's involvement in the battle to oust Col. Gadhafi was supported by US and Western allies, as well as many Libyans themselves." Wall Street Journal, October 17

The article goes on to explain why Qatar was chosen as the agent for the war effort masquerading as a humanitarian mission.

"As violence escalated in Libya, Western diplomats said it soon became clear that without an armed ground effort by the rebels, the NATO strikes would only enforce a stalemate. But U.S. and European governments thought it too risky to directly arm a rebellion against a sitting leader." Wall Street Journal, October 17

NATO knew of and supported the actions of its alliance partners, the Qataris. The UN knew or should have known that NATO was supporting actions that violated the arms embargo and that provided ground troops and coordination between air and ground military efforts.

The acts of the UN and NATO show that the UN Security Council resolution and NATO claims of honoring that resolution were fraudulent.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Cretz provides the proof of NATO knowledge of the major violations of the UN resolution. From the article:

Qatar has played 'a very influential role in helping this [Libyan] rebellion succeed,' U.S Ambassador to Libya Gene A. Cretz said in an interview. Wall Street Journal, October 17

The NATO alliance was obliged to keep foreign weapons, troops, and assistance out of Libya as required by the UN resolution. The ambassador makes it clear that the actions of the Qataris were helpful and clearly implied that regime change was the goal, not the protection of civilians.

The UN knew or should have known that its resolution was being violated. Section 24 of Security Council resolution 1973 calls for the creation of a "panel of experts" to monitor the Libyan conflict, assure compliance with the UN mandate, and "Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures." UN, February 26, 2011

If the panel of experts spoke to Ambassador Cretz or one of his peers, for example, they would have known that the actions in the name of the UN were diametrically opposed to the stated goals of the UN. If the "panel of experts" didn't know that the mission was a fraud on the UN and the people of the world, they should have. In either case, the UN is responsible for the acts of NATO done in the name of the UN.

The NATO mission was an attack on the Libyan government at that time without an imminent threat to any of the nations involved. It was a violation of international law.

International law places very strict limits on preemptive wars. This is the general outline for "anticipatory self-defense."

"The right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that was imminent." Center for Defense Information, 2003

The UN has some provisions in its charter for anticipatory self-defense arising out of Security Council actions. However, there was no self-defense asserted, no imminent danger, no war outlined. The mission was mandated solely to protect Libyan civilians through the no-fly zone, arms embargo, asset freeze, etc.

NATO misrepresented its role as "nothing more, nothing less" than those actions mandated by the Security Council resolution, 1973. By allowing in ground troops as well as thousands of tons of weapons, and coordinating air strikes for the benefit of opponents of the Libyan government, NATO engaged in war that meets even the narrowest definitions of preemptive war. That is a violation of international law.

Justice Will Not Be Forthcoming

NATO went well beyond the bounds of the UN mandate. It allowed the mission’s one nation that was not a part of NATO, Qatar, to violate the arms embargo, to provide troops, and to use those troops to coordinate NATO air strikes with NTC rebels on the ground. As a result, NATO and the NTC rebels were acting as one, fighting an aggressive war against the Libyan government. It was a series of lies that provided the foundation for the Libyan effort, lies that repeated principals that those directly involved were never expected to follow.

By waging war instead of protecting civilians, all parties to the effort engaged in an elaborate ongoing war crime against the very civilians that they were supposed to protect.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

Quds Force II - The Storyline Repeats Itself

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:39:00 -0600

By Michael Collins

(Washington, DC) A faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard called the Quds Force (QF) is center stage in the War on Terror for the second time in five years. In 2007, President George W. Bush hauled out the group of middle and upper level Iranian government officials as a rationale for military action against Iran. The decisive shutdown of the Bush effort marks a critical turning point in recent history and will be discussed later in the article.

QF II began last Tuesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder unified the terror storyline between the rabid neoconservatives of the Bush era and the low key loyalists to the national security state in the Obama administration.

Holder and Mueller accused, "elements of the Iranian government of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington," the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. In essence, this military faction allegedly hired an outsider to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States. With the full knowledge of the Iranian government, the outsider tried to hire a Mexican drug lord for the high level hit. Attorney General Holder announced that the United States is "holding the Iranian government accountable." Holder went on to state the official position of the government, namely that the Iranian government entity behind the plot was the Quds Force.

The current version of Quds Force-as-archvillain was met with challenges from the start. Early on in the Post article, an unnamed White House official offered this qualifier: "There’s a question of how high up did it go." That makes sense. The QF is not the entire Iranian government. The anonymous spokesman said that the Iranian government has a "responsibility to explain that."

The broader reaction has been more direct. The Christian Science Monitor ran three articles questioning the link between QF and the alleged plot to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador, Adel A. Al-Jubeir. Commenting on the hearing for accused plotter, Manssor Arbab Arbabsiar, the Monitor's Scott Peterson reported widespread skepticism, "Why the plot doesn't add up?" He quoted a Rand Corporation researcher who noted that the case doesn't fit Iran's normal mode of operation. Peterson went on to report that when Iran's government murders individuals overseas, they do it with trusted insiders to kill, not rookies who contract with drug dealers. The second Christian Science Monitor story was a report by Roy Gutman of McClatchy News noting the refusal of Saudi Arabia's government to implicate Iran in the plot.

CNN carried the outline of the charges but hedged by quoting former CIA agent Robert Baer and former National Security Council mainstay Gary Sick, both of whom voiced serious doubts.

The most comprehensive critiques of the allegations by Holder and Mueller came from Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uygur. On the Young Turks, Uygur openly mocked the claimed plot. Glenn Grunwald delivered a scathing critique of the facts, logic, and motivation of the alleged plot.

When President Bush held the Quds Force responsible for killing U.S. soldiers in 2007, the stakes were higher since the charge was close to, if not an actual act of war. The response at that time was forceful but not well covered in the news, even though it came from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and longtime foreign policy actor and scholar, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Quds Force I, February 2007 - Revving Up to Go After Iran

This is the second time that the Quds Force has been accused of attacking the United States. In 2007, when President George W. Bush was making his case for going after Iran, he and the neoconservatives claimed that the group provided weapons to Iraqis who, in turn, were using those weapons to kill U.S. soldiers. The following sequence of events demonstrates how elements of the power structure at the time undercut Bush.

February 9, 2007: Seville, Spain. Gates surfaces the Iranian connection to Iraqi weapons with tentative statement: "'I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found' that point to Iran, he said.' (Washington Post)

February 11: "Senior military officials" in Baghdad give an anonymous press briefing with evidence of Iranian weapons used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The Quds Force is named as the supplier. (Washington Post)

February 12: Canberra, Australia. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, denies that there is a demonstrated link between weapons found in Iraq and the Iranian government. "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this." (Voice of America)

February 13: Jakarta, Indonesia. General Pace reiterates that the military briefers, under his command, are over reaching: "That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this." (Like the skeptical anonymous Obama White House source on QFII, Pace said Iran had to explain how its weapons got to Iraq.) (Associated Press)

February 14: Washington, DC. President Bush claims that Iranian weapons found in Iraq are from the QF and, as such, from the Iranian government. "What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known." (CNN)

February 14: Honolulu, Hawaii. General Pace states for a third time that there is no proven link between the weapons found in Iraq and the Iranian government. He repeats the statement quoted above from February 13, exactly. (Voice of America)

February 15: Washington, DC. President Bush holds a press conference and backs off on the link between the weapons found in Iraq and the Iranian government: "Whether (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad ordered the Qods Force to do this, I don't think we know." (ABC) Had Bush asserted the claim as fact, he would have had a rationale for a military response to Iran and a likely war. He would have been obliged to fire General Pace as well, since his head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had directly contradicted Bush as commander in chief. The first QF storyline failed. It was not forgotten.

Most remarkably, before the intensity of the claims and counter claims from February 11 through the 16th, long time actor and insider, Zbigniew Brzezinski testified before Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said:

February 1, 2007: "If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan…" (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Senate Foreign Relations Committee)

Brzezinski predicted a terrorist act committed by some entity that would be "blamed on Iran." If he had some intelligence that Iran had plans to do this or a strong belief based on evidence, he wouldn't have used the phrase, "blamed on Iran." He would have simply said, 'Iran will commit an act of terror.' This is an extremely strong statement. Brzezinski is a pillar of the foreign policy community. He was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission. Is he saying that some in the Bush administration were going to create a false flag event with Iran as the target and patsy? What did he know?

In fact, this statement aligns with one of the core arguments of the 9/11 Truth movement. Their literature is replete with references to the Project for a New American Century statement that the timeline for a "revolutionary change" in U.S. foreign policy "is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and crystalizing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." 9/11 is viewed as the rationale that provided the excuse to begin the "revolutionary change" by invading Iraq.

Brzezinski's message was clear. A major path to justify attacking Iran involved a fabricated act of terror, a false flag, as an excuse for military aggression.

Back to the Future

Here we are again with the same storyline used in 2007, revived to justify a violent response to Iran for acts they likely didn't commit. Is this a reprise of the tactic that Brzezinski warned us about in his Senate testimony in February 2007?

Shame on the Iranian government, if it tried to hire a Mexican drug lord to kill the Saudi Ambassador (or anyone else).

If the alleged conspiracy lacks any real credibility and coherence as reported in the public media, the implications are chilling. The nation's top two law enforcement officials have either dropped the ball in a way that complicates an already hostile relationship with Iran or they're pushing a fictional conspiracy theory that represents a real danger to every citizen; a harbinger for another endless war that we shouldn't fight, one that we can't even begin to afford.

It is time to review what Dr. Brzezinski said about the uses of terror, misdirection and blame to create a pretext for war.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

The Money Party

Why the New Security Zone along the Canadian Border?

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 23:57:00 -0600

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) just issued an environmental report on its enhanced security plan to cover an area extending from the East Coast to the West Coast, from the northern border of the United States to 100 miles south of the border. While there are few specifics on the new security measures, the environmental report offers enough to see how we will be protected against threats to national security coming from Canada. The Department of Homeland security will enhance efforts and technologies to reduce the danger from "known terrorist affiliates and extremist groups [that] have an undisputed presence along the Northern Border in both the United States and Canada." Northern Border Security Programs, p. 1-3, September 2011 (Northern Border) (Image: thelastminute)

In 2006 the American Civil Liberties Union exposed the expansion of border control activities to within 100 miles of any point on the U.S. border. ACLU labeled this area the Constitution Free Zone. Search and seizure options at border checkpoints are not constrained by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Now, thanks to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), just because they're within 100 miles of the nearest border nearly 200 million citizens are subject to searching and procedures that previously were used exclusively at border checkpoints.

Photo courtesy Duncan Rawlinson, lead instructor at PhotographyIcon.com

What do they have in store for citizens on the northern border?

Some highlights of the program include: checkpoints far from the border (but within the 100-mile limit); increased patrol activity; remote video surveillance system systems; upgraded surveillance and telecommunications systems; high-powered X-ray machines of various kinds; and fencing or vehicle barriers at selected points along the border.

The new and improved "High-Energy X-Ray Imaging Scanners" (Northern Border, p. 2-12) expand national security radiation exposure from airline passengers to the much broader audience of drivers and their families, for example, who choose to visit and return from Canada, as well as those who choose to visit the United States from Canada, and anyone unlucky enough to drive into a checkpoint in the Constitution Free Zone.

Buried within the report was this findings, DHS asserts that even though “exposure to high levels of radiation would increase a person’s probability of developing cancer and hereditary genetic damage,” (Northern Border, 8-13-10, p. 201), the impacts of this program will be “negligible.” One wonders if their analysis has considered the kids sitting in the back seat of the car, protected by nothing more than that back seat and their clothing, while a CBP agents X-rays the car’s trunk with a mobile device. It’s hard to feel warm and fuzzy about impacts being negligible when you can’t see any analysis to support that assertion.

With the expanded territory and array of new technologies, one can argue that the security measures represent a militarization of the Canadian border. The following illustration from the environmental report makes that point:

Northern Report, 1-6

The possibilities for a one-sided encounter with those who claim to protect us are endless. You may be driving to visit a friend in a car once owned by someone one on the Automated Targeting System (ATS), "a security and tracking program for cargo that DHS has extended to travelers by assigning all who cross the nation's borders with a computer-generated risk assessment score that will be retained for 40 years -- and which is secret and unreviewable." A Homeland Security drone spots you and relays the message to the Customs and Border Protection command center. That alert sends a message to the "mobile data terminal" in a Border Patrol "agent vehicle" and it’s game on. You're pulled over. Good luck explaining why you're in a "dirty car."

O Canada!

"CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) is the largest law enforcement component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It has a priority mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the United States." Introduction, p. 4

An enhanced security zone along the longest peaceful border in the world should raise suspicion. As Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11, at least none conducted by foreign governments (arguably, the response to Hurricane Katrina can be seen as a de facto terror attack on the people of New Orleans). There were two cross-border threats intercepted in December, 1999 through the efforts of Customs and Border Protection agents and others at the Canadian border in Vermont and Washington state. But that was with the systems and technologies of that time.

Has Canada suddenly become a hotbed of virulent anti-American activity? Are the Mounties and other law enforcement agencies in Canada turning a blind eye to known threats? Are we expected to believe that the nation that turned down a featured role in the coalition of the willing has suddenly become lax on enforcing international law?

Keeping them out or us in? (Or is it all about the money?)

Is there another motive behind the seeming militarization of the Canadian border

My choice for primary motive is enhanced revenue opportunities for the defense and national security industries. The U.S.-Canada border is over 4,000 miles long. The opportunities of a 100-mile ribbon along that border are expanded by all those people living there, approximately 50 million. This could be a huge payday. After all, Iraq and Afghanistan must end at some point. What better project to take up the slack for defense industry taxpayer subsidies than a massive border build up in areas that provide safe working conditions?

Look how quickly the government deployed full body scanners in airports across the country after the underpants bomber affair. Even though highly reliable witnesses saw that bomber bypass a security check at his point of departure, Amsterdam, the administration and security experts acted like a scanner would have somehow prevented events that had nothing to do with any type of security check.

The absurdity of government policies on war, defense spending, and the economy, and the elimination of more and more constitutional and other protections, opens the door for more sinister interpretations. There will be speculation that just maybe, the financial elite who run things see a total collapse of the economy. They should know, they created it. Or maybe they see a total loss of rights and an end to the pretense of freedom. Instead of letting all those consumers (aka citizens) cross the border in search of a reasonable life, they may just want to keep us around for the next big holiday shopping spree.

The border security program as prison bars for citizens is far-fetched but, arguably, it is no more far-fetched than a plan to beef up the border with a friendly, cooperative neighbor.

We live in a time of great decline. The cause of that decline is the ownership of virtually all of the tools of political control by those whose sole motive is to make more money than the huge sums they've already accumulated. For positive change to become an alternative, those who have failed so miserably need to be sent packing, replaced by true servants of the people.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Special thanks to the anonymous source who explained the significance of the report and to Cryptome, which listed the report summary and links on the date of publication.

The Money Party RSS

Appendix I: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment, US Constitution, FindLaw

Appendix II: Becoming Part of the Process

Public Meetings

CBP will hold a series of public meetings on the environmental report in October. At these meetings you may learn more about the project and you may also submit comments. The public meetings will be held from 7-9 pm and are scheduled as follows:

Click for pdf of public meeting dates, city, and location. Source

Public Comment

You may submit comments via Internet at http://www.northernborderpeis.com/get-involved.html, via telephone at 1-(866) 760-1421, or via mail by posting written comments to: CBP Northern Border PEIS P.O. Box 3625 McLean, Virginia, 22102. Comments must be received by October 31, 2011.