Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard.

Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?
By Paul Craig RobertsSeptember 25, 2014 • 2,500 Words

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all law.

It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly.

The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.

The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God. “We” is comprised of the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it.

It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.”

Or is it this one? “After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.”

The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.

The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.

Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.

And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv.”

Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?

Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?

ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?

Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington’s hegemony.

In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control. When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest.

Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.

Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.

As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents. Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real.

By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.

For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter.

Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?

Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.

One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar. If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles? Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.

When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.

China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.

China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.

Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.

Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar.

Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.

By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers.

Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?

Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.

If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.

China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington’s interests.

Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.

The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.

To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state–the US.

It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline. Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs. The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.

The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system.

Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it.

(Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

Monday, September 29, 2014

Obama's Propagandistic UN Address | Truthout | #Ukraine Excerpt :

Obama's Propagandistic UN Address


Ukraine Excerpt :

Similarly, Obama knew the complex reality in Ukraine when he took to the podium on Wednesday. He knew that the crisis was instigated not by Russia but by the European Union and the United States. He knew that the elected President Viktor Yanukovych had been targeted for "regime change" by officials within the U.S. State Department, led by neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who literally hand-picked the new leadership with the aid of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who described the need to "midwife this thing."

Obama knew that Nuland had told Ukrainian business leaders that the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in support of their "European aspirations" and that the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy had subsidized scores of "non-governmental organizations" to help destabilize the Yanukovych government. He also knew the key role played by Ukraine's neo-Nazi militias in seizing presidential buildings on Feb. 22 and forcing Yanukovych's officials to flee for their lives.

Obama's Propagandistic UN Address

Obama’s Ukraine Policy. Crimes against Humanity in Donbass By Eric Zuesse

Obama’s Ukraine Policy. Crimes against Humanity in Donbass

By Eric Zuesse
U.S. President Barack Obama replaced the Ukrainian Government in late February 2014, and he has achieved a lot there, most especially by means of the civil war that resulted when he tried to exterminate the people who had voted for the previous Ukrainian leader – the man whom Obama overthrew. Obama installed in that coup an anti-Russian Ukrainian Government, and so he now needed to get rid of Ukraine’s pro-Russian voters, who were the residents in Ukraine’s southeast, especially in Ukraine’s Donbass region. If the voters there weren’t killed &/or expelled, then the Ukrainian leaders whom Obama imposed would be voted out of office in any nationwide Ukrainian election; so, this ethnic-cleansing campaign was necessary to Obama in order to make his new anti-Russian Ukraine last, not break up into a pro-U.S. northwest and a pro-Russia southeast. Obama lost that war.

Here is what Obama achieved in the process, as shown by a video documentary posted to youtube on September 23rd, which interviews survivors in the region that Obama’s regime was bombing, these being the main people who were affected by Obama’s policy. The documentary is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCvWIDU0JNc#t=766, and these are stills from it, summarizing it:
The following was left by one of the fleeing enemy troops:
This is from a similar documentary, showing an earlier stage in the war.

Share as many times as you can to get the worlds attention to this evil violence Obama is spreading.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Violation of International Law: Where is Obama’s “Authorization to Use Force” in Iraq

Violation of International Law: Where is Obama’s “Authorization to Use Force” in Iraq

There was much enthusiasm in 2008 that President Barack Obama would bring a saner and more lawful approach to issues of foreign policy and war and peace. Six years later — with Americans still being killed in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay still in active operation, US drones killing people in several countries and even American citizens, and now new mischief in Iraq — it is clear that President Obama has done little more than expand the already large war-making powers of his predecessor and fully enabled the vision of a “unitary executive” with unfettered powers in war and peace.

Where is, for example, President Obama’s domestic authorization for the use of force in Iraq against the Islamic State? Obama has taken the position that the 2001 Authorization of Use of Force (“AUMF”) passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, as well as the 2002 AUMF against Iraq passed before that war provide him with the legal basis for further air strikes. None other than John Yoo, the famous ratifier of torture in the George W. Bush Administration, has rushed to Obama’s defense, claiming that Obama has all the legal authority he needs under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.

But the notion that these Authorizations support current military action against the Islamic State more than a decade after they were initially passed is highly flawed. The 2001 AUMF was specifically limited to terrorist groups that had planned or aided the 9/11 attacks. There is zero evidence (and no government official has yet argued) that the Islamic State is somehow tied to 9/11. The 2002 AUMF, which provided the domestic legal basis for the Iraq War, is also untenable as justification for this war as it was based on the purported “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. Indeed, through his National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Obama himself called for the revocation of the 2002 AUMF in July, mere weeks before now claiming it as a renewed basis for the adventurism in Iraq.

The attacks are also bereft of any basis in international law. Under the United Nations Charter, a country may only use armed force against another country in self-defense, or when approved by the United Nations Security Council. There is no resolution that has authorized the US strikes in Iraq; and the notion that the United States must lob bombs into Iraq as a matter of self-defense is simply not credible.

While not made explicitly (at least not yet), the White House will likely rely on a tenuous theory in international law called the “responsibility to protect,” which argues that countries may involve themselves militarily in other countries in order to protect civilians or prevent other imminent humanitarian harms. This was the basis of the bombing campaign against the former Yugoslavia, which never had UN Security Council authorization. Obama’s current Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, is a well known advocate of this doctrine and she has recently argued that the US has all the legal authorization it needs for the air campaign.

But there is no basis in international law for such a theory, and more clear-minded observers have rightly concluded that the so-called “responsibility to protect” is a thinly-veiled excuse for Western meddling in countries thousands of miles away. As Antony Loewenstein notes:
We never hear any [responsibility to protect] backers pushing for a military intervention in Gaza to protect the Palestinians from Israeli missiles. Nobody is talking about protecting Egyptian civilians from the brutal, US-backed dictatorship in Egypt. Barely a word is raised to protect the repressed activists in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Whether it’s dressed up as solidarity, a responsibility to protect, or an intervention to prevent breaches of human rights, from Iraq to Libya these are grotesque experiments on helpless civilians, the conclusions of which are clear for us to see.
The Nuremberg Trials, which outlawed wars not conducted in conformity in international law, made no exceptions for “responsibility to protect,” and in fact labeled any war not conducted with a solid legal footing as the “crime of aggression,” considered the supreme international crime – largely because of the horrific consequences that take place when wars break out. Yet here, too, this White House has recently argued to the Northern District of California that the Nuremberg Trials are “irrelevant” to the determination of whether Presidents can be held accountable for their actions with respect to war and peace.

From a historical point of view, it is ironic that a young senator from Illinois who campaigned in large part agains the Iraq War and who showcased his credentials as a constitutional scholar would be the handmaiden of the permanent “state of exception” described by the National Socialist philosopher Carl Schmitt, who argued that sovereigns should have the right to suspend the legal and juridical constraints of their societies so that they may act outside of law. This is the opposite of the legal constitutionalism that forms the philosophical basis of the American legal order, which can be summarized with the words of Edward Coke: “The King himself should be under no man, but under God and the Law.”

Even six years later, the stings and scars of the Bush-era wars still haunt those who favor civilization over barbarity, and certainly continue to physically affect those who fought on either side, as well as the millions of civilians who always suffer when wars take place.

The failure of President Obama to seek a more rational foreign policy is a disquieting but important lesson:  those pressing for a lawful, constitutional government that resolves international conflicts instead of initiating them have far more work to do and cannot rely on the promises — falsely given — by politicians from any political party. The last Administration was wrong, but it was openly wrong and harbored no pretenses that it sought an imperial Presidency. In contrast, this Administration has cloaked itself in sanctimony even while consolidating the grave excesses of its predecessor. Both parties remain committed to imperialism and the wars that accompany them, or in the immortal words of Tacitus, writing two millennia ago of those who dismantled the ancient republic in Rome in order to create a dynastic and militant empire: “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

D. Inder Comar is legal director at Comar Law. Comar Law is currently litigating a lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration for allegedly committing aggression against Iraq (Saleh v. Bush, N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013, 13-cv-1124 JST).

Irresponsible New York Times Presstitution by Stephen Lendman


Irresponsible New York Times Presstitution

by Stephen LendmanNew York Times Adds 100,000 Digital Subscribers With Paywall

The late Gore Vidal called The Times the “Typhoid Mary of American journalism” for good reason.
The so-called “newspaper of record” is more laughing stock than source for legitimate journalism.
Its news, information and analysis are heavily filtered. Fiction and popular myths substitute for facts.
Monied interests are supported at the expense of popular ones. Vital truths are systematically buried.
Managed news misinformation substitutes. So do Big Lies on issues mattering most.
Imperial wars are called liberating ones. Ravaging and destroying one nation after another is considered humanitarian intervention.
Wars are supported in the name of peace. Might justifies right. Plunder is called economic development.
Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good. Irresponsible government and corporate interests are wholeheartedly endorsed. Beneficial social change is considered heresy.
The market (aka as casino capitalism) works best so let it, we’re told. Patriotism means supporting Washington right or wrong.
The Times is America’s lead propaganda instrument. Misinformation masquerades as legitimate journalism.
Whenever America goes to war or plans one, Times correspondents, contributors and editors march in lockstep.
Times policy is it’s OK if we do it. Bad guys are nations, groups or individuals Washington opposes.
Terrorism is what they do, not us. Reasons why imperial wars are waged are suppressed.
Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. Sacrificing human lives and freedoms are small prices to pay. Humanity is at risk but who cares.
Ravaging and destroying one nation after another doesn’t matter. Corporate grand theft is OK. So is the unprecedented wealth gap.
Protracted Main Street Depression conditions affecting most Americans aren’t discussed.
Nor unmet human needs, growing poverty, hunger, homelessness, depravation and despair.
Unprecedented corporate and government corruption is ignored. So is government of, by and for monied interests alone.
Sham elections are called democratic ones. Social injustice gets short shrift if any.
Truth is the most dangerous disinfectant. Suppressing it is longstanding Times policy. All garbage all the time on issues mattering most substitutes.
Russia bashing is relentless. Putin is considered public enemy No. 1. Kiev fascist putschists are called democrats.
They’re xenophobic, ultranationist, anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian hate-mongers.
They represent mob rule. They have no legitimacy whatever. Don’t expect The Times to explain.
Lies, damn lies and Big ones substitute for credible news, commentary and analysis.
They’re relentless on Ukraine. For the first time since Nazi Germany’s defeat, reemergent fascism infests Europe’s heartland.
Western leaders support it. John Pilger quoted Professor Terry Eagleton saying “for the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life.”
Its most disturbing aspects. Its immorality. Its belligerence. Its lawlessness. Its contempt for popular interests. Its support for wrong over right.
“No Shelly speaks for the poor,” said Pilger. “(N)o Blake for utopian dreams…(N)o Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class…”
“(N)o Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism. William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw have no equivalents today.”
The late “Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice.” He’s badly missed.
So are Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel, Howard Zinn, Edward Said and other distinguished figures speaking truth to power forthrightly, publicly, and effectively.
They’re gone. They’re not around to challenge official Big Lies. Relentless misinformation on Ukraine.
Scoundrel media corruption. Unconscionable Russia bashing. Outrageous lies about Putin. It gives yellow journalism new meaning.
MSM today are scandalous. Disreputable. Unethical. Outrageous. An embarrassment to legitimate journalism.
It’s a lying machine. Washington’s war on humanity is called humanitarian intervention.
Israeli aggression is considered self-defense. Palestinian self-defense is called terrorism.
Illegitimate Kiev fascist putschists are lauded like democrats.
Southeastern Ukrainian freedom fighters are called terrorists.
Russia’s heroic conflict resolution efforts are called “invasion,” “infiltration,” “cross-border shelling,” “significant escalation,” “interference,” “aggression,” and other pejorative Big Lies.
Irresponsible Putin bashing rages. It’s relentless. Western leaders bear full responsibility. Media scoundrels share it.
Times correspondents, contributors and editors turn truth on its head. Indefensible Big Lies substitute.
Readers are carpet-bombed daily. The Russians are coming, they’re told.
“Mr. Putin (plays) his dangerous game in Ukraine with cunning and deceit,” claim Times editors. “First he annexed Crimea.”
He held “intimidating military exercises on the Ukrainian border and sen(t) in ever more men and arms in support of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, all the while falsely denying any Russian involvement other than humanitarian concern for the ethnic Russian population.”
“Rebels shot down a Malaysian jetliner with a Russian missile…” Cross-border artillery fire shelled Ukraine, claimed Times editors.
Russian “armored columns” invaded Ukraine, they said.
Fact check:
Crimeans voted near unanimously to join Russia. They did so in a referendum independent international monitors called open, free and fair.
Putin responsibly accommodated their wishes. Russian military exercises threaten no one.
Western monitors were invited to observe them. No Russian invasion occurred. No cross-border artillery fire.
So-called satellite imagery was fake. One or more Ukrainian warplanes shot down MH 17.
Clear evidence showed cannon fire downed it. No ground to air missile was involved. Don’t expect Times editors to explain. Or its correspondents and contributors.
On September 27, Putin bashing continued. The Times headlined “It Pays to Be Putin’s Friend,” saying:
He “steer(ed) lucrative accounts” Bank Rossiya’s way after Washington “made (it) a primary target of sanctions…”
It’s “run by some of (Putin’s) closest friends and colleagues from his early days in St. Petersburg…”
It’s “emblematic of the way (his) brand of crony capitalism has turned loyalists into billionaires whose influence over strategic sectors of the economy has in turn helped him maintain his iron-fisted grip on power.”
Fact check:
US government/corporate corruption gives grand theft new meaning. So does US-style crony capitalism.
Monied interests run America. They so so in league with fascist governance.
Mussolini called his version corporatism. It reflects “the merger of state and corporate power,” he said.
America’s version is worse. It’s global. It combines police state harshness, disdain for fundamental rights, and brazen brutality with unbridled corporate power.
It’s ideologically over-the-top and then some. It’s ruthless. It’s all take and no give. Non-believers aren’t tolerated.
They’re systematically eliminated. They’re murdered in cold blood. They locked away in gulag prison hell to rot.
Fascism works this way. America is the world’s leading exponent. Ukraine is the epicenter of its European reemergence. Don’t The Times to explain.
“If the modern Russian state is Kremlin Inc., Mr. Putin is its chief executive officer, rewarding his friends with control of state-owned companies and doling out lucrative government contracts in deals that provoke accusations of corruption but have the veneer of legality under the Putin system,” it claimed.
He “collect(ed) new friends,” it added. He “la(id) the foundation for what would evolve into the system of personalized, state-sponsored capitalism now at the heart of his power.”
“In many cases, contracts and property (are) distributed through insider deals, often without open or transparent bidding.”
Fact check:
American-style casino capitalism gives corruption new meaning. Crony capitalism flourishes. Oligarchs run America.
No-bid sweetheart deals are standard practice. So is gross over-billing, waste, fraud and abuse on the grandest of grand scales.
Gangsterism defines America. So does kleptocracy. Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan.
Monied interests run things. They’re in league with corrupt government officials.
They hold an unprecedented amount of wealth. They take full advantage.
They hide it in offshore tax havens. America is the United States of steal all you can.
Ordinary people have no say. Elections have no legitimacy. They’re shams. Democracy is pure fantasy. It’s the best money can buy.
Personal freedoms are eroding in plain sight. They’re disappearing altogether.
Putin was democratically elected three times. Independent monitors call Russia’s process open, free and fair.
Russians want no one else to lead them. In March 2012, Putin’s majority was 63.6%. His closest rival got 17.2%.
Polls show he’s overwhelmingly popular. Well over 80% of Russians support him. It’s for good reason.
For opposing Western imperialism. For affirming Russian sovereignty. For observing international laws, norms and standards.
For championing multi-world polarity. For going all-out for diplomatic conflict resolutions. For supporting peace and stability. For deploring wars without end.
For challenging US unipolarity, unilateralism, state terror and war on humanity.
He’s bashed for doing the right thing. For supporting right over wrong. For being on the right side of major geopolitical issues.
For being forthright. For challenging America responsibly. Don’t expect The Times to explain.
It wages war on truth relentlessly. Putin bashing persists like sport. Russian expert Stephen Cohen says doing so endangers US security.
Media scoundrels denigrate him irresponsibly. They’re mindless about what’s at stake, says Cohen.
Putin bashing “featur(es) mostly irrelevant, baseless or hyperbolic allegations about his political record…” It’s unabated. It’s relentless.
It’s malicious. MSM countervailing voices don’t exist. He’s demonized like “Saddam, Stalin and Hitler.”
He’s falsely accused of revanchism. Of wanting imperial Russia restored. Of “poking America in the eye.”
Putinophobia rages. It’s when cooperating with Moscow should take precedence.
At risk is open East/West confrontation. Potentially escalating it to global conflict.
Obama represents the worst of rogue leadership. He’s ideologically over-the-top. He risks what no responsible leader would dare.
His geopolitical agenda reflects madness. Media scoundrels share blame. They’re mindless of potential armageddon.
Times news, commentaries and analyses have clout. They reflect official policy. They influence it.
Bashing Putin irresponsibly risks the unthinkable. Cold War 2.0 risks becoming hot. All bets are off if it happens

#Obama The Psychopathic Warmongering Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

The psychopathic warmongering Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

© Reuters/Larry Downing
Barack Obama was elected President of the United States on the strength of one fact. As a US Senator in Illinois, he voted against George W. Bush's war against Iraq. Had Obama not done that, he would never have attracted the attention necessary to become a serious candidate for the presidency.

Disgust with Bush's wars and the financial crisis propelled Obama to the White House. A few months later the "anti-war candidate", now President, was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.

It would be difficult to imagine a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and "anti-war" candidate whose actions have been more warlike.

After proclaiming a "reset" in relations with Russia, Obama brought them to the worst point they have seen since the end of the Cold War. In January 2009 Obama said he would close Guantanamo. It remains open. He retained Bush's Defence Secretary Robert Gates. He left many of the staff appointed by Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney (including Victoria Nuland) in their posts. Not a single official from Bush's team who justified or ordered torture has faced legal action. Whenever it has been suggested, Obama has blocked it. By contrast, his administration pursues whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning relentlessly.

Fleets of drones have been dispatched around the world on a scale Bush had never dreamed. Assassinations of supposed opponents of the US have multiplied and become routine. Osama bin Laden was murdered when he could have been captured to stand trial. Obama has even given himself the right - unprecedented in US history - to order the execution of US citizens without trial. He has actually even exercised it against children. Apparently he approves of the lists of those doomed to die himself.

Comment: Psychopathic U.S. corporations have profited from all of these wars - at the expense of massive death, suffering and destruction worldwide. The entire system is under direct governance of the pathocracy.
The key feature of a pathocracy is that psychopaths influence the economic, military, political, and cultural agenda of a nation. Like chameleons, they mask themselves in the features of their surroundings. Within those parameters they stage dramas, creating a new reality according to their desires. And this reality is one of deception, terror, ruthless expansion and complete heartlessness.

In the corporate world a psychopath gets ahead by destroying the careers of those who stand in his way, exploiting the work of others, starting rumors, creating conflicts. He always benefits from these, of course. A competitor falls out of favor. The psychopath is credited with the work of another. The bosses take his word over another who sees that he is a snake. An "enemy" finds herself without a job, blamed for something she didn't do. All the while the psychopath stage-manages. The man behind the curtain.

In politics, the pawns are the people, the chessboard is the world stage. Strategic countries are invaded because of the "threat" they pose. This threat is of course created by the psychopaths in charge using the vast resources of intelligence services. "Terrorist threats" are fabricated. Atrocities are committed and then pinned on imaginary "terrorist groups".
Pathocracy: Brave New World or 1984?

Star of David

Pledging allegiance to the Masters: French PM says, that France without Jews would not be France

We have been sent video of an extraordinary speech made by the French prime minister, Manuel Valls, in response to widespread reports that Jewish citizens are leaving France in the face of rising anti-semitism.

M. Valls, wearing a skullcap while speaking in a synagogue and referring explicitly to it in his speech, spoke with passion of the role Jews played in the nation and in his personal life.
Arrow Down

ISIS and the corporate state of war profiteering

Ever since World War I, fear of foreign invasions has been an obsession in the American collective consciousness. It is no coincidence that major U.S.corporations have profited from this fear, at the expense of massive death and destruction worldwide.
© Allison Shelley, Getty Images/AFP/File
US Secretary of State John Kerry testifies before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on "The ISIS Threat: Weighing the Obama Administration's Response," on Capitol Hill September 18, 2014 in Washington, DC.
"Every country , every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent.

The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens' attitudes' toward minority/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence."

Dr. Zoltan Grossman
In the midst of all the fear-mongering that has been generated by the commercial media, what has not been reported are the CEOs of military contractors who are paid more than their overpaid counterparts in the financial sector. Of course, many of these so-called news outfits are heavily bankrolled by the same military contractors. Therefore, 'fair and balanced' journalism is totally out of the question.

What's even worse, is that all of these predatory companies are buying off politicians and 'retired' generals to systematically rob our national treasury and place our sons and daughters, once again, in the line of fire.." CNN pundit, Frances Townsend, a former Bush administration official, has appeared on television calling for more military engagement against the so-called Islamic State. As the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) reported, Townsend holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews and Forbes, and Monument Capital Group, along with serving as an advisor to defense contractor, Decision Sciences."
Eye 1

FBI to enlist police in huge DNA collection scheme

DNA map
Remember that time the Supreme Court ruled that our DNA is basically just like our fingerprints, and cops can snatch it from us subsequent to arrest? Remember the giant biometrics project the FBI has been spending at least a billion dollars of our money building (with many of the details kept secret), called 'Next Generation Identification'? With those powers and monies combined, the FBI this week announced its plans "to accelerate the collection of DNA profiles for the government's massive new biometric identification database." Like with other biometrics collection schemes, the FBI aims to get local police to do the groundwork.

What could go wrong?


The government plans to track us and those we are related to using our DNA

DNA "Genetic Patdown" Introduced to Airports by DHS

Black Magic

RT witnesses exhumation of mass graves in village outside Donetsk, Ukraine - 'hands taped, gunshots to head and body'

© RT
RT Maria Finoshina has managed to reach the burial site near the village of Nyzhnia Krynka, 35 kilometers north-east of the city of Donetsk.
Mass graves with bodies bearing signs of violent death, and grieving relatives of those who were identified: That was the blood-curdling scene witnessed by an RT crew in a village near the city of Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine.

Four bodies were found in two shell craters behind a burned-out coal mine near the village of Nyzhnia Krynka, 35 kilometers northeast of Donetsk. RT's Maria Finoshina reported from the burial site. "All the facilities you can see here were abandoned a long time ago. It's a very remote area and apparently those who did this didn't want these corpses to be found," Finoshina reported. Among the four victims was 21-year-old Nikita Kolomiytsev, a local resident, whose grieving mother arrived at the scene of mass graves to identify her son. "I couldn't stand for him to be killed and thrown like a dog somewhere - I had to come and identify him," Nikita's mother, Galina, told RT.

Galina said she fled to central Ukraine to take her younger 16-year-old son out of harm's way, but she felt she'd "failed to protect" her elder son. "The Ukrainian army took [Nikita] away... my husband went there and told them - take me instead of my son. But they said they had taken him for a further prisoner swap." Galina was waiting for him to be exchanged and brought home, but he never returned to his mother. "No one exchanged anybody for anybody. They just shot them dead here outside the village and threw them into the ground... like dogs," she added, sobbing.
Bad Guys

Gateway Policies: ISIS, Obama and US Financial Boots-on-the-Ground

Nomi Prins
President Obama's neo-Cold War is not about ideology or respect for borders. It is about money and global power. The current battle over control of gateway nations - strategic locations in which private firms can establish the equivalent of financial boots-on-the-ground - is being waged in the Middle East and Ukraine under the auspices of freedom and western capitalism (er, "democracy"). In these global gateways, private banks can infiltrate resource-rich locales fortified by political will, public aid and military support to garner lucrative market advantages. ISIS poses a threat to global gateway control that transcends any human casualties. That's why Congress decided to authorize funds to fight ISIS despite the risk.

The common thread of today's global gateway nations appears to be oil. But even more valuable are the multitude of financing deals that would accompany building new pipelines, arming allies, and reconstructing civil-war-torn countries. Indeed, hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake in America's wars of "principle."
Star of David

"ISIL crisis" plays right into the Zionists grubby little hands

"ISIL crisis" entices Zionists
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's first Chief of Staff - who also served as Obama's Israeli Mossad handler - famously said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Individuals, groups, whole industries, even nations sometimes take advantage of crises and catastrophes. Big bankers, for example, love war because it forces governments to borrow vast sums of money at compound interest. Arms manufacturers also make huge profits. And the big government always gets bigger during wartime as it confiscates people's wealth and scales back their rights.

The current ISIL crisis is making certain people very rich. According to LiveLeak.com the US government is spending 200 million dollars per week to bomb Iraq and Syria. If the overall cost of the anti-ISIL campaign reaches its $500 billion projection, LiveLeak estimates that the US would be spending $30 million dollars per member of ISIL. It might be cheaper to simply pay them $20 million each to simply go away.
Bizarro Earth

"Game" of Wars: US "fighting" terrorists it fostered

© Unknown
Since at least the end of the Second World War, the US has been directly and indirectly fostering, aiding, funding and training fighting militias and groups in different regions of the world to further its own interests. However, the irony of this policy is that in most of the cases, the US ended up fighting, in the name of establishing peace, these very forces of destruction. History is replete with such examples. As the 'sole' super power of the world, it has actually been fighting the war of its own survival, that is, to continue to survive as the 'sole' super power. As such, not only does it 'invent' enemies, but also reasons to fight them. Let's have a look at some of these 'invented' wars.

A number of examples can be given from history to justify this proposition. For example, the emergence of the Taliban is most directly the result of the CIA's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War. Not only did CIA provide all possible funding, but also established camps across Pakistan-Afghan border which were extensively used to train people to do "Jihad" against the Soviet Union. And, the fact that the Americans joyfully disseminate information about different aspects of this war in the form of Hollywood movies shows the extent of acknowledgement the US has publicly made regarding once supporting the Taliban when they were hailed and glorified as the "defenders" of the "free world." Given that, now it looks remarkably amazing how that very Taliban later on turned into enemies and dragged the US into the longest war of its history.

Nothing can explain this fundamental transition except the fact that the US first needed the Taliban to use them against its cold war rival, and then to use, as a pretext to go to war, the Taliban's refusal to allow the US a free way to build oil and gas pipelines from the Central Asia to the India Ocean. The force that the US once 'proudly' created thus turned into the most pernicious enemy of the world - hence the war against "terrorism." In other words, the most important reason of this longest war is nothing but the US' own created group of fighters.

On the other hand, the US could still have 'invented' any reason to launch attack on Afghanistan even if the Taliban had not refused to accept American plans; after all, extensive militarization of the entire region around Afghanistan was, and still is, one of the cardinal policy objectives of the US' twenty-first century grand strategy. The fact that the US wanted to militarize the entire region in order for controlling the flow of energy from here to many parts of the world becomes quite evident when we look at the very location of the key military bases of the US in Afghanistan. All of the key bases have been built on the proposed route of the TAPI pipeline.