He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran’s ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.
The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.
“We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon,” retired Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.
“The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a ’spectacular action’ against the Marines,” said Lyons.
“He was prime minister,” Lyons said of Mousavi, “so he didn’t get down to the details at the4 lowest levels. “But he was in a principal position and had to be aware of what was going on.”
Lyons , sometimes called “the father” of the Navy SEALs’ Red Cell counter-terror unit, also fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack.
Bob Baer agrees that Mousawi, who has been celebrated in the West for sparking street demonstrations against the Teheran regime since he lost the elections, was directing the overall 1980s terror campaign.
But Baer, a former CIA Middle East field officer whose exploits were dramatized in the George Clooney movie “Syriana,” places Mousavi even closer to the Beirut bombings.
“He dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah,” who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was “the man largely held responsible for both attacks,” Baer wrote in TIME over the weekend.
“When Mousavi was Prime Minister, he oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq,” Baer continued.
“This was the heyday of [Ayatollah] Khomeini’s theocratic vision, when Iran thought it really could export its revolution across the Middle East, providing money and arms to anyone who claimed he could upend the old order.”
Baer added: “Mousavi was not only swept up into this delusion but also actively pursued it.”
Retired Adm. Lyons maintained that he could have destroyed the terrorists at a hideout U.S. intelligence had pinpointed, but he was outmaneuvered by others in the cabinet of President Ronald Reagan.
“I was going to take them apart,” Lyons said, “but the secretary of defense,” Caspar Weinberger, “sabotaged it.”
Taken from www.infowars.com - Author Jeff Stein
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
At Last, Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan by Eric Margolis
Interestingly, the same oil companies that used to exploit Iraq when it was a British colony are now returning. As former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. VP Dick Cheney stated in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and for the sake of Israel.
Meanwhile, according to Pakistani and Indian sources, Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west.
The Caspian Basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100–200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers. China can only look on with envy.
But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of landlocked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.
In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm UNOCAL signed a major pipeline deal. UNOCAL lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.
Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.
In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former UNOCAL"consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.
Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.
Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by US, Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the US military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."
From Washington’s viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.
India’s energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade to 8 billion barrels of oil and 80 million cubic meters of gas daily. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan and has been stirring the pot there, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.
Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The US is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America’s world power. Afghanistan and Iraq are all about control of oil.
Meanwhile, according to Pakistani and Indian sources, Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west.
The Caspian Basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100–200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers. China can only look on with envy.
But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of landlocked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.
In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm UNOCAL signed a major pipeline deal. UNOCAL lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.
Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.
In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former UNOCAL"consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.
Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.
Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by US, Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the US military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."
From Washington’s viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.
India’s energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade to 8 billion barrels of oil and 80 million cubic meters of gas daily. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan and has been stirring the pot there, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.
Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The US is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America’s world power. Afghanistan and Iraq are all about control of oil.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Gen Stanley MacChrystal, America's new army chief in Afghanistan, under fire over rough tactics and 'prisoner abuse'
The general chosen by Barack Obama to run the war in Afghanistan permitted abusive treatment and interrogation of detainees in Iraq, according to human rights investigators.
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Last Updated: 9:12AM BST 17 May 2009 Daily Telegraph
Soldiers have described beatings, psychological torture and other physical mistreatment at a camp near Baghdad where General Stanley McChrystal, then commander of US Joint Special Operations forces in Iraq, was frequently seen.
A tall Irish-American with a deceptively gentle manner, Gen McChrystal was named last week as the next head of Afghan operations. He is currently operations director for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
His special operations unit used Camp Nama, an acronym for "Nasty Ass Military Area", which had a fearsome reputation.
According to Mr Garlasco's report, which was based on soldiers' evidence, inmates at the camp were regularly stripped naked, subjected to sleep deprivation and extreme cold, placed in painful stress positions, and beaten. Gen McChrystal is lionised in the US as a warrior-scholar. Last week the media has carried admiring reports on how he eats just one meal a day and operates on a few hours' sleep. He led Task Force 121, the Special Operations units in Iraq which caught Saddam Hussein and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
His appointment signals a dramatic shift in US tactics, from reaching out to the Taliban in favour of a more aggressive military approach. But critics warn that Gen McChrystal's robust methods may generate more hostility among Afghan civilians to US and other Nato forces.
Roger Carstens of the Center for a New American Security, himself a former special forces officer, said: "Has he ever worked in the counterinsurgency environment? Not really."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Bilderberg discussion on Recession
Veteran investigative journalist Jim Tucker has uncovered Bilderberg’s 2009 agenda, which includes the plan for a global department of health, a global treasury and a shortened depression rather than a longer economic downturn.
Tucker confirmed the information first released by Daniel Estulin, that Bilderberg were discussing whether to sink the economy quickly or drag on a long agonizing depression. “Treasury Secretary Geithner and Carl Bildt touted a shorter recession not a 10-year recession….partly because a 10 year recession would damage Bilderberg industrialists themselves, as much as they want to have a global department of labor and a global department of treasury, they still like making money and such a long recession would cost them big bucks industrially because nobody is buying their toys….the tilt is towards keeping it short,” said Tucker.
Tucker concluded by noting that Bilderberg members seemed grim faced at this year’s meeting and that geopolitically, “Things are going bad for them, Americans are responding, Europeans are responding, and their program is being blocked.”
Tucker confirmed the information first released by Daniel Estulin, that Bilderberg were discussing whether to sink the economy quickly or drag on a long agonizing depression. “Treasury Secretary Geithner and Carl Bildt touted a shorter recession not a 10-year recession….partly because a 10 year recession would damage Bilderberg industrialists themselves, as much as they want to have a global department of labor and a global department of treasury, they still like making money and such a long recession would cost them big bucks industrially because nobody is buying their toys….the tilt is towards keeping it short,” said Tucker.
Tucker concluded by noting that Bilderberg members seemed grim faced at this year’s meeting and that geopolitically, “Things are going bad for them, Americans are responding, Europeans are responding, and their program is being blocked.”
Obama Picks Up Where Bush Left Off: From My Lai to Bala Baluk
MIKE WHITNEY
Counterpunch
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Barack Obama is aggressively stepping up the war in Afghanistan. He’s intensified the cross-border bombing of Pakistan and he is doubling the number of U.S. troops to 68,000 by 2010. He’s also a strong proponent of pilotless drones even though hundreds of civilians have been killed in bombing raid blunders.
On May 4, 2009, 143 civilians were killed in a bombing raid in Bala Baluk, a remote area south of Herat. Obama brushed off the incident with terse apology never intimating that the US policy for aerial bombardment would be reviewed to avoid future mishaps. Patrick Cockburn gave a summary of the incident:
I did not meet survivors but I did talk to a reliable witness, a radio reporter called Farooq Faizy, who had gone to Bala Baluk soon after the attack happened. He (had) some 70 or 80 photographs and they bore out the villagers’ story: there were craters everywhere; the villages had been plastered with bombs; bodies had been torn to shreds by the blasts; there were mass graves; there were no signs of damage from bullets, rockets or grenades.
US military spokesmen denied the news reports and concocted a wacky story about Taliban militants rampaging through the village hurling grenades into buildings. It was a ridiculous narrative that no one believed. The facts have since been verified by senior government officials, high-ranking members of the Afghan military and representatives of the Red Cross. The United States military killed 143 unarmed villagers and then they tried to cover it up with a lie. None of the victims were fighters. After the bombing, the villagers loaded body parts onto carts and took them to the office of the regional governor who confirmed the deaths. The photos of grief-stricken Afghans burying their dead have been widely circulated on the Internet.
From Reuters:
Ninety-three children and 25 adult women are among a list of 140 names of Afghans who villagers say were killed in a battle and U.S. air strikes last week, causing a crisis between Washington and its Afghan allies.
The list, obtained by Reuters, bears the endorsement of seven senior provincial and central government officials, including an Afghan two-star general who headed a task force dispatched by the government to investigate the incident.
Titled “list of the martyrs of the bombardment of Bala Boluk district of Farah Province”, it includes the name, age and father’s name of each alleged victim.
The youngest was listed as 8-day-old baby Sayed Musa, son of Sayed Adam. Fifty-three victims were girls under the age of 18, and 40 were boys. Only 22 were men 18 or older. (”List of 140 Afghan Killed In US Attack Includes 93 Children”, Reuters)
Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration has acknowledged that 93 children were killed by American bombs.
Counterpunch
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Barack Obama is aggressively stepping up the war in Afghanistan. He’s intensified the cross-border bombing of Pakistan and he is doubling the number of U.S. troops to 68,000 by 2010. He’s also a strong proponent of pilotless drones even though hundreds of civilians have been killed in bombing raid blunders.
On May 4, 2009, 143 civilians were killed in a bombing raid in Bala Baluk, a remote area south of Herat. Obama brushed off the incident with terse apology never intimating that the US policy for aerial bombardment would be reviewed to avoid future mishaps. Patrick Cockburn gave a summary of the incident:
I did not meet survivors but I did talk to a reliable witness, a radio reporter called Farooq Faizy, who had gone to Bala Baluk soon after the attack happened. He (had) some 70 or 80 photographs and they bore out the villagers’ story: there were craters everywhere; the villages had been plastered with bombs; bodies had been torn to shreds by the blasts; there were mass graves; there were no signs of damage from bullets, rockets or grenades.
US military spokesmen denied the news reports and concocted a wacky story about Taliban militants rampaging through the village hurling grenades into buildings. It was a ridiculous narrative that no one believed. The facts have since been verified by senior government officials, high-ranking members of the Afghan military and representatives of the Red Cross. The United States military killed 143 unarmed villagers and then they tried to cover it up with a lie. None of the victims were fighters. After the bombing, the villagers loaded body parts onto carts and took them to the office of the regional governor who confirmed the deaths. The photos of grief-stricken Afghans burying their dead have been widely circulated on the Internet.
From Reuters:
Ninety-three children and 25 adult women are among a list of 140 names of Afghans who villagers say were killed in a battle and U.S. air strikes last week, causing a crisis between Washington and its Afghan allies.
The list, obtained by Reuters, bears the endorsement of seven senior provincial and central government officials, including an Afghan two-star general who headed a task force dispatched by the government to investigate the incident.
Titled “list of the martyrs of the bombardment of Bala Boluk district of Farah Province”, it includes the name, age and father’s name of each alleged victim.
The youngest was listed as 8-day-old baby Sayed Musa, son of Sayed Adam. Fifty-three victims were girls under the age of 18, and 40 were boys. Only 22 were men 18 or older. (”List of 140 Afghan Killed In US Attack Includes 93 Children”, Reuters)
Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration has acknowledged that 93 children were killed by American bombs.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
OBAMA IS BILDERBURG
Obama Bilderberg
Representatives for Senator Barack Obama will not confirm or deny that he attended the Bilderberg Group meeting on June 5, 2008. Reporters were unaware of the secret meeting until they were on the airplane heading to Northern Virginia where the meeting was being held.
Fast Facts
1. Meeting held on June 5, 2008
2. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton met on the day of the meeting
3. Obama spokesperson refused to talk about if Obama attended the meeting
4. Spokesperson would not deny his attendance
5. Meeting held under tight security
Bilderberg Group Meeting
Jim Tucker, Bilderberg Group detective asked Obama's campaign spokesperson if he attended the meeting. The spokesperson refused to discuss the subject any further, but also would not deny his attendance.
The Bilderberg Group is a extremely private group for political figures and world leaders. The groups are held annually and are only for people with invitations.
Representatives for Senator Barack Obama will not confirm or deny that he attended the Bilderberg Group meeting on June 5, 2008. Reporters were unaware of the secret meeting until they were on the airplane heading to Northern Virginia where the meeting was being held.
Fast Facts
1. Meeting held on June 5, 2008
2. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton met on the day of the meeting
3. Obama spokesperson refused to talk about if Obama attended the meeting
4. Spokesperson would not deny his attendance
5. Meeting held under tight security
Bilderberg Group Meeting
Jim Tucker, Bilderberg Group detective asked Obama's campaign spokesperson if he attended the meeting. The spokesperson refused to discuss the subject any further, but also would not deny his attendance.
The Bilderberg Group is a extremely private group for political figures and world leaders. The groups are held annually and are only for people with invitations.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
What is Obama thinking of? By Jerry Mazza Online Journal Associate Editor
Barack, my brother. Mr. President-elect, what is going through your head? Rahm Israel Emmanuel for White House Chief of Staff? Rahm, who fought with the Israeli Army in the Gulf war, whose father Benjamin fought with the Irgun gang, the Zionist terror bombers of the King David Hotel; Rahm, the 2001 Freddie Mac board member involved with campaign scandals and contributions, personally raking in $231,655. I mean, just look in that guy’s eyes, scary. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
You are hanging out with guys whose rap sheets go deeper than anyone you met in South Chicago. Like Larry Summers, key lobbyist for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, after his 1999 Clinton appointment, leading the wolf pack to the Financial Services Modernization Act, to gut stock market regulation with all the predatory practices that put us in our present pickle. Larry who, as chief economist for the World Bank, actually wanted to import toxic garbage to poor Third World countries because the people were going to die younger anyway. Can you believe that, brother? David Rockefeller’s boy! Goldman Sachs Consultant, managing director D.E. Shaw Hedge Fund Group (gambling casino).
Jesus, this is the guy you want to run the Treasury? He’s as toxic as Paulson and then some.
And Paul Volker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 1980s Reagan era major player in kicking off financial deregulations, which ended in major bankruptcies, junk-bond mergers and acquisitions, climaxed by the 1987 Black Monday stock market crash. You want him to straighten out the crooks on Wall Street; him to avoid another crash? Good luck, my brother.
And Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the powerhouse financial institution in America. Tim, former Clinton Treasury official, ex-employee of Kissinger Associations, senior exec at the IMF, shapes finance policy behind the scenes, hangs with the Council on Foreign Relations. Do you really want him around?
Michael Chossudovsky in his article, Who are the Architects of Economic Collapse, said the above boys, along with ”Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, et al are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans.”
He added, “While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus. They are utterly ruthless in their management of economic and financial processes. Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the ‘efficiency’ of ‘markets,’ they have little concern for ‘living human beings.’ How are people’s lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy . . .”
I mean the curtain isn’t up on your presidency and the cast is getting trashed by major critics.
Chossudovsky asked, “Where are Obama’s ‘Main Street appointees’? Namely individuals who respond to the interests of people across America. There are no labor or community leaders on Obama’s list for key positions.
“The president-elect is appointing the architects of financial deregulation.
“Meaningful financial reform cannot be adopted by officials appointed by Wall Street and who act on behalf of Wall Street.
“Those who set the financial system ablaze in 1999, have been called back to turn out the fire.
“The proposed ‘solution’ to the crisis under the ‘bailout’ is the cause of further economic collapse.”
Damn it, he’s right. He went on to say . . .
“There are no policy solutions on the horizon.
“The banking conglomerates call the shots. They decide on the composition of the Obama Cabinet. They also decide on the agenda of the Washington Financial Summit (November 15, 2008) which is slated to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new “global financial architecture.” If this is true, change it.”
And this . . .
“The Wall Street blueprint has already been discussed behind closed doors: the hidden agenda is to establish a unipolar international monetary system, dominated by US financial power, which in turn would be protected and secured by US military superiority.”
Chossudovsky called this . . .
“Neoliberalism with a ‘Human Face’
I mean, do you, Barack Hussein Obama want to be their “face?” Chossudovsky says, “There is no indication that Obama will break his ties to his Wall Street sponsors, who largely funded his election campaign.
“Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bill Gates’ Microsoft are among his main campaign contributors.
“Warren Buffett, among the world’s richest individuals, not only supported Barak Obama’s election campaign, he is a member of his transition team, which plays a key role deciding the composition of Obama’s cabinet.”
Say it isn’t so, Barack. Say it isn’t so.
Reviews like this could stop your administration cold. And those were just one writer’s highlights. Here’s a few from Paul Craig Roberts in his Online Journal article, Conned Again: “Obama’s election was necessary as the only means Americans had to hold the Republicans accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and human rights, for their violations of US and international laws, for their lies and deceptions, and for their financial chicanery.”
This is really rich. Roberts quotes Russia’s major news voice: “As an editorial in Pravda put it, ‘Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law.’”
Consider it an honor that Pravda is counting on you to turn things around.
Roberts adds, “But Obama’s advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush’s. Richard Holbrooke, son of Russian and German Jews, was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador in the Clinton administration. He implemented the policy to enlarge NATO and to place the military alliance on Russia’s border in contravention of Reagan’s promise to Gorbachev. Holbrooke is also associated with the Clinton administration’s illegal bombing of Serbia, a war crime that killed civilians and Chinese diplomats. If not a neocon himself, Holbrooke is closely allied with them.”
So we have consensus here.
The best and the brightest think you’re hanging with the worst and the weirdest. And the train ain’t out of the station, my man. I mean my President-To-Be. I voted for you, dude, twice, at least; convinced my family and friends. Pumped you up in my articles. Don’t make me look like a horse’s ass. You have the power. You have it in you to provide better than this for the working and middle class families whose butts you want to save. These guys don’t have a clue of what it is to ride the A-train at 8 a.m. or not take a limo or a private jet wherever they’re going. Or go without, period.
You know, the Reverend Wright held your feet to the fire, maybe too much, and you walked away. Okay, he could have been a little cooler but . . . things can heat up as you know pretty fast again. Also, I don’t want to put you between a Rockefeller and a hard place, but you do have an obligation to reach out to better, more honest and more diverse characters than these skunks. (Go ahead, sue me, guys. Your resumes read like Danny Estulin’s The True Story of the Bilderberg Group).
So brother, President Obama if you will, if you’re serious about change, then change. We all thought you were going to bring change, not the foxes in to watch the henhouse. You ran one of the best presidential campaigns I’ve ever seen, bucking all the odds, with an army of 5,000 lawyers to battle voter fraud in your 50-state spread, ceding nothing to McCain. And you won big-time just about all of the battleground states and then some. Don’t go soft on us now when it counts. Don’t lose your liberal base as well as your ethnic base or disillusion all the great college kids (like my son who woke up at 6 a.m. to vote for you, then took his hour and a half subway ride to a Brooklyn community college).
I know I’m guilt-tripping you, but I don’t want to see somebody as innately gifted and brilliant as you tripped up by these vicious clowns. If you can’t dump them, then transcend them. Use your incredible rhetorical gifts to talk them down. Don’t be another Slick Willy. Stick to the truth. Think of your sainted grandma, your grandpa who fought in World War II. This is another battle, trust me, and probably just as tough. Think of all those Kenyans back in your father’s country who are so proud of you they can’t stop running. Think of your mom who taught you right from wrong, who woke you up at 4:30 in the morning to tutor you. My brother, don’t let us down. One Satan per generation is enough.
Remember, Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement. It’s the 45th anniversary of her father’s assassination coming up. And there’s at least one or two in this group that were part of that cadre. Watch your back. We all know this is not easy. Think of Evo Morales, the first full-blooded Indian president of Bolivia. And think of what he means to all the people of his beloved country as he stands up to the Spanish colonizers’ descendants. He’s waiting for the US to melt the thaw. He’s waiting for justice just the way he fought his way to the top. And you, too, are a man of the people, their contender for justice, an honest economy, a fair shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Go for it, my brother. Don’t make me look like another stupid white man. Don’t let them turn you. Don’t break our hearts.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. read his new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
You are hanging out with guys whose rap sheets go deeper than anyone you met in South Chicago. Like Larry Summers, key lobbyist for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, after his 1999 Clinton appointment, leading the wolf pack to the Financial Services Modernization Act, to gut stock market regulation with all the predatory practices that put us in our present pickle. Larry who, as chief economist for the World Bank, actually wanted to import toxic garbage to poor Third World countries because the people were going to die younger anyway. Can you believe that, brother? David Rockefeller’s boy! Goldman Sachs Consultant, managing director D.E. Shaw Hedge Fund Group (gambling casino).
Jesus, this is the guy you want to run the Treasury? He’s as toxic as Paulson and then some.
And Paul Volker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 1980s Reagan era major player in kicking off financial deregulations, which ended in major bankruptcies, junk-bond mergers and acquisitions, climaxed by the 1987 Black Monday stock market crash. You want him to straighten out the crooks on Wall Street; him to avoid another crash? Good luck, my brother.
And Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the powerhouse financial institution in America. Tim, former Clinton Treasury official, ex-employee of Kissinger Associations, senior exec at the IMF, shapes finance policy behind the scenes, hangs with the Council on Foreign Relations. Do you really want him around?
Michael Chossudovsky in his article, Who are the Architects of Economic Collapse, said the above boys, along with ”Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, et al are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans.”
He added, “While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus. They are utterly ruthless in their management of economic and financial processes. Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the ‘efficiency’ of ‘markets,’ they have little concern for ‘living human beings.’ How are people’s lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy . . .”
I mean the curtain isn’t up on your presidency and the cast is getting trashed by major critics.
Chossudovsky asked, “Where are Obama’s ‘Main Street appointees’? Namely individuals who respond to the interests of people across America. There are no labor or community leaders on Obama’s list for key positions.
“The president-elect is appointing the architects of financial deregulation.
“Meaningful financial reform cannot be adopted by officials appointed by Wall Street and who act on behalf of Wall Street.
“Those who set the financial system ablaze in 1999, have been called back to turn out the fire.
“The proposed ‘solution’ to the crisis under the ‘bailout’ is the cause of further economic collapse.”
Damn it, he’s right. He went on to say . . .
“There are no policy solutions on the horizon.
“The banking conglomerates call the shots. They decide on the composition of the Obama Cabinet. They also decide on the agenda of the Washington Financial Summit (November 15, 2008) which is slated to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new “global financial architecture.” If this is true, change it.”
And this . . .
“The Wall Street blueprint has already been discussed behind closed doors: the hidden agenda is to establish a unipolar international monetary system, dominated by US financial power, which in turn would be protected and secured by US military superiority.”
Chossudovsky called this . . .
“Neoliberalism with a ‘Human Face’
I mean, do you, Barack Hussein Obama want to be their “face?” Chossudovsky says, “There is no indication that Obama will break his ties to his Wall Street sponsors, who largely funded his election campaign.
“Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bill Gates’ Microsoft are among his main campaign contributors.
“Warren Buffett, among the world’s richest individuals, not only supported Barak Obama’s election campaign, he is a member of his transition team, which plays a key role deciding the composition of Obama’s cabinet.”
Say it isn’t so, Barack. Say it isn’t so.
Reviews like this could stop your administration cold. And those were just one writer’s highlights. Here’s a few from Paul Craig Roberts in his Online Journal article, Conned Again: “Obama’s election was necessary as the only means Americans had to hold the Republicans accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and human rights, for their violations of US and international laws, for their lies and deceptions, and for their financial chicanery.”
This is really rich. Roberts quotes Russia’s major news voice: “As an editorial in Pravda put it, ‘Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law.’”
Consider it an honor that Pravda is counting on you to turn things around.
Roberts adds, “But Obama’s advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush’s. Richard Holbrooke, son of Russian and German Jews, was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador in the Clinton administration. He implemented the policy to enlarge NATO and to place the military alliance on Russia’s border in contravention of Reagan’s promise to Gorbachev. Holbrooke is also associated with the Clinton administration’s illegal bombing of Serbia, a war crime that killed civilians and Chinese diplomats. If not a neocon himself, Holbrooke is closely allied with them.”
So we have consensus here.
The best and the brightest think you’re hanging with the worst and the weirdest. And the train ain’t out of the station, my man. I mean my President-To-Be. I voted for you, dude, twice, at least; convinced my family and friends. Pumped you up in my articles. Don’t make me look like a horse’s ass. You have the power. You have it in you to provide better than this for the working and middle class families whose butts you want to save. These guys don’t have a clue of what it is to ride the A-train at 8 a.m. or not take a limo or a private jet wherever they’re going. Or go without, period.
You know, the Reverend Wright held your feet to the fire, maybe too much, and you walked away. Okay, he could have been a little cooler but . . . things can heat up as you know pretty fast again. Also, I don’t want to put you between a Rockefeller and a hard place, but you do have an obligation to reach out to better, more honest and more diverse characters than these skunks. (Go ahead, sue me, guys. Your resumes read like Danny Estulin’s The True Story of the Bilderberg Group).
So brother, President Obama if you will, if you’re serious about change, then change. We all thought you were going to bring change, not the foxes in to watch the henhouse. You ran one of the best presidential campaigns I’ve ever seen, bucking all the odds, with an army of 5,000 lawyers to battle voter fraud in your 50-state spread, ceding nothing to McCain. And you won big-time just about all of the battleground states and then some. Don’t go soft on us now when it counts. Don’t lose your liberal base as well as your ethnic base or disillusion all the great college kids (like my son who woke up at 6 a.m. to vote for you, then took his hour and a half subway ride to a Brooklyn community college).
I know I’m guilt-tripping you, but I don’t want to see somebody as innately gifted and brilliant as you tripped up by these vicious clowns. If you can’t dump them, then transcend them. Use your incredible rhetorical gifts to talk them down. Don’t be another Slick Willy. Stick to the truth. Think of your sainted grandma, your grandpa who fought in World War II. This is another battle, trust me, and probably just as tough. Think of all those Kenyans back in your father’s country who are so proud of you they can’t stop running. Think of your mom who taught you right from wrong, who woke you up at 4:30 in the morning to tutor you. My brother, don’t let us down. One Satan per generation is enough.
Remember, Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement. It’s the 45th anniversary of her father’s assassination coming up. And there’s at least one or two in this group that were part of that cadre. Watch your back. We all know this is not easy. Think of Evo Morales, the first full-blooded Indian president of Bolivia. And think of what he means to all the people of his beloved country as he stands up to the Spanish colonizers’ descendants. He’s waiting for the US to melt the thaw. He’s waiting for justice just the way he fought his way to the top. And you, too, are a man of the people, their contender for justice, an honest economy, a fair shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Go for it, my brother. Don’t make me look like another stupid white man. Don’t let them turn you. Don’t break our hearts.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. read his new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Monday, February 09, 2009
Pakistan's defiant nuclear scientist AQ Khan released
Paul Woodward, Online Correspondent - The National - Abu Dhabi
After being under house arrest for five years Pakistan's nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has been released. Following the judicial order that led to his release, lawyers who have been campaigning for the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice Chaudhry and other judges of the superior judiciary who were suspended under the rule of former president Musharraf, are now optimistic that the judges will be reinstated.
When asked by ABC News what he would say to those who suggest he has made the world more dangerous, Dr Khan replied, "I don't care about the rest of the world. I care about my country.
"Obama cares about America - not about Pakistan, or India, Afghanistan, or anyone else," he said. "I have made Pakistan a safer place. That you are standing here and talking, and India not blowing on your neck, this is my contribution."
Time magazine reported: "Although it is unclear whether Pakistan's new civilian government had a hand in his release, Khan offered thanks to President Asif Ali Zardari for lifting the restrictions imposed on him by his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf. Zardari may have been averse to the international criticism likely to come from restoring Khan's freedom of movement, but it was a government clarification that was key to the court's decision. A government lawyer told the court some weeks ago that Khan was not under formal house arrest but merely kept under tight security for his own protection. Seizing on that admission, the court said that since there are no charges - and since Khan was pardoned by Musharraf soon after his confession - he should be allowed to move."
ABC News said: "The extent of Khan's international network and the sheer physical presence of some of the materials he sold have led many to believe he was supported by the Pakistani state, something the government have vociferously denied. Khan himself claimed he had sold equipment to North Korea with the full knowledge of the military, then headed by President Pervez Musharraf.
" 'These centrifuges weighed something like half a ton each. You can't put them in your coat pocket and walk away with them,' [Dr. Pervez] Hoodbhoy [chairman of the physics department at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad] said. 'It obviously involved a lot of official support. ... If there were aircraft of the Pakistan air force that flew these centrifuges out - well, obviously there had to be somebody at the top who was also involved.'
"It was not clear whether Khan would be allowed to travel completely freely. He told journalists he would have to seek permission to travel outside the country and said he was free to move around inside. His wife told reporters that the government still held his passport."
In the United States, a state department official said: "We believe AQ Khan remains a serious proliferation risk. The proliferation support that Khan and his associates provided to Iran and North Korea has had a harmful impact on the international - on international security, and will for years to come."
Pakistan's foreign ministry said the government had investigated Dr Khan's past proliferation, shared its findings with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, and put in place tight controls that would prevent anything similar from happening again, the Associated Press reported.
"We have successfully broken the network that he had set up and today he has no say and has no access to any of the sensitive areas of Pakistan," the Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Saturday. "AQ Khan is history."
The Washington Post reported: "Nearly five years after Khan's smuggling operation came to light, the international effort to prosecute its leaders is largely in shambles, yielding convictions of only a few minor participants and no significant prison time for any of them.
"Meanwhile, the much-touted cooperation between the United States and its partners in the investigation of the network also is in disarray. In recent weeks, Washington has faced accusations that it withheld crucial documents from key allies and allowed its spies to run covert operations in friendly countries without permission.
"Worst of all, the recent discovery of nuclear weapons blueprints on computers found in Switzerland and Dubai has prompted questions about whether the damage inflicted by the network was truly contained - or even understood. It is possible, US officials concede, that Khan and his allies shared nuclear secrets with still-unknown countries and, perhaps, terrorist groups, as well."
After being under house arrest for five years Pakistan's nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has been released. Following the judicial order that led to his release, lawyers who have been campaigning for the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice Chaudhry and other judges of the superior judiciary who were suspended under the rule of former president Musharraf, are now optimistic that the judges will be reinstated.
When asked by ABC News what he would say to those who suggest he has made the world more dangerous, Dr Khan replied, "I don't care about the rest of the world. I care about my country.
"Obama cares about America - not about Pakistan, or India, Afghanistan, or anyone else," he said. "I have made Pakistan a safer place. That you are standing here and talking, and India not blowing on your neck, this is my contribution."
Time magazine reported: "Although it is unclear whether Pakistan's new civilian government had a hand in his release, Khan offered thanks to President Asif Ali Zardari for lifting the restrictions imposed on him by his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf. Zardari may have been averse to the international criticism likely to come from restoring Khan's freedom of movement, but it was a government clarification that was key to the court's decision. A government lawyer told the court some weeks ago that Khan was not under formal house arrest but merely kept under tight security for his own protection. Seizing on that admission, the court said that since there are no charges - and since Khan was pardoned by Musharraf soon after his confession - he should be allowed to move."
ABC News said: "The extent of Khan's international network and the sheer physical presence of some of the materials he sold have led many to believe he was supported by the Pakistani state, something the government have vociferously denied. Khan himself claimed he had sold equipment to North Korea with the full knowledge of the military, then headed by President Pervez Musharraf.
" 'These centrifuges weighed something like half a ton each. You can't put them in your coat pocket and walk away with them,' [Dr. Pervez] Hoodbhoy [chairman of the physics department at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad] said. 'It obviously involved a lot of official support. ... If there were aircraft of the Pakistan air force that flew these centrifuges out - well, obviously there had to be somebody at the top who was also involved.'
"It was not clear whether Khan would be allowed to travel completely freely. He told journalists he would have to seek permission to travel outside the country and said he was free to move around inside. His wife told reporters that the government still held his passport."
In the United States, a state department official said: "We believe AQ Khan remains a serious proliferation risk. The proliferation support that Khan and his associates provided to Iran and North Korea has had a harmful impact on the international - on international security, and will for years to come."
Pakistan's foreign ministry said the government had investigated Dr Khan's past proliferation, shared its findings with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, and put in place tight controls that would prevent anything similar from happening again, the Associated Press reported.
"We have successfully broken the network that he had set up and today he has no say and has no access to any of the sensitive areas of Pakistan," the Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Saturday. "AQ Khan is history."
The Washington Post reported: "Nearly five years after Khan's smuggling operation came to light, the international effort to prosecute its leaders is largely in shambles, yielding convictions of only a few minor participants and no significant prison time for any of them.
"Meanwhile, the much-touted cooperation between the United States and its partners in the investigation of the network also is in disarray. In recent weeks, Washington has faced accusations that it withheld crucial documents from key allies and allowed its spies to run covert operations in friendly countries without permission.
"Worst of all, the recent discovery of nuclear weapons blueprints on computers found in Switzerland and Dubai has prompted questions about whether the damage inflicted by the network was truly contained - or even understood. It is possible, US officials concede, that Khan and his allies shared nuclear secrets with still-unknown countries and, perhaps, terrorist groups, as well."
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
The reason why British Companies cant compete for contracts in the UK
The Main reason why British Companies can't compete for Contracts in The UK is because British Companies must abide by Health & Safety Laws amongst other laws whereas foreign companies don't.
This means that British companies by law have to automatically add up to 50% on their tenders because of govt. law
This means that British companies by law have to automatically add up to 50% on their tenders because of govt. law
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Ehud Olmert: Corruption allegations - maybe they thought we'd forget!!!
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is alleged to be involved in a number of corruption scandals, and faces a criminal investigation in one case. He denies any wrongdoing in all cases.
THE TALANSKY CASE
Prosecutors are investigating donations to Mr Olmert - reported to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars - from a New York-based financier, Morris (or Moshe) Talansky.
Olmert denies corruption allegations but says he will resign if charged
Mr Olmert admits taking money, but insists they were legal donations to fund his campaigns for re-election as mayor of Jerusalem and for the leadership of the Likud party.
In a sensational court appearance that outraged media commentators and shocked many Israelis, Mr Talansky said he handed over cash to Mr Olmert amounting to $150,000 to fund political campaigns, as well as - he hinted - a liking for fine hotels, cigars, pens and watches.
Mr Talansky said he was not aware how all the money had been spent, nor did he receive any favours as a result of his fundraising. He did say that he gave a "loan" - never repaid - of $25,000 so Mr Olmert could go on holiday to Italy.
There have as yet been no charges filed in the case. The witness was questioned under oath during a private visit to Israel on 28 May and will be cross-examined on a later date.
The testimony has prompted calls for Mr Olmert to stand down from Ehud Barak of the Labour party, a junior coalition member. Mr Olmert has stressed he will only resign if indicted.
'FRAUD'
In July, police widen the investigation into Mr Talansky's allegations to also look at whether Mr Olmert may have committed fraud.
A statement issued by the police and justice ministry after the prime minister is interviewed for a third time about the corruption allegations says he was also "asked to give his account about suspicions of serious fraud and other offences".
"According to the suspicions, during his tenure as Jerusalem mayor and trade and industry minister, Olmert would seek duplicate funding for his trips abroad from public bodies, including from the state, with each of them requested to fund the same trip," it adds.
Police suspect that the "considerable sums" that remained after the travel expenses were paid for were transferred by Mr Olmert to a special account his travel agency administered for him.
"These monies were used to finance private trips abroad by Olmert and his family," the police statement says.
Mr Olmert later insists he "never took a penny" from any of the public bodies.
'ABUSE OF POWER'
Israel's attorney general has ordered police to investigate decisions taken by Mr Olmert when he was trade and industry minister between 2003 and 2005.
A statement by the attorney general said police would investigate whether Mr Olmert had appointed political associates to the Medium and Small Enterprises Authority and other government bodies.
They will also look into whether Mr Olmert helped secure special funding for a factory represented by his ex-law partner, the statement said.
Mr Olmert's office has denied the allegations, saying: "These are unnecessary investigations. It's clear beyond any doubt that the investigation will yield nothing."
BANK LEUMI
In November, police said there were no grounds to lay charges against Mr Olmert in connection with the privatisation of a bank while he was finance minister in 2005.
Mr Olmert was alleged to have tried to influence the sale of the state's controlling interest in Bank Leumi, Israel's second-largest bank, in favour of a friend.
PROPERTY PURCHASE (OR THE CREMIEUX STREET AFFAIR)
Mr Olmert is facing a criminal investigation by police into his purchase of a Jerusalem property.
A government watchdog found that he paid $325,000 (£162,500) below market value for the house.
The prime minister has insisted the price was fair and the inquiry was "uncalled for".
If police do find that Mr Olmert received favourable terms in return for benefits to the vendor, they will pass the matter to the attorney general to decide whether he is charged.
The case is known as the Cremieux Street affair after the address of the property.
AIDE INVESTIGATED
A senior official in Mr Olmert's office was placed under house arrest as part of an alleged corruption scandal in January 2007.
Shula Zaken, Mr Olmert's personal secretary and a close aide for 30 years, allegedly abused her position to influence the appointment of some tax officials in return for tax benefits.
Ms Zaken has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing. Police have said that there is no direct connection in this case to Mr Olmert.
She has been released from house arrest, but suspended from her job pending investigations.
'CONFLICT OF INTEREST'
Israel's commissioner for standards in public life recommended in April 2007 that police investigate a business deal Mr Olmert made before he became prime minister.
State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss alleged that Mr Olmert had arranged investment opportunities for a friend while he was industry minister.
Mr Lindenstrauss alleged that Mr Olmert had placed himself in situation where a conflict of interest arose by dealing personally with issues involving his lawyer, friend and former business partner Uri Messner.
Mr Messner was applying for financial benefits from the state through the Industry Ministry's Investment Centre.
The prime minister's office has said that Mr Olmert did not intervene personally in any way in the application.
Mr Messner has said that his dealings with the industry ministry were "routine" and "businesslike".
At the time of the allegations, a spokeswoman for Mr Olmert accused the state comptroller of unprecedented unprofessionalism and duplicity.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime
Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime
The British Journal of Photography
January 30, 2009
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. ‘Who is to say that police officers won’t abuse these powers,’ asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.
Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.
According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis ’shouldn’t have taken that photo, you were intimidating me’. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallée.
Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers’ Association. ‘The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don’t expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,’ Tallis tells BJP.
The British Journal of Photography
January 30, 2009
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. ‘Who is to say that police officers won’t abuse these powers,’ asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.
Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.
According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis ’shouldn’t have taken that photo, you were intimidating me’. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallée.
Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers’ Association. ‘The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don’t expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,’ Tallis tells BJP.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
"Facebook Group - Sid The Sniper - No Job Too Small"
"Yeah admittedly Facebook tried to stop a group who were advocating the assasination of some corrupt Bolivian President, but Big Paws want to see how corrupt Facebook are and how much it will take before they close down this group too!!!!!"
Join Now!!! We Need an American to wreck our Peace Process!!!!
Join Now!!! We Need an American to wreck our Peace Process!!!!
"FACEBOOK BANS ASSASSINATION GROUP"
"Well - lets see if we get banned for advertising our mate Sid "
"Ok Conckers - how do they get in contact with Sid The Sniper?"
"Talk to Mat The Cat - he'll let Sid know"
"Mat just reminded me Big Paws..."
"What's that Jason?"
"Sid loves climbing up trees!"
"David Mayer de Rothschild - you've been warned!!!"
"Ok Conckers - how do they get in contact with Sid The Sniper?"
"Talk to Mat The Cat - he'll let Sid know"
"Mat just reminded me Big Paws..."
"What's that Jason?"
"Sid loves climbing up trees!"
"David Mayer de Rothschild - you've been warned!!!"
Friday, January 23, 2009
USAF moves ahead with UAV training plans
The US Air Force (USAF) is making progress with its plan to establish an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) weapons school and specialised career tracks for UAV pilots, according to Lieutenant General Norman Seip, Commander of the 12th Air Force and Air Forces Southern (AFSOUTH). "Over the next five years we'll buy more unmanned vehicles than manned vehicles," the general told reporters on 13 January at a Pentagon briefing
Nice little earners for top Tory team
From The Times
February 3, 2004
Nice little earners for top Tory team
By Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent
MICHAEL HOWARD faced criticism that his MPs lacked commitment yesterday as a union-funded magazine revealed that a third of his frontbench team have paid directorships or consultancies outside Parliament.
Analysis of the Register of Members’ Interests by Labour Research found that 31 of 84 Opposition spokesmen declared outside incomes. Some of those with the most extensive business commitments are in the Opposition economics team, despite the decision by Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Chancellor, to resign two directorships with NM Rothschild, the City investment bank.
David Willetts, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, is an economic adviser to the merchant bank Dresdner Kleinwort Benson and chairman of Universal Biosensors.
Howard Flight, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has paid directorships with seven companies, four of them linked to Investec Asset Management.
Mr Flight is also paid as a consultant to the Pep and Isa Managers Association.
Andrew Mitchell, another member of the Tory economics team, has five directorships with Lazard and Co, the investment bank, and is a strategic adviser to Accenture, the management consultancy and services company, for which he receives up to £25,000.
Andrew Tyrie, Shadow Minister for Economic Affairs, is a director of the publicly quoted investment management company BWD Rensburg and the property firm Rugby Estates.
Kevin Brennan, a Labour MP, said: “It becomes very difficult to accept that there is no conflict of interest when people who are supposed to be speaking on behalf of the country from the Opposition front bench have very considerable financial interests in businesses directly affected by their portfolios.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “The Labour Party has got to learn that experience of the real world is what is lacking from Parliament at the moment and having interests outside politics can be a positive thing.”
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT OLIVER LETWIN NEVER KEPT HIS PROMISE - IF YOU LOOK AT THE REGISTER OF MPS INTERESTS 2009YOU CAN SEE THAT HE IS STILL A NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
February 3, 2004
Nice little earners for top Tory team
By Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent
MICHAEL HOWARD faced criticism that his MPs lacked commitment yesterday as a union-funded magazine revealed that a third of his frontbench team have paid directorships or consultancies outside Parliament.
Analysis of the Register of Members’ Interests by Labour Research found that 31 of 84 Opposition spokesmen declared outside incomes. Some of those with the most extensive business commitments are in the Opposition economics team, despite the decision by Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Chancellor, to resign two directorships with NM Rothschild, the City investment bank.
David Willetts, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, is an economic adviser to the merchant bank Dresdner Kleinwort Benson and chairman of Universal Biosensors.
Howard Flight, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has paid directorships with seven companies, four of them linked to Investec Asset Management.
Mr Flight is also paid as a consultant to the Pep and Isa Managers Association.
Andrew Mitchell, another member of the Tory economics team, has five directorships with Lazard and Co, the investment bank, and is a strategic adviser to Accenture, the management consultancy and services company, for which he receives up to £25,000.
Andrew Tyrie, Shadow Minister for Economic Affairs, is a director of the publicly quoted investment management company BWD Rensburg and the property firm Rugby Estates.
Kevin Brennan, a Labour MP, said: “It becomes very difficult to accept that there is no conflict of interest when people who are supposed to be speaking on behalf of the country from the Opposition front bench have very considerable financial interests in businesses directly affected by their portfolios.”
A Conservative spokesman said: “The Labour Party has got to learn that experience of the real world is what is lacking from Parliament at the moment and having interests outside politics can be a positive thing.”
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT OLIVER LETWIN NEVER KEPT HIS PROMISE - IF YOU LOOK AT THE REGISTER OF MPS INTERESTS 2009YOU CAN SEE THAT HE IS STILL A NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Prince William:
The early fortunes of the Rothschild family were made through a conjunction of financial intelligence and the wealth of Prince William. In 1785 the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel died, leaving his immense wealth (largely gained through the loan of Hessian mercenaries,not least to Great Britain during the American Revolution) to the young Prince William. During the Napoleonic wars the Prince saw necessary to have his fortune hidden from Napoleon by using his long standing Jewish friend's home in Frankfurt. This money then saw its way through to Nathan Mayer, (N.M.) in London, where it helped fund the British movements through Portugal and Spain. The interest made from this venture was reaped by the budding Jewish bankers, who used it to swiftly develop their fortune and prestige in Europe and Britain. It was not long before their riches outweighed that of their benefactor, the Prince William of Hesse-Kassel. Taken from: Rothschild family
Friday, January 02, 2009
So Gordon Brown sold the UK gold through Rothschilds Gold Bullion Market
GATHERED around a table in one of the Bank of England’s grand meeting rooms, the select group of Britain’s top gold traders could not believe what they were being told.
Gordon Brown had decided to sell off more than half of the country’s centuries-old gold reserves and the chancellor was intending to announce his plan later that day.
It was May 1999 and the gold price had stagnated for much of the decade. The traders present — including senior executives from at least two big investment banks — warned that Brown, who was not at the meeting, could barely have chosen a worse moment.
In the room, just behind the governor’s main office, they cautioned that gold traditionally moved in decades-long cycles and that the price was likely to increase. They added that even if the sale were to go ahead, the timings and amounts should not be announced, as the gold price would plunge.
“The timing of the decision was ludicrous. We told them you are going to push the gold price down before you sell,” said Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC who was present at the meeting. “We thought it was a disastrous decision; we couldn’t understand it. We brought up a lot of potential problems at the meeting.”
Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JP Morgan, who was also present, said: “I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market.”
According to other sources, however, Bank of England officials told those present they had “little say” about what was going to happen and that they were “doing what they were told”. This was a decision made by Brown and his inner circle, who appeared uninterested in their expert advice.
Ian Plenderleith, the senior Bank executive hosting the meeting, is nevertheless understood to have compiled a note on the meeting for the Treasury. It is one of several key documents that are thought to disclose the warnings ignored by ministers.
Eight years on, the advice appears even more pertinent.
The price of gold has almost trebled and the loss to the taxpayer has been calculated by one leading firm of accountants at more than £2 billion.
The decision to sell 400 tons of gold is seen in City circles as a financial bungle on the scale of the Tories’ “Black Wednesday” that cost the taxpayer £3.3 billion, according to Treasury estimates.
Taken from: Goldfinger Brown’s £2 billion blunder in the bullion market
Rothschild to pull out of gold market after 200 years
By James Moore
Last Updated: 12:00PM BST 22 Sep 2005
The investment bank that has chaired the London meetings setting the world gold price since 1919 is quitting the market.
NM Rothschild will withdraw from all its commodity trading activities, which also include an oil trading business set up less than two years ago, as part of a strategic review.
The move brings to an end nearly 200 years of tradition. NM Rothschild was founded in London in 1810 by Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who helped finance the Duke of Wellington's army in the Napoleonic wars through gold trading.
The company hosts and chairs twice-daily meetings which effectively set the world's gold price. The meetings are held in a plush chamber in the bank's offices at St Swithin's Lane in the City. The other four firms involved are Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Canada's Scotia Bank and Societe Generale.
During the fixes, telephone lines are kept open to trading rooms where dealers are in touch with customers. Potential price movements are unlimited and the fix has been known to take up to two hours, although it is usually over in a matter of minutes.
The chairmanship of the meetings is likely to be rotated between the four remaining banks in future. Gold industry sources also predicted that the meetings would be replaced by telephone fixing.
NM Rothschild's withdrawal from the gold market is being seen as one of the first major strategic moves by Baron David de Rothschild.
He set in train the strategic review after taking control of the bank from his cousin, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Sir Evelyn has been a champion of Rothschild's gold trading although a spokesman for the bank said he understood that Sir Evelyn supported the decision.
The bank's finance director Andrew Didham, who conducted the review, said commodities now accounted for just 2.2pc of Rothschild's operating income from 8.8pc in 1999.
"There is always a sadness that a bit of history is over, but we decided that the commodities business did not really fit with our other businesses," he said.
While the gold price has surged, mining companies have become less interested in hedging and trading volumes have fallen. Observers also said rival banks tended to have better links with the hedge which now make up a sizeable proportion of the market.
Simon Weeks, chairman of the London Bullion Market Association, said: "It is very sad to lose such a long-established member of the gold market but we have lost participants before, such as Credit Suisse, and the market will continue."
Rothschild has yet to decide whether to sell or close its commodities business, which employs 40 people. The company hired a number of senior traders when it set up its oil business in 2003. The price of gold fell by $7 to $402 an ounce yesterday.
Taken from: Rothschild to pull out of gold market after 200 years
Gordon Brown had decided to sell off more than half of the country’s centuries-old gold reserves and the chancellor was intending to announce his plan later that day.
It was May 1999 and the gold price had stagnated for much of the decade. The traders present — including senior executives from at least two big investment banks — warned that Brown, who was not at the meeting, could barely have chosen a worse moment.
In the room, just behind the governor’s main office, they cautioned that gold traditionally moved in decades-long cycles and that the price was likely to increase. They added that even if the sale were to go ahead, the timings and amounts should not be announced, as the gold price would plunge.
“The timing of the decision was ludicrous. We told them you are going to push the gold price down before you sell,” said Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC who was present at the meeting. “We thought it was a disastrous decision; we couldn’t understand it. We brought up a lot of potential problems at the meeting.”
Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JP Morgan, who was also present, said: “I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market.”
According to other sources, however, Bank of England officials told those present they had “little say” about what was going to happen and that they were “doing what they were told”. This was a decision made by Brown and his inner circle, who appeared uninterested in their expert advice.
Ian Plenderleith, the senior Bank executive hosting the meeting, is nevertheless understood to have compiled a note on the meeting for the Treasury. It is one of several key documents that are thought to disclose the warnings ignored by ministers.
Eight years on, the advice appears even more pertinent.
The price of gold has almost trebled and the loss to the taxpayer has been calculated by one leading firm of accountants at more than £2 billion.
The decision to sell 400 tons of gold is seen in City circles as a financial bungle on the scale of the Tories’ “Black Wednesday” that cost the taxpayer £3.3 billion, according to Treasury estimates.
Taken from: Goldfinger Brown’s £2 billion blunder in the bullion market
Rothschild to pull out of gold market after 200 years
By James Moore
Last Updated: 12:00PM BST 22 Sep 2005
The investment bank that has chaired the London meetings setting the world gold price since 1919 is quitting the market.
NM Rothschild will withdraw from all its commodity trading activities, which also include an oil trading business set up less than two years ago, as part of a strategic review.
The move brings to an end nearly 200 years of tradition. NM Rothschild was founded in London in 1810 by Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who helped finance the Duke of Wellington's army in the Napoleonic wars through gold trading.
The company hosts and chairs twice-daily meetings which effectively set the world's gold price. The meetings are held in a plush chamber in the bank's offices at St Swithin's Lane in the City. The other four firms involved are Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Canada's Scotia Bank and Societe Generale.
During the fixes, telephone lines are kept open to trading rooms where dealers are in touch with customers. Potential price movements are unlimited and the fix has been known to take up to two hours, although it is usually over in a matter of minutes.
The chairmanship of the meetings is likely to be rotated between the four remaining banks in future. Gold industry sources also predicted that the meetings would be replaced by telephone fixing.
NM Rothschild's withdrawal from the gold market is being seen as one of the first major strategic moves by Baron David de Rothschild.
He set in train the strategic review after taking control of the bank from his cousin, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Sir Evelyn has been a champion of Rothschild's gold trading although a spokesman for the bank said he understood that Sir Evelyn supported the decision.
The bank's finance director Andrew Didham, who conducted the review, said commodities now accounted for just 2.2pc of Rothschild's operating income from 8.8pc in 1999.
"There is always a sadness that a bit of history is over, but we decided that the commodities business did not really fit with our other businesses," he said.
While the gold price has surged, mining companies have become less interested in hedging and trading volumes have fallen. Observers also said rival banks tended to have better links with the hedge which now make up a sizeable proportion of the market.
Simon Weeks, chairman of the London Bullion Market Association, said: "It is very sad to lose such a long-established member of the gold market but we have lost participants before, such as Credit Suisse, and the market will continue."
Rothschild has yet to decide whether to sell or close its commodities business, which employs 40 people. The company hired a number of senior traders when it set up its oil business in 2003. The price of gold fell by $7 to $402 an ounce yesterday.
Taken from: Rothschild to pull out of gold market after 200 years
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
