Thursday, September 04, 2014

Some Levity...

... from the "you can't make this stuff up " department:

Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed “Bomb Assad!” campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad – the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.
It’s as though the U.S. knew for certain all along that it wanted to fight in the war in Syria, and just needed a little time to figure out on which side it would fight. It switched sides virtually on a dime, and the standard Pentagon courtiers of the U.S. media and war-cheering foreign policy elites are dutifully following suit, mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?). Something very similar happened in Libya: the U.S. spent a decade insisting that a Global War on Terror – complete with full-scale dismantling of basic liberties and political values – was necessary to fight against the Unique Threat of Al Qaeda and “Jihadists”, only to then fight on the same side as them, and arming and empowering them.

UPDATE: The U.S. “is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels,” the Agence France-Presse reports today, citing one source as saying: ”The cooperation has already begun.”
From The New Hitler (back) to U.S. Partner in less than a year: an impressive feat for both Assad and U.S. propaganda.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

ISIS – America’s (Latest) Frankenstein

By

Dating back to at least 2007, the Bush Administration and its Saudi and Israeli allies were hatching the plan to overthrow the government of Syria. It was also well known that the use of radical Islamic organizations or Jihadists was a sanctioned tool in this plan. As reported by Seymour Hersch, Saudi Arabia left no doubt about its intentions in Iraq and Syria:
“The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw…’The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.’
“Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”
“Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be ‘the ones to talk to,’ Jumblatt said.”
Upon her appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton willingly picked up the torch on the policy to overthrow the government of Syria. In this cause she enlisted underlings Robert Ford, and Susan Rice. Ford openly fomented opposition while serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Syria, while Rice pounded the table as Ambassador to the U.N. relentlessly demanding international military action to unseat Syria’s President a demand she has continued to make in her position as National Security Advisor. Throughout this period somebody else had Clinton’s ear on Syria – someone with ties to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. That person was Huma Abedin, Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff.  Adebin was also the wife of disgraced former New York Congressman, Anthony Weiner, and a Clinton aide since 1996. Abedin was considered Clinton’s closest policy advisor on the Middle East. Is it any wonder that Clinton has been the talon-baring hawk for military intervention in Syria? In taking this line, Clinton insures both Saudi and Israeli support for her run at the Oval Office.
Which takes us full circle to America’s latest ‘existential threat’ – ISIS or ISIL or IS, depending upon which moniker the West has decided to use for the day. ISIS never existed until the conflict in Syria. Its members have come from throughout the world, their common denominator being their fervor for Jihad and cutting off peoples’ heads. How were all of these individuals able to travel freely from their native countries, including the U.S. and Britain, to the Middle East? Who paid their way? Who purchased and supplied the weapons they are unleashing from Syria to Iraq? Who provided them with military training? Why are western nations backing them in Syria, but attacking them in Iraq? If we are now worried about the return of the American jihadists from their butcher-fest in Syria, and we know who they are, why does the U.S. government not simply revoke their passports and refuse them re-entry. Why does Obama not simply order them assassinated as he did with U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki???
It is commonly known that ISIS gets its support from those nations (including prominent individuals and organizations within those nations) which are trying to assure the destruction of Shiite influence in the Middle East. They plan to accomplish this through the advancement of a Sunni extremist agenda. How ironic that those nations – Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar – also happen to be America’s closest allies in the region! If ISIS is such an existential threat, why are we not threatening or bombing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar?  As columnist Patrick Buchanan recently wrote:
“If President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to crush ISIS, he could seal his border to foreign fighters entering Syria and send the Turkish army to assist President Bashar Assad in annihilating ISIS in Syria.” Buchanan notes that instead of supporting them, U.S. politicians like John McCain, want to attack “Syria’s army, the most successful anti-ISIL force in the field.”
The Obama Administration’s see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil policy on the Benghazi fiasco is also rooted in the ISIS issue. It is known that Benghazi was being used by the United States to procure weapons and Libyan jihadists to send to fight in Syria by way of Turkey.
The recent execution of American journalist James Foley (if it occurred) also has its roots in America’s Syrian policy. Foley was originally kidnapped not by ISIS, but by Senator John McCain’s ‘moderate Syrian rebel’ allies, the so-called Free Syrian Army. The same ‘moderate rebels’ who cannibalized dead Syrian soldiers on camera. They then transferred or traded Foley to ISIS.
In the classic television comedy The Three Stooges, the Stooges are working as exterminators. Business is slow so they find a way to increase their business by pretending to conduct home inspections for pests while actually planting pests in the home. They then leave the homeowner with their business card and wait for the call. Soon after, the frantic homeowner urges them to return quickly and they have a paying job of their own creation.
The trail of ISIS terror leads painfully, inexorably and unmistakably back to the United States and its allies. ISIS was a creation of the West and its failed policy decisions. Now ISIS is being used as the excuse for further military adventurism in the Middle East. Stooges indeed!

Thursday, July 24, 2014

When in Hole Stop Digging

By Michael Rozeff

Where it counts, in the higher levels of the U.S. government, the most powerful positions are filled by fools. What other conclusion can be drawn when every major policy move is foolish, destructive and dangerous? Are we supposed to believe that American meddling and aggressions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria accomplished something desired by these men and women and something beneficial to Americans? Are we supposed to believe that the management of the American economy has benefited this country, or that the surveillance state is a big plus? Are we supposed to believe that the huge spending financed by a huge national debt is producing dividends for America?
And now, are we supposed to believe that confronting Russia over Ukraine, seeking to bring down Putin, and stirring up trouble inside Russia is going to produce a new set of institutions and leaders in Russia that is more beneficial to us? Are we supposed to believe that confronting China will do the same? Or that spreading American forces throughout Africa will bring us peace?
Why should we expect anything but bad results from American meddling and confrontations when that is all that they have produced for many years now? Why should we not conclude that the country is being run by ignorant and naive fools or jackasses, who keep beating their heads and ours against one wall after another? How stupid are they to be imbued with confused ideas about remaking the world and whose methods for doing so cluelessly produce one debacle after another?

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Government Lexicon

By Michael S. Rozeff

Words no longer mean anything stable and therefore laws mean nothing stable at the highest level of U.S. government. The government is the master of words now. It creates threats when none exist. It defines and names them according to its pleasure. This in turn justifies it in creating a national emergency when there is none.
There is no restraint, no constraint, no boundary on what a president can do when and if words fail to provide such constraints. When a president uses words to mean things they do not in fact mean, that is, when he uses bald-faced lies as justifications for his actions, then any so-called law can be issued by a president. He can do anything by declaring that the situation demands it, even if it doesn’t. At that point, words mean nothing of what their conventional content gives them. They become what authority says they mean. At that point, we are in an Alice in Wonderland world.

Alice is talking with Humpty Dumpty:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”
Who is master, the word or its user, in this case Humpty Dumpty? Humpty tells Alice he’s the master.

Obama is now the master. Here is Humpty Dumpty Obama speaking. Obama issued an executive order that says:
“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:”

What national emergency? There isn’t any. I defy anyone to prove that there is an actual national emergency because of relations between Crimea and Ukraine. Obama finds “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” What threat? I defy anyone to prove that there is a threat to the security of Americans arising from Crimea’s relations with Ukraine.

What danger is there to Americans if Crimea holds a referendum? What danger if it decides to alter its political relations with Ukraine and Russia? What actually is the “Government of Ukraine” of which Obama speaks? What are its democratic processes being undermined? How can a vote in Crimea cause an emergency to Americans? How can such a vote cause an emergency to Americans while riots in the streets, snipers and thugs can cause a change in government in Ukraine and that is no cause for Obama to declare an emergency, indeed that becomes a cause for approval?

In Obama’s dictionary, if he thinks something has happened in Crimea having to do with its government that another government (in Ukraine) has not authorized, then this constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” This constitutes an “emergency”.

If the foreign policy of the United States is unlawful to begin with and if it is thwarted by Crimeans or a Crimean vote to separate from Ukraine, does that give rise to a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S.? Even if it does, which it doesn’t in this case, is it so serious as to declare that the U.S. foreign policy faces an emergency?

A national emergency arises from a threat to THE NATION, that is, to Americans regarded as a people. If there is a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S., and I deny that a vote among Crimeans is a genuine threat even to that, this is not the same as a threat to Americans. There is no national emergency.

How can a vote in Crimea be viewed as a threat to U.S. foreign policy and the overturning of the government of Ukraine by violent means not be viewed as a threat? Only if the U.S. is content with the latter but unhappy with the former. In other words, to the U.S. government, a threat is that which frustrates what it desires. It is not based on something objective that endangers Americans but on an impediment to U.S. foreign policy. This impediment is declared to be a threat so that then a national emergency can be declared when none exists. That in turn then is used to justify taking actions in the form of sanctions.

Is the frustration of a want to be called a threat? If I want a Mercedes-Benz in a showroom but can’t get it without paying for it, is the dealer a threat to my “foreign policy”? Do I then declare that the dealer has threatened my family? Do I declare a family emergency? Do I then use my power to blockade the showroom or to prevent the dealer from accessing his bank account or to stop trailers from delivering new cars to him? Yes, this all sounds very far-fetched but so is it far-fetched for Obama to see a threat to this nation from a vote in Crimea and declare a national emergency.

Obama’s executive order is a raw exercise of power dressed up to give the appearance of legality.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Uncensored!!

The below embedded video interview of the whistleblower/hero “traitor” Edward Snowden by a German journalist was expected by this writer to go viral on the internet. Strangely, although having been posted many times on YouTube, its shelf life has been shall we say “short”. It would appear that our minders in the US media do not wish dissemination of any but the official version of the NSA leaks. In any event, dear readers, please avail yourselves of the opportunity for exposure to a non official perspective regarding the lies, lawlessness, secrecy and obtrusiveness of the imperial regime: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Death by Government

Government More Likely to Kill Your Kids Than a School Shooter Is

By Thomas Hochmann
December 14th, 2013
Government More Likely to Kill Your Kids Than a School Shooter Is
In light of the sensationalist news coverage of yesterday's Arapahoe High School shooting, I thought it would be fun to look at some actual facts about school shootings. I know, I know... It's so old fashioned to resort to such inconvenient things as facts. Please forgive me for committing this grave sin against the journalistic standards of the 21st century.
First off, there are 132,656 K-12 schools in the US. From 2003 to date, there have been 76 shootings in US schools. 53 of those shootings resulted in deaths. Thus, over this 10 year period, the US has experienced an average of 5.3 fatal school shootings per year. Using these numbers, you can figure out that the odds that any given school will experience a fatal shooting during an entire calendar year are about 1 in 25,029.
Compare that figure that to the odds that you will die from:
  • An air travel accident (1 in 20,000)
  • Drowning (1 in 8,942)
  • Electrocution (1 in 5,000)
  • Falling down (1 in 246)
  • Committing suicide (1 in 121)
  • A car crash (1 in 100)
According to Wikipedia, "schools will do a lockdown drill one or two times per year." In anticipation of an event that has a 1 in 25,029 chance of actually occurring at a given school, children have a 100% certainty that they will be terrorized by the school itself at least once every year. On any given school day, there's at least a 1 in 270 chance that the school will frighten the crap out of your child with a lockdown drill.
Schools don't have mandatory drowning drills (though death by drowning is twice as likely as experiencing a fatal school attack), or mandatory "how not to fall down" classes (100 times as likely), or mandatory "don't get in a car because you might die" drills (250 times). They don't even devote this much shock-and-awe theatrics to teaching kids about cancer, which has a 1 in 7 chance of killing you (3,575 times more likely than a fatal school shooting).
As a fun aside, it's worth noting that you have a 1 in 89 chance of being killed by your own government. That's right: it's 281 times more likely that your own government will kill you or your child than your child's school will experience a fatal gun attack.
Funny how the schools don't drill kids on how to evade the police or withdraw their consent from government, both of which are far more likely sources of death and destruction than any crazed civilian gunman.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Connecting Dots Regarding the Lying Surveillance State?

It is indeed strange how missing pieces of a puzzle can obscure the entire picture until key pieces eventually fall into place. The most recent case in point is the revelation of spying by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US on upper as well as other levels of foreign government functionaries. The NSA, operating under a secret annual budget of multiple billions of dollars has routinely justified its secrecy and “black” budget status by playing the “National Security” card. One would be justified in wondering how the electronic interception and hacking of the personal email and telephone communications of the leaders of such nations as Brazil, Spain  Mexico, Argentina, Germany and France impacts US “national security”. The question now becomes: what nation has the US omitted from its intelligence gathering operations? This humble correspondent though lacking smoking-gun evidence is willing to bet the rent money that US government spying for the purpose of blackmail includes Sweden.

In 2010 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange became the focus of US politicians’ outrage over publications that among other embarrassments, the US military has been engaging in what can be characterized as war crimes.

In July of that Year Army private Bradley Manning was arrested and charged with being the source of the leaked documents to Assange’s organization. Manning, whose conscience was apparently troubled by some of these events as well as being plagued by psychological issues which should have precluded him from any sensitive military assignment was arrested and after 400+ days of brutal torture-like confinement, brought to trial for the whistle-blowing leaks.

In the meantime, during a publicity seminar in Sweden during August of 2010 Assange “unluckily” ran afoul of Swedish authorities for what this writer would characterize as a “groupie tryst gone bad”.
On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden on a speaking trip partly arranged by "Miss A", a member of a political party. He had never met her before, but had arranged that he would stay in her apartment while she was out of town. Days later, they reportedly had sex.

Three days later and still in Sweden, Assange met another woman, "Miss W", at another seminar. Again, he went back to her home and again, they are said to have had sex.

The two women then made contact and discussed aspects of the encounter. Both women reportedly said that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual and that Assange had deceived them about the use of condoms [and initially simply that Mr Assange be required to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases].

The complaint by the two women to the Swedish police was initially investigated by Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné of Chefsåklagare who, as a result, stated: “I don't think there is reason to suspect that he [Assange] has committed rape." This is the juncture at which one may be excused for beginning to suspect “influence by mysterious/external forces” (as the result of pressure exerted by way of blackmail?). The Swedish national prosecution authority now alleged: “Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued the investigation.”

On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny [unexpectedly?] decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.

On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He [had] left Sweden on 27 September 2010.

The subsequent complaint resulting in “the investigation of a MISDEMEANOR charge” for Assange’s Extradition from the UK is virtually without precedent, especially when “Assange's British lawyer, Mark Stephens, said "his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or at Scotland Yard or via video, but that the offer had not been taken up.” Assange went so far as to agree to returning to Sweden for questioning if he could receive diplomatic assurance from that country that he would not be handed over to US authorities.

Predictably the Swedes declined to provide such assurances. Indeed, the reason revealed by a press report in Sweden:
Julian Assange has always been available for questioning in London
When I read the preliminary investigation of Assange's "Sex Crimes" I understand why police and prosecutors did not go to London to question  him. If they did it would close the investigation with the clear conclusion: No Crime!

This entire issue must now be viewed in light of the ongoing Snowden revelations of the ubiquitous global capture of private communications by the National Security Agency and the other extra legal actions by so called US “allies” such as the forcing of a Bolivian presidential aircraft to land and be searched in Austria on the suspicion that the whistleblower/fugitive Snowden might be aboard.

The latest brouhaha was based on the fact that the NSA has been spying on senior German and French officials. These German and French officials are fully aware of the spying capacity of the United States government, and especially the NSA. The thought that these revelations are news to foreign leaders is naïve. What is disturbing to the foreign leaders is that their own domestic populations are finding out how subservient the leaders have been to the United States government, and how defenseless all domestic populations really are. It is obvious that if the NSA can spy on Angela Merkel, it can spy on anybody in Germany. [or anywhere else].

 Indeed, one (conspiracy theorist) source has speculated that the chief justice of the US Supreme Court may have been blackmailed into his unexpected decision to uphold the clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare outrage.

Welcome one and all to the ubiquitous police state USSA.