A blog which includes a variety of different topics in which I am interested. Most of the posts are from articles from different websites. This blog includes: politics, health, Islam, economics, etc.
Showing posts with label global oligarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global oligarchy. Show all posts
The Cyber Information Security Act (CISA) has passed through the
Senate Select Committee on Tuesday by a vote of 12-3, pushing the bill
one step further to reaching the Senate floor.
CISA is the latest reincarnation of internet-security based bills to
be voted on by the government. Last year, a similar bill called
the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed the
House, but was met with controversy over what opponents of the bill
called a lack of privacy protections.
“The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA),” reports Julian Hattem from the Hill,
“makes it possible for companies and government agencies to share
information about possible hackers and security weaknesses with each
other, which advocates say is critical to make sure that blind spots
aren’t left untended for long.”
Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), one of the
people responsible for the creation of CISA, argues the bill would allow
businesses and government agencies to more easily exchange information
with regards to cyber-attacks.
Feinstein said, according to VPN Creative,
“Every week, we hear about the theft of personal information from
retailers and trade secrets from innovative businesses, as well as
ongoing efforts by foreign nations to hack government networks…this bill
is an important step toward curbing these dangerous cyberattacks.”
Opponents to this bill and similar bills have used the Edward Snowden
leaks as evidence of the government and NSA abusing cybersecurity flaws
in the name of national security.
Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) both voted against the bill, saying in a joint-statement,
they agree cyber-attacks are a serious threat to American
infrastructure, but they have also seen “how the federal government has
exploited loopholes to collect Americans’ private information in the
name of security.”
The Center for Democracy and Technology also found faults with the bill, saying on the groups website,
the bill fails to recognize and address “recently-disclosed
cybersecurity-related conduct of the National Security Agency (NSA),
some of which undermines cybersecurity.” The CDF also says the bill
would allow law enforcement agencies to wiretap individuals in the name
of cybersecurity.
The bill will be heard next by the whole Senate and will be voted on in the coming months.
As anyone who reads The New American knows, the are several
fronts in the plutocrats’ war to eradicate our fundamental liberties and
the Constitution that protects them. It is sometimes difficult to keep
up with the manifold threats to the prosperity and perpetuation of the
American Republic.
Of all the weapons aimed at our freedom and founding documents,
though, there is perhaps none more potent than the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP). So imminent is the harm hiding within the
still-secret “trade pact” that one author recently described the TPP as “The greatest threat to American sovereignty.”
That’s quite a claim, but, a close scrutiny of the details (scant
though they may be) of the 12-nation agreement reveals that the
accusation is accurate.
Since his second inauguration, President Obama has kept his foot on
the TPP pedal, pushing for the quick culmination of the deliberations
and the ratification of the same by the Senate.
Since his reelection in 2012, President Obama has been forced to
focus on domestic issues, chief among which was the ObamaCare rollout
debacle. Not that foreign policy hasn’t had its time in the foreground,
speaking specifically of Syria, Ukraine, and Iraq.
Now, however, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be brought
front and center, and the president reckons the time is right to renew
his effort to solve the problems plaguing the approval of the 12-nation
regional trade pact.
President Obama used the State of the Union address in January as an
opportunity to request Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) from Congress.
TPA is a tool that the president demands be in the U.S. trade
representative’s bag when he sits down with his colleagues from the
other TPP participant nations.
Not so fast. The Washington Post reported on February 19 on
the pressure the president is feeling from his own party to pump the
brakes on the TPP and fast track authority:
Already, Senate Majority Leader Harry M.
Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are
opposed to moving forward with granting Obama fast-track authority.
"Everyone would be well-advised just to
not push this right now," Reid said in March. He's generally opposed to
large global trade agreements.
Resistance from Reid and Pelosi usually would be enough to at least
ease the White House push. But Obama and Vice President Biden have also
been directly confronted on the issue in recent weeks by rank-and-file
members. And 151 House Democrats — more than half of the caucus —
co-signed a letter late last year written by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
to voice opposition to fast track authority and the TPP.
Others in the president's party have pointed out what should be obvious dangers of the TPP. The Politico article contains a quote from a Democratic lawmaker:
“TPP would force Americans to compete
against workers from Vietnam, where the minimum wage is $2.75 per day,”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said. “It threatens to roll back financial
regulations, environmental standards and U.S laws that protect the
safety of drugs and food and the toys we give our kids.”
On May 24, the Financial Times published an article on the
“fast track” debate, focusing on the efforts of Senator Ron Wyden
(D-Ore.) to convince a sufficient bloc of Democrats to drop their
opposition to granting trade promotion authority. The Financial Times reported:
To do so, he [Wyden] argues, will mean
addressing concerns over the lack of transparency that plague
negotiations. He also wants to make sure any TPA bill, which
traditionally sets US objectives for trade deals as well as limiting
Congress’s ability to amend them, addresses modern sectors such as the
trade in digital goods.
In a move that will cause concern with
some US negotiating partners such as Brunei and Vietnam, Mr Wyden says
he would also like to see trade agreements address human rights,
something advocated by fellow Democrats.
“I think it’s the responsible thing to do
and I think it will bring more support for the cause of trade
expansion,” Mr Wyden says.
A post published on the blog Economy in Crisis expertly lays out the danger lurking in the fast track process:
If Congress foolishly grants Obama
fast-track trade authority, President Obama alone will draft the
agreement without Congressional input. Congress will have just 90 days
before signing and entering into an agreement, requiring a floor vote 15
days after the bill is discharged from Committees. Congress will then
have only 20 hours of debate in each House, not the normal debate and
cloture or the ability to amend the legislation. If passed, the TPP will
become U.S. law and will then require approval from every one of the
other signatory nations before Congress can revoke or change their
content. There will be all sorts of mischief lurking in the TPP pages
and we will not know until it is approved.
As with the multitude of similar trade pacts the United States has
formed, the ultimate aim of the TPP is the creation of a regional super
government — thus the stonewalling of federal lawmakers who dare seek to
assert some sort of oversight.
In the case of the TPP, the zone would be called the Free Trade Area
of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Members of the proposed “free trade” bloc
include all the current TPP participants: Malaysia, Singapore, Japan,
Vietnam, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Mexico, Chile, Canada,
and the United States. The regional trading partnership is intended to
establish “a comprehensive free trade agreement across the region.”
Economic and political integration will push the once-independent
United States of America into yet another collectivist bloc that will
facilitate the complete dissolution of our nation and our states into no
more than impotent members of a one-world government.
Predicting such a scenario isn’t exactly a prophetic act, though. The
TPP has been described as “NAFTA on steroids,” and a quick rehearsal of
the devastation washed up on American shores in the wake of NAFTA will
serve as a cautionary tale of the terrors of the TPP.
In its report entitled “NAFTA at 20,” Public Citizen’s Global Trade
Watch provided a primer on NAFTA’s enervating effect on the American
economy. The paper reports:
NAFTA created new privileges and
protections for foreign investors that incentivized the offshoring of
investment and jobs by eliminating many of the risks normally associated
with moving production to low-wage countries. NAFTA allowed foreign
investors to directly challenge before foreign tribunals domestic
policies and actions, demanding government compensation for policies
that they claimed undermined their expected future profits. NAFTA also
contained chapters that required the three countries to limit regulation
of services, such as trucking and banking; extend medicine patent
monopolies; limit food and product safety standards and border
inspection; and waive domestic procurement preferences, such as Buy
American.
Some of the specific harm caused by NAFTA is highlighted in the report:
1. $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada
2. One million net U.S. jobs lost because of NAFTA
3. A doubling of immigration from Mexico
4. Larger agricultural trade deficits with Mexico and Canada
5. More than $360 million paid to
corporations after “investor-state” tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks
of, domestic public interest policies.
Americans who study the subject realize that the domestic legal
processes being carried out in secret by the globalists sitting around
the TPP negotiating table is, like NAFTA before it, an attack on
American laws, American courts, American freedom of expression, American
sovereignty, and the American Constitution.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American
and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment,
the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on
Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.
April 29, 2014 Igor Rozin, RBTH Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines
The U.S. has announced new sanctions against a range of Russian
companies and individuals with close Kremlin links in response to what
it sees as Russia’s continued intervention in eastern Ukraine. The
Russian Foreign Ministry has warned that Moscow will make a “painful”
response to Washington’s decision.
I’d like to introduce my next mother from the Lioness Arising Mother series,
Robyn Charron. I first learned about her story a few months ago. When a
mothers story grips me and I can’t stop thinking about it, I know I
have to re-tell their story. Robyn fits the definition of a Lioness
Arising Mother in every way and I am honored that she is allowing me to
share her sons story. It is both heartbreaking and encouraging.
Heartbreaking because this is the new normal and represents so many
children. And encouraging because this momma gets it. She. Gets. It.
If you or anyone you know has a child with colic, reflux,
head-banging, food allergies, or constant rashes please share this
story.
Share. This. Story.
In Robyn’s own words….
“If you wait until your child is born to think about vaccines, a
vaccine injury is almost impossible to recognize. You are too tired and
overwhelmed when it strikes. You are too immersed in the trees to see
the forest. Too busy putting band-aids on symptoms to see the
syndrome. You might be told that you have a sensitive, high-needs baby
on your hands and his sensitivities manifest as colic, reflux,
head-banging, food allergies, or contact rashes. You will be told that
it is all normal, which is the truth, considering what passes for normal
these days. Now I see these signs in other infants and I try to
intervene. I try to warn the parents that these sensitivities mean so
much more than their doctor tells them. I know that these parents are
too down in it to see for themselves.
My son was born and like a lot of people, we put more thought into
the paint in his bedroom than we had into vaccinations. I knew one
person, nearly a decade ago, who didn’t vaccinate his children. He
said, “We don’t put that crap into our kids.” He scared me. I thought
he was a conspiracy theorist. I would never be like that guy.
We were presented with the Hepatitis B vaccine paperwork on our
child’s third day of life, just before leaving the hospital. I have a
Bachelor of Science in Biology but I didn’t know what Hep B was. None
of the parenting books I’d read mentioned that I would be expected to
make a decision I knew nothing about while I was high on painkillers.
If you don’t already know, Hep B is a sexually transmitted blood borne
disease that is also spread through using dirty needles. Children don’t
catch Hep B at the playground, or from a sneeze, or from drinking
water. The vaccine administered to a newborn baby will have long worn
off by the time the child becomes sexually active. If a mother is Hep B
positive and has been receiving prenatal care, she certainly knows her
status prior to the baby arriving.
So why are hospitals vaccinating all of our newborns for Hepatitis B? Because they can. Because almost no one says “No.” It is as simple as that.
We all want to trust our doctors. No one wants to believe that the
CDC and the AAP aren’t looking out for our best interests. No one wants
to retroactively realize they were responsible for harming their
babies. No one wants to debate their child’s pediatrician. No one
wants to have this battle with their spouse.
We allowed the Hep B vaccine that day. We actually said, “It must be
a really big deal or it wouldn’t come with all of this consent
paperwork,” but allowed it anyway. We took our baby home that evening
and spent the wee morning hours wishing we could put that hysterical
child back into my body. We didn’t make a connection between the two
events. We were already too down in it to see.
A week later we were still miserable. My husband would race home
from work to help me. I would still be in my pajamas, covered in
spit-up, leaking milk. Our baby would be crying. I would be crying. I
wouldn’t have fed myself, brushed my teeth or folded any laundry. At
two weeks old our son was diagnosed with “classic colic” and it did not
let up for the next five months. It was the most severe case of colic
anyone in our lives had ever seen. We ended up medicating him with an
antispasmodic to save our marriage.
Day before 2 month vaccinations
When he was nine weeks old I took my fussy baby in for his 2-month
checkup and was attacked with paperwork. I wasn’t prepared for what the
check-up would entail. “Sign here, sign here, sign here, he needs his
vaccinations.” They were three injections and two orals that covered 7
diseases. “Is this safe? Why are there so many?” They don’t want you
to ask questions. They don’t have any answers. There is a list of
side-effects on the package inserts but they do not share it with you.
You are rushed to hurry up.
They try to strip you of all maternal instinct when you are in your most vulnerable postpartum state.
My postpartum anxiety was sky-high. I was a shell of my former self
and sleep-deprived. I had been screamed at for hours on end by this
tortured baby. I was too down in it to think.
I asked to nurse him through the shots and was denied. I signed off
on the vaccines. Within 20 minutes he fell into a deep unwakeable
sleep. This colicky child of ours did not usually fall asleep out in
the middle of commotion. He did not ordinarily pass out the moment I
put him into the car. I called my husband to tell him that something
was wrong. I put our son into his crib but even the transition did not
wake him. I hovered over him as he slept for hours—something he’d never
done before.
When he finally did wake, he screamed a high pitched scream I’d never heard before or since.
I remember running into his room and standing over him with the
phone, letting the nurse at the doctor’s office listen. She insisted
this hysteria was due to “pain from the injection site” and said I
should give him more Tylenol. I didn’t believe her. The note they sent
me home with said to call if he had a high-pitched scream so why were
they saying it was normal?
He didn’t want to be held. He didn’t want me touching him. After 15
minutes of ear-splitting screams I nursed him back to sleep. I was
sitting inches from him in his baby hammock chair when he woke the
second time. I will never forget the way his arms stiffened up
and shot out from his body with his piercing screams. His eyes
scrunched tightly shut as he put every ounce of his energy into the
terrifying sounds coming out of his teeny, tiny person. He wasn’t
looking at me. He didn’t even know I was there. He went back to sleep
and the scream stopped.
I stayed up all night doing the research I should have done 2 months before.
His scream was cry-encephalitis, also known as the DTaP scream. It is brain inflammation. It is literally an allergic reaction to vaccines in the brain.
It is not uncommon. Had I taken him to the ER, it would have been
documented with an EEG. Instead I was lied to by my pediatrician’s
office until the event had passed.
That was the beginning of the end of vaccines for us.
Children do not have the requisite myelin sheath
coating their nervous system pathways to withstand bombardment of
viruses, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, MSG, and animal DNA. Damage
to the nerves not covered by myelin sheath is autism. It is
Asperger’s. It is epilepsy. It is asthma. It is well-documented
and accepted by mainstream media that damage to the myelin sheath is
physically and mentally debilitating in head injuries, yet the
connection to autism remains unacknowledged.
Believe me, it made me sick to think about not vaccinating my child.
I flip-flopped on my stance countless times. I told myself that at his
next vaccinations we would go wait in the parking lot of the emergency
room just in case. Then I told myself that was crazy talk—what kind of
mother would subject her child to something that might send him to the
emergency room? The day before his 4-month doctor appointment I finally
got up the nerve to tell his doctor we were holding off on more
vaccinations until he turned one. The doctor took the news so well that
I felt silly for making myself sick over it.
Our baby now had eczema all of the time. At 4 months he was covered
head to toe in a body rash from his first tablespoon of banana. We held
off two more months for solid food. At 6 months old he developed a
contact rash on his face from sweet potatoes. I pushed his doctor for
answers, and a blood test came back positive for a peanut allergy.
My 6 month old breastfed baby had deadly peanut allergy. I didn’t see a connection. I was way too down in it by now.
At 12 months old his pediatrician who promised us that he “wasn’t a
stickler” for the CDC vaccination schedule kicked us out of the practice
for not resuming the shots. “It’s stressing me out not to vaccinate
your child,” he said. I was holding my baby in my arms, trying to
explain our fears, describing how horrible that terrifying day ten
months prior had been. I told him how worried I was that we would end
up in the ER this time. I was humiliated. He’d told his entire staff
he was kicking us out that day. I left in tears. I thought of all of
the things I’d wished I said to him for months to come.
We never did resume the vaccines. It took some time to feel
confident in that decision. My supportive husband stood by me in our
defiance even though neither of us knew what we were doing, and man we
were scared.
Today at 4 years old
At 13 months old our child broke out in hives at a birthday party
from bites of a meatball that contained walnut. At 16 months we’d had
enough and took him to an allergist for a $600 skin test. He was
officially diagnosed with allergies to wheat, egg, melon, cat, ragweed,
grass, cedar, tree nuts, and a deadly peanut allergy. We’ve since
learned that he can’t have corn or potato and still can’t eat banana.
My baby has a dozen allergies.
I had to learn how to feed him all over again. The natural process
of these eliminations led to putting him on an organic Paleo/Primal
diet, and my husband and I followed suit ourselves six months later.
My child was 16 months old when he was diagnosed with the slew of
allergies and I didn’t make the connection that he was harmed by the
vaccines even then. I was mystified. I asked the allergist what caused
these problems in my child. His answer was, “He’s under-vaccinated. We need vaccines to challenge our immune systems in order to eat food without our bodies attacking it.”
Although I did not believe such an unfounded statement, I was too
busy putting band-aids on symptoms to see the syndrome. It wasn’t until
The Greater Good
was released in October of 2011—nearly 2 years after the fateful
vaccinations—that the anvil hit me on the head. It all made sense. The
colic, the encephalitic scream, the rashes, the mast cell issues, the
hyper-vigilant immune system.
There is now no doubt in our minds what path we were forcing our
sensitive child to go down had we continued vaccinating. I know in my
heart that he cannot handle vaccines and he would have autism today had
we continued. All the signs were there. My second child who
statistically shares half of his DNA is nothing like this. A needle has
never pierced her skin. She can eat anything. She does not get
contact rashes. She never had colic. She does not have eczema.
This is what really gets to me, though: The staunchest defenders of
vaccines. The parents who will go toe-to-toe with me in a public forum
saying what a bad parent I am for not vaccinating. And then what do I
find out months later, years later, always in private?
Their child has food allergies. Their child has a learning
disability. Their child is medicated for ADHD. Their child is crippled
with asthma. Their child is on the spectrum.
How do they publicly proclaim, “We vaccinated on schedule and my
child turned out just fine!” but in private they are dealing with these
problems?
Welcome to the new normal. Your child isn’t fine. Your child is vaccine injured– just like mine”
About Lioness Arising Mother #8
Robyn has a Bachelor of Science in Biology and years of experience as a lab tech. She previously wrote a public blog The Robyn Nest,
but it is now private due to security reasons. Sadly mothers who share
the truth are persecuted. Pieces she has written have been published by
Scary Mommy, Mass Appeal, The Girl Who for Babble, Bonbon Break, Just
Eat Real Food, and MSN. The Thinking Mom’s Revolution published a video
she made. And she has done a live interview for the Huffington Post,
that you can watch (HERE). This video shares her powerful story in more detail. Please watch.
Lastly, please pray for this mother and her son. A message I received
from her today: “My son just went into respiratory failure
at noon yesterday for unknown reasons. The doctors’ best guess is that
his peanut-free school has traces of peanut butter from kids who ate it
for breakfast and didn’t wash their hands. It seems he touched
something and it got into his eyes. He had to be epipenned by the
director and took his 3rd ambulance ride in 8 months. Everyone needs to
know that for the majority of kids, this is preventable. Skip the
vaccines. We are living a nightmare”
It doesn’t have to be this way.
“If there ever comes a time when
the women of the world come together purely and simply for the benefit
of mankind, it will be a force such as the world has never known” -Matthew Arnold, Nineteeth-Century British Poet and Philosopher
On Friday 25th April 2014 the ICC prosecutor, Mrs Fatou Besouda,
informed the democratically elected government of Egypt that the
complaint submitted by them detailing serious allegations of
international crimes cannot proceed.
Representatives of the democratically elected Government were
notified of MrsBensouda’s decision in a personally signed letter dated
23 April 2014. Thedemocratically elected Government’s legal team today
announced that the decision will not prevent accountability through the
International Criminal Court. The distinguished legal team which
includes former UK Director of Public ProsecutionsLord Ken Macdonald,
former UN Special Rapporteur Professor John Dugard and ICC specialist
Rodney Dixon QC are preparing to take the matter to the ICC Judges.
The complaint sent to the ICC contained strong evidence of serious
criminal acts perpetrated by the military regime responsible for the
coup d’état which resulted in death of over 2000 protestors and the
detention of 20,000 people including President Morsi and members of the
democratic Government. In meetings held with the ICC,senior officials
had accepted that serious crimes had been committed in Egypt since the
coup and equated the crimes to those that have been committed in Syria.
The ICC complaint contained an Article 12 (3) declaration, which
allowed the ICC to investigate the situation in Egypt. It contained a
clear and reasonable legal basis for opening a preliminary examination
into the situation in Egypt and was supported byindependent opinions
from leading international law experts. In contrast, the ICC Prosecutor
accepted jurisdiction over the Ukraine as a result of a similar
declaration. The ICC announced the Ukraine decision on the same day as
informing the democratic Government about the Egypt decision.
Lawyers representing the government have expressed serious concern
at the manner in which the decision was taken. The decision has been
described as ‘wrong in law and devoid of proper and independent legal
analysis’.
Tayab Ali of ITN Solicitors who acts for the democratically elected Government said:
‘We are instructed to take with immediate effect further legal
action at the ICC to seek to defend the rights of the thousands of
victims of the military's violent campaign to crush all opposition and
maintain the illegal coup.
We do not agree that the ICC Prosecutor is able to administratively
determine that the democratically elected Government of Egypt’s
referral cannot proceed. Accordingly we will lodge an appeal with the
ICC requesting Judges to review the decision made by the Prosecutor. The
ICC was established to prevent international crimes and defeat impunity
for those responsible for committing them. In a strong case such as
this it is not appropriate for an incorrect administrative decision to
prevent accountability for the many well-documented crimes that have
been committed in Egypt
I am very disappointed by Mrs Bensouda’s personal decision which
would cause the ICC to turn its back on investigating and deterring
these crimes. It is surprising that the prosecutor has taken this
decision in this way and more so when contrasted with the African
Union’s decision in respect of death sentences, which has taken strong
and positive steps to uphold human rights' protections in Egypt. The
Chairperson of the African Commission has written to the Egyptian
interim authorities directing that they suspend the death sentences and
uphold international human rights law.
The complaint lodged at the ICC was based on sound legal
principles, which although being clearly presented to the Prosecutor,
have been entirely ignored. In addition the complaint contains the
clearest evidence that the military regime in Egypt is responsible for
committing crimes against humanity, which include murder, torture and
enforced disappearance.
It should not be forgotten that the complaint rejected by the ICC
prosecutor was in respect of a regime that has unarguably committed
crimes against humanity against its own people and recently sentenced
hundreds of people to death following trials that lasted only minutes.
It is of serious concern that on the same day that the ICC has
recognized the declaration of the Ukrainian government for the killings
of protestors, the Prosecutor has notified the democratically elected
government of Egypt that its declaration is not acceptable and that
those killed by the military regime cannot be investigated by the ICC.
The paradoxical positions taken about the two situations appear to
suggest the process used by the Prosecutor to determine the similar
complaints was at best seriously flawed and at worst inappropriately
politically motivated’.
About seventeen thousand
detainees held on remand in the military junta's prisons have started a
hunger strike in protest against the gross injustice inflicted upon
them. They are illegally detained on open-ended remand, without any
justification. If released, they cannot possibly tamper with the
prosecution evidence, nor can they flee abroad. Their homes and work
places are well known to authorities.
In fact, held hostage, they
suffer tremendous ill-treatment and abuse. They can barely breathe in
cells packed with ten times the number of inmates they are meant for,
with no air vents. Neither their families nor their lawyers are allowed
to visit them. Worse still is horrendous and repeated torture, from
which no old man nor young minor is exempted, and which often includes
violent rape leading to death of detainees.
If anything, this exposes the
systematic policy of brutality followed by the mad military junta in
order to break the will of the Egyptian people. Coup authorities began
with murder, arson and bloodshed, and continue with false imprisonment
and torture, hoping the people would abandon their demands for freedom,
dignity and all their rights.
The generals are determined to
crush the people, together with their children and grandchildren, under
their bloody boots. But this will not happen, God willing: "…Honor
belongs to God and His Messenger, and to the Believers; but the
Hypocrites know not" (Quran 63:8).
If we look at the kinds of people
so imprisoned unjustly, we'd find they represent the entire Egyptian
people, from scientists, university professors and students to
engineers, doctors and lawyers – men and women, old and young, even
minors under fourteen. Some of those have been sentenced to death, some
to rigorous imprisonment for up to seventeen years, just for peacefully
protesting to express their rejection of the coup.
The Egyptian Observatory for
Rights and Freedoms has documented forty five violations against those
innocent men, women and youths, some committed by brutal and monstrous
police officers. Meanwhile, the prosecution service and the judiciary
are most lamentable. They commit dozens of violations of the law
themselves, although the people trust them with the task of dealing
justice and upholding law and order.
Evidently, there are secret
prisons that have been converted into slaughterhouses and torture
centers for innocent political detainees, like the notorious Aezoli
prison in Ismailia. Located within the confines of a military
encampment, this prison had been dedicated to military personnel who had
committed serious crimes. However, now it has opened its doors and
deadly dungeons for peaceful civilians. Indeed, this is only the tip of
the iceberg.
Numerous international human
rights organizations have strongly condemned the brutality of violations
committed against the Egyptian people. But it seems the heinous junta
do not care much for Egypt's reputation nor for Egypt itself or its
people. They are heartless ruthless monsters. They seek to drag Egypt
into the Syrian trajectory. But for whose sake, whose benefit, would
that be? In any event, this will not happen either, God willing.
On the other hand, the real
heroes will remain steadfast, fighting the battle of empty stomachs,
putting their health and lives at risk, not to demand their own freedom
alone, but the freedom of the whole of Egypt and its people. This is all
they can do now.
Therefore, the honorable,
patriotic Egyptian people must move to support those steadfast heroes.
It no longer suffices to tacitly condemn the mad military coup's bloody
crimes. Soon, patience and the empty stomachs will triumph over the most
advanced lethal weapons, and peaceful civilized humans over the brutal
monsters.
"…God will certainly aid those who aid His cause; for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might and Power" (Quran 22:40).
Indeed… "God has full control of
all affairs, but most people do not know." The unjust oppressors will
soon see what destiny they will ultimately meet.
Apr-11-2014 Gary G. Kohls MD for Salem-News.com Source: Salem-News. com
It is ironic, but telling, to note that a few years ago there was a
$10,000 award offered to any physician who would be willing to swallow
the contents of what they freely inject into their unsuspecting
patients.
To my medical colleagues, BigPharma sceptics and others
truly concerned with public health issues and the accelerating
sickening of America:
In the following link,Dr. Suzanne Humphries talks about vaccines in a 10
minute videointerview justifiably, with science backing her up (and
directly refuting what those corporate entities who have immense wealth
and power), claiming that there has never been a safe vaccine.
This video needs to be viewed by all health reporters to “immunize” them
against the powerful, corporate-controlled profit-motivated factions
(including the media and our indoctrinated physicians and nurses) that
are pushing more and more unsafe and highly toxic vaccines upon
unsuspecting parents and vulnerable infants, who then go on to develop
hyperimmune/autoimmune disorders such as our escalating incidence of
chronic asthma, rheumatoid disorders, etc (for an important list of
other vaccine injuries that have been documented, see below). Gary
Also
check out the University of Pittsburg study that showed that monkeys
who received the recommended vaccine schedule from the 1990s
CDC-approved schedule got autism while the control group who did not
receive vaccines did not acquire autism: http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/category/rooms/doctors-speak-out/
For those who have only heard the smear campaign false
charges in the US about Wakefield: he was the victim of a highly
orchestrated smear campaign in England, funded by vaccine-maker Glaxo,
and Rupert Murdoch’s media empire [Rupert’s son James Murdoch sits on
the board of Glaxo; and a Murdoch-funded pseudojournalist named Brian
Deer did much of the dirty work]).
The smear campaign was supported by Britain’s threatened medical
establishment and its two previously “prestigious” medical journals
[Lancet and British Medical Journal] to discredit Wakefield and his
well-done study of 12 children who were diagnosed with regressive autism
after their MMR shots (that contains 3 varieties of live viruses) and
whose bowels became infected with the measles virus from the vaccine,
causing abdominal pains and chronic diarrhea. Biopsies taken by
Wakefield and his colleagues proved vaccine-related measles virus
infections in the intestinal lymphatic tissue, findings that have been
replicated in a number of other studies world-wide (refuting the medical
establishment’s claims of fraud).
One of those studies came out of Wake Forest University:
"
… a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North
Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel
disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles
virus … the team's leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said:
'Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.
This
research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of
children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is
evidence of measles virus. What it means is that the study done
earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct.
That
study didn't draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to
find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming
from the MMR vaccine. If that's the case, and this live virus is
residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they
have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the
MMR."
The lead researcher,
Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D., was also quick to state however, that this
does not necessarily mean the MMR vaccine causes autism. Still, his
research notes the same connection that Wakefield's team did, which is
that many autistic children have chronic bowel inflammation, and have
the vaccine strain of the measles virus in their intestines.
Says Dr. Wakefield of his original 1998 findings:
"…
it's been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy…
[but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else
has ever been able to replicate the findings. I'm afraid that is false."
The threat to the vaccine industry (from the connection
between regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease following live
virus vaccination) was perceived to be so great that various corporate
entities orchestrated the unheard of refutation and retraction of the
1998 Lancet study and the revocation of the medical licenses of
Wakefield (and one other of the dozen authors of the study, who was, by
the way, later exonerated of the charges and then compensated for the
unjust charges against him).
At any rate, the US corporate media and medical establishment have
joined in the smearing of Wakefield (who now lives in the US after
writing a book about the affair that was appropriately titled “Callous
Disregard”). And the reason for the intense campaign to discredit
Wakefield and his very valid research is clear: because any doubts about
the “safety” of the vaccines in the minds of the public that are so
profitable (for the powerful and obscenely wealthy multinational
vaccine/drug makers, the CDC [which is a major vaccine pusher in
America], the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAFP and the AMA, none
of whom will ever be able to bring themselves to admit their
wrong-doing that has damaged tens of thousands of vaccine-injured
children who now have to endure chronic illnesses like autism spectrum
disorders, chronic asthma, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid disorders and
other autoimmune disorders that are dramatically increasing in incidence
– co-incidentally with [or because of] the massive increase of
vaccinations in America – see list below).
And here is a partial list of some of the vaccine injuries that have been documented in the literature:
Deafness,
asthma, diarrhoea, inconsolable screaming, encephalitis, convulsions
and seizures, blindness, behaviour problems, autism, anaphylactic
shock, neurological disabilities, immune malfunction, arthritis,
epilepsy, brain damage, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, polio,
diabetes mellitus, chronic fatigue, paralysis, negative change in the
genetic structure of humans, Alzheimer, meningitis, and Death.
And here are just some of the ingredients used to make a vaccine:
Ethylene glycol: antifreeze
Phenol: also known as carbolic acid and used as a disinfectant, dye
Formaldehyde: a known cancer causing agent (carcinogenic)
Aluminium: is
associated with alzheimers disease and seizures also cancer
producing in laboratory mice (it is used as an additive to promote
antibody response)
Thimerosal: can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease (used as a mercury disinfectant/preservative)
Neomycin: Streptomycin (used as antibiotic) have caused allergic reactions in some people
It
is ironic, but telling, to note that a few years ago there was a
$10,000 award offered to any physician who would (after being made
fully aware of the above ingredients of vaccines) be willing to swallow the contents of what they freely inject into their unsuspecting patients. There were no takers. Gary G. Kohls, MD
The UAE is trying hard to put pressure on Britain to ban Islamic
institutions in London, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, the director
of Al-Hiwar TV channel Azzam Tamimi said yesterday.
Speaking at the International Palestinian Conference for Media and
Communications in Istanbul, Tamimi stressed that Britain is a democratic
state that does not give in to pressure, unlike the violations that
occur in Arab countries and asked these countries to stop playing
"malicious" roles.
Tamimi added that the UAE demanded British Prime Minister David
Cameron shut down Al-Hiwar and some Islamic institutions and offered
financial bribes to the UK, but Cameron refused saying that "Britain is a
nation subject to law and the judiciary. If you have a problem with
them then you must let law run its course."
The aim of the conference, also known as Tawasul, is to provide
opportunities for meaningful dialogue about experiences within the
media, to provide help in developing and directing media productions on
Palestine. In addition, Tawasul aims to coordinate public information
efforts and promote the development of joint projects and programmes and
launch media initiatives encouraging creativity in media productions
serving the Palestinian cause.
The conference was organised by the Palestine Media Club, the
Foundation for Research, Economic and Social Research (SETA) and the
Middle East Monitor (MEMO).
A lot of talk about the need for increased military spending by NATO
countries in order to combat the threat of the Russians in Eastern
Europe. What the media isn’t telling you… how much money NATO countries
already spend on military compared to the Russians? Spoiler alert, it is
a lot!
Researchers say small-holder farms can produce enough to feed the world without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.
A
four-year-old Colombian child named Andres sows onion on a small farm
near Tota lake in the village town of Aquitania, Colombia. (Jose
Gomez/Reuters)
Willy Blackmore is TakePart’s Food editor. He has written for The Awl, The New Inquiry, and elsewhere
Organic
produce harvested from small, diverse farms may be fine and good for
anyone who can afford to pay $3 or more per pound for tomatoes. But to
the hungry masses of the developing world? What’s the
heirloom-tomato-and-baby-lettuce model going to do for them? Sating that
kind of hunger will take acre after acre packed with staple crops like
rice and corn, grown with the aid of whatever chemicals and technology
can optimize yields—at least that’s what many think.
A new report published last week by the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development
suggests a far different approach, however, one that has more in common
with the style of agriculture that produces your favorite tomatoes than
a 1,000-acre field of corn in the Midwest. And it might not only be able to feed the world—the authors says it can help mitigate climate change too.
The report is exhaustive, with six full pages dedicated to listing
the different acronyms referenced throughout the 321-page document.
Topics range from the benefits of locally developed plant varities, to
carbon sequestration as social justice, and democratizing access to
seeds and other products. Full of sometimes dense, academic writing, it
isn’t exactly something you’d want to curl up on the couch with. But the
title—“Wake Up Before It Is Too Late: Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate”—comes through like a shout.
The document makes a lengthy case for organic, low-input, small-scale
agriculture as the best means for not only feeding the world, but for
also managing the stresses of drought, rain and other catastrophic
weather brought on by climate change. It’s not a new idea, nor does the
U.N. explicitly endorse it—you won’t hear Ban Ki-moon talking about it
at the General Assembly this week. But even if the report carries no
weight beyond its rhetorical value (the U.N. isn’t making any policy
recommendations by publishing it), having the organization’s logo, that
top-down view of the globe, stamped on the cover still carries
significance.
In the chapter “Strengthening Resilience of Farming Systems: A Prerequisite of Sustainable Agricultural Production,” Miguel Altieri
and Parviz Koohafkan offer a lay thesis for the report, one that’s less
confrontational than the title. Describing the importance of the
various forms of traditional agriculture found around the world, the
pair write, “They tell a fascinating story of the ability and ingenuity
of humans to adjust and adapt to the vagaries of a changing physical and
material environment from generation to generation.” That’s a very different proscription for the future of
agriculture—which will soon be taxed with feeding eight billion
mouths—than is often put forward. Last year, for example, the Director
of National Intelligence’s Global Trend Report for 2030
singled out biotechnology as the most promising means of managing
increased demand and resources diminished by climate change. The report
says that GMOs, “hold the most promise for achieving food security in
the next 15-20 years.”
“What people are realizing is, first of all, industrial agriculture
is not feeding the world,” Altieri, Professor of Agroecology at UC
Berkley, said in a phone interview. “Most of what it produces is
biomass, which is for cattle, biotech crops, and biofuels.”
What he wants to see instead is an approach to agriculture that does
acknowledge the “ancestral knowledge” he writes about, whether it takes
the form of drought-tolerant varieties of grains that have been selected
over generations or learning more about agroecological (that’s what
they call sustainable agriculture in the academy) systems’ abilities to
cope with and rebound from catastrophic weather events like hurricanes.
“What we are trying to come up with is a western scientific approach,
and people who have been farming for centuries have developed their own
ethnosciences and we need to learn from them,” he says. “That’s going
to be what helps us in the future.”
“Wake Up Before It Is Too Late” may be passively critical of GMOs,
but it directly indicts the Green Revolution, the approach to
agriculture championed by Norman Borlaug. In the 1960s, the Nobel
Laureate agronomist helped transition farming in Latin America and Asia
to modern hybrid wheat and rice varieties grown with the assistance of
irrigation and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. “The world needs a
paradigm shift in agricultural development: from a ‘green revolution’ to
a ‘ecological intensification’ approach,” read the UNCTAD report’s “Key
Messages.”
Borlaug, who also advocated for GMOs in the years before his death,
in 2009, saw organic farming and criticisms of the Green Revolution as
being diametrically opposed to feeding people the world over.
“Some elements of popular culture romanticize older, inefficient
production methods and shun fertilizers and pesticides,” he wrote for
the Wall Street Journal
in 2009. “People should be able to purchase organic food if they have
the will and financial means to do so, but not at the expense of the
world’s hungry—25,000 of whom die each day from malnutrition.”
The Borlag Institute for International Agriculture declined to comment on the UNCTAD report.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is working to continue Borlag’s
approach, but with an eye toward sustainability, and biotechnology—not
just hybrid varieties—as the key tool in what some call a second Green
Revolution. Addressing the debate over genetic engineering’s role in
global agriculture (and not the report in particular), the Foundation’s
communications officer Amy Enright wrote in an email, “Essentially, the
foundation believes that people in the developing world should have the
same access to innovation that benefits the rich world, and we believe
that GM crops have the potential to provide benefits to farmers in the poorest parts of the world.”
“Advances in agriculture, just like in medicine, must be guided by
regulations to ensure new products (seeds, vaccines or medicines) are
safe and effective,” she adds. “We work with many partners across both
the public and private sectors to ensure that farmers will have access
to seeds that are affordable—so ultimately the farmer can choose what
seed or technology is right for them.”
Despite Gates’ clout and cash and the legacy of the Green Revolution, Ben Lilliston of the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy
gets the sense that the conversation is changing. “I’m optimistic that
there is a shift taking place at the global level in the institutions
and in the sort of larger dialog,” he says, referencing other reports
from U.N. groups that advocate for sustainable approaches to
agriculture.
But Lilliston admits that even if there’s a sense that he and
like-minded people and institutions increasingly feel like they’re
winning the argument, until ag policy and practice follow suit, it’s all
academic. “When it come to global changes that are more concrete,” he
says, “we haven’t really got there yet.”
Altieri agrees, saying documents like this, “give credibility to the
approach, and it has an impact in academia. But it doesn’t change many
things. At the end of the day, the debate isn’t scientific—it’s
political.” According to him, reports like “Wake Up Before It Is Too
Late,” “strengthens the social movements that are going to put the
change on the politics.”
Pointing to the debate over Golden Rice trials in the Philippines and
protests against GMO crops in India, Peru and parts of Africa,
Lilliston believes that those social movements are already being
empowered. “All of that is a sort of push back and resistance to the
Green Revolution, chemical approach—and monoculture approach—to
producing food.”
January 30, 2014 By Dan Murphy The Christian Science Monitor Source: Yahoo News
Earlier this week The New York Times and other newspapers, relying on power point slides stolen from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden, reported that the US and Britain
have been trying to develop better means to spy on the massive amounts
of data filtering through smart phones and into the world's
telecommunications networks.
A particular
target has been smartphone apps – everything from the popular game Angry
Birds to photo uploading tools. As the Times wrote:
According to dozens of previously undisclosed classified documents,
among the most valuable of those unintended intelligence tools are
so-called leaky apps that spew everything from the smartphone
identification codes of users to where they have been that day.
The
NSA. and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters were working
together on how to collect and store data from dozens of smartphone apps
by 2007, according to the documents,
provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former NSA. contractor. Since then,
the agencies have traded recipes for grabbing location and planning data
when a target uses Google Maps, and for vacuuming up address books,
buddy lists, telephone logs and the geographic data embedded in
photographs when someone sends a post to the mobile versions of
Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter and other Internet services.
The
paper also uploaded some of the slides, but with one problem:
Amateurish redaction of some details, designed to hide the identity of
an NSA employee and make it harder for terrorist groups to make good use
of the information, that was no redaction at all. The paper quickly
rectified the error but not before the original uploads were snatched by
the anti-secrecy website Cryptome – at least according to a Twitter account linked to the website.
(The person who controls the account has since deleted this claim, as
well as an assertion that he'd do any redactions himself when "hell
freezes over.")
This error
highlights the risks of the tens of thousands of Snowden documents that
are now floating around among at least a dozen journalists: Promises
that all documents will be handled carefully and be fully vetted by
responsible reporters are just that. The more documents and different
organizations involved, the greater chances for error – and there is
little point in closing the barn door after the horses have bolted.
But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq
being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads:
"Visual Communicator – Free application that combines Instant Messaging,
Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC
used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times
tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."
The
aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that
can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in
tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a
program focusing on clear security interests – Al Qaeda in Iraq, now
calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) – killed thousands
in Iraq
during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings
and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply
involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make
it an obvious security concern for the US.
Snowden
has often insisted that he isn't interested in exposing intelligence
programs that have legitimate security concerns behind them and has gone
so far as to say that almost none of the NSA's efforts have anything to
do with terrorism. Glenn Greenwald, who's worked with Snowden on releasing NSA documents since at least February of last year, has also made that second claim.
In December Snowden wrote an open letter to "the people of Brazil" (he's been hoping to get asylum there) and in it he claimed:
There
is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying,
legitimate law enforcement – where individuals are targeted based on a
reasonable, individualized suspicion – and these programs of dragnet
mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye
and save copies forever.
These
programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying,
social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.
Mr. Greenwald said the following in an interview with CNN's Christian Amanpour last October,
after being asked if leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron
were correct in saying the world has become a more dangerous place
because "bad guys know how we're listening to them and we're not able to
do as much intercepting and stopping of these potentially damaging
plots as we could in the past":
Let's
just use our common sense analyzing the claims of political officials
when they say that. Ever since 9/11 British and American officials have
screamed terrorism over and over and over every time they get caught
doing bad doing things they shouldn't do -- from lying to the public
about invading Iraq to setting up a worldwide torture regime to
kidnapping people and taking them around the world to be tortured. They
just want to put the population in fear by saying that terrorists will
get you if you don't want to submit to whatever authority it is that we
want to do and that's all they're doing here. It's the same tactic they
always use. Let's just use common sense. Every terrorist who's capable
of tying their own shoes has long known that the US government and the
UK government are trying to monitor their communications in every way
that they can. That isn't new. We didn't reveal anything to the
terrorists that they didn't already know. What we revealed is that the
spying system is largely devoted not to terrorists but is directed at
innocent people around the world. That is what was not previously known
and that is why American and British officials are so angry because they
wanted to hide what the true purpose of the spying system is from the
people at whom it's directed. And that is the only thing that's new in
what we reported.
Amanpour
then plays a short clip of Rep. Mike Rogers saying that if French
people understood the uses and intent of NSA telecommunications in that
country, which he says is focused on terrorism and security, they'd "be
popping champagne corks." Greenwald responds:
Well
first of all a lot of people like to ask why is there so much
anti-American sentiment around the world all you have to do is listen to
that tape of Mike Rogers
to understand it he's basically going around telling the world that
they ought to be grateful that without their knowledge we're stealing
all of their communications data and invading their privacy. None of
this has anything to do with terrorism. Is Angela Merkel a terrorist?
Are 60 or 70 million French citizens terrorists?... This is is clearly
about political power and economic espionage and the claim that this is
all about terrorism is seen around the world as what it is. Which is --
pure deceit.
The above two quotes contain a lot of hogwash, not to mention Greenwald's extremely binary thinking on this issue.
Is
all American spying about terrorism? No. And no one in the government
ever claimed that. The US Congress has directed the NSA and other
intelligence agencies to collect intelligence on foreign governments,
just as they collect intelligence on the US.
Is
it reasonable to claim that the US and other governments have
overplayed the threat of terrorism as justification for acts that erode
civil liberties? In my view, absolutely.
But
his claim that "none of this has anything to do with terrorism" is not
reasonable. That's pure nonsense -- as is his attempt to suggest that
any revelations of eavesdropping techniques can't do any harm because
terrorists already know all about it. Terrorists may know that the US is
trying to spy on them as best it can (just as Germany and France know
that). But knowing the precise methods is another thing altogether.
That
fact is that while intelligence tools created to spy on terrorists
could end up being used and misused for other purposes, it's an enormous
logical leap to then claim that "this is is clearly about political
power and economic espionage and the claim that this is all about
terrorism is seen around the world as what it is. Which is -- pure
deceit."
That's a claim refuted by a careful reading of the documents Greenwald say help prove his position.
The grave political turmoil and polarization in Turkey has triggered
uproar from leading civil society organizations that have declared that
both corruption allegations involving the government and claims about a
“parallel state” are harming democracy, peace and stability.
Representatives
of seven nongovernmental organizations held a joint press conference on
Jan. 17 to publicly express their concerns over the recent crisis in
the country.
“We, who produce and work for Turkey, have come
together to assess the process that we have been experiencing,” said a
joint declaration issued by the Confederation of Turkish Craftsmen and
Tradesmen (TESK), the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB),
the Turkish Union of Agricultural Chambers (TZOB), the Confederation of
Turkish Labor Unions (TÜRK-İş), the Turkish Confederation of Employers’
Unions (TİSK), the Labor Confederation (HAK-İŞ) and the Civil Servants
Trade Union (MEMUR-SEN), whose representatives were present at the press
conference.
“The corruption claims and parallel state claims
that have infested the environment have been threatening societal peace
and stability and openly posing a danger against our internal peace,”
the group said, urging the authorities to work toward enlightening all
claims.
The term “parallel state” is commonly used by critics of
the followers of the U.S.-based Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, many of
whom have been employed in the judicial and security bureaucracy.
The government recently accelerated a purge of a judiciary Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan considers to be embroiled in a plot to undermine him with specious corruption allegations.
The
removal of a series of high-profile prosecutors on Jan. 16 hit at the
heart of investigations made public on Dec. 17, 2013, that have put
Erdoğan into one of the biggest crises of his 11 years in power. They
came a day after the government tightened its grip on a panel that
controls the appointment of all judges and prosecutors.
The
developments, which will deepen segregation in society instead of
strengthening unity and solidarity and threaten the trust in agencies
and institutions, are making it harder for people to focus on peace,
democracy and developments, TESK head Bendevi Palandöken said.
The
civil society grouping also underlined that Turkey was still waiting
for a new Constitution that complies with the principles of universal
law and EU standards.
Erdoğan’s supporters see Gülen – a former
ally whose network of followers is influential in the police and
judiciary – as a prime mover in a smear campaign. Erdoğan sees the
investigation, like the Gezi Park Resistance in 2013, as a
“foreign-backed plot.”
The affair has exposed a deep rift within
the political establishment, shaking markets, helping drive the Turkish
Lira to new lows and prompting expressions of alarm from Washington and
Brussels about threats to the independence of the judiciary.
01/18/2014 By JPOST.COM STAFF Source: The Jerusalem Post
A Likud parliamentarian considered a close ally and confidante of
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Saturday that Israel’s
insistence on maintaining a military presence in the Jordan Valley as
part of any final status agreement with the Palestinians is supported by
Jordan.
MK Ofir Akunis told a town hall gathering in Tel Aviv on Saturday
that Israeli officials have received feedback from their Jordanian
counterparts who are alarmed at the prospect of an Israeli withdrawal
from the boundary that separates the West Bank from the Hashemite
kingdom.
“The Jordanians are opposed to an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan
Valley out of fear that if a Palestinian state arises and is taken over
by extremist elements like Hamas and Al-Qaida, this would endanger the
king’s rule, not just Tel Aviv,” Akunis said.
Netanyahu met last week with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Amman for what was described as a “surprise” visit.
The meeting focused on the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
In a statement released upon Netanyahu's return to Israel, he
stressed the important role played by Jordan, under King Abdullah's
leadership, in the efforts to bring about an agreement. He also
emphasized that Israel places a premium on security arrangements,
including Jordan's interests, in any future agreement that will take
into consideration the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, signed 20
years ago.
Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour said earlier this month that
the Israeli annexation of the Jordan Valley would be contrary to the
peace agreement signed between the two countries in 1994.
Speaking to a gathering of parliament members, he said that Jordan
“categorically rejects any Israeli intention in this regard and will not
stand idly by, but will act diplomatically,” according to a report on
Thursday in the London-based daily Al-Hayat.
Akunis went on to attack the Palestinians, whom he deemed “an obstacle to peace.”
“Their insistence not to recognize the State of Israel as the
nation-state of the Jewish people proves that the conflict isn’t just
territorial, but it is one that is being waged for our existence,” he
said. “I believe that we should have negotiations with the Palestinians,
but we need to understand that a Palestinian state could endanger most
Israeli cities.”
“My vision, and that of Likud, says that we have no interest in
controlling the Palestinians,” Akunis said. “I am in favor of maximum
Palestinian self-rule and deep economic cooperation between our peoples,
but I am not ready to have a Palestinian state be born on the ruins of
my country.”
A Swedish citizen imprisoned at a Cairo prison called on the Swedish
prime minister and Cairo's ambassador to intervene to free him from his
unjust imprisonment.
In a leaked message from Wadi al-Natron prison north of Cairo published by Al Jazeera
website and dated December 6, Ahmad Fouad, a Swedish citizen of
Egyptian origin, mentioned that he had been locked up since October 10
without commiting any crime.
Fouad narrates that he was in a taxi on October 10 near Cairo's
Tahrir Square when "thugs" attacked the taxi and severely beat him,
apparently because he was bearded, and smashed the taxi. They then
handed him over to the Dokki security directorate.
Fouad added that he was beaten and tortured inside the police station
along with supporters of the ousted President Mohamed Morsi.
Egyptian minister for religious affairs in the coup government,
Mohamed Mokhtar Jomaa, has banned the Friday prayer in mosques with an
area of less than 80 Sqm in Egypt.
The ban has already taken effect in several governorates in the
country. It started five weeks ago in the city of Banha in
Al-Qalyoubiyya Governorate and caused mass congestion in large mosques,
which expressed their anger over the ban. Source: Rassd
Link: /www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/9171-friday-prayer-banned-in-small-mosques-in-egypt.
The junta in Cairo is bent on repeating the mistakes of the past – as I saw
this week
The earliest political decision made by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor
who has presided over such a dramatic resurgence of al-Qaeda since Osama Bin
Laden’s death, was to join the Muslim Brotherhood.
Even then, back in the mid-Sixties, the Brotherhood was proscribed. This meant
that it was impossible for a young man like Zawahiri to get involved in
mainstream politics. Instead, Egypt’s brutally repressive system of
government forced him down the path that led to al-Qaeda and the Twin
Towers.
Is history about to repeat itself? I ask this urgent question because I have
just returned from a very troubling trip to Cairo, a city that I last
visited in the summer of 2011. Everything seemed possible back then, when
the crowds gathered in Tahrir Square during the hopeful, happy, good-natured
months that followed the fall of President Mubarak.
Today, protest is punishable by jail. Abductions are commonplace, torture
routine. Demonstrators get shot dead. Following the coup that removed
President Morsi on July 3 last year, a military junta is in control. Acting
president Adly Mansour is a puppet. The defence minister, General Sisi, runs
the country.
Looking much younger than his 59 years, he has become a sex symbol for
middle-aged Egyptian ladies. His picture is everywhere – in shops, in cafes,
on street corners. Very often General Sisi appears in posters alongside
Nasser and Sadat, two previous military strongmen. He is expected to stand
for president in elections to be held on an unspecified date this year. He
has reportedly told friends of a series of visions, some dating back
decades, in which it was divulged to him that he is destined to emerge as
Egypt’s saviour.
Meanwhile, what of the Brotherhood, which won the presidency in free and fair
elections only 18 months ago? On Christmas Day, the military junta used
Article 86 of the national penal code to ban it as a terrorist organisation.
The excuse was a bomb attack carried out by the Sinai-based terrorist group
Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis (“Supporters of Jerusalem”) on a police station in the
northern town of Mansoura, which claimed 16 lives.
Ansar Beit are long-standing opponents of the Brotherhood, having once
attacked Morsi as an “unbeliever”. Never mind: anyone who attends one of the
Brotherhood’s protest marches now faces five years in prison. Its supporters
can no longer appear on TV, indeed, only those who concur with the official
view that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organisation are allowed on
air.
The entire leadership is now either in jail, or hiding, or fled the country.
The organisation has retreated to the secret cell structure used to protect
itself during previous periods of repression. Meetings now take place in
private homes: the only objective is survival, and there are suggestions
that even the cell structure has been compromised.
I did not try to meet anyone from the Brotherhood during my visit, and not
just because of fears for my own safety – though I could easily have ended
up in jail alongside three journalists from Al-Jazeera who were picked up
late last month. I was rather more worried about the consequences for anyone
I approached.
President Morsi (I prefer to call him by that name, since the military coup
that displaced him was not just illegal but immoral) is in prison. He was
meant to face trumped-up charges in court in Cairo yesterday, but did not
appear. The authorities mysteriously blamed “bad weather”: it was fine both
in Alexandria, where Morsi is in jail, and in Cairo.
Britain, Europe and the United States, while not directly involved, have been
complicit in much of this. Presumably afraid, as so often, to annoy the
Americans, William Hague has yet even to utter the phrase “coup d’état”.
Indeed, he immediately recognised the new regime. John Kerry went even
further. In an interview on Pakistani TV in August, he hailed General Sisi
for “restoring democracy” and praised him for averting violence.
These remarks from the Secretary of State went beyond satire. Well over 1,000
protesters have been shot dead in the streets, the bloodiest encounter
coming at the Rabaa el Adawiya Mosque in Cairo last August, when more than
600 people were killed.
Egyptian police are well practised in crowd control and the use of rubber
bullets. It can therefore be assumed that the mass killing was deliberate.
According to survivors, more than 20 people were run over by a police
bulldozer. So far, General Sisi’s regime has made no attempt to investigate
these crimes. During my brief stay I met a few of the journalists who have
attempted to go out and tell the truth: they are very brave.
Since my return, I have been trying to make sense of British and American
policy. I guess that Western leaders are making the cynical but – as they
see it – realistic judgment that a military regime led by Sisi is the best
hope of stability. In the short term, that might be right. But in the longer
term, I wonder.
Let’s revisit the story of Ayman al-Zawahiri, driven underground by the
Nasserite reign of terror 50 years ago. For several years, one of the
biggest selling points for al-Qaeda, the organisation he now runs, was the
claim that the Western powers would never allow democracy in the Muslim
world – meaning that there was no alternative to armed struggle. The men of
violence pointed to the democratic victory of Islamist parties in Algeria in
1992, who were brought down at once by a military coup, followed by a decade
of civil war.
The Muslim Brotherhood rejected this analysis, and spent eight decades
plodding towards power. Eventually, it secured it peacefully, having come
out top in three separate tests of popular opinion – the parliamentary
elections of January 2012, the presidential elections of May and June 2012,
and the constitutional referendum that December. It has now been declared a
terrorist organisation.
The Brotherhood’s leaders continue to preach non-violence. But will all their
followers agree to wait another 80 years before winning power through
democratic means? A number are bound to turn to violence. Already, parts of
the Sinai are starting to resemble northern Syria, Benghazi in Libya or
Anbar province in Iraq – ungovernable havens for militant groups.
Britain cannot take sides in the great civil conflict that engulfs Egypt. But
we can surely sustain the values that we claim to cherish. Thus far, our
response has been poor, and will remain a blot on William Hague’s record as
Foreign Secretary.
This week, a group of lawyers claiming to represent President Morsi and the
Muslim Brotherhood asked the International Criminal Court to investigate
crimes against humanity committed by all sides during the course of the
revolution. Since the Sisi regime shows no appetite to investigate the
killings, Britain should support this request. Since the Brotherhood
continues to demonstrate its faith in Western concepts of justice and
democracy, it would be more than polite to return the compliment. It would
also be sensible and wise. There’s an old Egyptian doctor, hiding out
somewhere on the Pakistan-Afghan border, who would be more than happy to let
General Sisi just get on with it.
Day before 2 month vaccinations
Today at 4 years old
