SteveLendmanBlog

Washington's War on Syria

2012-01-29T00:26:00.002-08:00

Washington's War on Syria

by Stephen Lendman

On January 28, Arab League monitors suspended operations in Syria. In early February, they'll decide whether to end them altogether. League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby blamed Assad for "resort(ing) to escalating the military option in complete violation of (his) commitments."

In fact, he's contesting a Western-generated insurgency. League despots support it. They also condoned NATO's Libya war, including massacres too great to ignore.

They back NATO's plan to colonize, occupy and plunder Middle East states, including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran, as well as ongoing atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and elsewhere in the region.

On December 26, Arab League observers began monitoring Syrian cities. Sudanese General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi led them. Instead of delivering the goods as planned, he called Assad "cooperative."

Ergo, end the mission. Initiate Plan B.

At issue is regime change and isolating Iran, not democracy and peace. America deplores both and won't tolerate them at home or abroad.

After ravaging Libya and toppling Gaddafi, Syria was next. For months, Western-backed insurgents killed thousands. No one knows how many. UN estimates lack credibility by pointing fingers the wrong way.

Washington wants Assad vilified, delegitimized, weakened and toppled. Tactics include violence, propaganda, and attempts to pass Security Council measures, inching closer to intervention. More on that below.

Whether Assad survives is uncertain. So far he's hanging on resiliently. Nonetheless, the State Department calls him "dead man walking," and Syria's Muslim Brotherhood expects him out in months. In fact, Israel's Ehud Barak thinks in weeks. Don't bet on it.

For now, he successfully resisted Western efforts to topple him with Russian, Chinese, and internal popular support. Syria's military is also strong and supportive. Loyalists run it with much to gain by standing fast, not yielding to opposition pressure. In contrast, so-called Free Syrian Army ranks are weak by comparison.

In addition, anti-Assad elements are divided and disorganized. Internal National Coordination Body for Democratic Change ones oppose foreign intervention and conflict. They want grievances settled politically and diplomatically.

In contrast, Turkey-based Syrian National Council (SNC) officials support it. They claim Syria's situation replicates Libya's. They also represent Western imperialism against the rights and interests of most Syrians.

Nonetheless, they're also internally split, unable to agree on a common agenda. Many don't trust SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun. Some call him authoritarian for unilaterally wanting SNC/NCB unity.

So far, Western and/or regional states haven't directly intervened. Whether that continues is uncertain. The longer Assad holds on, the greater the pressure to do so. Behind the scenes, Washington, rogue NATO allies and Israel seek ways to replicate Libya's model, either alone using regional proxies and/or by direct NATO intervention. The situation remains tense.

Strong Russian/Chinese Opposition

So far, Russia and China firmly oppose intervention. As a result, Western Security Council resolutions failed. Russia's against a new draft. On January 27, Itar Tass headlined, "Western draft resolution on Syria in UN SC unacceptable for Russia," saying:

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Russia won't support it. It "almost does not take into account our position," he said. "The document lacks key aspects, which are essential for us."

At issue is preventing military intervention and assuring UN Charter provisions aren't violated. It's also about vague language like in Resolution 1973 against Libya, smoothing the way to war. It says "additional measures will be considered" if Assad doesn't comply.

What measures, asked Gatilov? As a result, he said the "current draft resolution is unacceptable for us."

Washington rejected Russia's draft. It focuses on "the need to launch political negotiations between the government and opposition...." It also stresses ending violence.

RIA Novosti quoted Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin saying:

"I made it clear that we, the Russian delegation, did not see that draft as a basis on which we can agree." However, it "doesn't mean that we refuse to engage."

Specifically, he's concerned about similarities to Washington's October resolution Russia and China vetoed. Its language potentially facilitates a "Libya scenario" both countries reject.

Russia also opposes Washington/EU unilateral sanctions. On January 26, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow will "stonewall attempts to gain UN approval...."

Washington's inching closer to direct and/or proxy military intervention. Rogue NATO partners including Turkey, complicit Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, Jordan, and Israel are on board.

Ideas floated include a no-fly zone, a humanitarian corridor between Turkey's Hatay province and Syria, and direct military intervention.

Turkey's involved in sponsoring anti-Assad insurgents. Nonetheless, in mid-January, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara will "take a leadership" to prevent "a religious, sectarian, racial war." Perhaps he means by instigating more conflict than now.

In mid-January, Obama called Syria's government "unacceptable." He wants Assad "to step aside." On December 21, a White House Press Secretary statement said:

"....the only way to bring about the change that the Syrian people deserve is for Bashar al-Assad to leave power....The United States is deeply disturbed by credible reports that (his) regime continues to indiscriminately kill scores of civilians and army defectors....Time and again, the Assad regime has demonstrated that it does not deserve to rule Syria."

No matter that most Syrians support Assad. In addition, Washington notoriously backs some of the world's worst despots, while America's making enemies faster than friends.

Syria's targeted to install a pro-Western government and isolate Iran. Russia, China and other key countries oppose it. Nonetheless, New York Times writer Ellen Barry says few "world capitals" support Assad.

For months, numerous Times editorials vilified him, stopping just short of advocating war. If Western invention follows, Times' support is assured. In contrast, Vladimir Putin's strongly against.

Notably, he accused Washington of "want(ing) to control everything" and make other countries "vassals." He also cited America's "missile defense" system targeting Russia, saying:

Obama officials aren't "prepared to cooperate on equal terms either with Europe or us. Cooperation....means determining threats together and working out a system of response to them together. They flatly reject that."

They also reject peace. The business of America is war, permanent wars, plundering one nation after another for wealth, power, and dominance while homeland needs go begging. Opposition governments are targeted for regime change.

A Final Comment

Obama's America's latest warrior president. He spurns peace to fuel conflicts. He supports preemptive wars, using first-strike nuclear and other terror weapons "to keep the American people safe (and advance) the nation's values and ideals."

Unstated, they include unchallengeable global/space dominance, ruling by intimidation and war, and making the world safe for capital.

As a result, America's permanent war doctrine threatens humanity. No matter. It doesn't stop deranged officials from pursuing it - Republicans and Democrats.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Targeting Iranian Nationals

2012-01-29T00:26:00.001-08:00

Targeting Iranian Nationals - by Stephen Lendman

Washington's first regime change priority is Syria. At issue is isolating Iran. Then devoting full attention to replacing its current government with a pro-Western one.

At the same time, covert war's raged against Tehran for years. Destabilization tactics include fake accusations, political and economic sanctions, isolation, covert and direct confrontation, cyberwar, targeted assassinations, and other provocations short of war - so far.

Everything tried so far failed. Oil sanctions won't fare better. EU countries imposing it shot themselves in the foot. Sensible ones won't go along. Major ones like China, Russia, India and Brazil reject them. Expect Japan, South Korea and others to follow at least partially.

The more America goes rogue, the fewer allies it retains. Eventually perhaps they'll be none besides its Israeli/UK axis of evil partners and some Middle East despots.

With Washington, they're involved in funding and arming anti-Syrian insurgents. They also support America's latest outrage. Press TV announced it, saying:

"The United States has arrested and charged an Iranian semiconductor scientist for buying high-tech US lab equipment, a development likely to further worsen Iranian-US relations."

On January 26, AP offered more details headlining, "Documents show US has arrested Iranian scientist," saying:

Seyed Mojtaba Atarodi was charged "with violating US export laws...." He's a Sharif University of Technology Assistant Professor and microchip expert.

He authored or co-authored dozens of microchip technology scientific papers, none military related.

Prison records show he's held at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Dublin, CA. near San Francisco. The prison's web site calls it "a low security facility housing female offenders" with "an adjacent administrative detention facility (for) adult males on holdover or pre-trial status...."

On January 26, San Francisco federal district court held Atarodi's bond hearing. Proceedings were closed except for attorneys and family members. Friends said he was detained on December 7 after arriving in Los Angeles by air.

Charges against him are sealed. Justice Department officials won't discuss them. An unnamed Sharif University spokesman said it involves buying ordinary US instruments available to anyone without a license. He spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid possible repercussions, adding:

"The fact of the matter is that he was just a professor, and he was trying to buy some equipment for his lab, and the equipment was very, very simple, ridiculously simple stuff that anybody can buy."

The arrest follows Washington's familiar pattern. Atarodi committed no crime. He's now victimized by the Obama's war on Iran.

Following a brief hearing, his family said he'll be released on bail, subject to electronic monitoring. In part, it's for medical reasons. In the past 14 months, he suffered two heart attacks, a stroke, and underwent two heart surgeries.

His attorney, Matthew David Kohn, said he's been treated well in custody. He also believes prosecutors "meticulously" built their case against an innocent man. He came to Los Angeles for medical treatment from his brother's cardiologist.

Arresting Iranians for alleged embargo violations is rare. It shows how far Washington's willing to go to antagonize Iran, hoping perhaps for retaliation it can use as pretext to incite conflict.

Iranian scientists, especially nuclear ones, are central figures in America's destabilization plans. Former Sharif University vice chancellor Fredun Hojabri, now living in America, said longstanding US/Iranian friction causes problems for them.

He cited a 2006 incident involving over 50 Iranian researchers, engineers and executives. En route to a Santa Clara, CA disaster management forum, they were detained and deported because their visas were revoked. A Sharif University alumni group organized the event.

America not only plays hardball, it plays dirty. Innocent people suffer, especially Muslims falsely accused of terrorism, terrorist related charges, or other bogus ones like what Atoradi faces. Hopefully he'll weather the storm, be free and allowed to go home.

A Final Comment

In June 2006, Iranian American Seyed Mousavi's ordeal began when FBI and IRS agents raided his home and confronted him and his family at gunpoint. Though not imprisoned, he was hounded for months.

In August 2007, things came to a head. After early morning prayers, he was arrested outside his mosque and bogusly charged with six felony counts under the catch-all International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Though spurious and malicious, he was accused of doing business illegally with a Kuwaiti company linked to two Iranian ones, establishing an Iranian bank and leasing company, filing false tax returns, impeding tax collections, and illegally securing citizenship by falsifying information under oath.

Though innocent of all charges, in April 2008, he was convicted for violating America's Iran embargo, omitting group membership information on naturalization forms, and income tax evasion.

Imprisoned, he was denied all rights, isolated without reason, dehumanized and punished for being a Muslim in America at the wrong time from the wrong country.

This time, justice was only delayed. In January 2010, Mousavi was released. He still awaited a Ninth District Court of Appeals decision pertaining to immigration charges. On May 5, 2010 it came, overturning a lower court's conviction. His web site Free Seyed Mousavi announced the news, saying:

"Seyed Mahmood Mousavi is a free man and as a result of the reversal, continues to be a legal citizen of the United States."

He and his family "sincerely thank (everyone) for (their) continued support" throughout his ordeal. Justice in the end prevailed. Others aren't as lucky.

As a result, they wrongfully languish in US prison hellholes for their faith, ethnicity and nationality, not any crimes they committed.

Mousavi's a free man to explain it. He's also someone this writer knows, admires, wrote about, and discussed on air.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA

2012-01-28T00:24:00.001-08:00

ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA - by Stephen Lendman

Internet freedom's on the line. SOPA and PIPA threatened Net Neutrality and free expression. So does ACTA. More on it below.

For now, the largest online protest in Internet history got Congress to abandon SOPA and PIPA but not permanently. Expect resurrection in modified form. Language may change but not intent. ACTA's worse.

Launched on October 23, 2007, America, the EU, Switzerland and Japan began secretly negotiating a new intellectual property enforcement treaty - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Other nations got involved, including Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Singapore, and the UAE. Ostensibly for counterfeit goods protection, it's about fast-tracking Internet distribution and information technology rules at the expense of Net Neutrality, privacy, and personal freedoms.

It establishes unrestricted supranational global trade rules. In the process, it tramples on national sovereignty and personal freedoms. Moreover, negotiations were secret until WikiLeaks reported in May 2008:

"If adopted, (ACTA) would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information."

"The proposal also bans 'anti-circumvention measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime." Those opting out face retaliatory measures.

On April 22, 2010, Electronic Frontier Foundation writer Gwen Hinze headlined, "Preliminary Analysis of the Officially Released ACTA Text," saying:

"The text (leaves no doubt) that ACTA is not just about counterfeiting." It's far more. It covers copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property forms, including the Internet.

It's also about the ability of users to "communicate, collaborate and create" freely. In addition, it imposes obligations (on) Internet intermediaries (and), requir(es) them to police" cyberspace and its users. As a result, it raises serious questions about open affordable access, free expression, personal privacy, and "fair use rights."

On May 27, 2011, the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) said the European Commission published a final ACTA text with few changes from its last known version. Since introduced, major media scoundrels reported little about its destructive provisions.

Last October, Washington, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed ACTA. US deputy trade representative Mariam Sapiro hailed the occasion, saying:

"As with many of the challenges we face in today's global economy, no government can single-handedly eliminate the problem of global counterfeiting and piracy. Signing this agreement is therefore an act of shared leadership and determination in the international fight against intellectual property theft."

Public Knowledge attorney Rashmi Rangnath called the deal the Obama administration's "attempt to foist US law on other countries."

It also broke another candidate Obama promise to "(s)upporte the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

In fact, doing so lawlessly circumvented Congress. On October 1, 2011, Obama acted by "executive agreement." He falsely claimed ACTA's not a treaty requiring Senate approval. Constitutional issues remain unresolved.

By law, executive agreements apply only to sole presidential authority issues. Treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds Senate supermajority. As a result, a circulating petition demands Senate consideration. By February 21, 25,000 are needed. So far, thousands are recorded. Dozens of legal scholars support it.

So far, the administration's stonewalling. It's circumventing the law like it always does and breaking a campaign pledge in the process. Post-SOPA/PIPA, Obama diktat authority rammed it through illegally.

In contrast, the Mexican Senate rejected it in a non-binding resolution. On January 26, Poland's Japan ambassador, Jadwiga Rodowicz-Czechowska, signed it. It's yet to pass parliament.

Public anger raged across the country against it. The hacktivist group Anonymous targeted signatory countries' official web sites. It threatened to reveal sensitive information about officials in countries passing it.

Anti-ACTA sentiment affected Poland's parliament. Opposition MPs wore masks to reflect their refusal to back it. Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he'll submit the treaty to parliament and sign it provided "the government is sure Polish law guarantees freedom on the Internet...."

On January 26, infojustice.org headlined, "EU Signs ACTA, But Treaty Remains in Doubt," saying:

The European Parliament (EP) has final say. Consideration begins late February or early March. Committee voting follows in April or May. In June, Parliament decides.

After SOPA and PIPA's derailing, expect a close vote.

On January 23, 2012, FFII headlined, "EP (European Parliament) legal service consistently overlooks known issues with ACTA," saying:

In a letter to members of the European Parliament, FFII said:

"The legal service fails to see major issues with damages, injunctions and provisional, border and criminal measures. The legal service consistently overlooks known issues." Clearly, "ACTA goes beyond current EU law, the acquis."

According to FFII's Ante Wessels:

"ACTA will negatively impact innovation, start up companies, mass digitization projects, access to medicines and Internet governance. ACTA threatens the rule of law and fundamental rights."

FFII asked Parliament to reject ACTA. Issues cited included:

(1) Violating EU law.

(2) Unjustifiably discriminating. Threatens access to generic drugs and local foods.

(3) Criminalizes "everyday computer use." Liability extends to private individuals, newspapers, web sites, office workers forwarding files or documents, and whistleblowers revealing information in the public interest.

(4) Civil measures also apply to the digital environment. ACTA pressures ISPs to preemptively censor online communications. It also "incites privatized enforcement outside the rule of law."

"The ARTICLE 19 organization" said ACTA's "fundamentally flawed from a freedom of expression and information perspective. If enacted, it will greatly endanger the free-flow of information and the free exchange of ideas, particularly on the internet."

(5) Endangering public health by restricting access to medicines. It cracks down on generic drugs, makes food patents more extreme, enforces global standards on seed patents, empowers agribusiness, and threatens small farms and food independence.

(6) Global pricing and cultural life issues aren't addressed.

(7) Violates Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), stating:

"The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles (of) democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms...."

Negotiations were conducted secretly. Civil society, public interest groups, and legislatures were entirely shut out. Major decisions were made extralegally. They violate established laws and fundamental freedoms.

On December 27, 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said:

ACTA threatens personal and digital freedoms. It creates an extralegal "global IP enforcement institution to oversee its implementation." It turns ISPs into enforcers.

The agreement requires signatories "promote cooperative efforts within the business community" on issues regarding copyright and trademark infringement.

As a result, Internet access, censoring, and lost freedom may result.

"ACTA suffocates collaborative creativity and innovation, and less explicitly, but just as gravely, threatens free speech through provisions that may lead to Internet access restrictions for the 'sake' of combating 'imminent violation' of intellectual property laws."

Worst of all, secret negotiations facilitate similarly drafted future international agreements, benefitting powerful interests at the expense of personal freedoms. For ACTA, heavy-handed Washington pressure forced through draconian provisions.

Civil society organizations are outraged. In addition, some nations exposed gross political treachery in back-room dealmaking. For example, Brazil called ACTA "illegitimate." The Dutch Parliament refused to consider it. India strongly opposes it. So do other emerging economies saying it stifles their development.

Other nations are undecided. They all have until May 2013 to vote up or down. As a result, Washington's exerting immense pressure to bring opponents on board.

EFF calls back room dealmaking "an affront to a democratic world order." It's committed to work with other anti-ACTA groups to defeat ACTA.

The Inquisitr calls the agreement worse than SOPA and PIPA. It "takes a fairly bland idea - the right of companies to profit from their own intellectual property - and turns it into a governmental power grab and an excuse to weaken" Internet privacy.

La Quadrature du Net (Internet & Libertes) says ACTA "has absolutely no democratic legitimacy." Unelected bureaucrats drafted it. It urges mass actions to defeat it.

A Final Comment

ACTA potentially criminalizes almost anything online. It lets government and corporate predators censor, shut down sites, and prosecute owners if they object to posted content. Imagine the effect on free thought and opinion.

Criticize government or corporate lawlessness and be silenced behind bars. That's why stopping ACTA is crucial. SOPA and PIPA outrage was round one. ACTA's the main event.

A truth emergency exists. So far, it's mostly below the radar. Exposing it widely is crucial. Now's the time to act before it's too late.

Internet freedom's on the chopping block for elimination unless mass public outrages stops it. EFF cites other plurilateral deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). It's more draconian than ACTA.

Secret negotiations again drafted it. Bureaucrats alone were involved. Civil society, public interest groups, and lawmakers had no say.

Internet freedom's on the line. The stakes are immense. Jefferson understood by saying that:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Now's the time to assure it doesn't happen. Spread the word! Mobilize! Agitate! Involve Congress! Stop this monster! It's our Internet! Get in the fight to save it!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Forecasting Economic Decline

2012-01-28T00:22:00.001-08:00

Forecasting Economic Decline

by Stephen Lendman

Economic analyst Harry Dent's 2009 book, titled "The Great Depression Ahead" became a national bestseller. He predicted the current crisis and worse ahead.

His new book, co-authored with Rodney Johnson, predicts "The Great Crash Ahead." He calls it inevitable and sees protracted trouble worse than 2008. It's coming between 2012 and 2014 he believes.

In 1992, he correctly forecast the decade's economic/stock market surge in his book titled, "The Great Boom Ahead." He's now Dr. Doom, predicting harder than ever hard times. He blames sharply falling incomes and aging Boomers among other factors.

He may or may not be right. He called the 1990s boom accurately but wrongly thought Dow values would reach 40,000. Now he sees massive money creation buying time but little else. Housing crashed. Major banks are dead. He calls Europe a "retirement community in debt."

He forecasts "economic winter" and advises:

avoid chasing short-term gains;

stress capital preservation;

choose high quality income streams;

pay down debt sooner, not later;

rent, don't buy; and

keep your day job until promising alternatives arrive.

Recent IMF and World Bank forecasts also spell trouble.

On January 18, the World Bank's Global Economic Prospects said world economies teeter "on the brink of another major decline" with "anemic growth" at best through 2013.

Predicting "significantly downgraded" prospects from months earlier, it warned that '"the world economy has entered a dangerous period" as Eurozone turmoil spreads globally.

"The downturn in Europe and the slow growth in developing countries could reinforce one another more than is anticipated, (causing) further complicating efforts to restore market confidence."

Moreover, "the medium-term challenge represented by high debts and slow trend growth in other high-income countries has not been resolved and could trigger sudden adverse shocks."

It calls world growth less than 3% recession. Europe's already experiencing it, and high-income countries are expected to grow only 1.4%, signaling decline. Moreover, given unaddressed excesses, greater trouble than 2008 is possible "on both sides of the Atlantic...."

In other words, despite massive money creation, nothing's been resolved. In fact, conditions now are worse than when trouble began. For the moment, they're contained by throwing money at them.

That only works so long. Longer-term, it's a losing strategy doomed to fail, especially as unemployment rises, wages and benefits fall, safety net protections erode, public anger grows, and politicians offer no solutions.

The IMF's nearly as glum. It's predicting 3.3% growth in 2012, down 0.7% from months earlier. It also warned about "intensifying strains in the euro area" and fragilities elsewhere. They suggest "weaker underlying growth" ahead.

"(D)ownside risks (have) risen sharply," especially from "the intensification of adverse feedback loops between sovereign and banking pressures in the euro area."

The combination of high bond rates, massive debt levels, eroding consumer purchasing power, and troubled banks pressure governments to help. Moreover, Europe's trouble assures spillover.

Overall, the IMF sees the "current environment - characterized by fragile financial systems, high public deficits and debt, and (short) interest rates close to the zero bound - provides fertile ground for self-perpetuating pessimism and the propagation of adverse shock, the most critical of which is the worsening of the crisis in the euro area."

But trouble there spreads it everywhere. Unless "healing" occurs, a "1930s moment may arrive....where trust and cooperation break down and countries turn inward. (A) downward spiral....engulf(ing) the world" could result.

Meanwhile, China's slowing. Japan's in recession, and Europe's sickest of all. It's sinking while real Japanese GDP is expected to contract by 0.4% in the year ending March 2012. Headwinds may force down the Bank of Japan's 2% 2013 growth forecast because of protracted economic weakness.

New McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) Report

Titled, "Debt and Deleveraging: Uneven Progress on the Path to Growth," it suggests systemic unresolved problems.

It calls deleveraging begun in 2008 "proving to be long and painful." Moreover, it's "in its early stages in most countries." In fact, debt's risen in the "ten largest mature economies....due mainly to rising government debt." It exploded but MGI glossed over a major problem getting worse, not better.

Among the world's 10 largest economies, debt increased by $7.8 trillion. In fact, it's more because information’s suppressed. US household debt shrunk $584 billion (or 4%) since 2008. Home mortgage defaults accounted for up to 80% of the total. Jingle mail's been heavy and promises to increase.

Historical precedence suggests years more deleveraging to go. When it ends, US consumers "won't be as powerful an engine of global growth as they were before the crisis." Why? Because excess mortgage refinancing is gone. It added $2.2 trillion in spending power.

In its mid-January report, the Bank of Canada was just as glum, saying:

Europe's recession is "expected to last longer and be somewhat deeper than anticipated." B of C blamed tight credit and fiscal austerity reducing consumer purchasing power.

Modest US growth is expected at best. At issue is "ongoing household deleveraging, fiscal consolidation, and negative spillover" from Europe's crisis.

So far, fallout from Europe's crisis "has consisted mostly of a general retrenchment of risk-taking. (Ahead), the impact is expected to become more widespread (in) the form of increased funding pressures, adverse confidence effects and reduced availability of credit."

Europe and US bank deleveraging will reduce credit and restrain investment. Yearend 2011 baseline trend in real GDP was 1.6%. B of C sees Europe's crisis erasing half of it. It suggests rosy scenario forecasts are misguided.

Both McKinsey and B of C explain that today's environment is far different than any experienced since the 1930s. Other post-WW II recessions were short and shallow during decades of secular credit expansion. No longer.

Noted investor/market analyst Jeremy Grantham explains that positive market conditions unleash "animal spirits." They're carried to extremes using credit as fuel.

Trouble always follows. Every bubble bursts. On the upside, markets overshoot and do the same coming down. They mean reverse and then some. It happens every time. In fact, the more extreme going up, the greater the fall.

Grantham calls it a "principal truth....(W)e live in a mean-reverting world in investing. (A)ll bubbles eventually burst." The most recent occurred in 2000 in America. It's second phase began in fall 2007 and remains ongoing.

Secular market declines always feature sharp rallies. The overall trend doesn't end until a final mean-reversed bottom based on sustained better prospects. Achieving that benchmark's years away.

Economist David Rosenberg agrees, saying the "multi-decade debt boom....will take years to mean revert." McKinsey said deleveraging's got a long way to go. Moreover, when governments and business act together, powerful headwinds risk crashing economies.

The seeds of trouble are planted. No one knows when they'll sprout. Often it's when least expected. It's why Rosenberg says market upswings should be rented, not owned.

Progressive Radio News Hour regular Bob Chapman believes the euro is living on borrowed time. France's April presidential election could be decisive. If Sarkozy loses (he trails in recent polls), "the euro is history and perhaps the EU as well."

French and German voters want their currencies back. "They want change." Their citizens "no longer want the euro and all the responsibilities (and headaches) that go with it."

At the same time, dollar supremacy is threatened by other countries trading bilaterally in their own. China, Japan, Russia, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and many others do it. At issue is long-term dollar decline and eventual loss of its world reserve currency status.

The implications are immense. With dollar supremacy comes power. It fuels investment, speculation, corporate takeovers, imperial wars, and America's ability to influence global policies.

Replace the dollar with another currency and things change. It won't happen soon but bears watching. Chapman believes its dethroning is happening. "Over time, the US dollar will lose its preeminent position." China's yuan and Japan's yen will strengthen. If the euro fades as Chapman expects, they'll be more important.

"Without a euro, the dollar" faces greater pressure. It's "acted as a blocker and cover for the dollar," but that's ending.

So is America's century. It's ebbing as China rises, Washington makes more adversaries than friends, and eventually perhaps they have none except their axis of evil partners Israel and Britain. It can't happen a moment too soon.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Torture and Abuse in Libya

2012-01-27T06:14:00.001-08:00

Torture and Abuse in Libya - by Stephen Lendman

NATO's alleged "responsibility to protect" was subterfuge. Months of terror bombings left Libya a charnel house.

Africa's most developed country was ravaged. Tens of thousands were killed, multiples more injured, and millions left on their own sink or swim.

When is war not war? It's when mass killing and destruction are called the right thing. It's also when terrorizing and traumatizing an entire population goes unaddressed.

Add horrific torture to other crimes and abuses, according to Amnesty International (AI), Doctors Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch (HRW).

In its World Report 2012: Libya, HRW said:

Post-Gaddafi prison conditions are "sub-standard, with overcrowding, inadequate food and water, and consistent reports about abuse, including beatings (and) use of electric shock."

Investigator Sidney Kwiram said HRW documented "ongoing torture" used "to force confessions or for punishment."

HRW left unaddressed that most held are pro-Gaddafi political prisoners. Doing so is lawless repression. It's also more proof of NATO and its puppet NTC regime's contempt for human rights.

On January 26, AI headlined, "Libya: Deaths of detainees amid widespread torture," saying:

Libyan detainees are tortured and abused. As a result, some died. Victims are pro-Gaddafi loyalists. AI met detainees "in and around Tripoli, Misrata and Gheryan."

Torture marks were visible, including "open wounds on the head, limbs, back and other parts of the body."

It's inflicted "by officially recognized military and security entities as well as a multitude of armed militias operating outside any legal framework."

AI knows international law prohibits torture and abuse committed by any authority at all times, under all conditions with no allowed exceptions. Nonetheless, it didn't explain.

AI's Donatell Rovera called it "horrifying to find that there has been no progress to stop the use of torture. We are not aware of any proper investigations into (these cases), and neither the survivors or relatives of those who have died in detention have had any recourse to justice or redress for what they have suffered."

"While many detainees have described their experiences of torture to us, some have proved too scared to speak - fearing harsher torture" by doing so. Instead, they just showed their wounds.

They came from being "suspended in contorted positions, beaten for hours with whips, cables, plastic hoses, metal chains and bars and wooden sticks, and given electric shocks with live wires and Taser-like electro-shock weapons."

Injuries AI saw confirmed detainee testimonies. So did medical reports. Suspected pro-Gaddafi loyalists and Black African foreign workers are affected. NTC authorities and armed militias are responsible.

Victims confess to stop pain. They have no legal representation. One Misrata detainee told AI:

"This morning they took me for interrogation upstairs. Five men in plain clothes took turns beating and whipping me....They suspended me from the top of the door by my wrists for about an hour and kept beating me. They also kicked me."

Another said he was beaten on wounds sustained weeks earlier and added:

"Yesterday they beat me with electric cables while my hands were cuffed behind my back and my feet were bound together. They threatened to send me back to the militia (that) captured me, who would kill me."

Others died from torture-inflicted injuries. Deep bruises and open wounds confirmed it.

Despite AI's requests for months, NTC authorities "failed to conduct effective investigations into cases of torture and suspicious deaths in custody."

Moreover, the "police and judiciary remain dysfunctional across the country." AI's Donatella Rovera said there's been "a complete failure on the part of those in power to take concrete steps to end torture and other ill-treatment of detainees and to hold those accountable responsible for such crimes."

On January 26, a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) press release headlined, "Libya: Detainees Tortured and Denied Medical Care," saying:

MSF confirmed torture and abuse against Misrata detainees. They're also denied "urgent medical care." As a result, MSF suspended operations.

Since August 2011, they treated Misrata's war-wounded detainees. "Since then, (they observed) injuries caused by torture during interrogation sessions." They treated 115 cases. They informed Misrata authorities. "Since January, several of the patients returned to interrogation centers were again tortured."

"Some officials (tried) to exploit and obstruct MSF's medical work," according to general director Christopher Stokes.

"Patients were brought to us in the middle of the interrogation for medical care, in order to make them fit for further interrogation. This is unacceptable. Our role is to provide medical care to war casualties and sick detainees, not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture sessions."

Responsibility belongs to Libya's National Army Security Service. It conducts interrogations. They prevented MSF from treating detainees requiring "urgent and specialized" hospitalization care.

Instead they were interrogated again and tortured. On January 9, MSF addressed the Misrata Military Council, the Misrata Security Committee, the National Army Security Service, and the Misrata Local Civil Council "demanding an immediate stop to any form of ill treatment of detainees."

Nothing was done, said Stokes. Torture continues. In response, MSF suspended operations, but continues providing mental health services. It's also keep helping Black African workers, refugees, and those internally displaced around Tripoli.

MSF's performed medical services in Libya since February 2011. Under NATO/NTC-imposed conditions, it's no longer able to treat torture and war-wounded victims by providing emergency care, surgeries, and orthopedic follow-up treatment.

A Final Comment

Libya was developed and peaceful until NATO arrived on cruise missiles, bombs, shells, other munitions, depleted and enriched uranium, other terror weapons, fifth column infiltrators, media liars, and other rogue tactics.

It's another imperial trophy to colonize, plunder and exploit. State-sponsored terror continues. Human misery is incalculable.

Libyans wanting to live free are vulnerable. Keep their freedom flame alive no matter how NATO monsters try to destroy it.

We're all Libyans now! Their struggle is ours! It better be because our turn may be next!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Selling War

2012-01-27T00:30:00.000-08:00

Selling War

by Stephen Lendman

Throughout its history, America glorified wars in the name of peace. From inception, they're perpetuated against one or more domestic or foreign adversaries.

They include mass killing, assaults and abuse. Pacifism's called sissy or unpatriotic. Propaganda insists America's peace-loving. In fact, more than ever today, it's addicted to permanent war and violence.

Nonetheless, initiating them requires public support. Famed US journalist Walter Lippmann coined the phrase "manufacture of consent." It's a euphemism for mind control.

In 1917, George Creel first used it successfully to turn pacifist Americans into raging German-haters. It works the same way now. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was reelected on a pledge of: "He Kept Us Out of War." Straightaway, he began planning US involvement.

In April 1917, he established the Committee on Public Information (CPI or Creel Committee). It operated through August 1919. Its mission was enlisting public support for war and undermining opposition sentiment.

Corporate America was so impressed, it recruited Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. He became a PR/propaganda pioneer. His 1928 book titled "Propaganda" said it's possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies."

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?"

He called the technique the "engineering of consent." He invented the press release. One of his most successful campaigns involved convincing women to smoke in public when it was considered taboo. He pursuaded business that news, not advertising, best manipulates public opinion.

He drew on Freudian psychoanalytic ideas. In an age of mass production, he believed techniques were needed to distribute ideas the same way. On behalf of United Fruit, his propaganda campaign helped overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman.

His pioneering PR techniques got Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter to describe him and Ivy Lee as "professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of foolishness, fanaticism and self-interest."

In his 1947 book titled, "The Engineering of Consent," he called it "the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest." In fact, it's used manipulatively more for ill, than good, especially in selling war.

Australian-born social psychologist Alex Carey helped pioneer the study of corporate propaganda. His seminal work is titled, "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty."

He said "The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

Using Deception to Launch Wars

Coalition to Oppose Arms Trade coordinator Richard Sanders said:

"Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is so crucial (to wage war), the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major first step in constructing public support...."

"The corporate media (are) central to the success of" manufacturing consent. So is repetition to blot out other narratives. Media giants and PR wizards are master mind manipulators, marshaling public support for war.

It works the same way every time. Truth is suppressed. Public fear is stoked. Patriotism and democratic values are highlighted. People are manipulated to support war to protect national security. Wilson claimed entering WW I "kept the world safe for democracy."

During the WW II buildup, anti-war proponents were called subversives and Nazi sympathizers. Once begun, anti-German/Italian/Japanese propaganda censored media and other communications to enlist support. Other techniques included posters, advertising, comic books and cartoons, leaflets, and films extolling America and portraying the axis as bad guys.

Steven Casey's ground-breaking book titled, "Selling the Korean War: Propaganda, Politics, and Public Opinion in the United States" analyzed Truman and Eisenhower administration efforts to shape public discourse, influence media coverage, and gain popular support for limited conflict and anti-Soviet Cold War policies.

He also showed how Truman officials redefined war as it continued with mounting casualties. His analysis used previously unavailable archives, including government documents, papers of leading congressmen, newspaper editors, and war correspondents. His book's the definitive word on how public opinion was manipulated during America's "forgotten war."

Noam Chomsky calls the Vietnam War "a classic example of America's propaganda system." Major media scoundrels let doves and hawks debate, but "(b)oth sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression," but refused to admit it took place.

America's presence was called defense against enemy aggression. "Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish" a pro-US Saigon regime. Escalation led to invasion. Anti-war activists on principle were banned from public discourse. "The debate was essentially over tactics," not legitimacy.

Over time, anti-war sentiment grew, especially after the January 1968 Tet Offensive and June 1971 Pentagon Papers release. They showed the Johnson administration lied to the public and Congress. Gallup Polls showed 70% of Americans thought Vietnam was "fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake."

Opposition produced the "Vietnam Syndrome." Chomsky called it "a grave disease in the eyes of America's elites because people understand too much."

He also discussed months of propaganda preceding Congress voting on contra aid in March 1986. He reviewed 85 New York Times and Washington Post editorials and op-eds. All were anti-Sandanista. Opposition opinion was suppressed despite Nicaragua directing popular social services in contrast with repressive US allies Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Of course, all wars are based on lies. When major media scoundrels suppress truth, administrations get away with murder.

It was true in Central America, Grenada on the pretext of rescuing medical students, manufactured incidents to oust Panama's Manuel Noreiga, entrapping Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait that launched the Gulf War, 9/11 as pretext to attack Afghanistan and continue a decade of imperial wars against nonbelligerent states.

In April 2007, Washington Post writer Tom Shales headlined, "A Media Role in Selling the War? No Question," saying:

"It's always depressing to learn that you've been had, but incalculably more so when the deception has resulted in thousands of Americans dying in the Iraq war effort" based on lies.

As in all wars, the more people rely on television for news, the less they know, and more susceptible they become to government and media propaganda.

In their book, "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq," Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber showed how manipulative propaganda sold the public on war.

Combining PR and media deception, Operation: Iraqi Freedom was created. Deconstructing the process, they showed how top Bush officials planned war prior to his election, but waited until September 2002 for "product launch" to inform the public.

Using 'big lie" tactics, they associated Saddam with 9/11, forged documents to allege WMDs, and worked secretly to create the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC). The PR Rendon Group coined the term. It got millions in funding and worked closely with CIA operatives. It became a driving force for war.

"Weapons of Mass Deception" exposed how aggressive PR and manipulative media convince people to go along with policies harming their interests.

The Pentagon's very much involved. It spends half a billion dollars selling wars. Truth's suppressed doing it. Lies launch them and continue throughout conflicts. Anti-Syrian and Iranian rhetoric replicates what preceded attacking Iraq and Libya.

On January 16, Russia Today (RT.com) reported how major media scoundrels incite war on Iran. Appearing regularly on US television, hardline figures push it. Alternative voices are shut out.

Warmongering’s constant. On-air voices cheerlead it. Slanted news shuts out truth. Former MSNBC producer Jeff Cohen said pressure was constant to support war in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

A Final Comment

Things remain the same. Deceptive reports manipulate the public mind on Syria and Iran. "There is no doubt that the mainstream media are crucial in this idea of selling that the US is going to be in a perpetual war."

They're key in making Americans believe military intervention is vital. Robert Parry said:

"I've worked at Newsweek as well (as AP) and other major US news organizations. And what I saw, especially at places like Newsweek, was this idea that the media was actually part of the establishment. It was that the American people were to be guided more than informed."

In fact, "political solutions" are alien to America's vocabulary. War profiteers demand jingoism. A century ago people were manipulated to accept war with Cuba. William Randolph Hearst hyped the big lie about Spain sinking the battleship Maine when, in fact, a coal bunker explosion did it.

Hearst, however, told his Havana illustrator: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war." To this day, lies launch them. They're all based on lies to get people to go along with what wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Profile of a Rogue State

2012-01-27T00:28:00.001-08:00

Profile of a Rogue State

by Stephen Lendman

America's unmatched globally. However, pound for pound, based on size, its policies, and regional threat, Israel stands out.

Daily, its crimes against humanity continue. On January 23, Jerusalem police arrested two Palestinian officials, Khaled Abu Arafeh and Mohammed Totah.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said both men were wanted for unspecified "Hamas activities" with no further comment.

Hamas, of course, is Palestine's legitimate government. Israel and America spuriously call it a terrorist organization. Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri said arresting both men was a "Zionist crime." Palestine's parliament hasn't functioned since Hamas and Fatah split in 2007.

Both men were arrested at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Sheikh Jarrah offices. For the past 18 months, they sought refuge there protesting Israel's illegal deportation orders after their ID cards were revoked.

Abu Arafah served as Hamas minister for Jerusalem affairs. Totah's a Hamas PLC representative. Months earlier, Hamas legislator Mahmoud Atoun was arrested. He also sought ICRC refuge.

Hamas parliamentarians are repeatedly targeted. Around two dozen remain imprisoned. Twenty are uncharged under administrative detention. At one time, 40 Hamas PLC members were lawlessly incarcerated for belonging to the wrong party, not any crimes they committed.

On January 19, Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Aziz Dweik was arrested for alleged terrorist connections. Despite a thinly veiled lie, a military court on January 24 ordered him detained uncharged for six months.

On January 20, lawmaker Khaled Tafesh was arrested and detained at Ofer Prison.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned Israel's actions. It called them "a plan to undermine the results of the (January 2006) Palestinian legislative elections (and) to abort the Palestinian reconciliations efforts."

PCHR also called them Fourth Geneva-prohibited collective punishment. It demanded immediate release of those held, strongly condemned storming ICRC's office, and said doing so violated international humanitarian law.

Israel falsely claimed ICRC's office has no diplomatic status, making it fair game for Israeli lawlessness.

Israel's War on Hamas

On January 25, Jerusalem Post writer Khaled Abu Toameh headlined, "Israel has declared war on Hamas in West Bank," saying:

In the past few days alone, five Hamas PLC members were arrested. "Early Tuesday, IDF soldiers arrested Abdel Jabbar Fukaha, a Hamas legislator, in Ramallah and confiscated documents, a laptop and mobile phones from his home."

His wife said their son Mujahed was summoned to appear Sunday for interrogation. After serving a four-month sentence, Fukaha was released from Israeli prison in February 2011.

"In a related development, Hamas legislators in Tulkarm said on Tuesday that an Israeli security official phoned them and ordered them to close their office immediately. Fathi Qarawi and Riad Raddad said it was the second threat received in the past month."

It's part of an Israeli campaign to destroy Hamas, they believe, adding:

"Israel has declared war on Hamas. But we won’t be deterred and we will continue to fulfill our duties.”

Hamas leaders believe Israel's trying to sabotage reconciliation with Fatah and foil planned May parliamentary and presidential elections. It wouldn't be the first time strong-arm Israeli tactics subverted Palestinian elections and other legitimate activities.

Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri denounced Israeli's scheme, saying:

"Israel thinks that the arrests will destroy Hamas' chances of winning the elections. On the contrary, these measures will only increase (our) popularity."

He also called on human rights organizations to intervene and pressure Israel to release lawlessly detained “legislators who were elected by the people in a democratic vote.”

Lawless Home Demolitions, Land Theft and Dispossessions

Among other rogue policies, home demolitions and land theft define Israeli repression. On January 23, East Anata's bedouin compound was bulldozed and destroyed for the fifth time.

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) calls it "a living symbol of resistance to Occupation and the desire for justice and peace."

ICAHD's Itay Ephshtain said:

"People are somber, traumatized and grief stricken. Nearly 100 people are out in the elements now on a cold night. Children, babies, mothers, fathers. Some of us from ICAHD did try to block the bulldozer, but were beaten back by soldiers."

In fact, Epshtain was personally beaten and sustained minor injuries.

Called Beit Arabiya, the site was home to Arabiya Shawemreh, her husband Salim and seven children. Their home was previously destroyed four times.

Each time, ICAHD, Palestinians, and international peace activists rebuilt it. Now it's again gone. On January 23 around 11PM, a bulldozer accompanied by soldiers arrived. Beit Arabiya as well as other residential and agricultural structures in Arab al-Jahalin Bedouin compound were destroyed.

Beit Arabiya initially got a demolition order in 1994. At issue was failing to get a building permit on their own land. ICAHD Director Jeff Halper vowed to help Salim and Arabiya rebuild, saying:

"We shall rebuild. We must rebuild forthwith as an act of political defiance of the occupation and protracted oppression of Palestinians."

"ICAHD is as determined as always to rebuild the home, and endure in its struggle to bring about justice and peace."

Salim and Arabiya dedicated their home to Rachael Corrie and Nuha Sweidan. Both women, an American and Palestinian, were murdered resisting Gaza home demolitions.

Weeks earlier on December 6, The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights called on Israel to cease house demolitions, forced evictions, and residency revocations.

ICAHD's publication "No Home, No Homeland" highlights the issue. It estimates about 26,000 Palestinian homes destroyed since June 1967 for "punitive, land clearing/military, and administrative" reasons.

On Occupied Palestinian land, doing so violates international law. Israel spurns it. As a result, Palestinian suffering continues. Women and children are especially affected. Forced displacement further harms them. ICAHD called 2011 a record year.

World leaders turn a blind eye. Israeli officials are green-lighted to commit crimes with impunity. They take full advantage.

Obama's "Ironclad" Commitment

In his January 24 State of the Union address, Obama highlighted his unwavering support, saying:

"Our ironclad commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history."

Among other ways, it's reflected in billions in military aid and regular increased amounts. In August 2007, Bush increased it by $6 billion over the next decade. Despite budget constraints, Obama added more.

In FY 2012 alone, an additional $236 million will help develop three Israeli missile programs: Arrow-2, David's Sling, and Arrow 3. Israel already gets over $3 billion annually, plus unknown add-ons if requested.

"If Americans knew" reports that while Israel gets "at least $8.2 million each day in military aid," Palestinians get zero.

A Final Comment

On January 22, London Guardian writer Harriet Sherwood headlined, "The Palestinian children - alone and bewildered - in Israel's Al Jalame" Prison, saying:

Young children are physically and verbally abused. It's nightmarish. Cell 36 and others like it are "where Palestinian children are locked in solitary confinement for days or even weeks. One 16-year-old" said he'd been isolated for 65 days.

Cells are "barely wider than the thin, dirty mattress that covers the floor. Behind a low concrete wall is a squat toilet, the stench from which has no escape in the windowless room. The rough concrete walls deter idle leaning; the constant overhead light inhibits sleep."

Low-quality food arrives through door flaps, depriving children of human contact. Brutal interrogations break the monotony. Shackled hands and feet to a chair for hours, they're questioned.

Most often, their alleged "crime" is stone-throwing. Most deny doing it. Physical and verbal abuse follow. Many face sleep deprivation exhaustion. "Day after day they are fettered to the chair, then returned to solitary confinement. In the end, many sign confessions" in desperation. Later they say they were coerced.

As many as 700 Palestinian children are arrested annually. Some are 10 or younger. Mistreatment is extreme. Emotional trauma results.

According to Nader Abu Amsha, director of Beit Sahour's YMCA juvenile rehab program:

"(F)amilies think that when (their) child is released, it's the end of the problem. We tell them (it's only) the beginning. You see children who are totally broken. It's painful to see the pain of these children, to see how much they are squeezed by the Israeli system."

It's more evidence of rogue Israeli lawlessness. Imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti told Maan News that conflict and abuses will continue until Israel ends occupation and withdraws to pre-1967 borders.

He believes Palestinian national unity and nonviolent resistance stand the best chance of achieving it.

Barghouti's a prisoner of conscience serving five consecutive life sentences plus 40 years for wanting to live free. Free or imprisoned, he symbolizes hope. Supporters hope he'll be freed one day to lead them.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Obama's Failed State of the Union

2012-01-26T00:54:00.001-08:00

Obama's Failed State of the Union

by Stephen Lendman

It was typical Obama, taking credit for what should be condemned. He's a fraud, a crime boss, a war criminal multiple times over, a moral coward, and serial liar.

His State of the Union address was beginning-to-end doublespeak, duplicity, coverup, and denial of failed policies complicit with Wall Street crooks, war profiteers, and other corporate favorites while popular needs go begging.

Not according to fawning New York Times writers, however. Suppressing truth and full disclosure, Helene Cooper headlined, Obama Speech Makes Pitch for Economic Fairness," saying:

Obama "pledged on Tuesday night to use government power to balance the scale between America's rich and the rest of the public....toward an economy 'built to last' and what he called irresponsible policies of the past that caused economic collapse."

Fact check

Throughout his tenure, Obama transferred trillions of dollars to Wall Street, other corporate favorites, and America's rich already with too much. In the process, he deepened a Main Street Depression. As a result, half of US households are impoverished or bordering on it. Hunger and homelessness grow. Nothing's done to help. Unaddressed human need is incalculable.

Over 25 million remain unemployed. Job creation is nil except for low wage/no benefit temp or part-time ones. Inequality in America is unprecedented. Obama supports austerity when massive stimulus is needed. Rich elites never had it so good at the expense of ordinary people left out.

Obama's Failed State isn’t fit to live in for growing millions.

Nonetheless, an accompanying Times editorial headlined, "The State of the Union in 2012," saying:

"A year ago....we applauded" Obama's plan to "put millions of struggling people to work (and his support for) wrestl(ing) down the deficit (by requiring) the wealthy (to pay) a fairer share of taxes."

Applause continued, ignoring Obama's duplicitous Tuesday address and agenda.

Fact check

It includes imperial wars, tax cuts for the rich, corporate handouts, and austerity for ordinary people losing out.

His America perpetuates permanent wars, disproportionate wealth extremes, spiraling debt, and unaddressed human need.

He ignores growing millions unemployed and impoverished. He cut Medicare for seniors and America's disabled as well as Medicaid for poor and disadvantaged recipients. He left growing millions of students debt entrapped, many for life.

He's destroying Middle America. His latest proposal involves looting pension funds to enrich mortgage lenders. Yet he's packaging fraud as a boon to ordinary people. It's typical Obama - say one thing, do another.

Nonetheless, major media scoundrels applaud. As a result, they're part of the problem, not the solution.

The editorial highlighted Obama's "achievements" and plans. It ignored his destructive agenda. It was typical Times, backing rogue politics.

Obama's address wreaked of failed state duplicity, coverup and denial. Throughout his tenure, rhetoric and gimmickry substituted for constructive policies. Tuesday was no different.

He left festering social and economic distress unaddressed, as well as the American dream in shambles. Expect continued business as usual to assure harder than ever times ahead.

He lied saying "The state of our union is getting stronger....In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs."

Progressive Radio News Hour regular, economist Jack Rasmus said Obama's "stimulus" programs consisted largely of corporate and personal super-rich tax cuts. As a result, they failed.

Corporations hoarded cuts and other subsidies. Job creation investments weren't made. Business benefitted. Ordinary people lost out. Economic recovery failed. Ongoing policies assure continued failure packaged as success.

According to Rasmus, Obama's agenda "failed because (it) relied on the private market sector to generate a sustained recovery, instead of on the government directly taking the lead to create jobs, rescue homeowners and resurrect housing, and stabilize state-local government finances long run."

He "bailed out banks that (don't) lend, rescued corporations that (don't) create jobs, and (inadequately) subsidized state and local governments for a brief period and then cut them loose to fend fiscally for themselves."

His agenda was and remains devastating for ordinary Americans. At the same time, corporations and rich ones flourish. His "built to last" economy favors them alone. He lied saying he wants to assure "everyone gets a fair shot." His notion of "American values" rewards the rich at the expense of everyone else.

He took credit for letting auto giants destroy jobs, slash worker pay and benefits, ban strike actions, and let corrupt union bosses serve as corporate enforcers. He said what Detroit did "can happen in other industries."

In fact, Detroit's "success" is bankruptcy and ruin. Motown became ghost town. In death throes, it symbolizes America's decline. In disrepair and decline, it's dying with shocking unemployment, poverty and unaddressed human need levels.

What Obama did to Detroit, he offers other cities packaged as populism. He took direct aim at destroying decades of painful labor struggles. They included taking to the streets, going on strike, holding boycotts, battling rogue bosses, police and National Guard forces, as well as paying with their blood and lives before real gains were won.

Now they're lost, including a living wage, decent benefits, and the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management. Obama deplores the idea and fights it.

What grassroots struggles achieved, he and other rogue leaders destroyed. All this in a nation claiming to be government of, by and for the people, most of whom are working class ones struggling to get by. What Reagan era politics began, Obama raised to new levels.

Praising "America's Armed Forces," he also assured permanent war. They "exceed all expectations," he said. "Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example." Perhaps he has destroying humanity in mind to assure unchallenged US hegemony.

Ron Paul Responds to Obama's Address

Obama "once again showed that he does not represent the fundamental change this country needs. Instead of offering solutions to the problems our country faces, (he) deliver(ed) a campaign speech....typical (of) Washington political gamesmanship that (got) us exactly nowhere close to improving the lives of the American people."

His policies assure "continue economic stagnation" and decline. He "claims to want an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."

"Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts and cronyism that created our economic troubles."

"Of course, (he) refuses to even mention the role the Federal Reserve plays in creating an economic system where some are denied a fair shot or even to support my efforts at bringing transparency" to an opaque, secretive process.

"In the area of foreign policy and civil liberties, (Obama's) rhetoric" belies his agenda. It's "hardly 'change we can believe in.' " No wonder more and more Americans, especially young people, (reject his) phony alternatives (and those of) establishment Republicans.."

A Final Comment

Throughout his tenure, Obama waged multiple imperial wars, plans others, looted the nation's wealth, wrecked the economy, consigned growing millions to impoverishment without jobs, and institutionalized tyranny to target dissenters challenging political corruption, corporate crooks, or abuse of power lawlessness.

He also destroyed hard won labor rights, wants education commodified as another business profit center, and wages war on whistleblowers, dissenters, Muslims, Latino immigrants, and environmental and animal rights activists called terrorists.

He wrecked America, governs lawlessly, and threatens worse ahead. Imagine the unpalatable options facing voters in November between a lawless/crime boss/militarist/pro-war/anti-populist/morally corrupt president, and a rogue's gallery of alternatives looking more like a police lineup than legitimate candidates.

They assure continued pro-business/pro-war/anti-populist policies. They threaten Middle America's survival and perhaps humanity if they're not stopped.

Imagine a president taking credit for what should be condemned. Imagine an aroused public refusing to let him.

It's happening with legs but needs to grow. What OWS began, millions need to join and support. That's how great struggles are won. This one's the mother of them all.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Independent Libyan Fact-Finding Mission

2012-01-26T00:18:00.000-08:00

Independent Libyan Fact-Finding Mission

by Stephen Lendman

A joint report was released by the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC).

Their mission investigated alleged widespread international law violations since mid-February 2011. Its mandate included investigating those committed by:

the former government;

NATO; and

insurgents.

It also sought to identify human rights issues, requiring Lybian and international attention.

Investigators included "leading international jurists and lawyers with expertise in international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, transitional justice, and the development of legal systems in post-conflict environments."

Information obtained from witnesses, victims, and other parties were kept confidential unless already revealed and available.

Investigations weren't meant to be comprehensive. Rather, the mission tried "to convey the considered observations of its members, in order to facilitate, and prompt, the work of other bodies and authorities."

Investigators included:

(1) Raji Sourani: PCHR Director, Arab Organization for Human Rights President (AOHR), International Federation for Human Rights Vice President, Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists member, as well as other credentials.

(2) Amin Mekki Medani: Sudanese lawyer and former AOHR President. He also held various UN posts.

(3) Mohsen Awad: former AOHR Secretary-General and Egyptian Human Rights Council member.

(4) Amina Bouayach: Moroccan Organization for Human Rights President and International Federation for Human Rights Vice President.

(5) Agneta Johansson: International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Deputy Director.

(6) William Meyer: ILAC Chairman and former CEELI Prague Institute Executive Director.

(7) Daragh Murray: Republic of Ireland IRCHSS Scholar and head of PCHR's International Unit.

(8) Hany Abu Nahla: head of PCHR's Translation Unit.

From November 15 - 22, investigations and interviews were conducted in Western Libya alone, in and around Tripoli, Zawiya, Sibrata, Khoms, Zliten, Misrata, Tawergha, and Sirte. Significantly, Benghazi was omitted, an area plagued by insurgent crimes.

Findings revealed "significant" international law violations. However, imposed constraints prevented investigators from reaching "definitive legal conclusions regarding individual incidents." Nonetheless, they believe crimes of war and against humanity were committed.

Evidence suggests NATO classified civilian sites as military ones for attacks, including homes, schools, colleges, food distribution centers, hospitals, mosques, and others. In addition, civilians were targeted, notably in Sirte.

In fact, one incident there killed 47 or more non-combatants. This and other incidents raise "significant questions," requiring further inquiry and disclosure.

Insurgents also violated international law, including civilian killings; torture and other abuses; wrongful detentions; mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced "displacement of suspected enemies of the Revolution."

Observations about Gaddafi’s Governance

Unfortunately, investigators used dubious sources, calling his authority "one man rule." They include the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Crisis Group (ICG). Neither functions independently.

The ICC notoriously serves Western interests. As a result, it absolves or ignores their crimes while targeting their enemies like Gaddafi.

Former World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz co-founded the ICG. Now headed by former US diplomat Thomas Pickering and former International Criminal Tribunals chief prosecutor for Yugoslavia and Rwanda Louise Arbour, it functions the same way.

Its Executive Committee and advisors include former US and Western officials, former NATO commander Wesley Clark, and corporate figures like George Soros. They, in turn, reframed responsibility to protect authority in Libya to lawlessly intervene belligerently to establish neo-colonial rule. In fact, UN Charter provisions explicitly prohibit military force for humanitarian interventions.

Investigators also mischaracterized Jamahiriya governance, calling it "an elaborate facade" to hide Gaddafi's sole authority. Quoting the ICG, they described it as "a highly complex formal ruling system containing a plethora of congresses and committees, often with overlapping powers, that have contributed to a sense of orchestrated and perpetual chaos."

In addition by calling himself "Brother Leader," Gaddafi "avoid(ed) accountability."

They quoted the ICC saying "the Libyan State apparatus of power - including political, administrative, military and security branches - consists of a complex set of units and individuals, all of which are ultimately subject to the orders and control of" Gaddafi.

They ignored Washington's longstanding regime change policy. As a result, an externally generated insurgency followed. In addition, the National Transitional Council (NTC) was illegitimately established with interim puppet authority for Western interests. Libyans are entirely shut out.

Nonetheless, investigators called it "internationally recognized as the Government of Libya....to oversee the transition to representative democracy."

In fact, Washington, NATO partners, and complicit regional states don't tolerate democracy or international law. Ignoring that denies reality.

Moreover, investigators claim "pre-revolutionary Libya (was) characterized by a climate of fear, in which individuals were afraid to speak their mind, where opposition - real or perceived - was ruthlessly crushed, and where security forces committed apparently widespread and systematic abuses with total impunity."

Sadly, the facts belie this description. Most Libyans supported Gaddafi and still do. During NATO's intervention, overwhelming numbers rallied openly. On July 1, 2011, 95% of Tripoli's population (over a million strong) expressed support in Green Square.

Fear restrains them now. Doing so risks imprisonment, torture, and/or death by summary execution.

Libya's social state was also ignored, including under Gaddafi's 1999 Decision No. 111. It assured all Libyans free healthcare, education, electricity, water, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, as well as generous subsidies to study abroad, buy a new car, help couples when they marry, practically free gasoline, and more.

Literacy under Gaddafi rose from 20 - 80%. Libya's hospitals and private clinics were some of the region's best. Now they're in shambles.

Before war began, Libyans had Africa's highest standard of living. Gaddafi's Green Book said:

"The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others." It also covered other social policies, saying:

"Women, like men, are human beings.

....(A)ll individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means....;

In a socialist society no person may own a private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents controlling the needs of others.

The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid above the other (through People's Conferences and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.

No representation of the people - representation is a falsehood. The existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people."

Green Book ideology rejects Western-style democracy and predatory capitalism, especially neoliberal exploitation. It's one of many reasons why Gaddafi was ousted.

His impressive social benefits also included free land, equipment, livestock and seeds for agriculture to foster self-sufficient food production. In addition, all basic food items were subsidized and sold through a network of "people's shops."

Moreover, since the 1960s, women could vote and participate politically. They could also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the December 1969 Constitutional Proclamation Clause 5, they had equal status with men, including for education and employment, even though men played leading roles in society.

Until Washington and rogue NATO partners blocked its approval, the UN Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi in its January 2011 "Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya."

It said his government protected "not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights." It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and "human rights training" of its security forces.

Throughout most of 2011, NATO's killing machine destroyed 42 years of achievements. All Libyans benefitted. Why else did Gaddafi have overwhelming support?

His vision marked him for removal. It was just a matter of when, even though he cooperated with Western powers post-9/11 on matters of intelligence and terrorism.

Until vilified and targeted, he was welcomed in Western capitals. In 2003, he came in from the cold, became a valued Western ally, and had meetings and discussions with top officials like UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and others.

He also participated in the 2009 G-8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy as Chairman of the African Union. At the time, he met and shook hands with Obama.

Moreover, ABC News interviewed him live, and on January 21, 2009, The New York Times published his op-ed headlined, "The One-State Solution" to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He called "living under one roof....the only option for a lasting peace."

On May 16, 2006, Washington restored full diplomatic relations. Libya was removed from its state sponsors of terrorism list. At the time, Rice called the move:

"tangible results that flow from the historic decisions taken by Libya's leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs....Libya is an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes."

She also praised Gaddafi's "excellent cooperation" in fighting terrorism. Moreover, he opened Libya's markets to Western interests by arranging deals with Big Oil giants BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental, France's Total, Italy's Eni Gas and others. By all appearances, he joined the club, so why turn on him?

Though on board in some ways, he very much wasn't on others. He supported Palestinian rights. As a result, he opposed Israel's occupation and Gaza's siege.

Earlier he backed South Africa's anti-apartheid struggles, as well as others in Northern Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.

He opted out of AFRICOM's imperial regional plan. He wanted Libyans to control their own resources and use revenues domestically for all Libyans. His Central Bank of Libya was state owned. It created its own money interest-free for economic growth, not speculation and wealth for predatory bankers.

He promoted pan-African unity, an idea anathema to Washington and Western powers. He advocated a new "Gold Standard," replacing dollars with gold dinars, and hoped other African and Muslim states would adopt the idea. That alone got him targeted for removal.

He had nothing to do with downing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Neither did Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Scottish judges knew he was innocent but were pressured to convict.

Gaddafi never admitted fault. He took responsibility solely to have international sanctions removed. To this day, he and al-Megrahi stand falsely accused. Likely CIA /MI6/and/or Mossad involvement is never mentioned.

A Final Comment

Libyan Investigators have legitimate credentials as human rights supporters. Organizations like PCHR do extraordinary work. They deserve praise, encouragement and help.

Their report highlighted international crimes, need for more investigation, and prosecutions for those responsible.

It expressed concern for ongoing abuses in detention, mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced displacements of suspected Gaddafi loyalists. It called for measures to stop ongoing crimes.

Nonetheless, it wrongfully said "Libya is emerging from 42 years of authoritarian rule and governance characterized by injustice, the denial of fundamental human rights, and impunity."

Libya's now repressively occupied. A climate of fear prevails. Insurgent killers threaten Gaddafi supporters. Silence best protects them. Nonetheless, Libyans revealed crimes committed by NATO and rebel rat forces.

However, others condemning Gaddafi appear suspect. Indeed, he had enemies, but most Libyans supported him with good reason. As a result, the report tragically falls short. It includes NATO and insurgent crimes but mischaracterizes Gaddafi's rule.

Hopefully, another mission will follow in less volatile times. Violence still rages. Little gets reported. Western media scoundrels entirely suppress it. Libyans deserve better. Their nation was peaceful until NATO showed up. Now it's destroyed and all previously enjoyed rights lost.

Mission team members must acknowledge it and point fingers where they belong.

NOTE:

In mid-January, 12,000 US troops were positioned in Malta ahead of occupying Libya. On January 18, Libya SOS said hundreds of American soldiers already arrived. Libya's Western-appointed foreign minister said 6,000 came to Tripoli's Mitiga International Airport.

Straightaway, they set up "mobile camps and equipment around oil fields and refineries." In other words, they're protecting Western interests, principally oil. Libyans lost their rightful resources and living standard they afforded.

“Tunis Focus” reports that US forces are in Brega, Ras Lanouf, Sirte, and Tripoli's Mitiga International Airport. Moreover, US and NATO helicopters, warplanes, and drones now patrol Libyan airspace. They're surveilling and attacking suspicious targets.

Ahead lies occupation, neo-colonization, pillaging, exploitation, violence and repression. It persists wherever America shows up. So does overwhelming suffering and human misery. Libyans experienced it for months. Much more lies ahead.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

The Armenian Genocide

2012-01-25T00:28:00.001-08:00

The Armenian Genocide

by Stephen Lendman

Raphael Lemkin defined genocide as:

"the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" that corresponds to other terms like "tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc." (It) does not necessarily mean the destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings....It is intended....to signify a coordinated plan (to destroy) the essential foundations of the life of national groups" with the intent to eradicate or substantially weaken or harm them. "Genocidal plans involve the disintegration....of political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, economic existence, personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and" human lives.

In legal terms, the 1948 Genocide Convention used the same definition. They're binding principles. Nonetheless, America, Israel, and rogue NATO partners violate them with impunity.

On May 28, 1948, the UN War Crimes Commission prepared a report on "The Massacres of the Armenians in Turkey," saying:

On May 28, 1915, France, Britain and Russia denounced Turkey's "crimes against humanity and civilization." A key passage reads:

"In the presence of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and the civilization, the allied Governments (know) that they will be held personally responsible for the so-called crimes of all members of the Ottoman Government as well as those of the officers who would be involved in such massacres."

The 1920 peace Treaty of Sevres with Turkey required it "hand over to the Allied Powers the persons responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1st August 1914."

The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The Treaty of Lausanne (July 23, 1923) replaced it. Genocidal crimes were excluded. Instead, it was accompanied by a "Declaration of Amnesty" for all offenses committed from August 1, 1914 - November 20, 1922.

On May 28, 1951, the (1945-established) International Court of Justice (ICJ) published an "advisory opinion" on "Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide," saying:

The Convention followed "the inhuman and barbarous practices....during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination."

The ICC also named past genocides, including "the Turkish massacres of Armenians...."

On July 2, 1985, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities "revised and updated" the issue of genocide and preventing it.

Among those mentioned, it recognized "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916."

France Passes Armenian Genocide Law

On January 23, Reuters headlined, "France passes genocide law, faces Turkish reprisals," saying:

France's Parliament passed a bill "making it illegal to deny the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks nearly a century ago was genocide."

France already recognizes the genocide. The new measure makes denying it illegal. It also imposes a one-year prison sentence and $57,000 fine.

In response, Turkey threatened a "total rupture" of diplomatic ties. All economic, political and military ones were cancelled after France's lower House passed the law. Its ambassador was recalled, and Ankara said further retaliatory measures would follow.

Nonetheless, on January 24, the BBC said "President Nicolas Sarkozy is expected to sign the bill into law before the end of February," ahead of April presidential elections. In fact, his UMP party proposed it. Enactment seems assured.

Moreover, an estimated 500,000 Armenians live in France. Sarkozy's trailing in the polls. Signing's perhaps a way to improve his chances. At this point, they're shaky at best.

Armenia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbanian said:

"This day will be written in gold not only in the history of friendship between the Armenian and French peoples, but also in the annals of the history of the protections of human rights."

Perhaps he didn't read Reynald Secher's book titled, "A French Genocide: The Vendee," in which he called France's actions against the anti-clerical Republican government during the French Revolution the first modern genocide. He also ignored France's complicity with America's modern genocidal history.

Today's Zaman, Turkey's English language broadsheet, reacted to France's new law headlining, "France ignores Turkish warnings, passes Armenian 'genocide' bill," saying:

On Monday, France's Senate passed "a controversial law making it a crime to deny the 1915 killings of Armenians was a genocide...." The lower House passed it earlier.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned hours before enactment that the measure "runs a high risk of wrecking Turkish-French ties...." He said Ankara would retaliate.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said measures have "already been determined." AK Party Deputy Chairman Omer Celik indicated they'll be permanent, not temporary. Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag added:

"It is clear (that) relations between Turkey and France will not be the same."

Armenia's History

Armenia's located at the crossroads of three continents - Europe, Asia, and Africa. It's bounded by the Caucasus Mountains and Black Sea to the North, the Caspian Sea to the East, the Syrian Desert to the South, Anatolia to the West, and the Mediterranean Sea to the Southwest.

Historically, it's been divided between Ottoman Turkey, Russia and Persia. What remains of Armenia became Soviet Russia's smallest republic in 1920. From 1918 - 1920, it was independent. In 1991, it regained independence when the Soviet Union dissolved. Currently, it borders Turkey, Georgia, Iran and Azerbaijan.

It was established around 7,000 BC. In 301 AD, it was the first country to accept Christianity as state religion. In the 11th century, Ottoman Turks invaded. In the 16th century, Armenia became part of their empire.

In the 19th century, Greeks, Serbs and Romanians won independence. By WW I in 1914, Arabs and Armenians remained under Ottoman rule. As it weakened and broke down, Armenian repression increased.

Called "infidels," discriminatory taxes were levied. Persecutions escalated. Tyranny followed. In some areas, Armenians were afraid to speak their language openly or read books on Armenian history.

In fact, Sultan Abdul Hamid (Ottoman ruler from 1876 - 1909) banned many. He established censorship to exclude Western ideas and thought.

From 1894 - 1896, responding to reform demands, pogroms massacred around 300,000 Armenians. In 1909, another 30,000 were killed in the Cilicia region.

Armenians responded in self-defense. Ottomans feared losing them entirely. At the turn of the century, they demanded democratic reforms and constitutional government.

In 1908, Turkish nationalists gained control. Armenian elation faded when terror tactics followed.

Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, Djemal Pasha, and others like them subscribed to elitist/racist Pan-Turkism. They believed Turkey was for Turks alone. Pluralism assuring equal rights for all minorities was rejected. Armenians threatened their ideology. Eliminating them became policy. On the eve of WW I, Ottomans were in crisis.

The 1915 - 1922 Genocide

In 1914, over 2.5 million Armenians lived in Ottoman Turkey. Today, only 100,000 remain. Mostly they reside in Istanbul and Western areas. The Eastern Armenian heartland was decimated.

On April 24, 1915, hundreds of Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were arrested, detained or exiled. Most were eventually slaughtered.

Within several months, about 250,000 Ottoman army Armenians were placed in forced labor battalions. They were over-worked, starved, or executed.

Without leaders or able-bodied youths, ethnic cleansing occurred throughout Ottoman Turkey and Asia Minor. Death marches followed. Men and older boys were separated and executed. Women and children were force-marched, raped, tortured, and otherwise abused. Most deportees died of starvation, disease, or massacres.

About 500,000 escaped to Russia, Arab countries, Europe or America. Ottoman Armenia was virtually eliminated.

A Final Comment

In 1918, Henry Morgenthau, US ambassador to Turkey, said:

"When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race: they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact."

"I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915."

Morgenthau perhaps couldn't envision later WW II atrocities, nor America's subsequent genocidal history. He also ignored its past, including waging war against Native Americans, African Americans, poor and disadvantaged ones, and women.

Historian/activist Howard Zinn wrote how since inception, America committed "genocide, brutally and purposefully....in the name of progress." Our leaders then buried ugly truths "in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth."

At home, profit over human lives and welfare took millions of working American lives. Abroad it was far worse through direct or proxy wars, death squads, torture, occupations, alliances with despots, and neglect. Against Native and Black Americans, it was worst of all.

Over centuries, America reduced its indigenous population to at most 3% of its original total. In his book titled, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present," Ward Churchill said:

Millions were "hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases."

Shockingly, "every one of these practices (still continues in new forms). The American holocaust was and remains unparalleled, in terms of its scope, ferocity and continuance over time." Today, its entirely suppressed in mainstream discourse.

The African holocaust was just as grim. It resulted from 500 years of colonialization, oppression, exploitation, and slavery, much of it trafficked to America. Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched to ports, beaten, kept in cages, stripped of their humanity, and often their lives.

Around 100 million or more were sold like cattle. Millions perished during the Middle Passage. They were packed like cargo under deplorable conditions in coffin-sized spaces, sometimes atop one another.

They experienced extreme discomfort because of poor ventilation, little or no sanitation, and overall appalling conditions. As a result, dysentery, smallpox, ophthalmia (causing blindness) and other diseases became epidemics. Conditions below deck were dark, filthy, slimy, full of blood, vomit, and human excrement.

Women were beaten and raped. For some, claustrophobia caused insanity. Others were flogged or clubbed to death. Anyone thought to be diseased was dumped overboard like garbage. Arrivals with three-fourths of human cargos were considered successful voyages. The Middle Passage claimed as many as half of those trafficked. Estimates range up to 50 million lives lost.

Zinn called American slavery "the most cruel form in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave."

Is it any different now? In today's America, thousands of garment factory sweatshops exploit workers with poverty wages, few if any benefits, and long hours in unsafe conditions.

Two million or more farm workers are abused. They live in sub-poverty misery and no protections, even for children. In Florida and perhaps elsewhere, lax federal and state oversight lets owners chain workers to poles, lock them in trucks, physically beat them, and cheat them out of pay.

They also perform dangerous jobs and live in unsafe environments, contaminated by toxic chemicals. As a result, about 300,000 suffer pesticide poisoning annually. Many others experience disabling accidents.

Millions of other American workers are also exploited and abused. They range from Wal-Mart and similar enterprises to domestic servitude, restaurant and hotel workers, non-union factory ones, women forced into prostitution, and sexually exploited children.

Turkey's Armenian genocide was one of history's great crimes. America exceeded it manyfold, especially through permanent imperial wars taking many millions of lives and causing incalculable human misery.

Raging unchecked today, victor's justice alone triumphed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Whistling Past the Graveyard

2012-01-25T00:26:00.001-08:00

Whistling Past the Graveyard

by Stephen Lendman

Europe's sinking. Japan's in recession. China risks landing hard. America's sure to follow. Yet equity markets rallied impressively so far in January.

Be careful. Economist David Rosenberg warns about renting, not owning, rallies based on hope. They're sure to disappoint, especially ones fueled by speculative excess.

In his book titled, "Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises," Charles Kindleberg wrote:

"The moral hazard problem is that policy measures undertaken to provide stability to the system may encourage speculation by those who seek exceptionally high returns and who have become somewhat convinced that there is a strong likelihood that government measures will be adopted to prevent the economy from imploding - and so their losses on the downside will be limited."

In the 1990s, it was called "the Greenspan put."

"The moral hazard problem is a strong argument for nonintervention as a financial crisis develops, to reduce the likelihood and severity of crises in the future. Will the policymakers be able to devise approaches that penalize individual speculators while minimizing the adverse impacts of their imprudent behavior on the other 99% of the country?"

In fact, today's excess is unprecedented because policymakers allow, encourage, and support it with massive money creation and freedom from regulatory restraints.

In their paper titled, "The Real Effects of Debt," Stephen Cecchetti, MS Mohanty and Fabrizio Zampolli said:

"Debt is a two-edged sword. Used wisely and in moderation, it clearly improves welfare. But, when it is used imprudently and in excess, the result can be disaster. For individuals and firms, over-borrrowing leads to bankruptcy and financial ruin."

"For a country, too much debt impairs the government's ability to deliver essential services to its citizens."

Beyond a certain level, debt hurts growth. "For government debt, the threshold is around 85% of GDP." Countries exceeding it must effectively put their fiscal house in order. Longer-term, they should avoid approaching dangerous threshold levels. The same goes for business and households.

In recent decades, few followed this advise. As a result, for the above three sectors combined, the ratio of debt to GDP in developed countries rose from 167% in 1980 to 314% today. In other words, it exceeded GDP an average of over 5% per year for 30 years. Moreover, current policies exceed the worst past ones. As a result, future trouble is assured. It's not a matter of if, but when and how severe.

Financial analyst Martin Weiss observes that never in modern memory "have we seen a fiercer fight between two opposing forces - global recession and mad money printing....On one side, we have the" world's largest economy, the EU, "collapsing before our eyes."

On the other, the Fed and ECB went "beserk" printing money and keep doing it. Massive liquidity fuels market rallies that end badly. As a result, an economic collapse worse than 2008-09 looms. It'll be sooner or later, but expect it, perhaps with little warning.

Last August, UK Telegraph columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard headlined, "When debt levels turn cancerous," saying:

We know where the tipping point lies. "Debt becomes poisonous once it reaches 80pc to 100pc of GDP for governments, 90pc for companies, and 85pc for households."

Today, advanced country debt levels crossed dangerous thresholds and keep rising. They're unprecedented in peacetime. In Japan, Eurozone countries, and elsewhere, they're at explosive levels.

In Britain, credit restrictions were abandoned since the 1970s. Greenspan's "Great Moderation" fooled investors to think risk mattered too little to matter. The "Asian Savings Glut" cut bond yields. The Fed and ECB lowered short-term rates to near-zero. Tax policies favor debt.

Over recent decades, debt is good policy suggested more is better. Eventually, however, creditors don't increase spending to cover shortfalls when debtors retrench. Debt steals future growth until nothing's left to take.

Economic collapse follows. As a result, "(w)e must prepare for a long hard slog, for the rest of" our lives. Good policies could have prevented it. Instead, deplorable ones follow bad ones and continue on a road to disaster.

Liquidity highs only last so long. Their true cost won't be known until money printing madness stops. Newton taught that every action has an equal, opposite reaction. In economic terms, policymaker excess to counter financial forces inevitably creates a series of unintended consequences.

Already, Portugal looks like the next Greece. China's deflating property market is spreading regionally. US housing market conditions are flooded with foreclosures. Activity remains depressed and pricing weak.

The Baltic Dry Index tracks raw material shipping costs. In the past month alone, it's down 50%. Oil demand's falling. Political risks abound, not least of which threatens much higher oil prices as Middle East tension rises. At the same time, complacency's at whistling past the graveyard levels.

David Rosenberg calls conditions today a "modern day depression," saying:

As in "1933, 1934 and 1935, the economy and the stock market can experience a brief cyclical recovery, especially given all the massive monetary intervention by the central banks, but the fragility and vulnerability never go away, and neither does the hardship for many."

Market advances, GDP levels, and other economic indicators don't reflect true conditions, but growing millions experiencing hard times sure do.

Since the official end of recession, America's labor force contracted by over 800,000, an unprecedented number that keeps growing. Moreover, real per capita personal income's remained flat for six years despite massive money printing and fiscal stimulus. "If that's not a 'depression,' " what is it?

Moreover, excluding social benefits, real personal income's at 2001 levels. In addition, protracted zero-level interest rates wrecked fiscal finances to save insolvent banks - the same ones responsible for economic crisis.

The Progressive Radio News Hour (PRNH) - A Resource for Vital Information on Major World and National Issues

PRNH regular Bob Chapman expects short-term zero global growth or decline under a worst case scenario he defines as the entire financial system imploding and/or global war.

"We had a mini-recovery," he said, "but it cost $1.8 trillion. We had a second recovery, and that cost $1.5 trillion. We are entering a third of what is becoming yearly recoveries that will probably cost $1.3 trillion. In other words, without these massive injections of money and credit we would probably be in a deflationary depression."

Eventually he expects one. Kicking the can down the road only works so long, and the further along it gets, the worse the outcome.

Policymakers "just don't get it." Excess and hope define their agenda. So does turning a blind eye to fraud and grand theft.

Housing is a key economic indicator. Chapman sees 20% lower prices over the next three years and foreclosed inventory levels reaching 10 million homes. As consumers reduce debt and increase savings, retail sales will fall. State-sponsored austerity's exacerbating their problems.

Watch France's spring presidential elections. Frontrunner Francois Hollande and Front National's Marine Le Pen favor dumping the euro and EU. Of course, following through if elected is another matter, but their views reflect growing dissolution with a doomed system. They want out before it happens.

Greece's crisis is worse now than two years ago. Portugal's replicating it. Ireland, Italy, Spain, Belgium and other European economies are disasters waiting to happen. The entire continent's weak. No wonder two-thirds of Germans want Deutschemarks back. They're printed just in case. So are French Francs.

Policymakers meet and solve nothing. The Fed's pumping trillions into Europe. Its "Ponzi scheme widens and deepens." Sovereign debt's being downgraded. Rolling it over's accomplished with $1 trillion in Fed loaned swaps to the ECB. It lends to banks. They use borrowed funds to purchase sovereign debt.

Perpetual credit creation's unsustainable. Central banks know it. Nonetheless, with no alternative, they continue bad policy, assuring big trouble when it comes. Chapman thinks the current excess will last another year or so. Bankers know fixing the system requires purging it.

Strategy involves delaying day of reckoning time as long as possible. When it arrives, their power will wane. A Eurozone January policy meeting was postponed until end of February for lack of real solutions. European leaders "are hanging on for dear life."

Problems are minimized or covered up. All solutions chosen are stopgaps that won't work. All they do is buy time for eventual greater trouble. Chapman says world leaders "have been on a fool's errand for many years. Looting the world and controlling it wasn't enough."

"As a result, they're bringing their whole system down with the hope of ultimate total control." In the end, no matter what they try will fail.

A Final Comment

On January 23, Naked Capitalism posted Yves Smith's article headlined, "Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage 'Settlement,' " saying:

His chicanery never ends. This one involves federal regulators using pension theft to settle mortgages. "It's yet another (pre-election) gambit," assuring a bad problem gets worse.

Obama's agenda sustains criminal elitism. "What he misses is that" coverups no longer work and may even blow up before November.

Adding insult to injury, he's packaging his latest grand theft scheme "as a boon to ordinary citizens." Mortgage settlements have been farcical. Administration officials finally realize that today's housing mess will get worse, not better. Obama needs a propaganda victory to counter it.

As a result, banks and government negotiators agreed on settlement terms sent to all 50 states for approval. They involve reducing mortgage balances and monthly payments by more than $25 billion.

The "bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks....but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modifications."

The entire deal smells theft. Servicers "will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitized toward the total." As a result, investor-owned mortgages will be restructured. Banks won't have to write down second mortgages. "So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investments to the banks, at the Administration's instigation."

Moreover, only a small number of "grossly overhoused borrowers" will be helped, provided the program's implemented. History shows bankers benefit by welching on deals struck. They also commit grand theft and lie, including to Congress.

As a result, "odds favor that servicers will pretty much do nothing except perhaps be given credit for mortgage modifications they would have made anyhow." Ordinary people will lose out on top of everything else harming them. Obama's responsible. Now he promises more mischief packaged as help.

He's a fraud and a liar. Smith advises readers contact their attorneys general, demanding they reject his pension fund stealing scheme.

People power works. It got Congress to scrub SOPA and PIPA Internet legislation at least for the time being. It's time to beat bankers at their own game.

The stakes are huge. Success is a potential game-changer, making everything else possible.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Arab League Arrogance

2012-01-24T00:34:00.000-08:00

Arab League Arrogance

by Stephen Lendman

On December 26, Arab League observers began monitoring Syrian cities. They'll remain another month, despite calls to remove them.

Al Arabiya, Saudi Arabia's state-controlled media, reported Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal saying:

"My country will withdraw its monitors because the Syrian government did not execute any of the elements of the Arab resolution plan."

"We are calling on the international community to bear its responsibility, and that includes our brothers in Islamic states and our friends in Russia, China, Europe and the United States."

He also called for "all possible pressure" against Assad.

Saudi Arabia kowtows to Washington. It's also repressive and lawless with no legitimacy whatever. In its latest 2011 human rights assessment, America's State Department accused it of arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and other abuses, political prisoners, absence of basic freedoms, and other international law violations.

It was said because it’s not reported. It also doesn't deter America from supporting Saudi policies and pursuing far worse ones globally.

Pressure's relentlessly building on Assad. Washington, Israel, and rogue allies plan regime change. Short of direct intervention, Western-generated uprisings began in March. Libya's model was replicated.

Syria's been ravaged for months. Thousands died, including security forces killed with heavy weapons.

Assad's wrongfully blamed for a Western/Israeli/rogue regional alliance-generated insurgency. So far, he's holding on. At issue is regime change, isolating Iran from its key ally.

Expect greater pressure on Tehran ahead. War's an option, including against Syria, if sanctions and other destabilization methods fail.

On January 22, New York Times writer Kareem Fahim headlined, "Arab League Floats Ambitious New Peace Plan for Syria," saying:

"Faced with the failure of its observer mission to curb violence," League members "on Sunday unexpectedly floated an ambitious peace proposal that would require (Assad) to hand over power to a deputy and start negotiations with his opponents within two weeks."

They also proposed a national unity government within two months, followed by presidential and parliamentary elections within six months.

In Cairo, Qatar's Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, said:

"The formation of a national unity government within two months, with the participation of both the regime and the opposition, headed by an individual, previously agreed upon, and whose mission would be the implementation of the terms of the Arab League's plan."

Qatar's Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said:

"We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations."

Qatar's an absolute monarchy. People have no say whatever. Its prime minister, Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabir Al Thani (a royal family member), said:

"We're going to the Security Council. We know what the Syrian people are going through. We are doing as much as we can."

Assad categorically rejected League demands. SANA, Syrian Arab News Agency, said:

"Syria rejects the decisions taken by the Arab League (AL) Council on the ministerial level on Syria which are outside an Arab work plan and the Protocol signed with the AL."

These decisions "violat(e Syrian) sovereignty, (and) blatant(ly interfere) in its internal affairs (as well as) violat(e the) objectives for which the AL was established and the Article VIII of its Charter."

"Syria condemns this decision, which came in the framework of the conspiratorial scheme hatched against Syria which have been exposed (as attacks on) people and the Arab Homeland."

Instead of "halting (the) financing and arming (of) armed terrorist groups which (killed) innocent Syrian civilians and attack the state's facilities and infrastructures, (and) stop the misleading media campaigns responsible for the bloodshed, we listened to instigatory statements which reflect their owners' connection with the schemes targeting the security of our people through demanding the foreign interference in Syria's affairs."

Qatar and most other League members are lawless rogue states. Pro-Western despots head the worst of them. Duplicity, lawlessness, repression, and complicity with Western imperialism define their agenda.

They actively supported Libya's ravaging, colonization, exploitation, and plunder. They're silent about ongoing atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and elsewhere in the region.

Since March, they also supported Western-backed, armed and funded anti-Syrian insurgents. Assad calls them "outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist groups." He holds Western states and complicit regional allies responsible.

Repeatedly, most League members attack, kill, arrest, imprison, and/or brutalize their own people for protesting against political, economic and social injustice.

League leaders have no legitimacy, nor does international law support their proposal.

Provisions of International Law

The 1933 Montevideo Convention of Rights and Duties codified them in international law. Article 3 states:

"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."

Article 4 calls states "juridically equal," with rights the same as all others.

Article 5 says fundamental state rights "are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever."

Article 8 says "No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another."

Under Article 10, differences between states "should be settled by recognized pacific methods."

Article 11 calls sovereign state territory "inviolable...."

The UN Charter recognizes the following state rights and obligations:

sovereignty;

equality among all states;

non-interference in their domestic affairs;

self-determination;

non-interference in other states' domestic affairs;

settling disputes peacefully; and

refraining from threats or force.

In other words, states' rights entail obligations to others. Montevideo and UN Charter provisions defined them.

In October 1970, the General Assembly approved the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The above sovereign rights are included in them. All UN members are bound by them. Washington, rogue NATO partners, Israel, and complicit Arab League states spurn them.

Violence, instability and war result. Syria and Iran are threatened. As a result, Fidel Castro sees world peace "hanging by a thread," saying:

"I believe that the political situation surrounding Iran (and Syria) and the associated risks of a nuclear war that involves us all (are) extremely delicate because they threaten the very existence of our species."

"The sheer tranquility with which the United States and civilized Europe carry out (their) campaign(s) with the incredible and systematic acts of terrorism is enough to shock anybody....Is it an exaggeration to say that world peace is hanging by a thread?"

Yet major media scoundrels threaten it. Their rhetoric supports imperial lawlessness. In 2011, they cheerled NATO's Libya war. They now target Syria and Iran.

They endorse Washington's agenda, ignore rule of law principles, turn a blind eye to facts on the ground, and maintain a steady hostile drumbeat, mindless of potential consequences.

New York Times Supports Wealth and Power Lawlessness

Bill Keller formerly served as New York times executive editor. In other words, he called the shots on editorial policy. In June 2011, he stepped down to focus on writing. Too bad he didn't opt for something else.

On January 22, his article titled, "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?" stopped short of endorsing it, but regurgitated the same hostile canards infesting Times' pages.

Truth and full disclosure aren't its long suit. Managed news and opinion define it. Keller proliferates it with comments like "for all its denials, the Iranian regime is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, or at least the capacity to make them quickly in the event of an outside threat."

No matter that America's latest intelligence assessment dismisses the allegation. Keller didn't explain nor do other Times writers or commentators.

Instead he endorses hard-line lawlessness short of war, including sanctions, refusal to exclude military action, and regime change for a US client one.

"The point of tough sanctions, of course, is to force Iranians to the bargaining table, where we can do a deal that removes the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran," even though there is none.

Keller knows but didn't say. Instead, he betrayed Times readers with misinformation. So do other major media scoundrels.

Why else would Castro and like-minded analysts see world peace hanging by a thread. Possible nuclear war threatens it. Yet America's media risk it.

So do rogue politicians vying to be president, Republican and Democrat. As a result, humanity also hangs by a thread. It's no threat to take lightly.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Violence Rages in Libya

2012-01-24T00:32:00.001-08:00

Violence Rages in Libya

by Stephen Lendman

Occupied Libya isn't pretty. Libya SOS said its government "recognize(d) the presence of the forces belonging to 14 different nationalities in the country under the umbrella of the training, assistance and advice."

In mid-January, 12,000 US troops sent to Malta readied to occupy Libya. Around 6,000 or more now guard oil facilities. Perhaps contingents from other nations guard other strategic locations. People needs aren't addressed. Exploiting, not helping, them is planned.

On January 5, London's Independent headlined, "Libya's leader warns of civil war after Tripoli gun battles," saying:

Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Washington's man in Libya, commented after rival militia gun battles left "a trail of dead and injured."

According to Jalil:

"We are now between two bitter options. We deal with these violations by brigades strictly and put the Libyans in a military confrontation which we don't accept, or we split and there will be civil war. If there's no security, there will be no law, no development and no elections."

At issue are turf battles, anger about being left out of NTC plans, and promises made, then ignored or broken.

On January 22, The New York Times headlined, Libya Protests Spur Shake-Up in Interim Government," saying:

Libya's NTC "faced a political crisis Sunday after protesters ransacked its offices in Benghazi, highlighting growing nationwide unease with its leadership and triggering a shake-up in which the governing council's No. 2 official resigned and several members were suspended."

Lawyer/political activist Salwa Bugaighis worried that conditions will "become worse."

On Sunday, about 2,000 protesters raged outside NTC Benghazi headquarters. Using grenades, iron bars and stones, they set exterior grounds ablaze, broke windows, forced their way inside, ransacked offices, and confronted Jalil angrily.

Weeks earlier, they pitched tents outside NTC headquarters, protesting unaccounted for government money and secretly drafted election laws. According to lawyer Tamer al-Jahani:

"The election laws have not been approved by thousands of Libyans and do not honor those who died for our freedom. We don't want to replace one tyrant with another."

Tyranny is in the eyes of beholders. Most Libyans supported Gaddafi and still do. Why not in a nation with Africa's highest standard of living until NATO arrived. Now ravaged in shambles, it's earmarked for plunder.

On January 22, BBC said NTC deputy chief Abdel Hafiz Ghoga resigned following growing protests against him. "My resignation is for the benefit of the nation," he said.

In fact, he feared for his life after being accosted at gunpoint twice beaten twice, beaten, and called a "NATO mercenary."

Conflicting reports suggest Jalil and officials close around him may resign over anger about their rule. Perhaps so if they continue and grow.

On January 23, Libya SOS said NTC officials met secretly at an undisclosed location to adopt new election laws. Legal affairs head Salwa al-Digheili said secrecy was for "security reasons."

On January 2, an earlier draft was released, provoking anger. Dual-nationals were barred from seeking office. A 10% quota for women in Parliament was set. Feminists called it "insulting." They oppose any quota.

The New York Times also reported Misrata protests, and plans for local council elections "without the (NTC's) blessing..."

Misrata council spokesman Mohamed Benrasali said:

"Everywhere there have been (anti-NTC) sit-ins and demonstrations. (People are) accusing it of no transparency and dragging its feet and not taking any actions for transitional justice, and many, many (other) issues."

"We feel that the head of the regime has changed, but the rest of the regime is in place."

"It seems to us that these people are no different than Gaddafi, and they only speak the language of force."

NTC critics also complain about "nuts-and-bolts level" abuses. Basic services aren't restored. Sirte, Bani Walid, and other devastated areas remain in ruins with no restoration plans.

Tripoli's still violent. Regional militias control it. Days earlier, explosions rocked the city. Fighting raged around Mitiga International Airport and other areas.

On January 23, London's Guardian headlined, "Gaddafi loyalists take back Bani Walid," saying:

"Reports said at least four people were killed during clashes" between both sides. Many others were injured. According to Reuters, "They control the town now."

These and other clashes show "evidence of the NTC's weakness, incapacity and internal divisions ahead of supposed national elections later this year."

Tribesmen are boiling inside and trying to regroup "into a new insurgency.....Warfalla men of Tripoli and elsewhere are sending around text messages, saying, "We need to gather and do something about this. Let's gather! Lets gather!"

On January 20, Pravda.ru contributor Konstantyn Scheglikov headlined, "Libyan Resistance and western hypocrisy," saying:

"Resistance leaders spoke about the creation of a temporary government in Libya." At issue is replacing the illegitimate NTC. An alternative "government is being launched on a temporary basis until full Libyan liberation from NATO invaders."

People's Committees will replace them. At issue is reestablishing Jamahiriya governance and letting Libyans choose their own leaders. Western power brokers want restoration efforts suppressed.

They've already spread across Libya. Tribes are uniting for change. Terror tactics and disinformation confront them. Resistance continues.

Libyans want Western repression ended and Jamahiriya government restored. Getting it requires sustained struggle. It's ongoing and growing.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Progressive Radio News Hour Guests for January 26, 28, and 29, 2012

2012-01-23T11:06:00.000-08:00

The Progressive Radio News Hour Guests for January 26, 28, and 29, 2011

Thursday, January 26 at 10AM US Central time: Rachael Rudolph

Rudolph is Managing Editor of Encompassing Crescent. It's an online monthly magazine designed to bring together academics, activists, journalists, policy-makers, and political figures to facilitate and promote dialogue on vital global issues.

She also heads the International Relations for Facilitate Global, an NGO promoting peace, human rights, and economic change.

Currently, she's pursuing a research project in Saudi Arabia for a forthcoming book on Saudi-Western Relations.

Major regional issues will be discussed.

Saturday, January 28 at noon US Central time: Jack Rasmus

Rasmus is Professor of Political Economy at St. Mary's College and Santa Clara University, CA. He's also a freelance journalist, frequent speaker, a playwright and author, including his latest book titled, "Epic Recession: Prelude to Global Depression."

His forthcoming book is titled, "Obama's Economy: Recovery for the Few."

His current views on the economy will be discussed.

Sunday, January 8 at noon US Central time: John Kozy

Kozy is a retired philosophy professor, now writing on social, political and economic issues. He taught for many years and has been writing for many more.

Visit his web site at www.jkozy.com

His latest writing will be discussed.

America's Great Divide Between Rich and Poor

2012-01-23T00:29:00.000-08:00

America's Great Divide Between Rich and Poor

by Stephen Lendman

In 1962, Michael Harrington's "The Other America" exposed the nation's dark side, saying:

"In morality and in justice, every citizen should be committed to abolishing the other America, for it is intolerable that the richest nation in human history should allow such needless suffering."

"But more than that, if we solve the problem of the other America we will have learned how to solve the problems of all of America."

Jack Kennedy was concerned enough to ask Walter Heller, his Council of Economic Advisor chairman, to examine the problem.

In his January 8, 1964 State of the Union address, poverty levels also got Lyndon Johnson to say his administration "today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America."

In fact, he barely scratched it. However, he got Congress to enact measures helping America's poor.

Inequality then was severe. Today, it's unprecedented and growing. Wealthy elites are richer than ever. Census data show around half of US households impoverished or bordering on it.

In fact, government data consistently over-estimate good news and understate the bad. As a result, unprecedented numbers of US households are impoverished under protracted Main Street Depression conditions.

Political Washington's austerity harshness causes greater harm. Shocking bipartisan indifference to human need and suffering is criminal.

In the world's richest ever country, poverty is highest among industrialized nations. Homelessness and hunger levels are unprecedented. Over 20% of US families haven't enough money to buy food and need help.

Over half of US children need food stamps to eat. Tens of millions have no health insurance. Those with it pay double the cost in other developed nations. Policies enacted under Obama assure tougher times ahead.

Unemployment approaches record highs. Manipulated government data hide it. Those employed work longer for less. Home foreclosures and bankruptcies affect millions. Adjusted for inflation, median income's no higher than in the 1970s.

In their book titled, "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer," Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson explained how unprecedented wealth transfers to America's rich destroyed middle class households. It also deepened poverty and created a permanent underclass.

Last September, Forbes magazine's annual report on America's richest 400 showed net worth soaring to over $1.5 trillion, up 12% from 2010. At the same time, poverty and human need spiral higher.

Studies Show Shocking US Inequality

Last November, The New York Times headlined, "Middle-Class Areas Shrink as Income Gap Grows, New Report Shows," saying:

A Stanford University study titled, "Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income, 1970 - 2009," said households living in middle income areas declined sharply since 1970. Rising income inequality left once better off ones mostly low-income or poor.

In fact, data through 2007 were examined before today's economic crisis began. Conditions now are much worse. Study author Sean Reardon said income shifts have far-reaching implications for future generations if present trends continue. Children are especially disadvantaged without access to good schools, preschool, child care, and support networks.

Former solid middle class areas are now low-income or poor. Income differences have profound effects. One example shows up on standardized test scores. The differential between rich and poor children is 40% greater than in 1970.

Moreover, the gap between rich and poor college completion (a key predictor of future success) is 50% greater than the 1990s. Over half of children from higher income families finish college compared to less than 10% of those in lower income households.

According to Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson:

"Rising inequality" produces a "two-tiered society....in which the more affluent citizens live lives fundamentally different from middle and lower-income groups. This divide decreases a sense of community."

In October 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published after-tax income data from 1979 - 2007, saying it grew:

275% for the top 1%;

65% for the next 19%;

less than 40% for next 60%; and

just 18% for the bottom 20%.

Data were adjusted for household size differentials. However, inflation adjusted measures weren't provided. They show far greater differences between rich and poor. According to Professor Paul Buchheit, America's top 1% tripled their after-tax income from 1980 - 2006, while the bottom 90% saw theirs drop over 20%.

"(O)ur economy," he said, "allows a tiny percentage of us to take an inordinate amount of money from society, at an increasing rate."

According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, America's income inequality was the highest in recorded history in 2007 before the current crisis began, and Census data way understate it.

One Dollar for Life/economics public school teacher Robert Freeman said "(b)etween 2002 and 2006, (an) astounding three-quarters of the economy's growth was captured by the top 1%."

In his January 2010 Common Dreams article, he said it had "70% of all financial assets," a record high. Moreover, the bottom 40% own nothing and have a combined zero net worth.

In December 2011, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported on income differentials from 1996 - 2006, saying inflation adjusted it grew 25%. However, averages obscure variations. America's poorest 20% saw income levels fall 6%, and if measured since 1979, it would have been much greater.

In contrast, top 1% earners saw incomes double from 1996 - 2006. Middle income ones experienced a 10% increase. In addition, income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient increased 9% before taxes and 11% after-tax.

Capital gains and dividends most advantage richer Americans. Overall taxes in 2006 were less progressive than in 1996. Today, extremes are greater.

A 2011 Michael Norton/Dan Ariely study titled, "Building a Better America - One Wealth Quintile at a Time," showed most Americans vastly underestimate today's wealth disparities.

They believe the richest 20% control about 59% of the nation's wealth. It's about 84%, say the study authors. It fact, it's over 90%, perhaps well over.

A January 2012 Indiana University/School of Public and Environmental Affairs study titled, "At Risk: America's Poor During and After the Great Recession" discussed enormous growing problems facing the nation's least advantaged.

Protracted economic weakness "inflicted long-lasting damage to individuals, families, and communities," it said. It created a "near poor" and "new poor" underclass.

Long-term unemployment contributes greatly. Over four million Americans say they've been out of work over a year, the largest number since data collection began in 1948.

From 2006 - 2010, impoverished households increased 27% and keep rising. Young people and minorities between 18 and 34 have been hardest hit. Safety net protections are inadequate and eroding. Hard times getting harder affect greater numbers of people.

A Final Comment

Wrongheaded policies assure growing misery while America's rich never had it so good.

That's the dilemma voters face in an election year when neither party offers solutions. Instead, they assure growing wealth disparity, greater poverty, and human misery.

Only grassroots activism can change things. OWS protests show promise. Nothing will happen easily or quickly.

The mother of all social justice struggles continues. It better because growing inequality and human need are too intolerable to accept.

Organized people power works. Using it can beat organized money. If that's not incentive enough, what is?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

NPR and PBS Anti-Iranian Propaganda

2012-01-23T00:27:00.001-08:00

NPR and PBS Anti-Iranian Propaganda

by Stephen Lendman

Both National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting serve corporate and imperial interests. They're called public to conceal their agenda.

Critics ridicule NPR as National Pentagon or Petroleum Radio for good reason. It's true as well for PBS. Calling it Propaganda Public Broadcasting more accurately explains its mandate.

Listeners and viewers lose out. Those supporting both monetarily are cheated. Each receives generous government and corporate funding. In return, they know what's expected and don't disappoint.

Founded in 1970 as an independent, private, non-profit member organization of US public radio stations, NPR promised to be an alternative to commercial broadcasters by "promot(ing) personal growth rather than corporate gain (and) speak with many voices, many dialects."

Those promises long ago were abandoned. NPR's indistinguishable from other corporate media sources. It's corrupted like the rest. Consider its former head, Kevin Klose, its current president emeritus.

He was president from December 1998 - September 2008, then CEO from 1998 - January 2009. Earlier he was US propaganda director as head of Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television, and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. As a result, he fit seamlessly in his new role.

Corporate executive Gary Knell is current president and CEO. NPR's anti-populist tradition continues, disserving its 34 million listeners daily.

Created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) calls itself "a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress...and is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting."

"It helps support the operations of more than 1,100 locally-owned and-operated public television and radio stations nationwide, and is the largest single source of funding for research, technology, and program development for public radio, television and related online services."

Like NPR, it's heavily corporate and government funded, and provides similar services in return. Under George Bush, former Voice of America director Kenneth Tomlinson was chairman of CPB's Board of Governors. He lasted until an internal 2005 investigation forced him out for malfeasance.

Bush appointee Patricia Harrison now heads the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. An insider like other PBS and NPR officials, she earlier co-chaired the Republican National Committee. In 2001, she served as Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Cultural Affairs under Colin Powell.

On January 17, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) headlined, "PBS, NPR Try to Defend Iran Distortions," saying:

Just Foreign Policy's Robert Naiman pointed fingers at both organizations for saying one thing, then doing another, as well as suppressing and distorting truth. It's standard media scoundrel policy.

On January 10, FAIR criticized PBS' NewsHour for deceptive Iran reporting. Anchor Margaret Warner began, saying:

"The Iranian government insists that its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes only, an assertion disputed by the US and its allies."

She then quoted Panetta, saying:

"We know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon."

Panetta also explained precisely the opposite, saying:

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

PBS omitted it on air. Even ombudsman Michael Getler admitted:

"I think FAIR makes a good journalistic catch in calling attention to the fuller quote by Panetta on CBS. It was a very brief and clear statement by the Defense Secretary on an important point about whether Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon."

Also entirely omitted was the latest March 2011 US intelligence assessment. It clearly said no evidence reveals an Iranian nuclear weapons development program.

That news should have been highlighted. It was ignored. Incendiary rhetoric substituted. Viewers were deceived. PBS betrayed them. The NewsHour does it repeatedly on major issues. So does NPR.

Panetta's omitted comment broke from the usual anti-Iranian propaganda. "That's precisely what made it newsworthy," said FAIR. "PBS seems to think its viewers should have to read between the lines in order to arrive at the accurate assessment about Iran's nuclear program they left on the cutting room floor."

NewHour's foreign affairs and defense editor, Mike Mosettig agreed, saying:

"It would have been better had we not lopped off the first part of Panetta's quote."

Nonetheless, Getler believes it's "dishonest" to call PBS unfair, saying:

NewsHour viewers and others following the issue "would draw from the portion of the Panetta quote (used) that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon but they are developing a "nuclear capability"....

In fact, no evidence proves it. Claiming it is deceptively false. At issue is maliciously vilifying Iran, stoking fear, and manipulating viewers to think war, if planned, is justified.

Moreover, ombudsman apologies don't cut it. Neither does Mosettig's. Firing the host and changing program policy's needed. Instead, one deceptive report follows another. The more viewers watch, the less they know. That's precisely the idea. Treat them like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, scared, and willing to support imperial crimes.

It's standard NPR policy as well. For example, reporter Tom Gjelten said "the goal for the US and its allies (is) to convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program."

Like Gjelten, NPR ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos twisted truth, saying:

"The story didn't say or imply that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. As Bruce Auster, the senior editor for national security, notes, 'The story was about how the sanctions are designed to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons program, which automatically suggests it may not have one.' "

False and Schumacher knows it.

Moreover, why are sanctions imposed, especially illegal ones targeting a nonbelligerent nation pursuing a commercial nuclear program like dozens of other countries in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa? In addition, Middle East nations Egypt and the United Arab Emirates plan their own.

FAIR said the following:

"Does NPR really think that the best way to inform its listeners is to assume that when people hear a report about forcing Iran to 'give up a nuclear weapons program,' (they'll automatically) fill in the blanks (and) arrive at an entirely different (conclusion)."

"That every time you hear something about Iran's 'nuclear weapons program,' (it's) code for 'the-nuclear-weapons-program-that-may not exist-since-there-is-no-evidence" proving it?

"For good measure," added FAIR, "the ombud throws in another defense (saying) the 'quote carefully refers to 'a' program - using the indefinite article - and not the definite 'its' or 'the' program.' "

In other words, NPR listeners should be astute enough to know the word "a" refers to a possible non-existing program. They should also know NPR obfuscates, deceives, lies, and represents the same government and corporate interests as other major media scoundrels.

Ergo, they should tune out and choose other sources for real news and information. The same goes for PBS. Both function as propaganda services. Their mandate is suppressing truth and full disclosure. In the process, they disgrace themselves.

Analysis of PBS NewsHour Guests

In October 2010, FAIR published a report titled, "Taking the Public Out of Public TV," saying:

PBS' NewsHour "fail(s) to live up to its mission to provide an alternative to commercial television, to give voice to those 'who would otherwise go unheard,' and help viewers to 'see America whole, in all its diversity..."

In fact, NewsHour's guests are 80% male and 82% white. Moreover, government, military, corporate, and other elites are regularly featured. Since 2006, women of color decreased by a third to 4% of sources used.

In fact, women and people of color most often appear through "people on the street" soundbites, not authoritative analysts or spokespeople interviewed live.

"Viewers were five times as likely to see guests representing corporations (than) public interest groups," including labor, consumers and environmental organizations.

Democrats outnumbered Republicans, but latter ones dominated longer format segments. Of course, both parties represent America's duopoly, depriving voters of alternatives.

During the 2010 Mexico Gulf oil spill disaster, industry representatives outnumbered environmental ones over four to one.

On Afghan war segments, anti-war and human rights activists were excluded.

FAIR explained that Liberty Media Corporation owns "a controlling stake in the NewsHour since 1994. CEO John Malone said "nobody wants to go out and invent something and invest hundreds of millions of dollars of risk capital for the public interest."

Yet viewers donate "public dollars." Moreover, former PBS president Ervin Duggan declared NewsHour "ours and ours alone."

So-called "Public Broadcasting" very much is commercial. It also sold its Nightly Business Report to a private company and has various corporate sponsors. So does NPR.

Analysis of NPR Guests

In mid-2004, FAIR published a report titled, "How Public Is Public Radio?" saying:

Four news programs were studied - All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday, and its counterpart Sunday program.

In June 2003, "every on-air source quoted" was recorded. "Each source was classified by occupation, gender, nationality and partisan affiliation. In total, 2,334 sources were reviewed in 804 stories.

FAIR also examined NPR's most frequently used think tanks and commentators. Those appearing on the same programs from May through August 2003 were included.

Elites "dominated NPR's guest-list." Those from government, business, and similar professional categories accounted for nearly two-thirds on air.

Current and former government officials comprised the largest group, including current and former military ones. MSM journalists were also featured from The New York Times, Washington Post and similar sources.

Populist voices were heard but marginalized. Like PBS, most often they appeared in soundbite "people on the street" appearances.

Moreover, public interest group spokespeople appeared only 7% of the time. They ranged from conservative to liberal. Most often, they appeared in "domestic policy stories." Workers and organized labor were almost entirely shut out. Corporate representatives appeared "23 times more often."

In addition, women were "dramatically underrepresented," especially as experts.

Accusations about NPR's alleged liberal bias are baseless. FAIR's study proved it.

"For a public radio service intended to provide an independent alternative to corporate-owned and commercially driven mainstream media," NPR struck out. So did PBS. They still do.

Tune them out and go elsewhere for real news, information, and analysis.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

UK Government Suppresses Truth

2012-01-22T00:29:00.000-08:00

UK Government Suppresses Truth

by Stephen Lendman

Press TV broke the news headlining, "Ofcom revokes Press TV's UK license," saying:

In a questionable move and without offering a valid response to the Press TV CEO's letters, the British Office of Communications (Ofcom)" pulled the plug disgracefully.

After threatening it for months, it "removed the channel from the Sky platform."

Britain's decision came at its highest levels. Likely Prime Minister David Cameron was involved. Suppressing truth burnished Britain's credentials as a reliable axis of evil partner, together with America and Israel. Expect much worse ahead from all three.

Revoking Press TV's license was clear irresponsible censorship. Doing so suppressed truth. UK television viewers were deprived of real news, information, commentary and analysis.

Fortunately, they have options. They can still follow Press TV online, through below listed web sites, or by satellite as follows:

Hot Bird 8 (13E)

12437

27500

3/4

Eurobird 1 (28.5E)

11222

27500

2/3

SES ASTRA (19/2E)

12460.50

27500

3/4

The following web sites also carry it worldwide:

Zattoo (Internet platform and IPTV. Supports PC, MAC, Linux and all tablet PCs and smartphones) (UK)

OHTV Box (Internet Set-top box) (Worldwide)

Roku Box (Internet Set-top box) (Worldwide) (Available in UK from January 2012)

Livestation (Internet platform. Supports PC MAC, Linux and all tablet PCs and smartphones)

In addition, they can use Press TV's web site:

presstv.ir

Available 24-hours a day, it's a simple click-and-use way to follow Press TV regularly.

At issue is its even-handed coverage, real news and information, anti-imperial Middle East reporting, and accurate accounts about "British police crackdowns on anti-austerity protesters in London and other cities."

In addition, Ofcom is close to Britain's royal family. WikiLeaks cables disclosed its anger over Press TV's coverage of Prince William/Kate Middleton's wedding extravaganza.

Indeed so. Estimates ranged from $5 - $50 billion because a national holiday shut down Britain's economy. Activity ground to a halt. Workers lost pay, and security costs were huge. Thousands of police (perhaps on overtime) and other measures were employed.

Last April, this writer discussed it on Press TV, saying:

With Britain's economy weak and declining, the spectacle was "shocking and disgusting." It was "an extravagant waste of money" while "popular needs go begging."

Contemptuous of people needs, "rich folks cavort with unlimited amounts of money. It's the same in America as Britain."

In January, Press TV CEO Mohammad Sarafraz wrote Ofcom. He questioned its independence because Britain's Secretary of State has hiring and firing authority over its chairman and staff.

Ofcom's also beholden to "loans and Grant-in-Aid from the British Government."

In addition, he raised a "glaring contradiction," saying:

"Ofcom wants to revoke" Press TV's license because it determined that it "does not have control over the broadcast. Yet at the same time, Ofcom" fines Press TV for something it "says it has no control over!"

Ofcom's action is a "futile....attempt to conceal the truth from the people of Britain, and those that want to hear our alternative voice will find a way despite your efforts."

Viewers React

Comments Press TV received included the following:

"Nimco: What do we expect. Sky TV is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a known Zionist and Islamophobe. But the truth is stronger than hate. Press TV will prevail in the end."

Samy: This is a joke. Other channels have done worse things than what they say about Press TV, and they have not had their license revoked. I will cancel my Sky account. I wish more people will do that. Where is their freedom of speech then???

James: Britain could not compete with Press TV and so took it down.

Sharon: Press TV has done a brilliant job showing this Royal Family's true colors....Ofcom is obeying their freemason masters and doing what they are told.

Ryan: Today is a sad day for us Brits as Press TV was wrongly taken off the air....However, this is not going to stop me watching online.

British-Pakistani: Ofcom can't silence the truth.

Seektruth: My Sky subscription is now cancelled.

BritishIdiots: This is how (UK) democracy works (by) bombing children and women.

yenda rasta: This action (is) how communist regimes behind the iron curtain" operated. It's the same in Britain.

Hassan: One of the best sources of information in UK is Press TV. Shame on UK.

Citizen of the World-UK: This is a black day for freedom of speech....There is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this country....I cancelled my Sky account after their reporting on Gaza....Thank you Press TV."

For reporting accurately on major issues, Press TV deserves praise. Why else would Britain ban it?

Northern Ireland political analyst Saeb Shaath called doing so "a gross reminder of the Spanish inquisition" to silence free speech and truth. That's what "scared them."

It's "an international and imperialist war against the freedom of expression, and all that is coming to deny Iran the ability of expressing really what is happening in Iran and the motives behind imperialist forces (to) attack a country (that) never for the last three hundred years attacked anyone" except in self-defense "against aggressors."

Major Media Reaction

True to form, US major media scoundrels marched in lockstep with Ofcom. New York Times writer Ravi Somaiya headlined, "Britain Revokes Iranian TV Network's License," saying:

"Britain's media regulator revoked" Press TV's license, "saying the network had failed to address concerns over its editorial independence and had not paid a fine."

The Washington Post ran an AP article headlined, "British regulator revokes license of Iran's English-language Press TV," saying:

"Ofcom said it was not convinced the station, an arm of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, had control over the programs it aired....Press TV called the decision 'a clear instance of censorship.' "

Wall Street Journal writers Paul Sonne and Farnaz Fassihi headlined, "Tehran's TV Channel Loses British License," saying:

"....Ofcom realized editorial control of Press TV rested with the broadcaster's headquarters in Tehran, rather than with its operations in London."

CNN headlined, "UK revokes Iranian network's license," regurgitating comments like above.

MSNBC ran a Reuters article doing the same thing. So did Murdoch's Fox News, adding: "It is a crime in Britain to broadcast without a license." It's true as well for truth and full disclosure reporting. They're also suppressed in America, especially on Fox.

For years, America's major media scoundrels waged war on Iran. Supportively, they back Washington's regime change plans. They also misreport, distort, and cheerlead all US imperial wars.

London Guardian writer Mark Sweney headlined, "Iran's Press TV loses UK license," saying:

"....Ofcom revoked its license for breaching the Communications Act. (It) found that Press TV's practice of running its editorial oversight from Tehran....is in breach of broadcasting license rules in the UK."

"Hadi Ghaemi, director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, welcomed Ofcom's decision. 'It's about time for the Iranian government to pay a price for its reliance on broadcasts to commit and promote egregious human-rights crimes.' "

Britain's state owned BBC regurgitated Ofcom's fabrication about "breach(ing) several broadcasting license rules over editorial control of the channel." Why not? They were told what to report and did so.

In contrast, Russia Today quoted Press TV calling Ofcom's revocation "a clear act of censorship." UK media analyst Phil Rees said it was geopolitically motivated, saying:

"Press TV has been viewed through geopolitical terms - and there is a breakdown of relations between Britain and Iran. Press TV's journalism is not viewed (as) journalism, but....in terms of British-Iranian relations."

"Most of the criticisms of Press TV have been due to its coverage, because it sees the Middle East very differently than the mainstream media in Britain."

He called taking it off air a "tragedy."

Journalist/Press TV host Yvonne Ridley was quoted saying "the so-called 'free democracies' don't like the truth, and they will go to extraordinary levels of censorship to stop what they see as criticism of the way they run their governments."

Truth and full disclosure got Press TV's license pulled, not breaching UK law. Moreover, British government owned, funded and controlled BBC operates out London. By Ofcom's reasoning, perhaps its license should be revoked. Former viewers and listeners wanting real news and information would applaud.

In July 2009, the Guardian published Press TV's Roshan Muhammed Salih op-ed headlined, "Press TV speaks for itself," saying:

Britain's media calls Press TV Iran's "mouthpiece. (It's) hypocritical in the extreme, as exemplified by a sneering (BBC) Newsnight report, several offensive articles by rightwing commentators, and most recently a misleading post by Seth Freedman on Comment is free."

Spurious accusations include being "Iran's mouthpiece, (a) Holocaust denier, (and) fail(ing) to cover (Iran's 2009) elections fairly."

"All you need to do is watch the channel to realize that Press TV gives a platform to a wide diversity of views - pro-Israel and anti-Iranian government among them." It does the same for Hamas, Hezbollah and other voices excluded from major media spaces.

Former UK MP/Press TV host George Galloway said:

Ofcom's decision is "not about media regulation. All sorts of foreign TV channels are modeled along the same lines as Press TV."

In addition, many "obscene sex channels operate under Ofcom's nose, and they're free to do so. Our crime at Press TV is not only that we are telling the truth that most other broadcasters deliberately conceal, but we were becoming more and more popular."

Britain's hypocritical stance on free speech belies its actions. "We're actually told here in Britain that we go to war to bring such freedoms to them."

Ofcom officials are "highly paid servants of the British state. They're not independent as this action makes clear." In fact, WikiLeaks cables revealed that UK and US officials "discussed how to put Press TV off the air." The London Times "quoted a highly placed Foreign Office official saying efforts were being made to take Press TV off the air."

"This was long before any questions" Ofcom raised in its complaints. "They were out to get us because we were achieving more and more a greater share of the audience."

Viewers follow Press TV because "it's a voice for the voiceless. God willing, it will continue to be."

"If you were drawing up a list of Press TV 'crimes,' " how it covers Israel/Palestine "is right up at the top." For years, "Ofcom harassed Press TV on (this) issue...."

Truth is widely suppressed in UK media. "The cat's chorus of conformity....is already becoming infamous around the world," including on BBC. More recently, it became "the Bush and Blair" operation, "and hasn't recovered. It's absolutely craven in front of power." Of course, Britain "controls their purse" and with it their content. The "same goes for Ofcom."

A Final Comment

Press TV interviews this writer often. It provides a platform to speak openly and freely on many topics. Other independent writers, authors, academics and analysts also appear regularly. BBC and America's major media exclude them.

WikiLeaks cables revealed that Britain's Foreign Office told Washington's London embassy that it was exploring ways to ban Press TV.

It provides real news, information, commentary and analysis. Airing 24 hours a day in English in most parts of the world, viewers can follow it by satellite, cable or online. Its US presence is limited through intermediary companies.

Major cable operators Comcast and Time Warner banned it. So did media conglomerates Disney, Viacom and Fox.

Controlled and funded by Britain's government, BBC's an imperial tool. Throughout its history, it's suppressed information, commentaries and analysis critical of its policies.

America's major media long ago abandoned truth, including on state-controlled National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting. It's true as well in Britain, especially on government-run BBC.

In contrast, Press TV, Russia Today and Voice of Russia air diverse discussions and opinions on major global issues.

UK and US viewers can access all three online. Do so daily for real information and analysis to stay current and well informed - free from Western propaganda.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Handbook on Israeli Apartheid

2012-01-22T00:26:00.000-08:00

Handbook on Israeli Apartheid

by Stephen Lendman

In July 2005, a coalition of 171 Palestinian Civil Society organizations created the global BDS movement - for "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights" for Occupied Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinian diaspora refugees.

Since 1948, dozens of UN resolutions condemned Israel's colonial occupation, decades of discriminatory policies, illegal land seizures, settlements, international law violations, and harsh oppression. They called for remedial action.

Nothing so far worked. Palestine remains occupied. Its people keep suffering. Their human rights are denied. Gaza's suffocating under siege. Abuses this extreme can't be tolerated.

In solidarity, people of conscience demand justice and "call upon international civil society organizations and (supporters everywhere) to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to (apartheid) South Africa."

Pressure's needed for "embargoes and sanctions....for the sake of justice and genuine peace."

Corporate Watch recently published a volume titled, "Targeting Israeli Apartheid: A Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Handbook."

Calling it a "guide many of us in the movement have been waiting for," it "demystif(ies) and expose(s) the daily reproduction of the occupation of Palestine."

Clear forensic evidence shows how colonization continues. The guide lists "names, addresses, profit margins, and zones of activity of the corporate web that sustains this injustice."

Through understanding comes better ways to intervene. Activists are given detailed information in nearly 400 pages. The material exposes the anti-Semitism canard. Occupation, repression and exploitation have no religion or ethnicity.

Decades of colonization continue because it's profitable. The guide frames it as "an international economic and cultural dynamic that we can identify in our own countries, on our streets and in our own homes."

Nonetheless, resistance offers hope and change. "(I)nformation is action." Grassroots solidarity can end Israeli apartheid, militarism, occupation and repression. BDS activism unites global civil societies to do it collectively. It explains:

"The key lesson learned from South Africa is that, in order for world governments to end their complicity with Israel's grave and persistent violation of human rights and international law, they must be compelled to do so through mass, well organized grassroots pressure by social movements and other components of civil society."

"In this context, BDS has proven to be the most potent and promising strategy of international solidarity with the Palestinian people in our struggle for self determination, freedom, justice, and equality."

It holistically targets decades of repressive occupation and Israeli Arab marginalization. Targeting state criminals and profiteering corporate interests are key to ending this decades long nightmare.

International companies like Deutsche Bahn pulled out. Companies with stakes in the Dutch Dexia banking group sold shares. The Israeli conglomerate Africa Israel said it won't work in settlements. Moreover, since Cast Lead, Israeli companies saw exports drop, especially to Europe.

The guide focuses on profiteering. Exposing it shines light where it's needed. Targeting corporate bottom lines matter most, beginning with tarnishing their image.

Three parts comprise the volume:

(1) Israel's economic sectors, their relative importance, and corporate profiteers in them.

Detailed information is provided on Israel's export trade, how BDS activism affects it, holding companies, banking and financial services, agriculture, extractive industries, energy, telecommunications, tourism, freight and public transport, academia, manufacturing, occupied industrial zones, military industry, high-tech business, diamonds, drugs, construction and real estate, and franchises.

(2) Geographical case studies examine exploited areas, including Syria's Golan, the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, and the Naqab (a semi-desert region in southern Israel.

(3) A special focus highlights Britain, its arms and munitions industry, retailers, investors, Israeli companies with UK shareholders, banks, pension funds, universities, and complicit charities.

Detailed maps are provided of the Gaza Marine Zone, Separation Wall, Golan, Jordan Valley, the 1967 Allon Plan (cynically proposing maximum land with minimum Arabs, as well as annexing Palestine's choicest areas), East Jerusalem, and the Naqab.

Corporate Watch calls itself a "research group exposing the environmentally destructive and socially divisive projects of corporations and dragging the corrupt links between business and power, economics and politics into the spotlight."

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Its research "intends to strengthen and provide a resource for the growing BDS movement and the wider (supportive) international" effort.

It also examines the oil industry, globalization, genetic engineering, agribusiness, toxic chemicals, migration, privatizations, and other areas to catalogue corporate crimes.

It works cooperatively with peace campaigners, environmentalists, trade unionists, NGOs, journalists, British MPs, and other members of the public.

It targeting Israeli apartheid document focuses on:

(1) Israeli companies profiteering from Palestine's economy and people. For example, agribusiness established farms on stolen land. As a result, they crippled Palestinian agriculture with militarized help.

(2) International corporations exploiting Palestinian suffering. Arms companies provide Israel weapons and munitions. Construction companies build illegal settlements, Israel's Separation Wall, and Jews-only commercial development. Others take advantage the same way.

(3) Foreign states setting up illegal industrial areas on stolen Palestinian land. For example, Japan plans a Jordan Valley one working cooperatively with Israeli and international companies. Britain, Germany, France and other governments expressed interest in establishing their own.

A Final Comment

Colonialism, apartheid, and militarized occupation constitute serious international law breaches. It's long past time they ended. World leaders show no resolve. Grassroots activists must do it on their own until Israel:

A Final Comment

recognizes Palestinian self-determination within 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital;

respects international law;

ends its illegal occupation, including Gaza;

dismantles its Separation Wall;

grants Israeli Arabs equal rights as Jews; and

complies with UN resolution 194, affirming the right of Palestinian refugees to return home or be fully compensated for losses.

Sustained grassroots activism for the long haul, including a vibrant BDS movement, has the best chance to achieve it. It won't happen another way.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Anti-Syrian Pack Journalism

2012-01-21T00:30:00.001-08:00

Anti-Syrian Pack Journalism - by Stephen Lendman

When America wages war or plans it, major media scoundrels cheerlead in lockstep. Incendiary managed news follows. Truth and full disclosure lose out.

As a result, readers and viewers are uninformed. Imperial Washington gets free reign to keep ravaging the world one country at a time, threatening humanity in the process.

Arguably, three major broadsheets are America's most influential - The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Each has large followings, especially among opinion makers.

They also contradict London Guardian commentator Jonathan Steele's January 17 article titled, "Most Syrians back President Assad, but you you'd never know from western media," saying:

"When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed."

No wonder a recent YouGov Siraj Syria poll was ignored. Funded by the Qatar Foundation, it was commissioned by The Doha Debates. Notably, Qatar's monarchy one-sidedly opposes Assad. Its emir wants foreign intervention. Yet it published "inconvenient" poll results on its web sit.

It found most Arabs outside Syria want Assad to go, but not Syrians. A majority 55% support him, "motivated by fear of civil war" or greater violence and instability than now.

At the same time, half his supporters want near-term free elections. Assad promised them. "But it is vital that he publishes (new) election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent" observers to monitor results.

In late December, Guardian writer Simon Jenkins railed against Britain's "ruinous decade of wars." He called UK interventionism "not so much the white man's burden as his morbid thrill."

Rarely do Steele/Jenkins equivalents get major media op-ed space in America. Nearly all commentators are hawkish, and television coverage screams.

On January 19, a New York Times editorial headlined, "Syria's Rising Toll," saying:

UN and other reports say deaths now exceed 5,400. "Yet the international community still has not mustered the tough pressure that might force Mr. Assad to stop the killing, or Syria's Army and business elite to toss him out."

Fact check

Alleged death toll numbers come from anti-Assad elements. They entirely lack credibility. Unmentioned were 2,000 or more Syrian security force killings by Western-backed externally generated insurgents. Inconvenient facts are ignored. They include Washington's longstanding regime change in both Syria and Iran.

The Times accused Russia of "blocking the (Security Council) from imposing any serious punishment," selling Assad arms, and "thwarting democratic forces and their Western backers."

"On Monday, Russia proposed a shamefully weak resolution that put equal blame" on both sides. "That means it is up to Arab League ministers" to get tough and act. "Assad has made clear" his unwillingness to "compromise....and he has made clear his contempt for (League) efforts to broker peace."

Fact check

Russia, China, BRIC allies, and other countries oppose outside intervention. At issue is not replicating Libya. Washington and Western allies want regime change, control, and delinking Syria from Iran. They don't tolerate democracy abroad or at home.

Russia's proposal was even-handed, despite insurgent responsibility for violence, not Assad who's responding as would any leader. He's expressed willingness to meet popular demands several times. His comments are ignored or discounted.

The Times want Arab League ministers to end their "failed monitoring mission" and impose tougher measures on their own. At issue is concern that mission head General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi debunked Western propaganda and confirmed evidence of an externally generated insurgency

As a result, he's called unreliable. Efforts are made to discredit him. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Arab League monitors and foreign ministers are meeting in Cairo this weekend.

A report on Syrian violence will follow. Perhaps al-Dabi will be entirely shut out. Earlier he reported regime cooperation and lashed out at monitor Anwar Malek's comments for quitting the team. He called the mission a "farce," saying:

"What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people. The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released."

In response, al-Dabi said "Malek did not leave the hotel for six days and did not go out with the rest of the team into the field giving the excuse that he was sick."

The Times sees "no easy solution," but wants more international community pressure "to make clear to (Assad) and his cronies that their time has run out."

Fact check

Washington-backed insurgents cause violence and killings. Moreover, international law prohibits interfering internally in other countries' affairs. Washington and rogue NATO partners do it as official policy. They and Times editorial writers spurn what real democracies support and enforce.

A January 17 Washington Post editorial headlined, "Syria's carnage puts Arab leaders on horns of a dilemma," saying:

Arab League interventionist calls show "a sense of desperation." In fact, they indicate Western policy reflected through proxy comments.

"Assad predictably (continues) killing people at a shocking pace." Arab League observers "fail(ed), and one of its own members called (its mission) a farce."

So AL members have a choice "between humiliation and stronger action....One way or another, the (League's) predicament will be shared by NATO members," including Washington....Standing by while the bloodshed goes on should not be one of the options."

Indeed not, but pointing fingers the wrong way won't end it.

Wall Street Journal contributor Fouad Ajami is a longtime Western flack. Long ago he sold his credibility for a buck. He showed it in a January 6 op-ed titled, "America and the Solitude of the Syrians," calling the Assad government a "veritable North Korea on the Mediterranean...."

Predictably, he accused Assad of "hunt(ing) down (his people) and slaughter(ing) them like rats," adding there's "ice in this ruler's veins. (He) mix(es) cunning and bluster. (The world's) two big autocracies - Russia and China - have given this regime cover and sustenance at the United Nations."

Fact check

Earlier comments debunked Ajami's. They lay blame where it belongs. Moreover, Russia, China and other nations want conflict resolution, not war.

Media scoundrels like Ajami have other ideas, implied or explicitly stated. Like other like-minded scoundrels, his credibility long ago was lost. He regurgitates official policies, not truth and full disclosure.

As a result, readers are left uninformed and misdirected. They deserve better, especially on issues of war and peace.

However, major media writers, op-ed contributors, editorial writers, TV reporters and pundits won't provide it.

Shut them out. Go online. Choose reliable sources to explain what media scoundrels suppress and distort. Make them a regular habit to learn what everyone needs to know - the truth.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Israel Claims Syria/Hamas-Connected Terror Cells Uncovered

2012-01-21T00:27:00.000-08:00

Israel Claims Syria/Hamas-Connected Terror Cells Uncovered - by Stephen Lendman

Here we go again. We've seen it before strategically timed. Weigh all Israeli claims skeptically. On its face, this one lacks credibility.

Cui bono? Not Syria embroiled for months battling an externally generated insurgency and threats of foreign intervention.

Why provide greater cause while trying to defuse crisis conditions, cooperate with Arab League observers, enlist outside support, and offer opposition elements places in a broad-based government along the lines of a national unity one.

At the same time, Hamas and Fatah plan May elections for unity governance. They both want conflict resolution, not confrontations.

Nonetheless, Israel connects Syria and Hamas with West Bank terror cells.

On January 19, Haaretz headlined, "IDF exposes Syria-funded Islamic Jihad terror cell in West Bank," saying:

"Israeli security forces have recently discovered an Islamic Jihad terror cell which was planning attacks against Israeli soldiers," according to defense officials.

Ten "Islamic Jihad militants were arrested near Jenin in recent months." Israel claims connections to Syria-based Islamic Jihad (IJ). Large money transfers went for weapons and other operations.

Israel also alleges IJ ties to Gaza and the so-called Islamic Union in Jerusalem.

According to Shin Bet (Israel's security service), attacks on IDF soldiers and settlements were planned. In addition, abducting Israelis were involved. Suspects were charged with membership in an illegal organization, transferring funds from abroad, contact with foreign agents, illegal weapons possession, and conspiracy to trade arms and military equipment.

Last September, Israel claimed foiling other multiple terror attacks. At the time, dozens of "Hamas militants" were arrested. An explosive belt smuggled into Jerusalem was allegedly seized 24 hours before the planned attack, according to Israeli officials.

They claimed foiling it was part of a large-scale Shin Bet/IDF/police operation against Hamas' West Bank/East Jerusalem "military infrastructure."

Israel said 13 terror cells were involved, the main one in Hebron. Allegedly they planned West Bank/Jerusalem attacks. They kept contact "with Hamas headquarters in Syria, and the date of the attack was set for August 21."

Another plot supposedly involved a "suicide bomber" armed with a fire extinguisher containing six kilograms of explosives. The same cell was blamed for a March Jerusalem bus station attack.

The tired story's going stale. Incendiary buzz words highlight "terrorist attacks," "multiple cells" infested with "militants," "suicide bombers," and "Hamas/Syrian connections."

Israel also claimed a man named Ahmad Madhoun got $10,000 to buy Saudi weapons as part of a plot to kidnap an Israeli soldier.

Shin Bet alleges Hamas wants its West Bank military infrastructure restored to "execute terrorist attacks." Plausible reasons why and proof weren't provided. In fact, Hamas only responds when attacked. It doesn't initiate terror strikes.

Israel's allegations wreak of duplicity. Hamas and Syria have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Yet Shin Bet claims terror cells prove Damascus plans rehabilitating its West Bank infrastructure to attack Israel. No cause or evidence was given, just baseless accusations to incite fear, blame Hamas and Syria, and provide pretexts for likely attacks on one or both.

In other words, only Israel and Washington benefit. Vilifying Hamas and Syria continue. Expect conflict to follow.

A Final Comment

On January 19, Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Aziz Dweik was arrested in the West Bank for alleged involvement with terrorist groups. Israel didn't comment.

At a checkpoint, soldiers handcuffed, blindfolded, arrested, and detained him. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh urged Abbas to halt sham Amman talks with Israel, saying:

"A Palestinian should not shake the hand of his enemy, the enemy who arrests the symbols of Palestinian legitimacy. We want to see something in the West Bank. We want to see the prisoners freed. We want to see the security coordination with the occupation stopped."

"Palestinian reconciliation and security cooperation with the occupation are two parallel lines that cannot meet.

The Palestinian parliament hasn't functioned since Hamas and Fatah split in 2007. In 2006, Dweik was arrested with other Hamas officials, held uncharged for three years, then released in 2009.

He faced similar abuse earlier, including imprisonment and torture. Moreover, in 1992, he and hundreds of other Hamas leaders were expelled to Marj A-Zohour in Southern Lebanon until allowed back.

Since Hamas was elected Palestine's legitimate government, dozens of its parliamentarians were harassed, threatened, arrested, detained and abused. Twenty-three remain incarcerated, including 20 uncharged under administrative detention.

Israel has thousands of political prisoners, including children and politicians wanting occupation-free liberation. Israel calls that a crime.

On January 20, deputy PLC head Ahmad Bahar and other parliamentary leaders denounced Dweik's "kidnapping." Demanding his immediate release, a joint press release said:

"The abduction of Dr. Dweik is another Israeli crime against the Palestinian people and their democratically elected officials."

Bahar asked Arab League and Organization of the Islamic Conference members, as well as UN authorities, to intervene on his behalf. He also accused Israel of trying to undermine Palestinian unity, then added:

"What happened requires (Abbas) to declare an immediate stop to the negotiations in Amman in respect of our people and in respect of the parliament and its head."

"It should be a firm message to the occupation that their continued crimes will not be given cover by the Palestinian Authority and will not pass without a response."

As of evening January 20, Abbas and his office hadn't commented.

Dweik was abducted after meeting with South Africa's West Bank representative. Earlier, he and other Hamas officials held talks with MK Hanin Zoabi.

In mid-July 2010, Israel's Knesset stripped her of key parliamentary rights and privileges for having participated in the May 2010 Freedom Flotilla bringing vital aid to Gaza. Since then, she's been vilified, threatened, and may be prevented from standing for reelection. Hard-liners call her a "traitor."

They also support state terrorism against Palestinian civilians, including suffocating Gazans under siege. Their struggle for Palestinian liberation continues.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Beating Up on Chavez

2012-01-20T00:35:00.000-08:00

Beating Up on Chavez - by Stephen Lendman

Since inaugurated in February 1999, he's faced open US hostility, including by go-along major media scoundrels.

New York Times writer Simon Romero's among them. On January 6, he and William Neuman played both Chavez and Iranian cards headlining, "Increasingly Isolated, Iranian Leader Set to Visit Allies," saying:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visiting "some of the United States' most ardent critics: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador."

Chavez "is Mr. Ahmadinejad's most vociferous ally in the region." Central University of Venezuela Professor Elsa Cardozo said his visit gave Chavez a chance to "project his own style and radical message. His core supporters are very radical and he doesn't want to lose them."

Indeed they're radical for social justice. Chavez delivers so they support him. Imagine the difference from America. Poverty's unprecedented. Recent Census data show half US households impoverished or bordering on it. Millions have no jobs and can't find one. Homelessness and hunger keep growing. When need's greatest, austerity drives people to the edge.

In contrast, Venezuelans get free education to the highest levels, quality healthcare at no cost, subsidized food, affordable electricity and cooking gas, gasoline at 7 cents a gallon, and other social benefits. Moreover, unemployment's 6%. Homelessness is low. Attention Centers help them. So do rehab facilities to get them productive again.

Venezuela's far from perfect. Problems plague the country, including high inflation and blackouts. However, positive steps are taken to improve things. For example, poverty's half its level since Chavez took office, and deep poverty fell from 25% to 7%. In America's, the world's richest country, it's skyrocketing.

Why? Because the business of America is war and grand theft. People are increasingly on their own sink or swim. Duopoly power governs. Rigged elections defile democratic governance. Banker bailouts, imperial wars, policies favoring wealth and power, and repressive police state laws define their agenda.

In contrast, Chavez wages war on imperialism, poverty, hunger, underdevelopment, and human need. About 60% of Venezuela's annual budgets go for social spending. Emphasis is on healthcare, education, housing, social security, job creation and training, food subsidies, science and technology, agricultural production, culture, community media, direct monthly transfers to poor single mothers, and subsidies for thousands of direct democracy communal councils.

No wonder Venezuelans support him, and why America hates him. His good example exposes its duplicity. Washington calls it a threat.

Last month, Obama addressed the Venezuela/Iran relationship, saying:

"Ultimately, it is up to the Venezuelan people to determine what they gain from a relationship with a country that violates universal human rights and is isolated from much of the world. Here in the Americas, we take Iranian activities, including in Venezuela, very seriously."

He also accused Chavez of "erod(ing) the separation of powers....restrict(ing) the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threaten(ing) basic democratic values, and fail(ing) to contribute to the security of the region." At the same time, he claimed Washington doesn't "pretend to dictate" policies to sovereign nations.

In response, Chavez called Obama a fraud, an embarrassment. He's that and much more. So is America, the world's leading global bully and human rights abuser.

Besides ravaging the world one country at a time, it created tyranny at home through draconian police state laws. The latest came December 31. It gives presidents diktat power to order US citizens arrested, thrown in military dungeons, and left to rot indefinitely based on spurious terrorism connection charges or none at all.

On January 9, the State Department expelled Venezuela's Miami consul general, Livia Acosta Noguera, on bogus claims about discussing cyber attacks while based in Mexico in 2008. In fact, she was set up, but didn't take the bait.

Nonetheless, a State Department spokesman said the move was taken in accordance with Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Yet it states:

"1. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered."

"2. The exemption from taxation referred to in this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission."

How this applies to Noguera wasn't explained. However, four hard-right congressional representatives complained about her. They falsely claimed she discussed attacking US government computer systems with Iranian and Cuban embassy officials and students while serving in Mexico.

They're some of Congress' worst, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. FL), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R. FL), Rep. David Rivera (R. FL), and Rep. Albio Sires (D. NJ).

Chavez called her expulsion "arbitrary and unjustified," saying it's "another demonstration of the arrogance of ridiculous imperialism."

"She has been accused of I don't know how many things by the US government, and above all, by sectors of the ultra right-wing in Miami, including many Venezuelans who live there, counter-revolutionaries, not all of them, but a small group."

In fact, Noguera's been in Venezuela since December. "We already know this was going to happen, and so she has been in Caracas in order to avoid situations, possibly even dangerous ones."

Former neocon Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs, Roger Noriega, commented through Twitter as follows:

"Chavista terrorist spy consul general Livia Acosta expelled from the United States by the State Department! Acosta has 72 hours to leave the country."

Since Chavez took office, he and government officials faced spurious charges and harassment. In September 2006, in fact, departing Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Madura was prevented from boarding his JFK commercial flight. He was heading home after attending a UN General Assembly meeting.

Allegedly his name was on a "red list." Ordered to surrender his ticket, he was then illegally detained and strip-searched, despite explaining his credentials. It was police state thuggery, a US specialty, even against visiting foreign ministers.

At home, he told reporters that police threatened to handcuff and beat him if he resisted. He was held 90 minutes, denied outside contact, including legal help, before being released.

No wonder Chavez got Noguera home before possible similar mistreatment. Rogue state policies define America, even against diplomatic representatives, world leaders and nonbelligerent nations.

Notably, Washington exploited Latin America for generations. Dismissively it's been called America's "backyard." It's also been a US corporate strategic reserve to plunder freely. No longer. New millennium years brought dramatic changes. James Petras calls the 1990s "the golden age of pillage." That's changed.

Mass movements arose like the Brazilian landless workers. Direct actions challenged traditional policies, including enormous wealth transfers to US banks and other corporate interests.

Centrist or left of center governments were elected in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. To some degree, they asserted independence, especially under Chavez. No wonder he's targeted for regime change.

Notably it's about oil. In 2010, OPEC said Venezuela had proved reserves of 296.5 barrels, surpassing Saudi Arabia's 264.5 barrels. Former Venezuelan National Assembly Commission of Energy and Oil head Luis Acuna said the nation has about $20 trillion in proved reserves.

The US Geological Survey estimates a mean recoverable 513 billion barrels in Venezuela's Orinoco Oil Belt, mainly heavy oil.

By any measure, Venezuela's oil rich. Washington wants it. As a result, Chavez, like Iran, is targeted. Spurious accusations follow. Media scoundrels regurgitate them. Opposition elements get generous funding.

In October, Chavez will stand for reelection. Throughout his tenure, he's been enormously popular. His approval rating hovers around 60%. In October 2011, Bloomberg said IVAD's poll (Institute de Analisis de Data) had him at 71%.

A February open primary will chose his opponent from a rogue's gallery of choices. Former Sumate president, Maria Corina Machado, is among them. Venezuela Analysis calls her "possibly the most right-wing conservative voice" contesting. For years she's been generously funded for being close to Washington.

Her campaign calls for "Popular Capitalism." Chile's Pinochet and Britain's Margaret Thatcher used the same theme. In office, they promoted misery. Whoever runs against Chavez in October will represent wealth and power interests. As a result, expect him to remain in office until 2019, health permitting, and he claims he's recovering well from cancer.

Washington continues war on him. False accusations follow. Expect no letup in 2012, especially with presidential elections in both countries.

America's duopoly offers no choice. Under Chavez, Venezuelans have direct democracy and social justice. Don't expect they'll give them up.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Wisconsinites v. Governor Scott Walker

2012-01-20T00:33:00.000-08:00

Wisconsinites v. Governor Scott Walker - by Stephen Lendman

Last winter's epic battle between Wisconsin public workers and Republican Governor Walker ended badly for social justice. Nonetheless, struggling for it continues.

As issue was old-fashioned union busting. It included eroding collective bargain rights before ending them altogether. In addition, draconian wage and benefit cuts were imposed.

Brazen politicians conspired with corrupt union bosses. Rank and file interests lost out. Wealth and power ones prevailed. It's the same story nationwide at federal, state and local levels.

After draconian Wisconsin legislation passed, collective bargaining's only permitted on wage issues. In addition, health insurance and pension contributions doubled. Things got tougher for workers already hard pressed to make ends meet. Wage cuts ranged from 8 - 20% ahead of more coming.

The epic battle ended along party lines after State Assembly members passed Walker's bill 53 - 42, following the Senate voting 18 - 1 with no debate. The measure read in part:

"This bill authorizes a state agency to discharge any state employee who fails to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working days during a state emergency or who participates in a strike, work stoppage, sit-down, stay-in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass resignations or sick calls. Under the bill, engaging in any of these actions constitutes just cause for discharge."

In addition, the governor may unilaterally declare "state of emergency" authority to fire striking workers, and under the section titled, "Discharge of State Employees:"

"The Governor may issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency for the state or any portion of the state if he or she determines that an emergency resulting from a disaster or imminent threat of a disaster exists."

In other words, he can dictatorially do what he wants, especially regarding public worker rights and job security. They're gone unless resurrected by mass action, including statewide shutdowns for rights too important to lose.

Other provisions stipulated worker responsibility for half their pension contributions, and minimally 12.6% of healthcare premiums. In addition, future pay raises are pegged to annual CPI increases, a rigged index not reflecting true inflation. Greater ones may only be approved by statewide referendum. The cumbersome process takes time and often fails.

Moreover, unions must hold annual votes to let workers decide whether or not to be members, and state authorities no longer will collect union dues from paychecks.

Voter Recall Drives

Last March, voters launched recall campaigns to replace anti-union politicians. At the time, Boise State University Professor Gary Moncrief called what went on unprecedented, saying he couldn't recall a times when "pretty much everyone" was potentially vulnerable to recall.

He and others said multiple state lawmakers were recalled only four previous times for the same issue. University of Iowa Professor Caroline Tolbert called recall "an extreme measure (under) extreme circumstances." UC San Diego Professor Thad Kousser said Wisconsin was in unchartered territory.

In state history, only two lawmakers were recalled. Attempting to remove a governor is unprecedented. Only two previous times it succeeded nationwide - in 2003 in California ousting Gray Davis for Arnold Schwarzenegger and 1921 in North Dakota.

Wisconsin law requires signatures from 25% of voters in the most recent gubernatorial race in districts of targeted legislators. In addition, recalls aren't allowed until after one year in office. On January 4, Walker became eligible. In his case, over 540,000 statewide signatures were needed.

Last July and August, recalls were held. Democrats lost four of six races. Republicans retained legislative control. Good efforts went for naught. Despite turn-out-the-vote campaigns, only 43% of eligible voters participated.

Moreover, union bosses allied with Democrats who made no secret about supporting draconian wage and benefit cuts. In other words, both parties and union officials sided with corporate interests and their own. As a result, rank and file workers lost out. Even so, their struggle continues.

On January 5, Walker told a Washington, DC right-wing American Enterprise Institute audience that he expects a June recall election. He was in town for a fund raiser, anticipating what's coming.

It's Official

On January 17, United Wisconsin (UW) broke the news. Its UW to Recall Walker site headlined, "Over One Million," saying:

Over a million Wisconsinites signed petitions to recall Walker. The achievement represents "the most-participated-in major recall effort in American history, and a number so significant" it's beyond legal challenge. UW board member Ryan Lawler said:

"The collection of more than one million signatures represents a crystal clear indication of how strong the appetite is to stop the damage and turmoil that Scott Walker has caused Wisconsin."

On January 17, they were filed along with another 845,000 signatures to recall Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefish, Walker's running mate. In addition, petitions were also submitted against four Republican state senators, including leader Scott Fitzgerald.

Of course, Democrats aren't blameless anymore than in Washington, and that's the real hurdle to overcome. Nonetheless, over 30,000 state volunteers canvassed street corners, shopping malls, places of worship, dinner tables and sidewalks "to take their state back."

One million signatures represents about 30% of eligible voters and nearly Walker's 2010 total (1.12 million).

The state Government Accountability Board has 31 days to certify requirements were met. If so, a late spring election will follow, including a primary to select Walker's Democrat opponent. So far, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's favored. Walker defeated him in 2010. After signatures were filed, he said:

"I stand with the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Wisconsin citizens who have had enough of Walker's cynical politics that try to divide the people of our state. It's time for a new direction that will heal our fractured state and move Wisconsin forward again."

He stopped short of saying how. In fact, as Milwaukee mayor, he instituted his own anti-worker measures. If elected governor, expect no reversals statewide. According to Marty Beil, executive director of Wisconsin AFSCME, Barrett's "an unacceptable candidate. From our perspective, (he's) been doing the bidding of Walker."

Of course, Beil and other union bosses express pro-worker sentiments for political cover. In practice, they ally with hostile forces for their own self-interest.

As a result, Wisconsinites can't rely on electoral choices for change, at least in the short-run. At federal, state and local levels, the system's too broken to fix. Only people power for the long haul has a chance.

That's what OWS is all about, marshaling organized people against organized money. It's the mother of all struggles, but more than that. It's one too important to lose.

On Wisconsin!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Protesting Internet Censorship

2012-01-19T00:34:00.001-08:00

Protesting Internet Censorship - by Stephen Lendman

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) introduced "S. 968: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP)." Referred to the Judiciary Committee, May 26 hearings were held. Debate's scheduled for next week.

On October 26, 2011 Rep. Lamar Smith (R. TX) introduced "HR 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA): To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of US property, and for other purposes" Referred to the House Judiciary Committee, markup continues.

Leahy, Smith, and congressional supporters claim the measures protect corporate investments against online piracy. In fact, they're about censorship and subverting Internet freedom.

If enacted, Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, and other information location tools will have to block user access to sites accused (rightly or wrongly) of very loosely defined copyright infringement.

In other words, they'll blacklist and shut them down arbitrarily to silence them. Media giants will have unprecedented powers. So will Congress and the administration. Internet freedom will be jeopardized. So will a free and open society.

Provisions empower the Attorney General to cut off access and funding for alleged "parasite" foreign and domestic sites. An Internet czar will decide if US interests are harmed. Courts will enforce police state rulings.

Both bills are so deeply flawed, they can't be fixed. Killing them is the only option.

Global Protest

Sopastrike.com's web site headlines, "WEB GOES ON STRIKE! saying:

"January 18, 2012 is the largest online protest in history, to stop the Internet censorship bills, SOPA & PIPA. Join in by blacking out your site and urging everyone you can reach to contact Congress now."

With many others, Wikipedia's "blacking out the English (site) for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time." During the blackout, information on SOPA and PROTECT IP will stay available.

Google's site headlined, "End Piracy, Not Liberty," saying:

SOPA and PROTECT IP will "censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the US."

"Tell Congress: Don't censor the Web."

It also urges readers to sign a petition, expressing opposition to Congress.

January 18's just the beginning. On January 23, a day of action's planned when the Senate reconvenes. Despite growing opposition, supporters want quick action to pass PROTECT IP, SOPA's companion bill.

The Battle to Save Internet Freedom

On January 16, the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) headlined, "How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation," saying:

Despite alleged White House opposition, "the fight is still far from over." Senate debate begins next week. Expect House action to follow soon. In fact, chief SOPA sponsor, Rep. Lamar Smith (R. TX), said markup will proceed in February.

Internet freedom's on the line. So aren't First Amendment rights without which all others are at risk. EFF explained worrisome provisions, including:

(1) Alleged copyright infringement lets government suppress information it wants censored.

(2) ISPs, search engines, and other information tools will be forced to comply.

(3) Web sites will have to "block anything from a user post about browser add-ons like DeSopa, to a simple list of IP addresses of already-blocked sites."

(4) Vague language gives authorities broad discretion.

(5) Investments in online startups will be affected.

(6) Open source software will be decimated.

(7) A "vigilante" provision grants immunity to ISPs for over-blocking "innocent users or block sites voluntarily with no judicial oversight at all." As a result, abuse potential is incalculable. Moreover, intermediaries only need show "good faith" and act on what they deem "credible evidence."

(8) Copyright holders will be able to get unopposed court orders to cut off foreign sites from payment processors and advertisers.

(10) The Attorney General will be authorized to block domain name services and be able to de-list sites from search engines. According to Google chairman Eric Schmidt, it "criminalize(s) linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself."

The same provision applies to payment processors and advertisers.

In addition, heavy litigation costs will deter falsely accused sites from contesting a guilty until proved innocent dilemma effectively. They could go broke trying.

As a result, SOPA and PROTECT IP will "drastically change the way we use the Internet (for the worse), and punish millions of innocent users" who never thought about copyright infringement. According to Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian:

These bills are "the equivalent of being angry and trying to take action against Ford just because a Mustang was used in a bank robbery."

"These bills must be stopped," says EFF, "if we want to protect free speech and innovation on the web."

"Please take action now and tell your Congressional representative you oppose the blacklist bills."

Do it easily on EFF's blacklist.eff.org.

EFF’s one-page guide about the blacklist bills also provides relevant information to review and share with others.

Heavyweights Face Off on Both Sides

Powerful interests represent both sides. Opponents include Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, You Tube, Linkedin, Mozilla, Roblox, Reddit, the Wikimedia Foundation, EFF, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, the libertarian CATO Institute, the Library Copyright Alliance (including the American Library Association), and dozens of others.

Virtually the entire tech industry united in opposition, including Adobe, Apple, Dell, Electronic Arts, Intel, Intuit, McAfee, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony (excluding Sony Music and Picture), Sybase, Symantec, and many others.

Some initially offered support, then softened positions. In a joint statement, they said:

"Valid and important questions have been raised about the(se) bill(s). As (they) now (stand, they) could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors." Redefinitions of who can be prosecuted are needed. "Unintended consequences must be avoided."

"Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights (too important to) be compromised." The Business Software Alliance (BSA) "has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet. All of these concerns should be duly considered and addressed."

Supporters include News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Chamber of Commerce, Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Association of Broadcasters, McGraw-Hill, Macmillan US, other book publishers, Viacom, other companies with cable, film and music interests, trademark dependent companies like Nike and L'Oreal. ASCAP, Caterpillar, Ford, Comcast, the NBA, NCAA, MLB, Netflix, Philip Morris, Pfizer, Time Warner, Wal-Mart, and many others.

In over 90,000 local groups, Meetup has more than 10 million people involved. Its web site headlines, "Meetups mobilize against PIPA and SOPA," saying:

The 20,000-member strong New York Tech Meetup (NYTM) "declared an emergency (January 18) Meetup" outside the New York offices of Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

NYTM's "calling on every concerned resident to take to the streets. In solidarity, the Hackers and Founders Meetup of the Bay area scheduled their own Meetup to rally" support.

Other actions will follow.

On January 17, Save the Internet.com headlined "Momentum Builds Against SOPA and PIPA," saying:

"Millions of Internet users have succeeded in slowing down the Hollywood-funded momentum of the bills." After initially staying largely silent, the major media "finally w(oke) up."

A Final Comment

A White House statement tried having it both ways, saying:

"We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

At the same time, it said "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs."

It also "call(ed) on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond US borders."

It was typical Obama, feigning opposition while supporting the bills' core provisions.

At issue is a free and open Internet, the last frontier of free expression. At this stage, it's very much up for grabs.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.