JAR2 Custom Banner John Lenin

John Robles

Articles and Interviews by John Robles From  Aug. 31, 2012 to Nov. 08, 2012

Jar2

On this page you will find interviews with, and articles by: Peta Lindsay, Cheri Honkala, Medea Benjamin, Tom Hoefling, Rick Rozoff, Natalie Wahlberg, Noah Rothman, Anonymous, Stuart Bramhall, WikiLeaks, Dr. Alon Ben Meir, Greg Barns, John Robles, Scott Ludlam, Amos Miers, Kristinn Hrafnsson, Tighe Barry

Under COnstruction Page Under Construction

People Feel Class War Every Day

Peta Lindsay - Presidential Candidate

Download audio file

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Peta_Lindsey.html

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/08/1276106707/PL2.jpg  People feel class war being enacted on them every day – interview

Jar2

7 November 2012, 11:09  

Obstacles and Fraud in US Elections

Cheri Honkala - Vice Presidential Candidate

Cheri Honkala: Obstacles and fraud in US elections – exclusive interview http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/08/1276014701/220px-Cheri_Honkala%5b1%5d.jpg

Download audio file

Green Party Presidential candidates says they did ‘”as much possible work as we could do against the two billionaire candidates” and once again emphasizes the fact that there are many obstacles In US system for third-party candidates and political parties. Ms. Honkala also stated that the independent political movement in the United States is gaining momentum and that it will definitely continue to grow and that international media coverage is vital.

MOVED HERE http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Cheri_Honkala.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_07/Cheri-Honkala-US-Elections-Look-Like-a-Picnic-exclusive-interview/

 Jar2

7 November 2012, 04:10  

Worst election in terms of corporate money -

Medea Benjamin CODEPINK director

Download audio file

Interview with Medea Benjamin, the co-founder and director of the peace group CODEPINK in the US. Ms. Benjamin states that a very large part of the US population is dis-enranchised and of the 50% of the population who are registered to vote only half do. She states that the huge money that corporations have been allowed to donate to candidates and their control of the debate process effectively means the corporations now own the US elections.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/08/1276013393/220px-Medea_Benjamin_1.JPG

This is part 1 of an interview with Medea Benjamin. Follow this link for part 2: Medea Benjamin Part 2

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Medea Benjamin. She is the co-founder and director of the peace group CODEPINK in the US.

Greeting

Robles: Thanks for agreeing to speak with me. I’d like to speak with you about the US elections that are currently underway. My first question involves disenfranchisement of groups of voters that the parties may want to suppress. What percentage of the US population do you think has been disenfranchised during these elections?

Benjamin: Well, that’s a complicated question because there is also the question of people who were disenfranchised because it is a two party system that doesn’t give them many choices and so they don’t bother to vote and that’s about half the population. And then on top of that there are individual states that have made it very difficult for people to vote.

You know, in this country we don’t get same day voter registration, you have to be registered beforehand in almost every state. And then on top of that there are new identification requirements that certain states have that make it extremely difficult for people to vote.

I don’t know the percentages, perhaps about 5% of the population, but it is a significant percentage. And in some parts of the country it tends to be the African-American population, the student population and people who are poor in general tend to vote Democratic. Half the population that is registered to vote and then on top of that there is half of that that doesn’t bother to vote.

Robles: What problems has your group seen with these elections? I know that is also a very broad question but can you tells us some of the problems your group has seen?

Benjamin: Well, we have a much bigger concern and the problem that we see is that we don’t get enough choices in this country. When you only have two major parties and all the third party candidates have been shut out of this election, been shut out of the debates, been shut out of media attention then we don’t have the kind of choices that you have in many other democratic countries.

On top of that we feel that many of the issues that we are most concerned about haven’t even come up during the debates. There was almost no real discussion about the military budget or the wars that the US is involved in and until we had the terrible storm Sandy there was no discussion about climate issues, really no discussion about trade issues. So, many people feel that this was an election that did not really bring some of the most important issues we face as a nation into the conversation.

Robles: Would you say that there is a media blackout in regards to third party candidates? And what is your opinion on Republican Party tactics in suppressing voters?

Benjamin: Well, these are two very different questions. In terms of the Republican tactics, they put in these voter ID kinds of requirements that make it very difficult for people who live in transitory kind of housing, like students, like homeless people. They put in things like if you were ever convicted of a felony any time in your life you can never vote again which affects very much the African-American population. Those are some of the tactics that they use.

In terms of the blackout for the third party candidates – this is something that is across the board, that both the Democrats and the Republicans engage in because they decide together how the debates will work, when they will happen, what issues will be get discussed and they refuse to let third party candidates in. It’s really a shame, and there is a very wonderful group of third party candidates this time that includes Jill Stein from the Green Party, Rocky Anderson form the Justice Party, Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party and more. And when I’ve seen them in debates I’ve been really impressed about how articulate they are. But I would say that maybe only about 1% of the population has had a chance to hear them and most people don’t know they are even running.

Robles: I see.

Reminder

Robles: Would you agree with the statement that the debates are owned by corporations and that the two parties serve corporate interests?

Benjamin: There is no doubt that the debates are owned by corporate interests because they are the ones funding the debates, including a beer company, which I think is quite a sad commentary on the state of the debates.

What we have seen in this election is over a billion dollars being spent and so much of that money is part of corporate interests. Ever since the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the right to free speech and have the right to put as much money into these campaigns as they want we’ve seen an even further corruption of the electoral system.

This is the worst election we’ve ever had in terms of corporate money. And these corporations don’t just put money in out of the goodness of their heart, they want something out of it. The oil companies want subsidies, the defense industry wants more weapons and wants to keep wars going. There are all kinds of interests involved. And so I think it is a very sad state of the US elections that our Supreme Court has allowed corporate interests to become so dominant.

Robles: Would you say that corporations... Would you say they own the political system?

Benjamin: Corporations have now the unlimited ability to affect our elections. So, in that sense, they do own the system. Corporations also have tremendous lobbying power. They put many billions of dollars into lobbying our government, both at the national level and at the state-wide level. They have organizations that represent a broad base of corporate interests, like the Chamber of Commerce. And they’re able to affect the direction of this country, in terms of its economic direction, as well as foreign policy kind of issues.

It has stopped the United .tates from really taking issues like climate change seriously, because the corporate interests are to keep destroying the planet and not to care about the future. So I think the corporate interests have gained more and more of a foothold in running this country and I think the consequences will be very disastrous for both the recovery of the US financial and the health of the planet.

Robles: Who are you going to vote for?

Benjamin: I’m going to vote for Jill Stein! Very proudly! Very good!

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_07/This-is-the-worst-election-in-terms-of-corporate-money-CODEPINK-director/

Jar2

 

Striving to Destroy Two-Party-Paradigm in US

Tom Hoefling - Presidential Candidate

Download audio file   7 November 2012, 02:57  

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Tom_Hoefling.html

 Closing

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_07/Tom-Hoefling-We-are-striving-to-destroy-the-two-party-paradigm-in-the-US-interview/

Jar2

7 November 2012, 01:00  

US Elections: No Enthusiasm This Time

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

"There’s a malaise in the country. There’s very little enthusiasm about the election. Contrasted with, four years earlier, where there was a tremendous amount of excitement”, says regular Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff, the owner of Stop NATO International. Rick speaks about third party candidates barred from "public" debates, the Chicago-style-one-party-heriditary-political-system and Mr. Obama been placed in the White House by monied interests.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/06/1275288290/Rozoff%5b1%5d.jpg

Robles: Rick, what do you make of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein being prohibited from taking part in the presidential debates, and then her arrest and being held in some warehouse: what do you make of that? And a tag on that question: who would you support for US President?

Rozoff: First of all, that’s a travesty. It’s part of history of that that goes back for decades – I’m thinking particularly of the 2000, 12 years ago, presidential campaign – where Ralph Nader was the nominee and was the candidate of the U.S. Green Party. With decades of activism in support of consumer and other affairs and so forth, and not being allowed to speak at any of the public debates.

And what they do – they set up a circular argument which is: as somebody doesn’t have poll ratings that suggest that they are a viable contender to win the elections, so they cannot gain access to national media. But without the access to national media, they have no viability as a candidate!

So they use these insincere and disingenuous arguments as a way of keeping it “in-house” between the Democratic and Republican Parties who are serving the interest of the same small elite in this country both at home and abroad. They’re beholden to the same monied interests. So I’m sure that you’ve seen, and some of your listeners perhaps are aware, that the estimates this year on the spending just on the presidential campaign by both candidates is to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 billion dollars and that the total expenditure on federal election campaigns, this year, that is Senate/House will be as the presidency will be as much as 6 billion dollars. So to be able to play in that league, if you will, you cannot be an independent principled political party or individual. So the Green Party is getting it in the neck again. But the incident you’re describing about the forcible incarceration under primitive conditions is a shame to any country that calls itself Democratic, or open, or transparent!

Robles: Who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote?

Rozoff: Americans never acknowledge who they vote for. It’s very difficult. I’m not going to vote for either of the two major party candidates. I have only once done it in my lifetime and I sincerely regretted it afterwards. I generally vote for a third party candidate, when I do vote.

But I think what you are going to see… We’re already sensing, so let’s be honest, there’s a malaise in the country. There’s very little enthusiasm about the election. Contrasted with, four years earlier, where there was a tremendous amount of excitement about the elections. Which, I think was due to the precedent setting, or breaking, nature of the Obama campaign four years ago, but so little having been accomplished over the past four years, both because of bottlenecks in both Houses and Congress between the two leading parties and also, I think, because of lack of determination by the incumbent to do anything that would rock the boat.

People, who are going to be voting on November, 6th for the most part are doing it out of the sense of civic obligation. They’re certainly not doing it out of any sense of enthusiasm!

Robles: Would you say Obama’s first term was a success or failure?

Rozoff: It depends on how we define success and failure in the current climate: economic and political climate. I would not have wanted to walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009 inheriting what anyone would who had done that. In terms of internal indebtedness, in terms of political estrangement from the populous, in terms of the worst economic crisis, arguably, in the history of the United States structurally, certainly since the Great Depression of the 1930s, so I don’t know what success would have meant under those circumstances.

If one wasn’t willing to take on the very system itself then there was no possibility of affecting any sort of transformation that would have meant anything. And I don’t know to what extent Obama simply wasn’t able to nor to what extent he was interested in, doing that. But the fact remains: nothing has changed in four years.

Robles: What’s your opinion on Obama? Do you think all his promises of change were just empty rhetoric just to get into the White House? And, in your opinion, was it a matter of him not wanting to change something or was it a matter of him not being able to? In your opinion.

Rozoff: I’m from Illinois, I’m from Chicago where Obama started his political career it’s the spring-board that took him into the White House. And he was a comparative unknown in the state, relatively unknown in the city to be honest with you. When a Senate seat in Illinois opened up in 2004, and he was catapulted into that position directly from a state legislative position. So he had no previous history in Washington, not even as a Congressman and went directly into the U.S. Senate and then 4 years later into the White House.

This certainly indicates that somebody had invested very heavily in Mr. Obama and his political future and had groomed and primed him for a major role. So we’re not talking about somebody who comes into politics with the a base of support, with any political support of his own, we’re talking about somebody who simply is marketed properly and placed in the right place at the right time.

So not having built political supporters or having built the political formations or alliances that could assist him once he got into federal office then he had to rely on those around him. The fact that Joseph Biden was selected as his Vice Presidential running mate four years ago – I don’t believe Obama chose him personally and Obama having only served four years of a 6-year Senate term, whereas Biden had servedin the Senate for 36 years, certainly suggested to me, even at the time, that Biden was selected to be the power behind the throne, or the gray eminence, to effectively be running the White House. And then you have Chicago political movers and shakers like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, and so forth, who were in many ways running the White House from the moment Obama walked in, so how much autonomy, how much power Obama has ever had, is an open question.

Robles: I may be going into taboo territory here, but I’ve heard this contemplated before – that Obama was put into the White House to pacify the minority population who were becoming increasingly angered and agitated by what they see as racist U.S. policies and discrimination, etc.. Do you find any credence in something like that?

Rozoff: The enthusiasm we spoke about four years ago with the first Obama campaign which is noticeably absent this time, was in large part, because he was, someone who at least, one of his two parents was of non-European ancestry, of African ancestry. So that, there was a feeling amongst African-Americans in the first place that something that would have been considered impossible, even a brief while before, that is the prospect of an African-American President, a head of state in the United States, became a distinct possibility. Then when he won the election, of course, there was a tremendous sense of gratification, enthusiasm, validation. But that wore thin when matters really didn’t change substantially, year after year and now we’re four years later and there’s no noticeable change in unemployment figures and percentage of African-Americans and other non-European minorities amongst those unemployment figures which is disproportionately high. Likewise African-Americans, Hispanics and other non-European minorities have higher rates of social displacement, lack of health care, lack of opportunities. So, you know, structurally nothing essentially has happened. Even if, one can argue, a moral precedent has been set, that’s broken down the color barrier, and assures all honest Americans, of course, that regardless of which continent somebody’s ancestors came from, they are noy inherently inferior to anybody else, that was done but I suppose something like that is done once and only once, and the precedent having been established, you cannot do it again, you can’t re-invent the wheel.

Robles: What would you say, who controls power structures to the U.S.?

Rozoff: I would refer your listeners to a book that I believe is still in print, a 1956 volume by the American sociologist C. (Charles) Wright Mills, called “The Power Elite” where he analyses exactly, the main pillars or the main sources of power in the United States and the situation hasn’t changed dramatically, in the interim between the time the book came out and now.

What we are talking about with the presidential election, of course: you are talking about whoever it is that is contributing 6 billion dollars to Congressional, Senate and the presidential campaign. You’re also talking about the party bosses, the Republican, Democratic Party elite who often times make decisions. One can question, for example, four years ago that when Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic Party Primary ahead of the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

Robles: And I believe for that she received the State Department Seat.

Rozoff: That evidently was the trade-off, with the expectation that she might have a shot at the White House, as you were talking about earlier, in 2016. Who knows? I mean these are back-room deals, quite in keeping with Chicago political tradition, keeping, in fact, that even Hillary Clinton herself was born in Chicago, to be honest with you John, about a mile from my apartment.

So she’s not foreign to the Chicago machine-style political orientation. And Obama’s Chief Political Adviser David Axelrod is certainly not, unaware, or unaffiliated with that tradition, the first Chief of Staff for Obama, after he came into the Oval Office in 2009. Rahm Emanuel, is now the Mayor of Chicago. He replaced Richard Daley, son of mayor-for-life, Richard Daley, whose brother, the second Richard Daley’s brother, William Daley,took over as White House Chief of Staff after Rahm Emanuel stepped down to run for Mayor of Chicago.

So you see this incestuous relationship and the fact that it tendss to gravitate around Chicago and Chicago-style politics. We are a one-party-system. We’re exclusively a one-party system. The Chief Executive for 71 years, every mayor for 71 years, belonged to the Democratic Party.

We have the 50 member City Council which is Chicago’s legislative body and even though the elections for that body, for Alderman as they’re called, are non-partisan that is one doesn’t have to declare one’s party affiliation, everyone in Chicago knows that all 50 members are also Democrats. So you have a one-party-political-system with hereditary rule sometimes: where one mayor-for-life hands off the baton to his son, who stays there as long as he chooses to or until he dies!

Robles: That sounds like a fiefdom or a kingdom or something!

Rozoff: I’ve remarked perhaps even to you before that the State of Illinois’, the Chicago-land areas’ Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, really ought to have some pangs of conscience when she criticizes governments in Syria or North Korea, because their one-party systems with hereditary rule when her own home town, or own birthplace, Chicago is exactly in that category!

 One of the latest books by the great American novelist Gore Vidal who has recently died is called “The United States of Amnesia”. And I think the title speaks volumes. That people tend to forget or chose to forget events shortly after they occur and that this is evidently what Hillary Clinton is banking on under who knows what pressure. But, nevertheless, acknowledging that the State Department, that she, ultimately herself is responsible for not having provided adequate security for the American Consulate in Benghazi. As we talked about a few minutes ago that she is evidently confident that Americans won’t recall that four years from now and if they do, they won’t attribute tremendous importance to it.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_07/US-Elections-No-enthusiasm-this-time-interview/

Jar2

6 November 2012, 17:00  

Occupy Chicago

Obama Re-Election: Four More Wars

Natalie Wahlberg

In an exclusive interview with the VOR, Natalie Wahlberg who is an activist, an organizer and a spokesperson with the Occupy Chicago Movement in the US, said that Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin. “They are both funded by corporate money and will never represent the needs of the 99%.” If Obama is re-elected for four more years, it will be the same as four more wars.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/08/1276014268/wahlberg.jpg

Occupy Chicago: ‘We do not endorse a candidate as the US capitalist system is broken’ – interview

Robles : It looks like the elections are coming to a close pretty soon. What do you think about the candidates? Do you think Romney will do the same thing or even worse maybe? 

Wahlberg: Yes, Romney and his Bain Capital Company have outsourced jobs overseas, while under-employment and unemployment are running at record highs in the US. 

Near Chicago there is this company named Sensata, they’re based out of Freeport, Illinois, and they are actually one of the companies that is closing and the jobs are being shipped overseas. For more information on Sensata, check out their twitter feed at hash-tag Sensata. 

Robles: For the internal political and social situation in the United States for the common Americans it will be much worse with Romney, would you say or better? 

Wahlberg: I mean honestly, they’re two sides of the same coin. They are both funded by corporate money and will never represent the needs of the 99%. 

Robles: So you see no difference whatsoever? 

Wahlberg: No difference. 

Robles: What about the Green Party? 

Wahlberg: That’s an impossibility given the corporate controlled politicalsystem but I think it is amazing and very interesting that Jill Stein herself and her running mate were jailed, shackled to metal chairs for 8 hours when they attempted to go to the debates. It shows what activists face, it shows people of color face! The intimidation and soiling by police department and the government. 

Robles: These were candidates for president and vice president. I mean normally they get secret service protection etc. 

Wahlberg: Exactly. But their voices, like the voices of the 99% are not recognized by Romney or Obama. 

Robles: What would you say that does to the American system in the eyes of the world? 

Wahlberg: Obviously the Obama administration comes out looking like complete hypocrites when we advocate with drones and bombs across the world trying to create democracy but the Obama administration doesn’t let a third party candidate be at a debate. 

Robles: How is it possible that in a so-called democracy candidates can be just barred from what should be public debate? 

Wahlberg: I would direct you to democracynow.org for further information. 

Robles: If Obama is in the White House for four more years, what do you see going on in the Middle East? Where do you think that is going to go? 

Wahlberg: If Obama is re-elected I foresee four more wars. 

Robles: Four more wars? 

Wahlberg: I mean he wants to say, like, he’ll get 4 more years, I say 4 more wars. 

Robles: I see. So, Romney, I think, he will pretty much “gut” the middle class and the working class. Would you agree with that statement? 

Wahlberg: Yes. 

Robles: If he is elected, Obama will continue to slowly, kind of support the middle class and the lower classes? Or also“kindly gut” the entire country. 

Wahlberg: “Kindly gut” the entire country, sure. That sounds about right. 

Robles: I can’t think of another way to describe what they do. Anything else you might want to add about where the country is headed and what people can do and if there is any chance that the people can take the country back? 

Wahlberg: Both Obama and Romney support the Keystone-Excel Pipeline, that is the oil pipeline, from the Karzans in Canada that is going though the US and causing environmental devastation in an attempt to continue our reliance on fossil fuel. 

There are some very brave men and women fighting and I would direct you to support them. They need funding, they need awareness. Also, both Obama and Romney have not proposed to do anything about the foreclosures and evictions that are happening across the United States, so I would recommend what everyone can do is support Occupy Our Home, which is a campaign by the Occupy movement that focuses on re-taking foreclosed-upon homes, and taking houseless families off of the street and putting them into existing structures. 

Robles: The whole oil thing, I mean, going back to that for a minute, it seems like the United States and the American people become slaves to oil. 

Wahlberg: With the Keystone-Excel Pipeline the most we can do is keep talking about it, seeing what the environmental activists are asking for, how we can support them from wherever we are and, secondly, we can consider alternate fuel sources. 

Robles :They have been able to make electric car for the last almost 50 years already that would have been workable and cheap but of course they are not going to release that. 

Wahlberg: Actually it was released but big oil lobbies like the big oil companies that have a hand in this Keystone-Excel Pipeline, they killed the electric car, so until we release the stranglehold that big oil and its corporate money has on the American political system, I don’t honestly think we will see a change. 

Robles : Do you see any way to quietly bring that about? 

Wahlberg: I think that part of the beauty of the Occupy movement, is that we have extensive networks of dedicated activists that are committed to raising awareness about Occupy Our Home campaign, about anti-oil, about anti-corporate money campaign. 

If there are more people that become educated and informed and therefore have the possibility to become radicalized, we can start making some substantive social change. 

Robles: Ok, thank you very much, Natalie. I appreciate you speaking with me. 

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_06/Obama-re-election-four-more-wars-exclusive-interview-Occupy-Chicago-spokesperson/

Jar2

6 November 2012, 14:59  

$2.5 Billion Not Much Money in US Politics

Noah Rothman

Download audio file

Noah Rothman, a conservative editor, writer and political observer in the US spoke to the Voice of Russia regarding the US Presidential Elections. Statements he made point to an almost complete media blackout in the United States. He says that the US is a two-party system and that is normal, he also says Romney will not pursue anything close to a Democratic agenda if elected.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/06/1275275984/Noah%20Rothman%20Professional%20small.jpg

Hello! This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Noah Rothman, he is an editor at mediaite.com in the United States.

Robles: I’d like to talk to you about the elections. My first question is regarding the candidates. What differences do you see between the two candidates as far as internal US policy and in particular foreign policy?

Rothman: Well, in particular, when it comes to foreign policy between the two candidates, the biggest division you will see in their advisors and the people they surround themselves with. This has been a distinctly domestic election with the focus of the voters and the politicians both being on domestic policy, particularly economy because we’ve had such a sluggish economic recovery over the course of the last four years. That’s first and foremost on voters’ minds, so understandably foreign policy has drifted in the minds of voters. But when it comes to strategically – who views foreign policy in what light – there is a dramatic difference between the internationalist vision of President Barack Obama and his advisors and the more neoconservative position, somewhat akin to former Vice President Dick Cheney than President George W. Bush, but a far more activist neoconservative Western leadership vision that candidate Mitt Romney espouses.

Robles: How do you think that’s going to work with the Russian Federation? Where do you see relations going if either candidate wins?

Rothman: There has been an overture made by the Romney campaign to the Kremlin recently, into Moscow. And we don’t know the details of that conversation but from what we understand is that Moscow is weary of what a President Romney would mean for United States relations with Russia. And with a good reason because they have had a significantly/relatively warm relationship, I would say, with Washington, comparatively. I would imagine that Moscow would view that in a slightly different way. But in terms of the relationship that you can have with an American President I would say that they’ve had a pretty effective working relationship with President Obama. They would have probably a little more reluctance when it comes to the relationship that they would have with Mitt Romney.

Typically in terms of the security relations in Eastern Europe I would imagine one of the first things that a President Romney would do is revert President Barack Obama’s decision to remove and cancel deals with the Czech Republic and Poland for radar and missile installations in Eastern Europe as a missile shield. That was one of the first things that President Obama did in his administration. It was part of the reset with Russia, quote unquote the policy that was going to initiate warmer relations with the Russian Federation. It hasn’t yielded dividends to the extent that they thought it would. And it is something that the Conservatives in America have not agreed with, they’ve not been happy with that. And I think it would be something that politically would be beneficial for Mitt Romney to try to pursue. And that would certainly be something that the Kremlin would not appreciate.

Robles: Right now as we speak Mitt Romney’s son is here in Moscow. And supposedly he has some secret message for President Vladimir Putin apparently saying something that Romney wants to be friends with the Russian Federation. Have you heard anything about this?

Rothman: I have heard about that. I think that’s an extraordinarily smart move for Mitt Romney. If he were to be elected having a working relationship with Moscow is an absolutely essential component to having a functional foreign policy. And I think he knows that. I think his foreign policy advisors are not the hawks that they may want to appear to the American electorate to be, because it is just beneficial for the right wing of the American electorate to see a hawkish foreign policy. But I think that they do understand that they need to have a working/functional working relationship, and particularly in terms of getting a deal done in places like Syria, right now, which is a hotbed and obviously it is an ongoing civil war, it is nearly a blood bath. And it is beginning to spill outwards and destabilize the region – it is beginning to destabilize the Turkish borders, it is destabilizing obviously for Lebanon and Jordan. And with relations with Iran being what they are you need functional working relations with Moscow.

So, I think it is a very smart move for Mitt Romney given the closeness of the election to establish a functional relationship with Moscow, because after the campaign it will be very difficult to perceive how they could mend the wounds that were established throwing rhetorical barbs in Moscow’s direction for the benefit of his own electoral prospects.

Robles: Everybody here knows that Mitt Romney said that Russia is geopolitical enemy number one of the US. So, that’s kind of hard to get away from.

Reminder

Robles: Do you know anything about his son? I mean why did he send his son here? And what do you know about his son?

Rothman: You know, I do not know. I wish I did because I’m not exactly sure what kind of diplomatic credentials he has. I’m not entirely sure what that suggests but the closeness of the personal relationship there, sending a son as opposed to an advisor with whom he may not have a personal relationship with, signals how earnest he is to mend relationships and have a working relationship with Moscow. And this may all be moot after next Tuesday if Mitt Romney doesn’t get elected, so we may be talking about hypothetical.

But in the event that he does win the election and becomes the 45th President of the United States, it is in everybody’s interest to have a strong working relationship with Moscow particularly focused on resolving issues where we seem to be at loggerheads. And I’m specifically speaking about Iran and Syria. And both those places present an existential threat to the global order and we are both on the opposite sides of that thing right now. And Mitt Romney is going to be the one asked to resolve these issues because they’re going to come to a head in the next term of the next President of the United States between 2014 and 2017. That needs to be resolved.

Robles : Now. Your prediction, if you can, who do you think is going to win the election?

Rothman: Anybody that tells you they know who is going to win on Tuesday, they don’t know what they are talking about. This thing could not be closer, I’ve never seen a closer election. Maybe 2000, but even in 2000 you had a stronger idea of who was going to win, turned out to be wrong. But everybody thought Al Gore was going to win that election. To the extent that you have any consensus of opinion: Democrats think Barack Obama is going to win and Republicans think Mitt Romney is going to win, and they have the data to prove that.

Robles: Hold on! We could argue! I don’t know what your position is, but I believe Al Gore DID win that election!

Rothman: Constitutionally he did not but if you count regular votes, then absolutely he did. And we could be coming up on that situation again. A lot of political observers think that Mitt Romney may win the popular vote because he is leading slightly in the national polls but he may lose the Electoral College just as Al Gore did. So, he may become the Republican Al Gore who wins the popular vote but loses the presidency.

Robles: Do you think that is a sign of failure by Obama, he is an incumbent, he should be in the lead theoretically speaking?

Rothman: Theoretically speaking yes. The incumbent rarely wins his second term on a smaller vote share than he won his first term on. But Barack Obama won his first term by 7 points. It was a blow at election and a wave, there is really nowhere for him to go but down. So, that rule almost had to be broken. There is almost no way for him to increase his electoral margin from 2008.

He’s had a decidedly tough presidency, not entirely because of exogenous factors either, I think he’s made a lot of missteps and in doing so, in not compromising for example, with opposition Republicans in his first term when they were such a small minority that he didn’t even really have to compromise with them – by doing so he created groups like the Tea Party, created massive opposition within a staunchly Conservative opposition party, that is, now may not win the election but it certainly recalcitrant and it is certainly harder to negotiate with than the Republican Party that he encountered in 2008-2009.

These were things of his own invention, so he is sort of reaping the whirlwind. He may still win the election, in fact it is almost likely that he will win the election but he is going to have a much smaller mandate and he’s going to have a Republican Party that’s not going to really want to deal with him. So, what we are looking at is probably a very tightly contested election with a very recalcitrant opposition party and some hurt feelings because it is going to be very close. So, who knows who’s going to have a mandate after this thing, I would expect both sides can say the other side didn’t get a mandate because the election was so close.

Reminder

Robles: A lot of people are very disillusioned and some are angry and upset and I don’t think Obama’s promises of “Change We Can Believe In” were really fulfilled. What’s your opinion on that? He didn’t close Guantanamo, things haven’t changed for black Americans and minorities the way that they thought they would. How would you characterize Obama’s presidency? Was his first term a success or failure?

Rothman: There’s obvious divergent opinion there. If you are a committed progressive on the farthest left end of the spectrum in the United States you would say that yes, the President’s term has been a failure because he didn’t usher in the progressive agenda, many of them thought that Obama was going to bring but I would argue that the President never argued for a progressive agenda in 2008. He argued for a democratic agenda and a lot of progressives heard what they wanted to hear because the President was never quizzed, he was never asked to offer extraordinary levels of specifics about his agenda. He was very much allowed to skate into office on rhetoric, like “hope and change”. That was to the extent that the progressives managed to paint this vision of the future that they thought they would have under the President. And as the result they got stuff that they didn’t necessarily agree with.

The President did not close the Guantanamo base although he did promise to do that. What he’s been doing is closing it through attrition by gradually letting prisoners out and not letting any more in, although that’s unsatisfactorily slow for a progressive. He did not pursue an individual mandate in healthcare reform, although he promised that he did not want individual mandates during the Democratic primaries, it was Hilary Clinton who said that we needed to have mandates. And then he pursued an individual mandate to purchase insurance which is far from the progressive dream, progressives are relatively mistrustful of insurance companies. And this legislation made insurance companies all the more powerful.

So, in that sense he let progressives down but they weren’t really promised a progressive agenda, they were promised a democratic agenda and which is what they got. The Republicans obviously have no love lost for the President, they don’t believe in his agenda either foreign or domestically. But Democrats for the most part I would imagine are relatively satisfied, especially when they have to come to the conclusion that it is either that or Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney is not going to deliver anything close to a Democratic agenda.

Robles: What would you say about the third party candidates in the US, and in particular the debate process? As a lot of people are saying there is no democracy in the US. It is a one party system where real change and real democracy does not exist because other parties are excluded from the process.

Rothman: When it comes to debates, certain networks have a rule, and the networks have the debates and they own the debates. And they have a rule you have to establish a certain threshold in public opinion polls in order to be included in the debates, it is either 10 or 15%, I forget, but either way if you reach that threshold – then you are included in the debates, if you don’t –then you are not.

Reminder

Robles: A lot of the third party candidates say that in order to reach that threshold they need the television coverage. So, it is like a catch22 situation.

Rothman: It is a catch22 I understand. But then they need to raise money. I have little faith in that argument because if there was a genuine interest in these particular candidates beyond their own core supporters, then they would be able to raise money, they would be able to campaign, they would be able to create enough of a ground flow so that they could get their vote out, or at least get support out to the tune of about 10%. 10% is not an extraordinarily difficult threshold to meet in an environment that is not so heavily polarized.

The thing about the American Electorate right now is that it is extraordinarily polarized. The third party candidates, even if they poll for example, because people poll Gary Jonson who is an independent candidate, Jill Stein who is an independent candidate, they poll these names and they poll 1-2-5% maybe. But when people go into the voting booth, they don’t vote for these independent candidates. They say they will, they tell pollsters they will, l but then they don’t vote for these candidates because in their hearts they are either sort of to the left or sort of to the right and they vote for the candidate who is most likely to win, who “closelessly” represent their views.

Which is why we’ve always had a two party system, be it Democratic\Republican or Federalists or Whigs and Republicans – we’ve always had an effective two party system that pretty much encompasses the left or the right public opinion in this country. And it’s been relatively stable because that’s just the dynamic of this particular country. If we had a more parliamentary system I would imagine third parties would poll stronger and would actually have more support in the Congress.

Reminder

Robles: So, you are saying that people don’t vote for the third party candidates because they don’t think they’ll win?

Rothman: Especially in closely contested elections like this one. I would be shocked if any of the third party candidates would manage to poll a full-percentage-point of the popular vote. In fact I would wager that all of the third party candidates together, will poll more than 1 full percent of the popular vote. It’s that close of an election: too close.

Robles: What do you make of Jill Stein? She was arrested in front of the debates, and she was pretty much excluded, although she… mathematically has the ability to win the elections.

Rothman: I have no idea who says she has any mathematical ability to win any elections. As a Green Party candidate she polls farther behind Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, in just about every public opinion survey that I’ve seen. She is the low on the totem pole of third party candidates.

Robles: By the number of state ballots she’s been able to get on. If she won all the places where she got on the ballot she could actually win the election. So, according to her party 80% of American voters have the chance, the ability to vote for her. I don’t know if you have different information.

Rothman: I’m not familiar with those statistics. The party that she represents is the Green Party. The most successful candidate who ever ran for the Green Party was Ralph Nader in 2000 and he managed to poll just about 5% of the votes in a very tightly contested election. And that was a high-water-mark. I would be shocked if Jill Stein would be able to even come close to Ralph Nader’s performance.

Robles: Can you comment on her arrest, I mean she was held in a warehouse during the debates so she wouldn’t get onto television?

Rothman: I’m sorry, I can’t. I wish I could but I’ve not heard of this event.

Robles: You haven’t heard of that in the US?

Rothman: No, I have not heard that she was arrested and held in a warehouse, although I do understand that she and her supporters do tend to protest outside of these events with the goal of generating as much press as possible and getting arrested. So, that doesn’t surprise me but I have not heard about this particular incident. Like I said the election is far too close to be worried about publicity stunts from third party candidates who are seeking publicity stunts in order to generate a little bit of support but they otherwise can’t poll because nobody is interested in their candidacy.

Robles: I mean they were arrested and held for 8 hours and chained to steal chairs and you haven’t heard about this.

Rothman: That sounds horrible, but no, I have not heard about that.

Robles: It was Jill Stine and Cheri Honkala, I mean if you go on the Voice of Russia we have several stories on it.

Rothman: I will investigate that, that sounds extraordinary.

Robles: Media blackout I see. One last question I was going to ask you a few minutes ago. $2.5 billion, now, don’t you think that’s insane amount of money to be spending on elections when there are so many problems in the US?

Rothman: No, I do not and I’m one of the contrarians on this point. As far as public relations campaigns go, $2.5 billion for… let’s say Coke and Pepsi are going head to head across the nation, it is kind of a small PR campaign over the course of two years.

Politics doesn’t have… I’m going to make a lot of enemies saying this, I always do, but I don’t think politics has enough money in it frankly, for the stakes that there are, for the industry that it is, for the millions of people who are in this industry working every day on what is essentially a very complex nation-wide PR campaign. $2.5 billion really doesn’t cut it and I expect that to increase and I don’t think that’s necessarily bad for democracy. But again, I’m one of the few voices who have that opinion, I understand that.

Robles: Ok, thanks a lot Noah. I really appreciate it. This is John Robles, you were listening to an interview with Noah Rothman, he’s an editor at mediaite.com in the US. Thanks for listening.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_06/2-5-billion-Not-enough-money-in-US-politics-interview/

Jar2

6 November 2012, 02:20  

US Bans OSCE observers: What are they hiding?

John Robles

The US States of Texas and Iowa have openly stated that OSCE Election Observers will face criminal prosecution if they come anywhere near US election polling locations. The hypocrisy in the fact that the country that dictates to the world on “democracy” is afraid to allow international observers to view its election process says volumes and brings into question the very fundamental legitimacy of that power.

The world superpower that dictates to every country on earth about democracy, transparency and the rule of law, the country which attempts to justify aggressive invasions and the assassination of leaders of countries it does not care for, for one reason or the other, by throwing around the word “democracy” while it launches invasions and arms terrorists to remove rightful leaders, looks absolutely absurd and hypocritical in light of the fact that it is attempting to intimidate and bar international elections observers from observing its “democratic” presidential election process.

The United States is once again violating another international treaty or agreement it has signed or is bound to. This is not unusual and is more the rule for the US than the exception, examples includes the Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Conventions, international anti-racism agreements, agreements regarding the treatment of indigenous peoples, prisoners of war, and scores of other agreements. Other areas where the US does as it please include international standards and laws regarding the declaration of war, international arrests, territorial and sovereign integrity, pollution, labor practices, extra-judicial executions and the list goes on. This time however, the double standards and absolute hypocrisy could not be more clear.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), has plans to deploy up to 100 elections observers all around the country on Election Day to monitor polling and other associated processes. This comes after a warning, according to the web site thehill.com was issued to OSCE official Daan Everts earlier this month by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans, particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

Rather than welcoming international observers, as one would logically assume any country would do which claims to be the world leader in “democracy”, almost entirely right-wing and conservative groups, include the supposed anti-election fraud group “True the Vote”, have come out screaming against international observers.

For those not blinded by the constant rhetoric and aware of the racist agendas of the far-right this is not surprising. It is one thing to suppress minority voters and throw up every barrier they can think of to keep them from the polls and have them disgruntled and screaming racism, it is yet another when that is documented and observed by respected members of a respected and solid international inter-governmental body like the OSCE.

After the election debacle of 2000, when George W Bush’s brother Jeb Bush suppressed minority votes in Florida leading to George Bush’s supreme court handed presidency, raised the interest of the international community as to the fairness of the US system, the OSCE was invited to observe US elections by George Bush himself in 2004, after UN observers were refused, although they had been doing so since 2002.

The states in question which have threatened OSCE observers with arrest and imprisonment currently include Texas and Iowa with others likely to follow. Iowa has stated that it will arrest OSCE observers who come within 300 feet of polling locations with Texas issuing similar threats.

The United States, as one of 56 OSCE members is supposedly committed, as are other member countries, to allow its elections to be observed, this has been true since 1990. Although the US is supposed to allow observers the OSCE agreement is not legally binding and includes wording that calls for domestic laws to be followed which allows individual US states and local authorities almost carte-blanche to do as they see fit.

According to the web site the Axis of Logic the head of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, wrote a letter to the US State Department of State and Hillary Clinton denouncing threats made against OSCE observers. She wrote, “The threat of criminal sanctions against international observers is unacceptable. The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite observers to observe its elections. Our observers are requested to remain strictly impartial and not to intervene in the voting process in any way. They are in the US to observe the elections, not to interfere in them.”

The United States of America has a lot to hide when it comes to elections, much more than most of the international community realizes. The fact that internal US organizations that defend Human Rights have requested international observers should be triggering alarm bells worldwide.

The problems with the US election process are many. Starting with the actual voting process, the US has shown that there are problems with electronic voting machines, such as the Diebold machines which caused widespread scandals during the Bush elections, including counting votes for Bush, when the other candidate was selected and which are known to be easily manipulated.

Then there is the fact that there are locations where there are no paper ballots and hence no reliable way to verify votes. Another problem is that observers are not to be allowed in many polling stations in many locations where there are paper ballots, to observe that the actual ballots are placed in the boxes and that they are sealed and not tampered with.

There are scores of other suppression and illegal tactics taking place in the steps leading up to the actual voting booth. Among these are those limiting who is allowed to vote and steps taken, by right-wing and mostly conservative racist groups to keep segments of the population away from the polls, as a rule black and minority voters and the poor and the elderly, voters who generally vote for the Democratic or third party candidates.

Such tactics include varied and widespread voter purges which have been manipulated all over the United States, including those purging felons, voter ID laws that target the poor and elderly and an array of activities that are designed to intimidate and otherwise keep minorities, the poor and the elderly away from the voting booth.

There are reports in areas with large concentrations of Spanish speaking voters of leaflets being distributed by right-wing groups with the wrong date of voting printed on them, for example. There are also widespread reports of billboard campaigns stating that improper voting or mistakes in the voting booth may be felony offenses, a clever move to frighten people into thinking if they make some little mistake then they may go to prison. There are also right-wing groups deploying millions of “observers” who may intimidate “selected” voters by making them provide proof of their identities before allowing them into polling stations, for example.

According to the site CNSNEWS.com: “The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others urged OSCE observers to deploy in states where they allege there is “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans,” especially minorities and low-income groups.”

Of all of the problems there are also complaints about the arcane and archaic Electoral College system, the re-zoning of Electoral College districts in many states such as Texas, where Electoral College votes are taken away from minority and poor areas and moved to “white” areas and even claims that there are only 32 counties in the US that will decide the vote and 41 out of 50 states are being ignored because they are either red “Republican” or blue “Democratic”.

Another problem in the US is access to the media, only available to candidates with millions, if not billions of dollars, effectively making it impossible for third party candidates to compete. Then there is the entire presidential debate process which is decided on by private corporations and third party candidates are effectively banned from participating in.

These are unfortunately not the only problems. There are also a slew of problems making it almost impossible for many third party candidates to get on the ballots in many states. Add to that unfair federal funding practices and impossible thresholds that are supposed to be met and you have a system that only benefits the wealthy and is completely controlled by those who are already in power.

Perhaps the United States could take lessons from the Russian Federation on democracy and running fair elections? Russia for example, has web cameras in the polling stations allowing anyone to observe, transparent voting boxes with an observable secure process from start to finish, hundreds of thousands of observers, 9 parties all with equal television air-time, inclusive debates and the right of every citizen to vote.

Unlikely, the United States has a fine-tuned system to keep the wealthy white class in power and keep everyone else as subjects. Everyone else includes: all “minorities” (who are in fact not minorities in many states), American Indians, the poor, the disabled, the young, students, migrant workers, displaced people and the elderly and everyone else not fitting the wealthy white ideal.

Lastly, the United States has become a country controlled by corporations and big money, they control the government and the political processes, this is a fact few would argue with. The system is also designed to suppress a huge segment of the population on racist and other lines. According to any dictionary, by definition the US has slipped into a state of Fascism, or neo-Fascism if you prefer. Of course such a system would not welcome elections observers. They can not allow the “secret” to get out of the bag.

The views and opinions expressed here are the writer’s own. He can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_06/US-bans-OSCE-observers-What-are-they-trying-to-hide/

Jar2

 

Republicans are Virulently Racist

Peta Lindsay - US Presidential Candidate

Download audio file 5 November 2012, 16:59  

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Peta_Lindsey.html

Part 1: US Presidential Candidate Peta Lindsay: ‘Our system is almost completely lost into a two-party paradigm’ – exclusive interview

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_05/Republicans-are-virulently-racist-exclusive-interview/

Jar2

3 November 2012, 19:11  

Hurricane Sandy Aftermath Response is Slow

Noah Rothman

Download audio file

Noah Rothman, a political commentator, author and editor at mediaite.com, who will be commenting on the upcoming US Elections for the VOR was caught in the middle of Hurricane Sandy. He spoke with our correspondent about the situation on the ground, the growing frustration of the populace, NY Mayor Bloomberg's twisted priorities, the absence of FEMA and the overal situation which has the potential for becoming a large-scale humanitarian disaster due to the lack of contingencies in place for such a disaster.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/03/1275544052/Noah%20Rothman%20Professional%20small.jpg

Robles: Hello, this is John Robles, I’m speaking with Noah Rothman. He is an editor at Mediaite.com in the US. Hello Noah. How are you this evening?

Rothman: Hi John I’m well, how are you?

Robles: Pretty good. I haven’t talked to you in a long time. I understand you were right in the middle of hurricane Sandy.

Rothman: I’m one of the lucky ones, actually. I reside in Jersey City, New Jersey, which got hit pretty hard, not as hard as certain boroughs of Manhattan like Staten Island. We just had our power back yesterday afternoon, the storm hit Monday night, and that’s when things went out.

We were flooded pretty significantly, but we didn’t have any storm surge where I live, but closer to the coast about a mile it was the equivalent of a tsunami. There was a significant storm surge; all of Staten Island was drenched.

I grew up in New Jersey, on the coast of New Jersey I spent a lot of summers. Several of these places where I spent my childhood summers, places like Asbury Park, Ocean City, Seaside Heights they were leveled, they were pretty well destroyed.

The coastal areas that have boardwalks on them, many of them have amusement parks jutting out into the sea on piers, for the most part destroyed entirely. The worst devastation is in places like Seaside Heights where the boardwalk was destroyed entirely. Portions of the boardwalk were destroyed in Atlantic City and Ocean City but the aftermath is turning out to be worse than the storm itself, because the relief has been slow.

People have no power, and it’s very cold, they’re running out of food and fuel shortages are beginning to become chronic. People are beginning to become aggravated with each other and Staten Island has been in the heat of this thing, and they feel neglected and abused and they are beginning to lash out, we’ re beginning to see reports of violence. So if we don’t get the power on very soon, and we don’t begin to get more fuel in here very soon, we’re beginning to look at a humanitarian disaster on a pretty significant scale.

Robles: What are the federal authorities doing? Are they visible right now? Is FEMA out there doing anything?

Rothman: I do not see FEMA but I have seen reports of the federal government and notably the reserve military beginning to show up in places like the town next to me, Hoboken, New Jersey which was also underwater until yesterday. And you do see reports of the federal government becoming active in certain places that were the hardest hit but to the extent that they can be of any assistance with the scale of this thing, which we’re beginning to just learn, the scale of the thing, as of yesterday and today as the lights started to go back on. It’s out of a lot of people’s hands.

What we really need is fuel. A lot people have generators, for example, they can power their own homes, if they had access to fuel. And what we’re seeing for a lot of residents is that they just can’t get fuel. They can go to a gas station, whatever gas stations are pumping, if they have power. And they’ll sit there for two, three, four hours unable to get fuel for the most parts. I mean, most of the time they walk away with fuel but sometimes they have to turn them away.

There are people running out of food, running out of medication. This is not something that people have experience with on the East Coast, it’s a relatively affluent part of the country. And so to not have power for an extended period of time is just not something anybody has a living memory experience of. So nobody really expected to have to prepare for two weeks without power. We’re beginning to see the signs of that.

Robles: You said Hoboken is underwater?

Rothman: A lot of portions of that city are below the water table. So those areas that were below sea level they got flooded and the drains couldn’t take that much water so sewage began to back up and that’s where you saw actually the reserves: the reserve military was in Hoboken in some force trying to evacuate that city of about 50,000 people. Things are beginning to look on the bright side in Hoboken in terms of getting the water out, getting the sewage out. But to my understanding, there are still a lot of power outages out there, there are still a lot of power outages out here but the worst of it is in inland New Jersey, on the coast, in Ocean County, Ocean County is still very dark, and portions of Connecticut and Long Island.

There are still several million people who do not have power. And right now they are beginning to look at contingencies for the upcoming presidential elections, because the power is down in places where they need votes, (so they are talking about… ahem polling stations), so they are talking about setting up military-manned power stations for polling stations that are local and that will be manned by reserve military members.

So, you are looking also at the potential of having to vote at a place that is manned by the military, which could also to be an issue of somebody who becomes intimidated by the presence of military members at a polling station. There are a whole lot of contingencies that nobody had to think about until now as we are realizing that the grid might be down for a whole another week or more.

Reminder: You’re listening to an interview with Noah Rothman.

Robles: How are the local residents reacting?

Rothman: There’s a bit of frustration. One of the… the biggest “scandal of the day”, today is that the New York City mayor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided that it would be good for the city’s morale to go forward with the annual marathon, the New York City Marathon. And in order to do that he has diverted some resources, food and notably some very high-power-generators to power that event which draws a lot out of NewYork residents, it’s a big media event but it’s also… It’s the tone of it, is rather inappropriate right now, because there’s a lot of people on television screaming for help saying: Why are we having these generators diverted to Central Park for this media event when there are all these… so many houses are dark in Staten Island?

Robles: Can’t they just delay the marathon? I mean… I think they have a good reason! That sounds ridiculous.

Rothman: You would think, there’s a pretty big outcry saying this needs to be done but the Mayor seems to have dug in his heels and he doesn’t appear to be interested in moving that event back a couple of days, even if that would be the prudent thing to do. I would be surprised if he doesn’t, given the outcry. The outcry has been such that I don’t know if he can go forward with it without taking a big hit politically.

Robles: His reaction in helping residents, I take it from what you’ve just told me about him wanting to run the marathon, his reaction must not be very adequate I suppose.

Rothman: His reaction at first was not especially inadequate, I would say, but in the days that have followed, in the interim between the storm and today, the priorities appeared to be a little bit off. This marathon is indicative of a concern for Manhattan, above the safety and security of the residents of the boroughs, the outer boroughs, and they're beginning to bristle a little bit at that. And without power after five or six days, you know people are beginning to become scared and they are beginning to show a little bit of aggravation. So we do need to resolve this relatively soon before things begin to escalate.

Robles: That’s quite a long time actually. So where do you think this is going to go in a week? Do you think everything will be pretty much back to normal in a week?

Rothman: I would think so. I was surprised that most of the power wasn’t restored across the East Coast…yet. I would be surprised if it is not virtually entirely restored by this time next week. But by next Tuesday we’ve got our presidential election to deal with and there is no question that certain places will be without power for that presidential election and that’s a fairly unprecedented circumstance for this wide a swath of a region to be powerless in what is going to be a particularly close election where every vote is goingto matter. So that’s going to be a very significant issue.

Robles: Ok, thank you very much Noah.

Rothman: Thank you.

 Close: That was a report by Noah Rothman in New Jersey in the US. He is the editor at Mediaite.com. Thanks for listening.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_03/Hurricane-Sandy-aftermath-report-response-is-slow-interview/

Jar2

2 November 2012, 21:49  

Canadian Bill C-309: Trading Liberties for Security, the Road to Authoritarianism and Fascism

John Robles

Canada has passed Bill C-309, an arcane law, redundant on the surface, but paving the way for massive abuse and crack-downs on protestors and demonstrators across the country. With the success of student protestors who recently won and beat back a tuition increase, some say the establishment in Canada is fighting back. “Masks off!”, as now you face up to 10 years in prison in Canada for wearing a mask.

In a move that many are saying now has Canada following the US in stripping away the rights of the people and sees it obediently goose-stepping down the road to fascism after its southern neighbor, a new law was passed in the land of the moose and the maple leaf, that has many advocates of civic freedom up in arms.

The law in question, Private Member’s Bill C-309, put forth by Conservative Canadian MP Blake Richards, places a ban on wearing masks at “unlawful protests and tumultuous demonstrations”. The new law calls for prison terms of up to five years for wearing a mask at an illegal protest and ten years if a protest turns into a riot.

Although Canada already has laws on the books regarding the wearing of masks during criminal and indictable offenses the lawmakers have seen fit to pass the draconian law which some say will have a chilling effect on peaceful protests, something many feel it was designed to do.

According to the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association Nathalie Des Rosiers, in an article in theCanadian Daily Mail: “We’re concerned that if it is used it would simply create a chill on protests and prevent people from protesting peacefully altogether. On its face, it looks more symbolic than anything.”

For reasons unbeknownst to us the Canadian lawmakers decided to pass the law on Halloween, a holiday famous for masks. Are they being humorous or is this a slap-in-the-face to Occupiers and students who effectively demonstrated against tuition increases? Or are they after those would dare support the group Anonymous and wear Guy Fawkes masks?

In an article on RT Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said in a statement: "I don't think people understand the implications that it has, when does wearing a toque low on your face become a mask? Are we going to ban people from appearing in a protest because they are wearing a burqa? Are we going to say that on a cold day that people can't wear a mask?"

The reasons for the passing of the arcane law can be many on the surface, the claim that during the recent football riots it was impossible for police to arrest and prosecute rioters may be valid but it is actually redundant to have a mask law when there are already such laws on the Canadian books and participating in unlawful gatherings is already “unlawful” and taking parts in riots is also illegal.

According to Canadian media reports the bill was formed in response to the 2011 Stanley Cup riots which took place in Vancouver, British Columbia. Canadian media also reports that the main targets of the bill are members of the Blak Bloc anarchist group, who show up at demonstrations and try to escalate tensions and who many claim are undercover police.

Regardless of all of the reasoning for the bill, it is redundant and unneeded. Unless we look at the real reasons for it; one might argue that with the billions of dollars that they US and Canada have spent on facial recognition technology, the counter measure of a simple mask, nullifies all their efforts, something lawmakers would never admit. Another reason might also be the growing protest movements across North America and the fear by the authorities of a popular uprising, something that those in power will do anything and everything to suppress.

The questions surrounding the bill and the chances for the law to be abused are many. When does a peaceful protest become “tumultuous”? Will a scarf on a cold day, worn by a protestor be enough to throw the person behind bars for 10 years? What happens when a mask is part of the message of the protest? Such as Guy Fawkes masks? Will anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask now be a target for arrest? The mask is the message after all and such masks will never be authorized. What about the Occupy Movement, will they have to leave their faces bare on cold days or risk a decade behind bars? Their peaceful protests are rarely “authorized”.

If Russia, on the other hand, had such laws on the books then the group Pussy Riot would have gotten 10 years for wearing masks at their unlawful and tumultuous demonstrations. Instead of the mere 2 years for an act of religious hatred and the desecration of the holiest church for Russian Orthodox Christians.

North America has been on the road to fascism for decades now and this is just another law and another attempt at stripping away the rights of the population and controlling the masses by fear. The constant and ever present fear many in North America have of losing their God-given-freedom.

 Americans long ago gave up their liberty and freedom in the name of security, now Canadians must follow suit? There used to be a joke that the only difference between Americans and Canadians was that Americans had guns and Canadians had health care. Perhaps this is not far from the truth?

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_02/Canadian-Bill-C-309-trading-liberties-for-security-or-the-road-to-Fascism/

Jar2

 

‘Our system is almost completely lost in a two-party paradigm’

Peta Lindsay - US Presidential Candidate

Download audio file 2 November 2012, 12:03  

MOVED HERE http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Peta_Lindsey.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_02/US-Presidential-Candidate-Peta-Lindsay-Our-system-is-almost-completely-lost-into-a-two-party-paradigm-exclusive-interview/

Jar2

2 November 2012, 11:00  

Anonymous

US Internet Attacks Due to Corrupt Campaign Laws Exclusive Interview with Anonymous, part 2

US Internet attacks due to corrupt campaign laws – exclusive interview with Anonymous, part 2

Download audio file

A significant "random set" of the Anonymous collective shared their views on the US government’s constant control and censorship of information and the discrediting of alternative channels of information, as well as their opinion on the media, copyrights, and file sharing. They hacktivists claimed that ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and other attacks on freedom of expression, as it exists online, are the result of corrupt democratic processes. The Anonymous members polled gave the VOR some more details on Project Mayhem 2012 and TYLER and when asked about Russia gave a candid and surprising answer for a group that categorically does not get involved in poltics.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/11/01/1276811448/Anonymous%5b1%5d.jpg

Interview Part 1

Opening

Robles: "Can you go into some of the steps that the US Government and other governments have gone to in order to control and censor the flow of information worldwide?"

Anonymous: Yes (and No). Best examples: ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, CETA, TRAPWIRE, INDECT (Europe) and and and ... not to forget patriot act and NDAA. The steps are very obvious. False Flag ops by the feds are quite easy to carry out. Just a simple e.g. It is unlikely real Anons would make bomb threats as per this video.

It’s pretty obvious this is a false flag op to discredit Anonymous and to try control the web - specifically to control the flow of alternative media. Because the Main Stream Media (MSM) is not only complicit but owned by the ruling elite. The MSM is the New World Order. ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and other attacks of the freedom of expression as it exists online are the result of a corrupt democratic process that exists in the United States. ALL of those bills/treaties were personally authored by lobbyists that spend MILLIONS of dollars yearly in the form of campaign contributions.

In the US politicians are able to get into office through campaign contributions from an industry, then push legislation on their behalf and then retire from their elected positions into their employment. Please see two articles about this problem.

All attacks on the Internet are due to corrupt campaign finance laws in the United States. Period. The same individuals that attacked the introduction of VHS and CDs are perpetrating the laws against the Internet. They basically attack any new technology because it is cheaper than altering their own outdated business plans.

Robles: "What is the Anonymous position on the media, on copyrights, on file sharing and on content?"

Anonymous: The media is more interested in hacking or ddos things. Rethink Occupy Wallstreet, there was a big media blackout for many weeks on it (sep the 17th). Copy...what? Anonymous "stands" for no censorship, free information and free opinion/speech. The MSM is owned by the big 6 Media Conglomerates and the world is run by 147 companies that Control Everything.

This is no coincidence, given these facts, the media is controlled by only a few and for their agenda. There’s no freedom of the press as such. Hence why alternative media is exploding. We do not trust the MSM to tell truths they only tell what the bankers that own them want us to hear. It’s called 'Our Brand" Joe six pack is smarter than they would like but won’t allow the populous to grow.

Reminder

Robles: What about copyrights?

Anonymous: As for copyrights? Why is it the Government's job to police or SWAT team for corporations’ copyrights (with our tax money).

For example, if I'm selling Christian Dior perfume 'copy' it should be up to Christian Dior to sue me for infringing their brand; second e.g. If I was a mum and dad operator with a butchery and branded a lamb steak and Wal-Mart copied it. There is no way the authorities would take action. Reverse that and I would get SWAT teamed!!

The people that are perpetuating copyright laws are not doing so on behalf of artists. Take for instance, the case of the artist 50-Cent, who had a website owned by his record company and also ran his own independent website. The company, who lobbied for legislation such as SOPA, ACTA and PIPA listed his personal site as one that infringed upon their copyrights. They were actually attacking their own artists for attempting to promote themselves. They are not doing this to support artists; they are doing it to protect their profits because they are threatened by advancements in technology. They are unwilling to adapt.

Robles: "What are some of the other events that are being planned in the context of project Mayhem?"

Anonymous: Project Mayhem 2012 will NEVER do ANYTHING illegal to achieve any goals. (Keep in mind all events will NEED the participation of MILLIONS of citizens worldwide.) 'Dangerous Idea 1' involves leaking information onto TYLER from December, 12th - December, 21st. For this event we will need the participation from whistleblowers worldwide.

'Dangerous Idea 2' Dare to Kreate: is a call to CREATE the SEEDS of something beautiful: be that a wallpaper, a stencil, a game, a beautifully positive and enlightening video, explaining what is Project Mayhem 2012 for them and what would they like to see happening 12.21.2012 11:11 worldwide.

Next up is 'Dangerous Idea 3'. A possible global economic meltdown might soon be on its way, for this event (which will occur on 12.21.2012) we are asking citizens worldwide to remove their money from their bank accounts and switch to an alternative currency.

'Dangerous Idea 4'. This event will be a celebration in a sense, on 12.21.2012 Anonymous will organize massive flash mobs to occupy Parliaments worldwide, not to simply protest but to celebrate our accomplishments. For the lulz of course!

Last but not least, "Dangerous Idea V", who is still a mystery at the moment...MayBee TYLER kNWOs

Robles: "What country in the world does Anonymous feel has the freest system?"

Anonymous: It is not about some best system. It is - again - about things we see that are of concern. No matter where they happen. It is about rethinking what has become of democracy and how we - the people - want to raise or children. Will it be in a free society, where free minds are welcome or will it be at some place of fear where the interests of big players who want to get money out of everything will be controlling without giving an individual enough space to even breathe?

By using the word "terrorism" and creating fear among public, certain organizations try nothing more than oppress society on long term. But we won't give up our freedoms just for the illusion that someone else knows "what is good" for us anyway. In the end it’s a global Government run by the banks; Rothschild’s Rockefellers JP Morgan’s Goldman’s etc.

Soon we will see a one-world-government with a one-world-currency. Regardless of where we are. The laws will be policed by that one world Government. Their surveillance has already started to be put in place i.e. Trapwire and Indect, hence the importance of Operation BigBrother.

Robles: "What is the Anonymous position/opinion on the Russian Federation, the Russian net, and the flow of information to, from and within the Russian Federation?"

Anonymous: FREE Pussy Riot!!! Putin has been a shock though. He has thrown out the Rothschild’s central banking system and has wiped Africa's debt. This is stunning and very dangerous. The NWO will attempt to overthrow him. Hence the so-called protests.

As per the CIA instigated Arab Spring. Watch the video  The Revolution Business is exactly that.

Robles: Is there anything else you feel is important, please.

Anonymous: Anonymous is not your personal army. United we stand divided we fall. You can't arrest an idea. Tyler is just the beginning not the End of #PM2012 | we won’t stop coding we won’t stop fighting against injustice.

TYLER’s release date is not on December, 21st. The actual release date is on December, 12. The release will take place after beta testing and code audits and the choosing of the best Tyler candidate. This is necessary and should take place by December 11. 

Every so often we hear about this 'Incoming Cyber Attack', the first of which was brought up by NSA, claiming Anonymous is organizing a massive cyber 'attack'. Since Project Mayhem 2012 was not known as it is today, Anons within the collective sent out responses to this accusation via Twitter and Youtube claiming it is all hype possibly to pass cyber security legislation, even though the specifics of this attack by Anonymous were not mentioned the claim was quite obvious. So next time DHS, NSA or FBI falsely cry out cyber attack, you now know why.

Also the most important thing to remember: Project Mayhem 2012 will NEVER ever suggest you to do anything ILLEGAL and/or anything against your own Consciousness. You are Anonymous You are Project Mayhem.

12.21.2012, 11:11 AM  The End of Fear

"Anybody kNWOs that the people have the power. All we have to do is awaken the power in the people." - John Lennon. Imagine we wake up.

 

We are Anonymous. 

We are Legion. 

We do not forgive. 

We do not forget. 

Expect us. 

 

iMAGIne. aCKt.

Close 

Dear Reader,

The digitized voice in this interview is to protect the identity of the speaker who wishes to remain anonymous and who is speaking for a significant yet random segment of the entire movement or group. After the publication of our last interview I requested audio, if it was possible. Due to security concerns it was impossible to conduct a normal phone interview. The answers above reflect the opinion of a significant number, yet "random set", of the entire group after a week of polling them, as opposed to our earlier text interview which was more limited in scope as to the number of participants.

Anonymous refers to the collective consciousness of the group as the "hivemind" and very clearly states that to properly get feedback would require the participation of over 9,000 Anons. To be certain that they were speaking for as many members as possible, Anononymous polled members over the course of the last couple of weeks and collectively answered each of the questions. The digitized voice reflects the Anononymous collective but as the speaker is also anonymous can not be considered the "Official Voice of Anonymous".

Yours,

John

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_02/US-Internet-attacks-due-to-corrupt-campaign-laws-exclusive-interview-with-Anonymous-part-2/

Jar2

31 October 2012, 18:58  

USAID/CIA: It is in the US' Interests to Suppress Democracy

Doctor Stuart Bramhall

USAID CIA

Download audio file

“In the Middle East we also supported dictators, we supported Mubarak, we supported the Saudi royal family” - says Stuart Bramhall, a retired psychiatrist, and author and a long-time political activist who has done extensive research on USAID. She also claims that in Eastern Europe the US government and USAID did a lot of training of activists in advance of all the color revolutions.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/17/1289891026/2010_0128NZ20100071.JPG

MOVED HERE http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Stuart_Bramhall.html

USAID/CIA: supporting dictators and stifling democracy - exclusive interview

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_31/USAID-CIA-it-is-in-the-US-interests-to-suppress-democracy/

Jar2

28 October 2012, 16:44  

Anonymous

'We stand for all humanity and the freedom of speech and information'

Exclusive Interview with Anonymous, part 1

'We stand for all humanity and the freedom of speech and information' - EXCLUSIVE interview with all of Anonymous, part 1

Download audio file

WikiLeaks' model has proven to be unsustainable because it has a head and therefore can be taken out as we're seeing with Assange, and Anonymous' TYLER platform is coming to circumvent this. “The situation with Julian Assange will not change - it’s a witch hunt”. Anonymous hopes he runs for senate and gets diplomatic immunity. "One of Assange's accusers has ties to the CIA and we hardly ever hear anything about that on the state controlled CNN”. The US government is attempting to legalize the use of propaganda against the American public. Anonymous claim their methods may be the last hope to spread information about corruption without fear of being illegally imprisoned.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/28/1276139847/Anonymous%5b1%5d.jpg

Interview Part II 

Dear Reader,

After writing my article on a rift between WikiLeaks and Anonymous in which I asked Anonymous and WikiLeaks to contact me regarding the situation Anonymous was kind enough to do so. I requested an audio or studio interview but this was impossible due to their security concerns. We agreed on an e-mail interview, the results of which were published last week.

During the time that has passed another Anonymous member was gathering the answers to all of my questions from the group as a whole and arranged for audio to be provided. The sources have been authenticated. The digitized voice is to protect the identity of the Anonymous member(s), who wishes to remain anonymous. The answers below reflect the opinion a random number of the entire group after a week of polling them, as opposed to our earlier interview which was more limited in scope as to the number of participants. Anonymous refers to the collective consciousness of the group as the "hivemind" and states that to properly get feedback would require the participation of over 9,000 Anons.

I think it is important to note that: Anonymous is a living entity that adapts, assimilates and bends within the environment it finds itself in. As for WikiLeaks and Anonymous, well, I guess you could say, with literary latitude, that they have kissed and made up.

I believe in protecting my sources, as did my wonderful higher-ups, so it was agreed to use the voice. Thanks for your interest and  please stay with the Voice of Russia. More to come.

John

Interview with the hacktivist group Anonymous, Part 1.

Robles: "Can you tell us any other reasons that have not been publicized as to why Anonymous has decided to part ways with WikiLeaks?"

Anonymous: There is no official Anonymous positioning on WikiLeaks: Not all of Anonymous have parted from WikiLeaks (bear in mind that Anonymous frequently is abused by idiots and infiltrators that attempt to post nonsense to discredit us). Let's get this straight: WikiLeaks is doing good stuff and we all know what has been done to Assange so far. Anonymous stands up for freedom of speech as well as freedom of information.

Based on the WikiLeaks issue about the paywall where one couldn't access their cables without donating. Some Anons saw a 'clear' censorship of information there and feared, WikiLeaks could have become what they once fought against. This is, why there are now sites like Par:AnoIA (par-anoia.net) that spread info apart from WikiLeaks. But again - in the end it's about freedom of speech and information. It would Make no sense NOT to support transparency and non disclosure of sources. As you can see in the end we don't have to agree with each other all the time.

WikiLeaks' model has proven to be unsustainable though, because of the fact that it has a head and therefore can be taken out as we're seeing with Assange. No worries TYLER is coming to circumvent this.

Robles:"There have been statements that Anonymous plans to release secret files about WikiLeaks, can you give us a few details about these files and what kind of revelations they will provide?"

Anonymous: Where did you get this info?

Robles:"If WikiLeaks goes down the tubes how do you think this will affect Julian Assange and his current situation?"

Anonymous: This is some wild speculation here. Neither do we have some crystal ball, nor are we very much into fortune telling. The present situation has enough jobs and concerns to care about. The situation with Julian Assange will not change - it’s a witch hunt. Hopefully he runs for senate and gets diplomatic immunity.

His situation is unfortunate because the response by State departments is obviously overblown. There are numerous articles of information that may lead the public to believe the charges against him are false and yet they are rarely reported on.

One of his accusers, for instance, has ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and we doubt you will ever hear anything about that on the state controlled CNN.

Robles:"Can you tell us something no one else knows about TYLER?"

Anonymous: The Secret is there is NO Secret. Won’t tell more for a simple reason - freedom of information. Got it? We tell what we can tell, besides: we really would be happy, if journalists cared more about the content of the info/cables than into what they think is secrets or drama. This would help us to reach a next step in spreading truth to the public about things people really should care about. Or maybe yes...

Robles: "In what ways will TYLER be better than WikiLeaks?"

Anonymous: TYLER will “bee” a Massively Distributed Uncensorable Collaborative Wiki-P2P Cipherspace Structure ergo no centralized system, no heads – this will avoid any problems related to having a spokesperson: Assange problems.

Robles:"Was there any special reason for choosing the date December 21, 2012? Some people believe that on that date when all of the planets align and when the Mayan calendar ends, the world, as we know it, will end."

Anonymous: As you probably will have researched yourself, Mayan calendar goes on. Many people think it’s a point of ascension, a change of global consciousness. The 12/21/2012 meme can be used to bring out strong emotions within the human psyche, especially in the western culture, where the apocalypse is the hot button. OR maybe we actually believe this will cause the world to end.... Who knows. ;)

Just for a little clear up: TYLER is not to be released on Dec, 21. The actual release date is Dec, 12. Please watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUz-Dhk7dYU for more information.

Robles: "What is the current status of all of the members of Anonymous who were indicted in the US? Can you give us details about where their cases currently stand?"

Anonymous: We won't talk about ongoing cases, besides of the official information everyone has anyways. Our fallen brothers and sisters will never be forgotten though. Information is widely available in their specific counties and courthouses for more info you can go to http://freeanons.org/ and http://wiki.par-anoia.net/wiki/Main_Page

Robles: "What is the underlying philosophy of Anonymous?"

Anonymous: We don't have an "agenda" - we are human beings who are worried about the things we see, that are going on in the world right now, and we express our concerns: It is about exposing corruption, freedom of speech, freedom of information and protecting the Internet, as is the ether from where the liberation will emerge. Furthermore, to expose who the ruling elite are and how they manipulate and enslave humanity. (Wait.... I thought WE were the elite? Lulz)

In general supporting justice and universal human rights seem to be the core foundations of Anonymous right now. It's hard to define, because Anonymous is constantly changing. Its principals are defined by collective decisions. So far, anyone claiming to be Anonymous that has tried to derail the idea of promoting universal equality and true justice have been attacked by Anons and denounced.

Robles: "What would you say to people who say you are criminals?"

Anonymous:"Is saying NO to our Governments a Crime?" We would encourage them to educate themselves, to think outside of the box as well as use their logic. We probably would also educate them on certain media distortion that plays a big role when it comes to topics like this one. Given that logic. Then they would have to call protestors in picket line criminals.

Robles: "Please describe the decentralized nature of Anonymous, why there are no official spokes people and why this is the case?"

Anonymous: Anonymous is a loose knit collective. If there were leaders or an official spokesperson Anonymous could be weak or touchable for the FEDs. This empowers Anonymous. Please watch this video which explains this idea beautifully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIARz-RE_T8

Anonymous is an idea. Not an immediate goal. It’s beautiful how within the collective structure you are absolutely free. Everybody has his/her own reasons for being Anonymous. We all look the same but behind the mask we are individuals, individuals who don’t want to be commanded.

Bear in mind, every action you take when truly decided by yourself and not because of someone commands you to leads to 100% engagement. “United we stand divided we fall”

Robles: "Can you discuss some of the attempts by intelligence agencies and law enforcement organizations to infiltrate Anonymous?"

Anonymous: These attempts always have been and always will be there. To us they are good on terms of awareness. We wished the reasons why we are doing, what we are doing would be transported to the public as well as these infiltration-stories. Generally this means to us that Anonymous isn't just a game, but one has to be aware what he is doing and also to be able to care about his security. This is why we have special channels within our communication to provide new Anons with security information etc.

In the end the name is the game. As we are Anonymous we don't share personal information. As for we stand united for our ideas and ideals as well as this is another way to protect ourselves. We would like to refer people to the history books on this issue. You should investigate a group of activists during the Vietnam War known as the "Camden 28."

The American public in particular should be aware of the fact that in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, the American government is attempting to legalize the use of propaganda against the American public, something that has been illegal since the end of World War II. It is a reformation of the Smith-Mundt Act. People need to be aware of this because it could allow the government to begin mass funding for sock-puppet social media accounts, which is something that is already taking place. The Israeli government is famous for utilizing these techniques against its population.

Robles: "Can you give us any specifics about FBI/CIA/MI-6 attempts at getting at your people, influencing Anonymous and infiltration etc?"

Anonymous: No, we will give no particulars.

Robles: "Why are your members ready to put their lives on the line for the cause?"

Anonymous: That is real activism or hacktivism (Internet). If you are just sitting around and watch TV or something like this, nothing will change. Lives on the line? We stand for all humanity. Do you think Gandhi put his life on the line for just himself?

There are those that are somewhat awake to the banker occupation of this planet and there are those that yearn for truth but just can’t figure how to get to it! They know something is not right with their lives and especially the lives of the poorest of the poor. Everyone wants to rid this planet of poverty, and its doable if it were allowed. If we have to put our necks on the line to expose the bankers that don’t allow that...Then so be it.

I guess you can consider us as collateral damage. We see all over the world these links of events and influences of actions common citizens don’t see or don’t mind to see. Some friends that are journalists in the US and in the Middle East, openly oppose corruption and are frequently detained/arrested and even some are put in prison.

Anonymous may be our last hope to spread necessary information about corruption without fear of being illegally imprisoned. There are no heroes here. We are actively doing this to because it's the right thing to do and we'll continue to do so regardless of the consequences.

Close. End Part 1

The digitized voice in this interview is to protect the identity of the speaker who wishes to remain anonymous and who is speaking for the entire movement or group. After the publication of our last interview I requested audio, if it was possible. Due to security concerns it was impossible to conduct a normal phone interview. The entire Anonymous collective, or at least enough of them to be certain that they were speaking for all members, got together and over the course of the last couple of weeks collectively answered each of the questions. The digitized voice is the official voice of Anonymous as a whole.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_28/We-stand-for-all-humanity-and-the-freedom-of-speech-and-information-interview-with-Anonymous-part-1/

Jar2

26 October 2012, 19:20  

WikiLeaks Reveals US Detainee Policies: Camp Delta

John Robles

WikiLeaks reveals US detainee policies: Camp Delta

The US War on Terror is an illegal war and WikiLeaks has even more proof. The aggressive invasions are a crime against humanity, the killing of civilians and people defending their homelands are war crimes, the extra-judicial executions are illegal under all international standards and laws, the drone- strikes, Obama’s daily kill list, the black sites and illegal prisons worldwide, the torture and the illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are all criminal acts.

Moved here http://www.jar2.com/Topics/WikiLeaks.html

Jar2

26 October 2012, 13:14  

"No substantive difference between Obama and Romney’s foreign policies"

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

There is “little meaningful difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans and successive administrations in the US when it comes to foreign policy issues. The owner of Stop NATO International Rick Rozoff gave his assessment of the candidates after the US Presidential Debates, he also spoke about the US' repositioning on Syria and Hillary Clinton's seeming admission of the failure of her policies in the Middle East.

You watched the US presidential debates. What is your opinion on foreign policy changes, if any, that will occur if, for example: Romney is elected president or Obama, or everything is pretty much the same?

I don’t think there is any substantive difference between the foreign policy orientations of the two presidential candidates. There is very little discussion about foreign policy in the second debate of earlier this week and most of it appeared to be Romney’s contention that he would call out and humiliate China for undervaluing its currency more than anything else. The one topic that was addressed however was Libya and that presumably only because the US Ambassador of the country, Christopher Stevens was killed Benghazi and there seemed to be an exchange between the two candidates Obama and Romney over responsibility for that action. But what was conspicuous by its absence, what was not discussed, which is to say, whether the 6 and a half months air-war, naval blockade against Libya last year was legitimate, in any manner, both candidates seem to agree that it was, at least they said nothing to the effect that it wasn’t, including the fact that the 1973 war powers resolution was not only ignored but, a fact one can argue, neutralized and destroyed in the process, when president Obama refused to appear before Congress after 60 days into the armed hostilities and seek continued authorization, or seek authorization at all for the military actions against Libya. So, there was no substantial difference between the two candidates.

That would be a violation of law, has that been anywhere in the public debate in the US regarding Obama, has anyone brought that up?

Everyone is ignoring it! There had been some discussion 60 days after the commencement of military hostilities against Libya last year which began on March 19, 2011. There were arm-chair analysts talking something or other about it, but there was no demand by the populace on their congressional representatives to take up the issue nor to the best of my knowledge was there any discussion in Congress except for outgoing Ohio democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich who did raise the issue, and I believe Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul likewise, but those are two other 535 members of the bicameral congress in the United States.

What do you make of the latest developments from the US State Department, if I can ask you a multi-pronged question here? Okay, Hillary Clinton admitted she was at fault for Benghazi, what do you make of that? Do you think that is going to change anything? How will the election results affect Hillary Clinton’s 2016 chances? And what do you make of Nuland’s statements saying that they would like more help from Russia regarding Syria?

You had written an article yourself, John, where you address all those issues very poignantly and perceptively in my estimate. The fact that Victoria Nuland, who is a former US Ambassador to NATO of course during the previous administration of George W. Bush, to demonstrate once again, how little meaningful difference there is between the 2 political parties and successive administrations in the United States when it comes to foreign policy issues. But the fact that Nuland made that right on the heels of her referring to Russia being, and I quote her, “morally bankrupt” because, ostensibly, allegedly something or other was shipped from Russia, or was being shipped from Russia to Syria and intercepted by Turkish war planes, and the Syrian passenger plane was forced down and so forth, with 17 Russian citizens on board who were mistreated. And Nuland had to acknowledge there was nothing illegal in the Russian action if any but that nevertheless it was morally bankrupt, so for her to turn around and entreat Russia to assist the United States in Syria seems odd to say the least.

In terms of Hillary Clinton accepting the responsibility for not providing adequate security measures to the US Consulate in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans including the ambassador, who of course was Hillary Clinton’s employee, as she is the Secretary of State. I don’t understand the byzantine workings of Federal Government, you know, who out maneuvered whom on this one, but it certainly is Hillary Clinton getting a black eye and Obama getting off the hook for responsibility for that action, whether that is the actual chain of command, or not is questionable, I don’t see that it is, but ahead of a re-election bid by Barack Obama of course Hillary will take the fall as evidently she had with the expectation presumably, to segue into the other part of your question, that 4 years from now no one in the United States will remember what has occurred 4 years earlier.

You think so? Do you think Nuland’s admission was… I’m sorry, Nuland’s statement, was an admission of failure by the US regarding their policies in Syria?

Now I have to give credit where it’s due here, it was your own article that alerted me to her comment which I would not have been aware of. Certainly it resonates with the feeling of futility or defeat even, arguably that the US, try as it may, to not only bring about forcible regime change in Damascus but to, in the process isolate, back down, humiliate Russia over the issue is proven to be a signal failure, and now she has to go back to the very same power, the country, Russia that she hours before referred to as being morally bankrupt and seek their assistance, and maybe extricating the United States from a non- tenable situation in Syria right now. Your implication that that is what it is, I think is accurate.

What is your opinion on Benghazi?

This is another case where one questions the motives of those issuing appraisals or evaluations of what happened. It should certainly have been fairly apparent to the United States, through all branches of the American government, foreign policy establishment, rather, the United States. What had occurred in Benghazi within hours of the incident, and instead what you’ve seen is evasion, equivocation, efforts to try to attribute it to something for the most part extraneous and accidental which is, say, the videotape, or the preview, or the trailer for a low budget video on the prophet Mohammed, you know, causing a spontaneous uprising against the United States, somehow knowing that the US Ambassador would be in the Consulate at that point and so forth. That seems hardly credible. It seems rather that the very same Al Qaeda linked extremists forces that the United States and NATO supported last year against the government in Libya, had simply struck back at their former masters. They’d bitten the hand that fed them if you will. I think it is a much more likely scenario. What in fact has happened is that armed militias simply continued doing what they were doing beforehand.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_26/No-substantive-difference-between-Obama-and-Romney-s-foreign-policy-interview/

Jar2

25 October 2012, 22:32  

Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely: Benghazi Attack Carried Out by CIA

John Robles

Playing politics with the deaths of their personnel, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proven: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Newly uncovered e-mails show that Clinton and Obama knew within hours that the Benghazi attack was carried out by al-Qaeda linked terrorists. The same terrorists they contracted to destroy Libya and assassinate the late Muammar Gaddafi.

You have to hand it to United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, you could get whiplash watching her flip-flop back and forth, her statements and positioning on the Benghazi attack changing and dodging back and forth like some Wimbledon tennis match on amphetamines with the fast-forward locked on hyper-speed.

Not long ago I wrote about the Clintons and their hiring of legal team in the event that she was blamed for the security failures that allowed the Benghazi attack to take place. Clinton took the fall the next day, in a political move to protect Obama’s re-election bid. I also went into the fact that the attack was actually aimed at CIA base Benghazi and not on Stevens. Clinton has not gone into this. Now it is revealed that Clinton and the Obama Administration knew it was a terrorist attack almost immediately, and said nothing.

Another political move? This latest revelation begs a lot of questions, among them: are Clinton’s political ambitions and her dream of being the first woman president of the United States in 2016 getting in the way of her performing her job as Secretary of State? Is she incompetent? Or is she just following the Clinton tradition of flipping and flopping as the wind changes?

Whatever the case for the Clinton obfuscation, the release of the e-mails is damning to put it mildly. Yet Clinton continues to side-step, dodge and obfuscate. She warns us to take the e-mails cautiously, and downplays their significance even saying that the news that it was a terrorist attack came from social networks and that is not evidence.

The e-mails in question started to come in within 20 minutes of the attack, and according to Reuters were obtained by them from government sources. Reuters reports that the first email, was sent at 16:05 Washington time, 20-30 minutes after the attack began with the subject line being “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack”. The text read: “…. approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four (redacted) personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The second e-mail was sent at 16:54 Washington time with the subject being: “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and text reporting that : “… the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared. … a ‘response team’ was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.”

A third email sent at 18:07 carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Why then did the White House and Clinton continue to place the blame on the video “The Innocence of Muslims” for days after the attack? Well for one the terrorists groups most likely connected with the attack, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia, and other groups were working with the CIA and the US Government in Libya in the operation to overthrow Muammar Kaddafi. For a Secretary of State who is blinded by her own political ambitions this connection would not be something she would want to come out.

In fact as was made clear by the actions of the Clinton’s in gathering a legal team, they are terrified of the American public seeing any failure in Libya. Clinton and her glib: “We came! We saw! He died!” comments on the brutal and unjust assassination of Kaddafi, from the start, showed the true beast beneath her aging and waning exterior. That and her self-congratulatory stance on the decimation of yet another country by the US proves her godless inhumanity and the fact that she will do anything, including murdering thousands, if not millions, to attain her political ambitions.

This time the checks and balances come from the Republican side, Democrats being cowed into submission to protect the party’s president and Clinton. According to ABC News Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte wrote a letter questioning Obama why his administration "consistently described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video. These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it… This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi, when you knew it, and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did."

Clinton and Obama may tell a lie or two to the American people every day, they are politicians; they are concerned for their political futures. It is a shame that they would play politics with the deaths of their own personnel and continue to attempt to paint their complete utter and total failure in Libya as some sort of victory.

Unless killing Muammar Gaddafi at any cost was the goal to begin with? The aggressive invasion and assassination of the head of state of the sovereign country of Libya was a crime against humanity. Of course they are going to lie.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_25/Power-corrupts-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-Benghazi-attack-carried-out-by-al-Qaeda-linked-terrorists/

Jar2

25 October 2012, 19:47  

"US needs no-fly zone for base in Syria"

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

Download audio file

Dr. Alon Ben Meir is currently on a tour of the Middle East meeting with officials, members of academia, and the public in order to get the big picture from the ground regarding the real situation in the Syria-Turkey “quest”. According to Dr. Meir, "the key lies in the White House".

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/25/1276420095/Meir.jpg

How are you this evening? I understand you are in Turkey. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about the situation with Turkey and Syria and what is going on down there?

Not so much really has changed, the tension between the two countries is rising. I don’t think there is any new decision made by the Turkish government what to do next. The sentiment here: they really are waiting to see who is going to be elected. Everybody feels that once the election is over, the dynamics would change because the new president, either Barack Obama or Romney, will no longer be able to basically do nothing or simply use all kinds of political excuses to justify their inaction. That is the sentiment.

What do you think the differences will be if Obama is elected as opposed to if Romney is elected? How is that going to affect the situation in the entire Middle East?

I think probably Romney will be more willing to act quickly to do something about it. I think we can probably expect the discussion about no-fly zone will be intensified, specifically because Turkey is advocating that position. I think the United States along with Europe may well go along with that and support Turkish position in that regard.

Now this would be a “NATO enforced no-fly zone”, like what happened in Libya do you think?

Yes, no-fly zone but nobody is talking about using any military force of any kind, no-fly zone for the purpose of creating a safe zone, safe area, preventing the Syrian air force from attacking this secure zone, so that the Syrian Free Army will have abase in Syria itself and they will be better prepared in dealing with the eventuality. The consensus here is that Bashar Assad is going to go one way or the other whether in a month or two, even 6 or more, he is going to go but the concern is what will Iran do, what will Russia do, what will Saudis do. So, there is no clear answer as to how the other players in the region might act subsequent to the collapse of the Assad regime. There is also talk about getting Russia into the mix, mainly bypersuading the Russians that it is in their best interest to work with the Turks and the United States ensuring that Russian interests will be guarded as far as Syria goes. But of course this is quite complicated because what will happen with Iran? And as you well know the relationship between Iran and Russia is quite strong, so there is no clear-cut-situation even if Russia is willing to cooperate on Syria, there is no answer what to do with Iran. So these are the kinds of discussions that are going on.

What do you make of Turkey’s downing of the passenger jet from Moscow and their aggressive shelling of Syrian territory? And do you know anything about the fact that the shells that fell on Turkish territory, the one that killed the 5 people, that it was actually NATO issued and may have been launched by mercenaries on the border?

No one is buying into this argument, to be honest with you. Because there wasn’t even a denial on the part of Syria, they said it was a mistake or some missile that was actually out of (off) course..

Do you really believe in the terrible situation that it is in the country right now: Do you think they would intentionally launch mortars into Turkey? You don’t really believe that….

I don’t think it was intentionally, I think it would be foolish on the part of Syria to start a conflict with Turkey. It is not a match for Turkey to begin with and moreover if Turkey gets into Syria’s conflict, it will have the right to exercise chapter 5 compelling NATO countries to come to Turkey’s aid and they already said as much.

Yeah, sure.

They already said that much. I don’t think Bashar Assad however desperate he may be is going to try to challenge Turkey, there is no gain whatsoever. Nobody is thinking that this exchange of fire is an indication of a larger conflict. Syria is simply not interested in that but the Turks have many many concerns, there are many concerns about the Kurdish problem, how that might evolve, they have a concern about subsequent sectarian conflict between the Sunni, between the Alawites and the Christians, the Kurds, the Al Qaeda, the Jihadists, I mean, name it, there is Syrian Free Army, the military, they have all kind of groupings and sub-groupings, that could all unravel. This is why I have been advocating as you all know. If the bloodshed continues Syria will unravel, will disintegrate and that is not going to be in Russia’s interest. Whichever government rises after that, it will not look at Russia favorably. That is why I think probably the time has come for Russia to reconsider a strategy and look for a solution with Turkey, dealing with Turkey directly. That is what is going to be necessary because there is no way that Russia will gain anything if Syria disintegrates.

Is Turkey becoming more militarily assertive now and are they being pushed by the Obama administration to take concrete steps against Syria?

I think that Turkey without a question is preparing for all contingencies. So, that is a given. They are not being pushed at this point because they are absolutely determined not to do anything unilaterally, they are not going to impose no-fly zone, or start anything unless there is a complete support and backing from NATO and the United States, that is really how things are. The public is absolutely against any military adventure. People we talk to in academia, in the streets, they feel that Turkey should not send the troops, should not get boots on the ground but it has to do something because no matter what happens in Syria now, in the next 6 months it will have direct impact on Turkey’s national security and for this reason Turkey is preparing but that does not suggest at all that Turkey is preparing for attack, it has no intelligent reason to do so. The only reason is a preparedness for what they see, for example they expect an influx of more than 4 or 5 hundred thousand refugees, they don’t know what to do about that. They are concerned that the fighting is coming closer to the Turkish border because we see this, a little beyond that. That is what they are prepared for I don’t think we can expect anything to happen in Syria before the American election is over and before the new president make a statement as to where the United States will stand. The key is there, they key is in the White House and that is what is going to happen.

You were listening to an interview with Dr. Alon Ben Meir, a professor in International Relations and Affairs at New York University.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_25/US-needs-no-fly-zone-so-SFA-can-have-base-in-Syria-interview/

Jar2

25 October 2012, 12:20  

"There really isn’t democracy anymore in the US"

Cheri Honkala Presidential Candidate

Download audio file

US Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Cheri Honkala spoke with the Voice of Russia regarding the arrest of the Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein and herself and the subsequent holding in a "secret" warehouse for attempting to enquire as to why they were prevented from taking part in the US Presidential Election Debates, a pressing matter, as there is a mathematical possibility they could win the election.

Interview - Part 2

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/25/1276599621/220px-Cheri_Honkala%5b1%5d.jpg

People around the world are in shock that you, a vice presidential candidate, and the presidential candidate both were arrested. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what happened?

 

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Cheri_Honkala.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_25/There-really-isn-t-democracy-anymore-in-the-US-US-Green-Party-Vice-Presidential-Candidate/

Jar2

24 October 2012, 14:20  

Occupy Chicago

"We do not endorse a candidate as the US capitalist system is broken"

Natalie Wahlberg

Download audio file

In an interview with the VOR, Natalie Wahlberg, an organizer, spokesperson and activist with the Occupy Chicago movement, speaks about Obama as “the drone President”, US’s capitalist system being broken, as well as support for anti-NATO protesters. She finds it outrageous that $58 mln were spent by Chicago’s mayor on NATO summit rather than on Mental Health clinics.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/24/1276514137/wahlberg.jpg

It looks like the elections are coming to a close pretty soon. What do you think about the candidates? What do you think is going to change if Obama gets it or if Romney gets it? Is anything going to change in the US?

At Occupy Chicago we are post-partisan people’s movement – we do not support or endorse any political candidate as we believe the US capitalist system is broken. Romney and Obama are both puppets of corporate money and will never serve the 99%. For example Obama is “the drone President” having killed more people in Pakistan and Yemen than any other President. Estimates range from 1,886 to 3,191 dead men, women and children. And Obama has chosen not to prosecute Wall Street banksters, like Koch Brothers, and instead through the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Department of Justice who have persecuted innocent citizen activists. Thus the FBI entrapped Cleveland 4, the Chicago Police Department entrapped NATO 5 and the Pacific Northwest Grand Jury resisters. If Obama is elected I see more dead people in Pakistan and Yemen and more innocent citizens in the US jailed for being free speech advocates.

So, give our listeners an update of what is going on with Occupy, please?

Well, I think the last time we spoke I was actually fighting a court case about my arrest in Grant Park that happened last year when we attempted to encamp. Around 300 occupiers were arrested last year and 92 of us, myself included, chose to fight our arrest based on the First Amendment grounds – the freedom of speech. And just recently it was announced that we won, our arrest was declared unconstitutional and thrown out, given how the Chicago Police Department would make demands and we would capitulate and then they would make more demands. So, the fact that we were in a park after hours was declared ok, considering that the public owns the park and we are the public. So, yea, I can get arrested again.

Did you have to pay a fine or anything? I mean do you have something on your record or anything?

Nothing. I’m Scot free.

Bravo!

Thank you, it was a long fight. A bunch of people chose to accept community service. And that’s amazing like there were so many of us that fought and so many of us there that night. More recently, last Saturday, there was Global Noise it was a global initiative where we, the collective “we” across the world, took to the streets in a casserole style march banging on pots and pans calling attention to gross economic injustice and the world debt crisis that has been occurring. It was a raging success where in Chicago we took and kept Michigan Avenue which is the heart of the shopping district, the heart of capitalism in Chicago. We kept the street with no arrests, nothing, it was ours. We, the people took back our street. It was beautiful and I’ve never felt more empowered and more proud of my allies and comrades, my heart was soaring.

That sounds great! What else has been going on?

Earlier this year Occupy Chicago supported the Mental Health Movement in Chicago when they decided to blockade themselves inside a closed Mental Health Clinic. Mayor “1%” Rahm Emanuel shot six out of twelve of Chicago’s mental health clinics claiming that there is no money. But then he brought NATO to Chicago to spend $58 million which would have been more than enough to fund the clinics. So, the Mental Health Movement blockaded themselves inside the Woodlawn Clinic with cement barricades, bodies and held their grounds for something like 10 or 12 hours and of course doctors, therapists, nurses, medics, activists and patients were arrested. Their court case was heard and the decision was handed down earlier this week where they were indeed found guilty of criminal trespass.

What’s the punishment for that in the United States?

Probation for a year and they have to pay a bunch of fines, I mean no jail times fortunately. But still, they fought for something they believed in and we at Occupy Chicago applaud them and stand with them.

What are you guys going to be doing coming into the winter?

Occupy Rogers Park and Occupy el Barrio which are neighborhood occupations in Occupy Chicago. Actually it should be noted that Occupy Rogers Park is on the very very north side of the city and Occupy al Barrio is on, like, the south side. So, it is a city-wide partnership where they’re going to be working on the Occupy Our Homes campaign, placing families into abandoned or foreclosed upon homes and actually doing something to help the houseless population in Chicago. So, that’s an amazing initiative that I simply cannot wait to be a part of.

Has there been any progress made in that regard in Chicago? Have you seen any changes?

I’ve seen the changes that occur when we move a family into a home we have rehabilitated but from the city – absolutely not. They don’t care about us.

So you guys are actually rehabilitating houses and rebuilding and giving them to people? That’s wonderful!

Yes, thank you. We constantly have ongoing support of the NATO 5 that the Chicago Police Department entrapped, anti-NATO protesters that remain in Cook County Jail on trumped up charges of a terrorist related nature. And they are still fighting. They need all the help they can get. We need donations to their commissary funds, we need letters written to them.

Has there been any progress in their case? Or it is pretty much moving along as it was?

It is moving along as it was. The NATO 5 has such high bails, money to pay to get out of jail…

In the millions, I think.

Yes, and it might as well be that they have no bail. The lawyers have been trying to argue for a lower bail but so far no luck and they’ll be held until trial which could be up to two years.

Two more years?

About 18 months now if we’re counting down until an actual trial and we are still in the discovery phase of pretrial. So, it is a long slow painful process and I call upon every citizen of the world to write to Sebastian, Mark, Brian and Jared and all of their information is at nato5.occupychi.org

Thank you very much Natalie, I really appreciate it.

My pleasure thank you John, take care!

Take care!

 This is John Robles, I was speaking with Natalie Wahlberg, an organizer, spokesperson and activist with the Occupy Chicago movement.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_24/Occupy-Chicago-We-do-not-support-or-endorse-any-political-candidate-as-we-believe-the-US-s-capitalist-system-is-broken-interview/

Jar2

23 October 2012, 22:51  

Voice of Russia US Election Poll: No Difference

John Robles

VOR readers and listeners are interested in the upcoming US presidential elections and are voting in the VoR Poll, unfortunately, the more we hear and the more we learn, the more it is clear that no matter who wins the next election, things are not likely to change, and the endless wars and drone attacks and kill lists will continue. Apparently the one party, predetermined US elections are something we can use as an example of how NOT to build a democracy.

Voice of Russia readers and listeners from the US and around the world, experts and political pundits from almost every corner of the globe, political activists of every shade and almost everyone else we have talked to or had contact with on the matter are almost unanimous is their opinion that no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election in the US, almost nothing is going to change and there is almost no difference between the candidates.

The Voice of Russia has been conducting a poll on the US elections results and the outcome underlines the hopelessness that is permeating the world and the United States. The world used to be interested in who was leading the US with many seeing the leader of the US as the leader of the free world and the guardian of morality and values. That is no longer the case.

From Occupy activists, to Middle East experts, to NATO experts, to economists, to hunted hackers, all of the people I have spoken to say the same thing, there is no difference between the candidates, there is no democracy in the US and for all intents and purposes democracy is dead.

This is a damning assessment for the US and for Obama in particular. Four years ago people believed Obama and his “change we can believe in.” They really believed he would be the next Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi, even awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything. Well the people of the world were fooled, and they know it.

Not only has Obama continued Bush’s policies but he has expanded on them. The wars, the torture, the decimation of civil liberties, the drones and the endless killing have all continued and been expanded on by Obama. For the blacks and the minorities who thought he would be their champion and make things right Obama has proven that he is a simply a puppet to American corporate interests. He has in four years proven that the US presidency is a fallacy, and like Bush before him, that they US president is just a puppet whose strings are pulled by big money.

Recent events in the US have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no more democracy in the United States of America. Democracy is dead but the billion dollar election show continues for the masses. The only problem is that more and more of the “masses” are beginning to realize that the entire thing is a staged pre-planned event with pre-determined results.

The most damning example of the pestilent disease infecting America occurred recently when presidential and Vice-presidential candidates Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala were literally arrested and hidden in a warehouse for over eight hours so they would in no way disturb the presidential debate show that they had been excluded from as candidates and whose format and outcome had already been decided on.

Not even in the most backward, brutal and evil regimes do we hear of such events taking place, and this occurred in the country that attempts to dictate to the world on democracy and pretends to be the moral compass of humanity and the world’s policeman. A country that dares to dictate to the Russian Federation for one, a country with a true robust democratic system, with more than seven real and functioning parties, on the precepts of democracy. The hypocrisy is only now beginning to dawn on the world.

The morally bankrupt and one party system in the United was discussed recently with the Voice of Russia by Cheri Honkala in an interview after her arrest and false imprisonment. An event during which she was chained to a chair for 8 hours in a warehouse, being treated worse than a common criminal.

If we are to follow the dictionary definition of a fascist state as one where the corporations control the government and the country then the US is the poster boy for fascism and Obama is the biggest hypocrite in world history. Not only because he has not fulfilled his campaign promises but because he betrayed the hope and the trust of every single person who believed in his lies of “change.”

Back to our poll, despite Obama’s lies and the open hatred espoused by Romney, the candidates are still getting votes. Obama is in the lead with the world’s audience, with “it doesn’t matter” in second and Romney in third. It is a shame the third party candidates have been effectively blocked by the American media, because even our listeners and readers have heard little about them. It is a shame because they are both candidates who would bring about real change, not the fake and commercialized “change” that Obama promised four years ago.

The Voice of Russia does not endorse either candidate, it is a US election.

The opinions and views expressed here are the writer's, he can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Please vote in our online Poll here

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_23/Voice-of-Russia-US-exclusive-election-poll-No-difference/

Jar2

22 October 2012, 15:01  

Anonymous

"One man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter"

EXCLUSIVE interview with Anonymous, part 2

‘One man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter’ – Anonymous, EXCLUSIVE interview, part 2

In the second part of our exclusive interview Anonymous ventured into more dangerous territory and talked about intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the freedom of the internet, and their views on Russia. Anonymous tells about the nature of their activist movement being so decentralized because of the anarchist ideal of horizontal decision making. Due to security concerns Voice of Russia was not able to provide audio or video.

Interview Part 1

Anonymous: Below are the second set of questions and answers. As with the last batch, the answers must be attributed to "Anonymous".

Robles: "What is the underlying philosophy of Anonymous?"

Anonymous: Freedom. And the defense of the Internet because it is the greatest tool of liberation in the history of humanity.

Robles: "What would you say to people who say you are criminals?"

Anonymous: What would I say to them? I would shrug and decline the semantic argument. One man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter. Whichever label you choose to attach to us says far more about you than it does Anonymous.

Robles: "Please describe the decentralized nature of Anonymous, why there are no official spokespeople and why this is the case?"

Anonymous: The journalist Quinn Norton really summed it up the best. Anonymous is a "do-ocracy". Certain individuals within the collective will simply start an action or operation and based on how well they sell it to the collective that is how big it will become. Other times a trigger event, such as a massacre or brutal repression of a protest somewhere or the arrest of some prominent freedom of information figure will catalyze the collective and bring key organizers together to plan an operation.

As for the why, that should be obvious. If you tag individuals with the "official" label you paint a big target on them. There is also the anarchist ideal of horizontal decision making involved as well. Our strict adherence to the decentralized concept is one of our greatest strengths.

Robles: "Can you discuss some of the attempts by intelligence agencies and law enforcement organizations to infiltrate Anonymous?"

Anonymous: For law enforcement, the most effective way to penetrate Anonymous is by capturing and then subverting an active known participant. Probably the most well known case of this was the very famous compromise of a popular Anon known as "Sabu". Depending on the influence of the individual "turned", the damage to the movement can be severe - as was the case with Sabu.

As for intelligence agencies, their goals and methods are quite different. There is probably not an intel organization on earth that is not trying to actively penetrate Anonymous. And this is not at all difficult, as we are a very open movement that encourages mass participation by the public. But rather than try and subvert us for the purpose of capturing Anons, the "spooks" are looking for information. Where better to find it than hanging out with "information activists". Depending on who the intel people work for, they might not even be at cross purpose with Anonymous.

Robles: "Can you tell us about the death squads that are hunting Anonymous members and about contracts that have been put out on Anonymous?"

Anonymous: Well known Anonymous organizers are threatened with physical violence on an almost daily basis. We have been threatened by former US Secret Service agents, the secret police in various mid-east countries - and those strange breed in the USA known as "Guardians Of The Republic" or "Patriot Hackers". Then you can also add the random deranged individuals from all over the world. We took on the Zetas drug gang in Mexico last year, and there are a number of outstanding threats and contracts from that confrontation.

Any group or movement that takes action against powerful entrenched interests is going to get this sort of thing, it comes with the territory. But it's not just those involved with Anonymous directly that are in danger, any journalist or academic who takes an active interest in us will also quickly become a target of threats.

Robles: "Can you give us any specifics about FBI/CIA/MI-6 attempts at getting at your people, influencing Anonymous and infiltration etc?"

Anonymous: I think I answered this question above. But I would add that it is not just western intel and law enforcement that are after Anonymous. I would be VERY surprised if Russian agencies were not looking into us. And certainly mid-east and Israeli agencies are very interested in our activities. Turkey in particular has tracked down and arrested quite a number of Anons in that country.

Interpol, the EU - Brazilian agencies. Pretty much ever intel and law enforcement group on the planet at this point is looking closely at Anonymous. With the recent launch of Op Vatican you could even add to the list those vaunted Swiss Guards!

Robles: "Why are your members ready to put their lives on the line for the cause?"

Anonymous: Because somebody has to do it. In every generation, individuals must step forward into danger in order to do battle with the forces of tyranny. Oppression and the greed for power are perennial, which is why revolution must be perpetual.

Robles: "Can you go into some of the steps that the US Government and other governments have gone to in order to control and censor the flow of information?"

Anonymous: Lulz. You could write a book and not cover them all. That is why a project like WikiLeaks and other disclosure platforms are so vital. The use of "national security" to over classify information, primarily to hide corruption and wrong doing - would be one of the biggest techniques.

Another way, and one that is of great concern to Anonymous is the misuse and abuse of copyright laws to impose defacto censorship. Another technique that Anonymous has most prominently been involved in circumventing the past few years is government attempts to filter or shut down the Internet around the world.

Robles: "What is the Anonymous position on the media, on copyrights, on file sharing and on content?"

Anonymous: Our position is that the value of an idea to humanity is more important than it's authorship. Copyright laws, especially since the UN mandated DCMA treaty - are being used towards two very destructive ends. First, these laws are used to enrich a very small group of incredibly wealthy and powerful publishing interests and "artists". And second, these laws are increasingly being subverted for the purpose of censoring dissent.

Robles: "What are some of the other events that are being planned in the context of project Mayhem?"

Anonymous: The release of TYLER. Massive global street protests. The disclosure of "secret" information that will be seriously embarrassing to governments around the world.

Robles: "What country in the world does Anonymous feel has the freest system in the world?"

Anonymous: Iceland.

Robles: "What is the Anonymous position/opinion on the Russian Federation, the Russian net, and the flow of information to, from and within the Russian Federation?"

Anonymous: Russia is a modern and relatively free democratic country. And like all nations its size it has problems, it has issues. And some of those issues are of concern to Anonymous…

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_22/One-mans-criminal-is-another-mans-freedom-fighter-Anonymous-EXCLUSIVE-interview-part-2/

Jar2

22 October 2012, 11:00  

Anonymous

Anonymous to launch TYLER: “WikiLeaks on steroids!”

EXCLUSIVE interview with Anonymous, part 1

Anonymous hacktivists to launch TYLER: “WikiLeaks on steroids!” – EXCLUSIVE interview, part 1

In an exclusive interview to the Voice of Russia a member of Anonymous talks about the conflict that revolves around the coercive fund raising techniques and a lack of transparency regarding WikiLeaks. He also mentions the possible release of a list of what they view as WikiLeaks ethical violations. On December 21, 2012 Anonymous are planning to launch a secure, no cost and decentralized online leaks release platform called TYLER to circumvent to problems inherent in WikiLeaks and to continue to disclose information that governments, including US, are hiding from people.

After writing my article on a rift between WikiLeaks and Anonymous in which I asked Anonymous and WikiLeaks to contact me regarding the situation Anonymous was kind enough to do so. I requested an audio or studio interview but this was impossible due to their security concerns. We agreed on an e-mail interview, below are the results of the first part.

Anonymous: It is important that these questions are being answered as "Anonymous". At a later time if you would like to interview me regarding my own situation that might be possible, but on this issue I am acting as part of the Anonymous collective.

Robles: "Can you tell us any other reasons that have not been publicized as to why Anonymous has decided to part ways with WikiLeaks?"

Anonymous: No I think we were fairly clear and straightforward in the press release we forwarded to you. Assange's reply to us via his public statement on Twitter did not help the situation, as it was generally viewed as condescending and arrogant. So I would say that has exasperated the rift. Beyond that the conflict revolves around the coercive fund raising techniques and a lack of transparency regarding WikiLeaks finances.

Robles: "There have been statements that Anonymous plans to release secret files about WikiLeaks, can you give us a few details about these files and what kind of revelations they will provide?"

Anonymous: Actually the exact statement was that we would release a detailed list of what we view as WikiLeaks ethical violations and lack of transparency problems. There was never a statement made that we possessed or would release any "secret files". What we would like to see released, either legitimately or leaked to Anonymous by a WikiLeaks insider - is the WikiLeaks financial records. We do not possess these, but should they be delivered to us we would certainly disclose them. An organization that preaches transparency to the world should provide it for themselves.

Robles: "If WikiLeaks goes down the tubes how do you think this will affect Julian Assange and his current situation?"

Anonymous: In order to approach that question it is necessary first to define what exactly WikiLeaks is. There is a pervasive myth in the media and the world that WikiLeaks is this vast collective of activists making the decisions for the organization. This is not at all true. WikiLeaks is a publishing business that was solely created, owned and operated by Julian Assange. So apart from a few dozen volunteers, and a tiny cohort of employees -WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are essentially the same entity.

Julian has threatened on at least one previous occasion to pull the plug on the project because the fundraising was not meeting his expectations. It was at that time that Anonymous began planning to field our own alternative disclosure platforms. Julian desperately needs WikiLeaks, and he is the only one that can pull the plug on the project. I rather think that so long as he is in dire straights, he will not do so - despite any threats from him to the contrary.

But this does beg the question, since WikiLeaks and Assange are one and the same - what happens to the project should Julian fall? I rather think that would be an end to WikiLeaks.

Robles: "Can you tell us something no one else knows about TYLER?"

Anonymous: I could, but I am not going to. :-P

Robles: "In what ways will TYLER be better than WikiLeaks?"

Anonymous: First, TYLER is but one of several disclosure platforms fielded by Anonymous and it's allies. There is the wonderful Par-Anoia project. And last year we launched LocalLeaks and HackerLeaks with the assistance of the Peoples Liberation Front. All of these platforms have their strengths, and all are important to Anonymous ongoing mission to find a secure, inexpensive and decentralized way to do disclosure.

What makes TYLER unique as a disclosure platform is that it will not be deployed on a static server. TYLER will be P2P encrypted software, in which every function of a disclosure platform will be handled and shared by everyone who downloads and deploys the software. In theory, this makes it sort of like BitCoin or other P2P platforms in that there is virtually no way to attack it or shut it down. It would also obviously be thoroughly decentralized.

Robles: "Was there any special reason for choosing the date December 21, 2012? Some people believe that on that date when all of the planets align and when the Mayan calendar ends, the world as we know it will end."

Anonymous: Yes the date was chosen to align with the Mayan end of the world myth. However, this was done for publicity reasons - not because any of us actually believe the myth.

Robles: "What is the current status of all of the members of Anonymous who were indicted in the US? Can you give us details about where their cases currently stand?"

Anonymous: I will answer the best that I can, however there are others that can answer this question better, such as Jay Leiderman and attorney in California who acts as an un-official legal liaison for Anonymous. And there is an online tracker deployed that follows all the arrests of Anons around the world. But I will share what I know.

The "Anonymous 16" in the USA; this group has one thing in common, they are all indicted for conspiracy, aiding and abetting and participating in Cyber-Sit Ins or DdoS attacks on political targets. One individual is indicted for organizing and facilitating a DdoS campaign against the web assets of the rock musician Gene Simmons of the band KISS for his staunch support of anti-piracy laws and policies. I have no idea where his case stands, but I know that Simmons has openly boasted of his arrest and prosecution. Another individual, known as "Commander X" aka Christopher Mark Doyon - stands indicted for organizing and participating in a DdoS of the Santa Cruz County (California) website in defense of local protesters being oppressed. His prosecution is on hold because he has, rather publicly - fled into political exile in Canada due to the indictment. The remaining 14 individuals are sometimes called separately the "PayPal 14" as they are all indicted for conspiracy, aiding and abetting and participating in the very famous DdoS attack on PayPal in defense of WikiLeaks. Their trial is, much like Bradley Manning's trial – being extremely dragged out by the US prosecutors. It has been over a year since the process began winding it's way through the courts and they are no closer to the trial itself.

Jerremy Hammond, who is alleged to have been part of the LulzSec/AntiSec hacking crew and also an Anon stands indicted for among other things breaching the servers of the private intelligence firm Stratfor and liberating the so called "GI Files" which consisted basically of Stratfor's E-Mail spool. Those files are now featured on WikiLeaks.

Hammond was denied bail, and as with the other Anons his legal process is painfully slow while he languishes in custody. Hammond remains defiant, and will challenge the case to the end I believe.

Another AntiSec hacker known as Neuron recently plead guilty to charges related to the Anonymous breach of the Sony servers in 2011. He is awaiting sentencing. There are several other cases involving LulzSec and another hacking crew called CabinCrew of which I am not familiar.

This is the end of part 1 of the interview…Stay tuned, more to come!

Just an update on WikiLeaks: I have been in regular contact with WikiLeaks number 2, Kristinn Hrafnsson, for the last few months and have conducted several interviews with him which were published here on the Voice of Russia and aired on the Voice of Russia radio. However since the paywall appeared and we published the press release detailing Assange’s wishes to influence the US Presidential Elections, WikiLeaks and Hrafnsson have gone completely silent. We can speculate but we won’t. We have been unable to get a comment from them in any form. I will keep you all up to date if this changes.

Interview Part 2

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_22/Anonymous-hacktivists-to-launch-TYLER-WikiLeaks-on-steroids-EXCLUSIVE-interview-part-1/

Jar2

20 October 2012, 21:49  

Anonymous

Anonymous Speaks Up

John Robles 

Anonymous speaks up

Anonymous spoke out after the publication of my last piece on the WikiLeaks-Anonymous breakup and it does not look as if there will be any “kissing and making up” this time. In fact Anonymous is soon to release TYLER which, for all intents and purposes, may spell the end for WikiLeaks.

The plot thickens in the Anonymous/WikiLeaks break up. Yesterday I wrote a piece on the falling out between WikiLeaks and Anonymous at the end of which I asked Anonymous or WikiLeaks to contact me, my readers have asked to let them know if I hear from them, which I have, so here is the follow up.

I am still waiting for an answer from Hrafnsson and WikiLeaks and quite frankly I am a little concerned. However Anonymous was kind enough to answer within hours after the publication of my article with no attempts by me at finding them. They found me themselves in a very impressive and prompt manner.

My contact with them was very cordial and the members I communicated with were very polite and well-mannered. To begin with they were kind enough to point out to me that their position was made clear in their official press release on the WikiLeaks paywall matter, which anyone interested in the matter should take a few minutes to read. The press release details some of the activities that the group took to defend WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the level of sacrifice that they have shown pales in comparison to a request to get rid of a paywall.

Their actions against MasterCard Visa and Paypal in support of WikiLeaks ended with 14 members all facing 15 year sentences, Jeremy Hammond who provided the Stratfor Global Intelligence files in prison facing 20 years, Bradley Manning facing life and the list goes on.

Anonymous has taken issue with the fact that not a single member of WikiLeaks has been prosecuted except for Assange whom they referred to as the besieged leader. The problem with the paywall is that the information was supposed to be provided to the people, you and me, for free and they say the paywall is an attempt to “sell” the information.

Anonymous is also upset that the focus has been taken away from the “leaks” and is now only on Assange and WikiLeaks. In their statement they say, “We will NOT attack the web assets of WikiLeaks, as they are media. We do not attack media. Any future attack on the WikiLeaks servers attributed to Anonymous is a lie. But what we will do is cease from this day all support of any kind for WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. No longer will Anonymous risk prison to defend WikiLeaks or Julian Assange from their enemies. No longer will Anonymous risk prison to supply material for WikiLeaks disclosures. Anonymous turns it's back on WikiLeaks.”

Anonymous also promises to release secret files about WikiLeaks in the next few days. We will wait and see what those are.

In one of my contacts with Anonymous one of the Hacktivists said, and I quote: “Anonymous isn't a centralized entity, so any statement saying ‘Anonymous does/does not support X’ is utterly without meaning. …some people who claim to be spokespeople for Anonymous say they no longer support Wikileaks. This implies a fundamental misunderstanding of what Anonymous is.”

Anonymous did fill me in on Project Mayhem 2012 which will go ahead without WikiLeaks. One of the main aspects of the project which is designed to expose corruption malfeasance and counter internet censorship is called TYLER, which is to go out of beta testing mode on November the 5th (Guy Fawkes Day) and go live on December 21, 2012 (End of Mayan calendar and some say end of the world day).

TYLER will be like WikiLeaks on steroids according to Anonymous. The structure of the system will be massive, encrypted and completely decentralized. Its structure will also be impregnable to censorship and it will not require the massive funds WikiLeaks has needed to operate. They claim it will require no money.

TYLER is just a small part of Project Mayhem and is in response to the United States government and its Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Anonymous said that before December 21st, “all insiders, moles, and whistleblowers worldwide will release an unprecedented amount of corporate, financial, military and state leaks onto TYLER."

Finally Anonymous reminded me that they are not represented by single entity and never will be. “The power of Anonymous comes from the Hivemind not any individual. Whover states the contrary is trying to use the name of Anonymous for a personal agenda, whatever that might be or trying to misinform the public.

Unfortunately for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange the launching of TYLER and the loss of their most powerful supporter and largest source may spell their demise. I was hoping this wasn’t true but it really looks like there will be no kissing and making up this time.

Thanks to Anonymous for taking the time to contact me and fill me in on the developments, I am still waiting for a response from WikiLeaks and would love to hear their side on this. Will keep you all informed, lot’s of things on the back burner.

Any opinions or views expressed herein are those of the author. He can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Update:  I was contacted by Anonymous due to the fact that I did not make it clear enough that: I quote "a) There is no official Anonymous position on Wikileaks b) TYLER will be out in order to circumvent the problems wikileaks pose namely: having a herarchy and therefore a head to attack c) conversely Anonymous does not have a head to attack and if anyone states to be the leader or talk for Anonymous then they're fundamentaly misunderstanding what Anonymous is (in most cases willingly) which means infiltration." 

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_20/Anonymous-speaks-up/

Jar2 

19 October 2012, 14:39  

US Bars Green Party Candidates from Debates: It's a One Party System

Cheri Honkala - Vice Presidential Candidate

‘US bars Green Party candidates from debates: it's a one party system - Honkala part 2

Download audio file

Cheri Honkala, the vice-presidential candidate with the Green Party in the US talks to the VoR touching on Bradley Manning trial and the horrible things that the US military engages in, world climate crisis, green energy, and the reason the US bars independent election observers being voter fraud.

Interview - Part 1

 

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Cheri_Honkala.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_19/US-bars-Green-Party-candidates-from-participating-in-debates-because-people-are-ready-for-real-change-in-this-country-part-2/

Jar2

19 October 2012, 13:51  

WikiLeaks and Anonymous: Will they kiss and make up?

John Robles

WikiLeaks and Anonymous: Will they kiss and make up?

Anonymous has pulled support for WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has met with Lady Gaga, I have interviewed dozens of WikiLeaks supporters, WikiLeaks number 2 has gone incommunicado and Bradley Manning is facing the beast on his own. Those are just some of the developments in the case of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that Voice of Russia is commenting on.

It is truly a difficult call to make for some and an easy one for others. I myself have decided to stay neutral on this one for the time being. What I am talking about is the apparent divorce between Anonymous and WikiLeaks.

Before sitting down to write this I attempted to contact Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks number two, in order to get his reaction and comments to the news that Anonymous had pulled all support for WikiLeaks. Unfortunately he has become unavailable and has not returned my calls or text messages. A little disconcerting since I have done so many interviews with him and with people who support WikiLeaks.

What to make of it I am not sure, but I do know that there is a lot that is going on behind the scenes and it is possible and highly likely that there is a good explanation for WikiLeaks’ silence. For all we know the WikiLeaks principle has been told not to contact anyone or has been secretly taken somewhere or worse, although we will sit and wait before we start endless hypothesizing. Maybe he just went on vacation or is super busy?

What we do know is that the so called “paywall” is still present on many of the Global Intelligence Files at WikiLeaks, including ones I have written articles about and ones we linked to here at the Voice of Russia. So what is the problem? Well the problem is an ethical one and it is not made an easier by the nature of the paywall.

I wrote to WikiLeaks and asked them to at least put an X in the upper right corner so that people could close it, but the only way for the average user to get around it is to press the donate button. Julian Assnage and WikiLeaks claim to have Twittered a workaround that involves deleting temporary internet files or disabling java, something the average user, who is the exact person who needs to be presented with some truth, would have some difficulty in doing.

Anonymous is against it and has pulled support of WikiLeaks for this and several other reasons. So, first we have the appearance of the paywall, second was a dinner Assange had with Lady Gaga, a truly weird event from anyone’s point of view, and the third was the fact that WikiLeaks, according to Anonymous, has strayed from the mission and has become, as they put it “The Assange Show”.

Other complaints by Anonymous surround the fact that close to a dozen of their hacktivists are currently locked up or facing long prison terms, Bradley Manning has been tortured and is facing life in prison if not worse, and dozens of people who have associated with, helped, provided documents to or communicated with WikiLeaks have been arrested or have faced a myriad variety of different problems because of their association with WikiLeaks, including arbitrary arrest, seizure of equipment, denial of freedom of movement and more, all of this for material on WikiLeaks and for assisting WikiLeaks in their stated and honorable mission to get to the truth out.

Another problem Anonymous has with all this is that no one at Wikileaks has been arrested, is facing prison time or has been subjected to arbitrary punishment other than Julian Assange. Who is not openly wanted for anything having to do with WikiLeaks. Whether this is by special design of the US Government or not, it does not look good for WikiLeaks.

Back to the paywall, Anonymous may be justifiably upset, they are not in the game for the money. They are activists who are interested in getting the truth to the masses. Unfortunately we live in a world where it is impossible to live without money and some sites are forced to try to raise funds to keep going. WikiLeaks needs money to operate and to fight all of their court battles. This has been an ethical problem with other whistleblower sites as well.

For example my own site has never made a dime and I am truly independent in publishing whatever I want on it, yet without funds for writers and developers and multiple hosting and promotion sites such as mine have little chance of competing with the big boys like WikiLeaks. This is the problem. When a site is being commercially or otherwise funded then its credibility and independence may be brought into question. Sites that are dependent on funding have to make sure they do not do anything to displease their paymasters.

WikiLeaks is not funded but is attempting to make money from the material they are providing, they must do so to survive, and this is an unfortunate reality. For Anonymous it sheds a bad light on the material that they are fighting to get out to the whole world. They are doing so for free at a great cost to themselves in order to get the truth out about crimes being committed by governments and corporations to the masses.

The fact that WikiLeaks chose to put up the paywall on Anonymous provided material is quite frankly an odd one as far as I am concerned and hopefully Kristinn may clear that up in the near future.

Meanwhile poor Bradley Manning is facing the beast on his own and is looking at, among other things, “aiding the enemy” charges. That enemy being WikiLeaks.

Hopefully the unifying factor of “getting the truth out” will allow WikiLeaks and Anonymous to “kiss and make up” and hopefully, as I am almost certain is not the case, WikiLeaks is not only in it for the money.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are my own, I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

 P.S. Would love to hear from Anonymous and Kristinn, please answer your e-mails.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_19/WikiLeaks-and-Anonymous-Will-they-kiss-and-make-up/

Jar2

18 October 2012, 11:17  

US Handcuffs Presidential Candidates to a Metal Chair for 8 Hours to Keep Them from Debate

Cheri Honkala - Vice Presidential Candidate

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/18/1289754989/220px-Cheri_Honkala%5b1%5d.jpg US handcuffs Presidential Candidates to a metal chair for 8 hours - interview with Cheri Honkala+

Moved Here http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Cheri_Honkala.html

Download audio file

US Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Cheri Honkala spoke with the Voice of Russia regarding the arrest of the Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein and herself and the subsequent holding in a "secret" warehouse for attempting to enquire as to why they were prevented from taking part in the US Presidential Election Debates, a pressing matter, as there is a mathematical possibility they could win the election.

Interview - Part 2

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_18/US-arrests-and-hides-Presidential-Candidates-interview-with-Cheri-Honkala/

Jar2

17 October 2012, 11:39  

Clinton’s Utter Failure and Pleas for Russia to Help

John Robles

Hillary Clinton admits the security failure in Benghazi was her fault, although not mentioning decades of US meddling in the Muslim world, in a move more likely than not engineered to deflect negativity from Obama as he fights for re-election. As if to underline her failure as Secretary of State the US has also pleaded with Russia to do more to solve the situation in Syria. In the meanwhile US candidates who may bring about real change in US (Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala) are being arrested.

If you have been around for a while you all recall the famous Bill Clinton tradition of flip-flopping and trying to play to everyone in the room. Well that Clinton tradition seems to be alive and well and living in Benghazi, Libya, metaphorically speaking of course.

Bill is back, or at least he has made enough noise to get some press, this time up in arms and really upset because the Clinton dream of making Hillary the first female US President may be at risk, if you believe that she really has a chance after a dismal career as Secretary of State. We should recall that the post was her consolation prize for helping out Obama on his becoming the first black US President.

According to author Ed Klein in an interview with The Daily Caller, a right-wing US media outlet, Bill Clinton has organized a legal team to decide how to deal with Hillary being blamed for the Benghazi attack. This was at about the same time White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters the blame lies with the State Department and not the White House.

According to Klein the worst case scenario for the Clintons would have Hillary resigning from her post, something that would damage not only Obama’s re-election chances but her presidential aspirations for 2016.

Behind the scenes the Clintons are fighting for their grip on power and decisions are being made not only to protect Hillary from the fallout from Benghazi but to protect Obama’s re-elections bid. Something which has prompted Clinton to now take full responsibility for the “security failure” in Benghazi, Libya, and to say that Obama was in no way involved in “mission security” issues.

To say that Hillary Clinton has failed as Secretary of State might be a harsh assessment, given the disastrous state of affairs she was passed on by her predecessor, but in reality failure might be the only word that fits. The day when Muammar Kaddafi was brutally murdered in the street, and Clinton joyously proclaimed, “We came, we saw, he died!” is over. Any victory the US could have claimed in Libya is dead and gone, unless we talk about oil deals and the like, which of course was the real reason for the invasion of Libya, wasn’t it?

The same can be said for the advancement of US interests and US meddling in every country the US has attempted to garner control: Iraq “failure”, Iran “failure”, the Arab Spring countries “failure”, Russia and attempts at undermining President Putin “failure”, Afghanistan “failure”, Pakistan “failure”, Venezuela “failure” and now Libya “failure”.

Hold on, I am not finished, as if to add a thick oozing coat of icing to the rotting and putrid cake of failure, US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland recently stated that the United States hopes Russia will get more involved in the settlement of the Syrian conflict.

Nuland said: “They have influence that we don’t have, since they have had these military relationships for so long, and we’d like to see them use it to pressure Assad…” Wow! Has someone in the US finally woken up and realized that it is in fact a multi-polar world and they can not go around dictating to everyone and “controlling the situation” everywhere they go?

This is the same State Department that called Russia “morally bankrupt” and falsely accused Russia of supplying weapons to Assad when they are funding and arming terrorists and sending them into Syria to kill anything that moves? Russia just kicked USAID out of the country and refused all pleas by the State Department to allow them to keep operating, that should have been a wake up call, and perhaps they are waking up, and finally realizing that they have no idea what they are doing. More than likely not but it’s a nice thought.

As if to further underline the morally bankrupt and completely corrupt system of “democracy” in the US and further evidence of how far those in power will go to stay there, last night US Green Presidential Candidate Jill Stein and Vice-Presidential Candidate Cheri Honkala, who I spoke to last month, were arrested while protesting their exclusion from the Presidential Debates.

They are on the ballots of many states and have the right to participate in the election process, this includes debates, yet the US two one-party system has continuously locked them out.

While the Clintons are hiring lawyers, Obama is now claiming responsibility for deaths of 4 US diplomats in Libya, Romney is promising an even worse world, US candidates who might bring about real change (the Green party candidates) are being arrested and NATO is ever escalating their grip all over the world; people are dying and going hungry and any hope there may have been for a better world is dying a slow and painful death.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_17/Clinton-s-utter-failure-and-pleas-for-Russia-to-help/ 

Jar2

 

USAID/CIA Supporting Dictators and Stifling Democracy

Doctor Stuart Bramhall

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/17/1289891026/2010_0128NZ20100071.JPG

Download audio file  16 October 2012, 14:49  

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Stuart_Bramhall.html

 Alright, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. You were listening to an interview with Stuart Bramhall. Thanks for listening.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_16/USAID-CIA-supporting-dictators-and-stifling-democracy-exclusive-interview/

Jar2 

15 October 2012, 14:44  

President Putin Attacked by West on His Birthday

John Robles

President Putin attacked by the West even on his birthday

This past week the western media just couldn’t seem to get enough of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. Rather than having the common decency and respect for an elected leader, the media jackals chose to use the occasion of the president’s birthday to deride and undermine.

The attacks on President Putin ranged from small one page articles to whole exposés featuring abundant photos and even video. There were many but I have had to choose only a few.

The most insidious article was written by Matt Blake and Leon Watson at the UK’s Daily Mail, the article was so long and attempted to cover so much ground that one is left with the feeling that the writers not only hate or are jealous of the Russian leader but have some deeply personal vendetta against him.

They start by implying that 60 years is old for a third term president, false. Do a Google search for “age of presidents” if you disagree. These are the same people who gave kudos to John McCain who at 72 would have been the oldest first-term president in history. The fact that President Putin is popular with young people is also portrayed as something “bad” although in the West this is always something viewed as being a positive. All of this was just in the lead.

Further, the article contains such statements as: “… grip on power appeared as tight as ever,” is this an inference to the fact that despite concerted attempts by the West to cause Russians to question his legitimacy he is still as popular as ever or are they implying the president of Russia should not be in control of the country? Does anyone say these things about Obama or the Queen?

Then they state: “…continues to paint himself as an adventure-loving sex-symbol that oozes machismo” as well as, “…the ultimate ladies’ man, waited on by a gaggle of long-legged women”, such statements attack the president for his excellent health, love of sports, and popularity with the ladies. What is wrong with that? Should he be popular with young men? Perhaps the writers, two young men themselves, are jealous? Maybe even overly so?

The article blasts President Putin for being: “…a tireless and no-nonsense leader contemptuous of domestic and international criticism”, I suppose he should follow Bush’s lead and go on vacation for most of his term or listen to everyone and then become a “flip-flopper” as the West labels those who change their policies every time they are criticized?

Then we have: “…he brushed aside concerns the two-year jail sentence for punk bank Pussy Riot was too severe”, he properly did so as the sentence was the decision of the court. Is Obama asked every time someone innocent “accidently” gets executed in the United States about his opinion?

The writers then deride the president for his position that if someone wants to criticize government policies or the way things work, let them offer a responsible alternative, rather than what the Western funded opposition do, which is attack and deride and offer no concrete option or basis for their attacks which are solely aimed at causing a riff in Russian society and bringing into question the legitimacy of the government (a key ingredient for a “color” revolution). They take issue with the fact that: “…he welcomes opposing views, but that they should come from people willing to take responsibility for running the country.”

Further it only gets worse, they repeat the above groundless claims, in an apparent attempt at: “if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes true” and they cite a “wave of satire” which has hurt his “macho image”, something no one in Russia has seen, perhaps they know Russia better than Russians do?

The way the writers use the term “KGB Spy” as something terrible, is so cliché and cold-war that it is laughable. First off many western presidents and leaders have had ties to the CIA and Mi-5/6, yet they are never derided for it, secondly President Putin was a KGB Officer, not a “spy”! A spy is someone who passes information or performs other functions obtained under a false cover. Either they don’t know what a spy is, or they failed to do their homework.

The Guardian took issue with President Putin supporting the decision of the court in the case of Pussy Riot and played on the assumption that he has influence over court decision undermining the legitimacy of the Russian judiciary. They claim his popularity is dropping by citing unnamed and unknown polls.

Forbes once again, as the West loves to do, paints a picture of convicted serial tax-evader Mikhail Khodorkovsky as a “prisoner of conscience” and takes issue with his 12 year sentence. First of all for similar crimes in the US someone would no doubt be locked up for multiple life terms, second of all how in the world can someone convicted of the crimes he was convicted for be called a “prisoner of conscience”? Does this mean that all of us citizens of the world can stop paying taxes and gain the protection of Amnesty International? Please Louise!

Forbes also attacks President Putin and claims Khodorkovsky would have to get on his knees for a pardon, although President Putin generously said if Khodorkovsky files a petition for an appeal it would be looked at amicably. Forbes claiming that filing a petition for an appeal is the equivalent to “Khodorkovsky getting on his knees” is ignoring the fact that a petition is required in any case before there can be any chance of an appeal being granted by the president.

I wonder what the reaction in the West would be if we started attacking their presidents?

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_15/President-Putin-attacked-by-the-West-even-on-his-birthday/

Jar2

15 October 2012, 14:17  

NATO Pushes Erdogan into a “Saakashvili”

John Robles

Did NATO push Erdogan into a “Saakashvili”?

In the grounding and confiscation of part of the cargo of a passenger jet flying from Moscow to Syria and the beating of passengers and crew, many say Turkey committed an illegal act of air-piracy. Has Ankara now decided to take on Moscow? Not likely, but things are not always as they seem, and the hand of NATO and the US are more than just discernable here.

Turkey’s forced grounding of a Syrian Air Airbus A320, with approximately 30 passengers on board has been called an act of air-piracy by the Syrian authorities and Russia has stated the search and seizure of part of the cargo were illegal. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the incident endangered the lives of Russian citizens aboard the plane. Lavrov has also reiterated that Moscow is still waiting for an official explanation from Turkey as to why it refused to allow Russian diplomats aboard the plane to meet with the passengers and crew.

For Turkey it is one thing that it continuously occupies Northern Iraq and that it has decided to launch attacks into Syria but it is a whole nother game when it decides to openly take on the Russian Federation, which like it or not is still a powerful superpower and one which Turkey depends on for everything from gas to tourism.

Russia is also not indifferent to Turkey and has worked with Turkey for years on a number of fronts including plans for a section of the South Stream gas pipeline and plans to assist Turkey in building its first nuclear power plant, both very important projects for both countries and not likely to be affected by this single incident, according to statements by officials on both sides, including Foreign Minister Lavrov.

What is troubling is that Turkey would so openly and blatantly commit such a provocative act right in front of the eyes of the entire world as if daring Russia to react and seeming to challenge the authority of the superpower. What one has to wonder is what has emboldened Turkey to such a point. Could it be that Turkey was pushed into doing so by NATO to test the waters for the invasion of Syria that they so crave? That is one possibility.

Another possibility as to the reasons behind the attack which the world’s press has not looked at but which to me seems quite possible is that Turkey and NATO were after the technology on the plane. It is critical to recall that NATO believes it was Russian Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air defensive missile technology which uses the latest cutting edge system of phased-array radar for both target acquisition and tracking, which was responsible for taking out the Turkish American-made F-4 Phantom on June 22nd.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated and media outlets are reporting that there was dual-use radar equipment parts on the plane, all shipped legally and not in any violation of current international conventions. We can postulate, that perhaps the Turkish side and their NATO and CIA intelligence contacts believed that these parts were for air-defense systems being used or upgraded by Syria. This would explain why Turkey took such a risk.

If NATO and the US are preparing for an invasion of Syria, then one of the first things they need to knock out are the country’s radar and air-defense systems. If the F-4 Phantom was a test run, then Western technology proved to be impotent in evading Syrian air defenses and Russian technology.

The fact that Turkey so openly and blatantly committed such an illegal act, points to the fact that there are other hands behind this than what we are all privy to and as we know NATO and the US are for the most part calling all the shots in Turkey. Shall we once again recall Obama and his baseball bat?

Underlining the illegality of Turkey’s actions and the fact that they knew they were acting illegally are several events that occurred on the plane and several facts surrounding the incident. 1: the crew and passengers were beaten, 2: the Turkish side attempted to force the passengers and crew to sign documents saying the plane made an emergency landing, 3: the documents did not mention that the military aircraft were used to ground the plane and the crew and passengers were ordered not to mention them, 4: Russian diplomats were not allowed onto the plane to provide assistance to Russian citizens and 5: the plane was released without part of the cargo on board, which amounts to an act of air-piracy and theft as the parts were being shipped legally and were properly documented.

Depending on what exactly was on board it might take days to weeks for the parts to be copied, studied or tampered with depending on what the goal of the operation is, and have no doubt this was an “operation”. Everything from Erdogan’s statements about “intelligence”, to military personal who beat passengers, to military air-craft being used to force the Airbus A320 passenger jet to the ground, to the already prepared witness statements, point to a carefully planned operation.

Logic tells us that it is highly-unlikely that Turkey, independently, would take on Russia. Turkey in this case is clearly being manipulated and used by the US and NATO, both now and as the fall-guy for the upcoming invasion of Syria. We should recall that arms, mercenaries and terrorists are being spring-boarded into Syria from Turkish bases, and even the mortar that recently killed the Turkish citizens on the border allowing Turkey to begin shelling inside Syrian territory was NATO issue.

Obama and his baseball bat made it clear to the world who is pulling the strings in Turkey, and like in Georgia, the West’s military intentions for the region are clear. Turkey, like Georgia, has become emboldened and reckless in its bid to please its western “partners”, maybe it is time for the Turkish opposition and the Turkish people to step up to the plate and decide they will not be the fall-guy and the patsy in another resource invasion by Washington? Or maybe not.

The opinions and views expressed here are the writer’s own and based on current available data. He can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_15/Did-NATO-push-Erdogan-into-a-Saakashvili/

Jar2

14 October 2012, 14:30  

Benghazi Attack on Largest CIA Regional Operation, Steven’s Death Simply Collateral

John Robles

Benghazi attack on largest CIA regional operation, Steven’s death collateral

While the US continues to debate and determine whom to blame and what “failures” led to the attack on the US Embassy compound and CIA safe house in Benghazi, nowhere is anyone considering the fact the event was the result of US meddling into the affairs of foreign states or the fact it was the US who is responsible for the death of Libya’s former leader.

The intelligence and security failure at the United States Embassy Compound in Benghazi Libya is being spun in so many different ways by the US press and politicians all with an agenda of their own to promote, and even with the deaths of 4 people involved, they are still refusing to look at the real root causes which led to the disaster.

Once again the US Government has obfuscated, passed the buck and continued to propagate versions of the event that are contradictory and have little basis in fact, something obvious as their statements are continuously revealed to be false, and that is just from what has been put out there in the media.

What really happened in Benghazi was the result of long running US meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations and in particular in the Muslim world. An area they have shown time and time they have no clear understanding about and even less respect for. The attack in Benghazi was an attack on one of the CIA’s largest operations in the region. This is clear from the fact that Steven’s death was a secondary event in the attack on the compound. They attackers were after what was in the compound, not Stevens.

This was also underlined by the fact that over half of the US personnel evacuated from Benghazi were CIA, the sheer number of them surprising even to Libyan officials and the fact that a CIA safe house was also attacked at the same time.

The most conclusive evidence we have as to the nature of the attack was what was taken from the embassy compound. The UK’s Independent reported that: “… missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans… while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.” The same article states that the US knew 48 hours before the attack that American missions could be attacked but failed to do anything about it.

We have heard so many versions starting with the assessment that the incident in Benghazi was not a pre-planned organized attack by Hillary Clinton and her State Department, then “To this day, we do not have a complete picture.” and even statements that it may have been an inside job by rogue CIA Libyan agents and CIA paid Al-Qaeda terrorists, and everything in between, that it is clear they have no idea what happened and underlines their complete disconnect with the countries they are involved with.

The US media and the US government have completely missed the entire point and in their self-serving myopia and have failed to honor their dead with the truth and look at the real cause behind the Benghazi incident. Not the situational and technical causes but the real root cause.

Russia’s Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov may have been brutally honest in the wording of his assessment of the incident and was taken out of context but he was right in painting the event as something other than the US being an “innocent” victim. Something the West loves to do when the deaths of US citizens are involved in any event.

Sure the act was abhorrent, abysmal and in no way should be excused, but why is it that the world should be outraged every time something happens to Americans and every time they die at the hands of terrorists or insurgents or the people they themselves are trying to kill?

Why is it that Americans can invade countries at will, engaging in illegal aggressive wars, and the world has no recourse? And the people who fight to protect their homelands are treated as terrorists and criminals and allowed to be taken to Guantanamo and tortured when the invaders who are killing their families and friends and loved ones and stealing their resources and destroying their homes and cities are allowed to walk around with impunity and kill and desecrate and murder and bomb endlessly at will?

If we are to believe the official US version of 9-11, that some “primitive Muslim terrorists”, and I say that because they are portrayed that way by Americans not because I believe that, then we are to believe that these Al-Qaeda operatives, from some cave in Afghanistan or wherever, planned the most precise controlled demolition in the history of mankind and took the lives of just under 3,000 Americans. Then this was also blowback for meddling in the Muslim world.

Regardless of who planned the 9-11 attacks who benefitted is clear however as the event allowed the US to begin its endless resource war against “terror”, but the world has grown up, and the holes in the official story are now part of dinner table conversation the world over.

The US has been meddling in Muslim countries for decades, and while the US is holding hearings and passing the blame back and forth to everyone and everything under the sun, no one is even thinking that perhaps the blame lies with the US itself and with American arrogance and naivety.

The Clinton’s are concerned, as they know it is Hillary’s aggressive in-your-face-do-what-we-say-or-die stance that contributed to the attack, even going so far as to organize a legal team in case she is blamed, according to the Daily Caller citing author Ed Klein: “… former President Bill Clinton is moving fast to develop a contingency plan for how his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should react if Obama attempts to tie the Benghazi fiasco around her neck.”

The US really believes that they can go anywhere in the world and bring about regime change wherever they want, extra-judicially execute whoever they want, eliminate leaders like dogs in the street, torture anyone in the name of their own “security”, kidnap and disappear anyone at will, bomb whatever country dares to show independence, invade and confiscate the resources of any country they desire, control and punish any country in the world into submission and dictate to absolutely everyone what they can and can’t do. Sadly for the imperial power this is increasingly not the case.

Americans believe the world welcomes them and wants to be like them and travel to America and live in the land of milk and honey and breathe free, something totally untrue yet self gratifying as they sit in the fumes of their degenerate, ignorant, polluted and segregated police state.

That meddling for decades in the Muslim world, engaging in an undeclared endless war against Muslims, extra-judicially executing Muslim leaders and invading Muslim countries never crosses the minds of Americans as a reason for anti-American incidents shows a complete lack of understanding of the people of the world and how the world really works and a complete unbelievable pompous self-righteous arrogance.

Why is it that, in the eyes of Americans and their “allies”, the father of a little Muslim kid in Afghanistan is worth less than an American soldier? Why is it that when Gaddafi was killed like a dog in the street and Hillary Clinton said “We came, we saw, he died” the world was supposed to accept that, yet when Stevens was drug along the street like a dog, we are supposed to go mad with grief and pity and outrage?

Sure Stevens knew there was a security problem, he was working “in country” he had dealings with Al-Qaeda and the mercenaries and insurgents who helped the US to take control of Libya, and assassinate Muamar Gadaffi but no one wanted to listen. Those responsible are not programmed to listen to such news, they honestly believe that Americans are welcomed wherever they go as the bringers of democracy and freedom and anything that does not fit that misconception can not be.

If the US were truly loved as liberators and the bringers of democracy, as they would like the world to believe, some politicians even painting the picture of the Benghazi incident as a sign of success, then in reality they would not need armed guards and security at all.

Sure Benghazi was an intelligence failure but the failure was not with the “Intelligence Community” but with the simple intelligence to understand that if you kill and attack and humiliate a people long enough they are going to hit back.

True success in the world is when you do not have to use force and weapons to fulfill your goals and make yourself respected and loved and when you are able to walk the streets without guards and truly be called a friend.


The views and opinions expressed here are the writer’s own, he can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_14/Benghazi-attack-on-largest-CIA-regional-operation-Steven-s-death-collateral/

Jar2 

13 October 2012, 16:46  

Gillard's Wikileaks Comments Defamatory

Greg Barns President Australian Lawyers Alliance

Gillard's Wikileaks comments defamatory - Australian Lawyers Alliance President

Download audio file

Greg Barns, the President of the Australian Lawyer's Alliance talks about the legal aspect of Assange's case and gives an Australian perspective on the case. He also calls Julia Gillard's comments 'defamatory' and points out that, from day one the Swedish Government and the Swedish prosecutors have behaved appallingly in this matter.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/13/1291366705/greg_barns.jpg

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Greg Barnes. He’s a barrister (or a lawyer) and the Director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, in Australia.

http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Greg_Barns.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_13/Mrs-Gillards-comments-have-a-defamatory-element-to-it-President-of-Australian-Lawyers-Alliance-on-WikiLeaks/

Jar2 

12 October 2012, 14:38  

WikiLeaks’s Possible Case Against Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Scott Ludlam - Senator

Download audio file

Australian Green Party Senator Scott Ludlam, granted the Voice of Russia an exclusive interview in which he discussed the possible case against Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the political aspects in Australia regarding Wikileaks, Julian Assange and whistleblowers.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/12/1291519302/scott-profile.png

I’d like to ask you your opinion about the possibility of Julian Assange suing Julia Gillard. Do you think this was a stunt or do you think there is a real possibility of this?

MOVED HERE http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Scott_Ludlum.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_12/WikiLeaks-s-possible-case-against-Australian-Prime-Minister-Julia-Gillard-Scott-Ludlam/

Jar2 

10 October 2012, 22:56  

Unlikely US Policeman who Punched Woman in Face Will Be Dismissed

John Robles

The case of the sucker-punch felt around the world appeared to be closed, with the brutal police officer responsible, Lieutenant Jonathan Josey,  in line to be fired, but things are not so simple when all of the cards are stacked in favor of the police and when the legal system defends and protects even brutal criminals as long as they are wearing a badge.

With all of the injustice and ugliness in the world sometimes it is nice to see someone finally get their just oats. The only problem is that when evil men do things they will usually do anything to get away with it.

This is all true in the case of Aida Guzman. A diminutive woman of Puerto Rican descent who was taking part in a parade and for no reason was sucker-punched in the face by a viscous cop twice her size. Her supposed crime throwing water on some police officers, or Silly String, depending on who you believe.

This case would not have gotten the international attention it has were it not for the videos that hit the net and went viral and if you have seen them and you believe your owns eyes then Aida Guzman did nothing, she was walking away when out of the blue she was punched in the face with so much force she went flying.

If the world were a just place, due to the existence of the video, then you would think the case was closed. After all there were no hidden previous actions, there were no blurred images, everything is plain as day, the ofgficer was criminally out-of-line, but things are not that simple. When the officer in question, a brutal sadistic individual who has been allowed to run unchecked for 19 years, has been protected for so long, there are those who would protect him longer.

The officer Lieutenant Jonathan Josey has been suspended for 30 days with the intent to dismiss, but will this happen? You would think so, but perhaps it won’t. According to Philly.com: “John McNesby, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, has said that the union would appeal the decision and that he was optimistic that Josey would get his job back.” Optimistic that the brutal beater of women would get his job back? Optimisitic?

The world is outraged, the woman was not charged with anything, Michael Nutter the Mayor of Philadelphia has apologized personally to the little lady, saying: “Every time I look at it, I am appalled, I am sickened, and I am ashamed on behalf of the good men and women of the Philadelphia Police Department,” and even the Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey has condemned the horrendously violent act. Horrendous in its brutality and the casual way it was inflicted.

Ramsey made the decision to fire Josey and has sated to the press that there is the possibility that Josey will face criminal charges. Not a very pleasant prospect for someone who has grown so accustomed to beating and abusing other under the color of law. It is highly unlikely Josey will have pleasant time in prison, they don’t like cops who beat defenseless women too much in the big house, so he should be worried.

Or should he? There are rules for the use of force, rules set by those who use the force. If you or I were to decide the answer to whether this officer who I have already detailed has a long history of violence is guilty, the answer would be a resounding yes! I hope, but according to Randy Lobasso who runs a blog at PhillyNow.com the rules may end up being in favor of the officer, depending on how they are applied.

According to LoBasso: The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania issued a statement from executive director Reggie Shuford which said: “I was shocked when I saw the video of what happened. I saw absolutely nothing that justified the use of such extreme force to take this woman down. I can’t imagine the officer’s actions comported with departmental policy. If so, that policy needs to be changed immediately.”

In statement’s to the press Guzman’s attorney Enrique Latoison said Guzman is thankful for Nutter's apology and that it was what she had been hoping for. Whether they will sue or press charges remains to be seen.

What also remains to be seen is whether Josey will once again get away with murder. According to John McNesby, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, the answer to the question “Is beating women acceptable to US police?”which I used as the title for my last piece on this matter, is a resounding yes.

Will keep you updated.

The writer can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_10/Will-US-policeman-who-beat-a-woman-be-dismissed/

Jar2 

9 October 2012, 19:11  

NATO Invasion of Syria: Coming Soon, Rated XXX

John Robles

NATO invasion of Syria: coming soon, rated X

The stage is set, the NATO forces are in position and authorization has been given, now all it will take is a little spark to ignite the powder keg that is the Middle East. The West needs a middle-man, a reason to invade Syria, and Turkey is that tool. Statements by both NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Turkish Parliament come as a proof.

Remember about a month ago when US President Barack Obama phoned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and they spoke about Syria and Obama was photographed sitting behind his desk holding a baseball bat? Well it was a sign, and from sign to action takes time, after all we are talking about invading a sovereign nation to eradicate its leader. Well time is coming, all the signs are there.

One of them is the recent authorization by the Turkish Parliament granting Erdogan the power to send Turkish troops into “foreign” countries, meaning Syria. Another is the now open bombing by Turkey of its Syrian neighbor and yet another are statements and preparations by NATO and the West.

Rick Rozoff at Stop NATO cites one such statement by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen who stated: “I can assure you we have all necessary plans in place to defend and protect Turkey, our ally.” This came after an unprecedented late-night meeting after Turkey began its cross border bombing of Syria, after which NATO stated: "In view of the Syrian regime’s recent aggressive acts at NATO’s southeastern border, which are a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies, the North Atlantic Council met today, within the framework of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty..."

According to Rick Rozoff at Stop NATO “A week ago the top military commander of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis, paid an unannounced visit to the Turkish capital to meet with Chief of General Staff General Necdet Özel and Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz.” All of this and the mobilization of what is becoming an invasion size force along the Syrian border leaves little doubt what is soon to come.

Iranian media is filled with reports of NATO’s intentions, with the FARS News Agency reporting that Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader stated that: “NATO is preparing the ground for military intervention in Syria under the pretext that the security of Turkey, which is a NATO member, has been threatened.”

The Trend News website quotes Ali Akbar Velayati as saying: “Certain Western countries are seeking to drag NATO into regional issues. The West is digging a hole so that Turkey, Syria, and the entire region will become stuck in it and the Islamic Awakening will be overshadowed. Regional countries, including Syria, Turkey, and Iraq, should remain vigilant because the United States and its allies have plots for regional countries."

In an interview for the Voice of Russia Rick Rozoff also made it point to underline the fact that: “…only hours before the shelling incident that has provided Turkey the occasion for authorizing ongoing military attacks inside Syria, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told reporters in Moscow that Russia had warned NATO and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) against conspiring to manufacture pretexts for military intervention inside Syria such as demanding so-called humanitarian corridors or buffer zones inside the latter nation and launching armed provocations on the Turkish-Syrian border.”

The fact that NATO and the West are known to openly wish to invade a country under any pretext should set off alarm bells and cause an international uproar, but after they got away with it in Afhgnaistan, Iraq and Libya, it seems that the world has become calloused and accustomed to such crimes against humanity.

Why does the United States and its surrogate want to invade Syria and take control of countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Antarctica and even Venezuela? It has nothing to do with democracy or human rights or removing despotic dictators it has to do with oil.

As Michael Collins at OpEdNews

said despite the situation being a complex one, the US and the NATO countries are the world’s biggest oil addicts and they will do anything to keep their dealers happy and ensure that they get their fix.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_09/NATO-invasion-of-Syria-coming-soon-rated-X/

Jar2 

9 October 2012, 14:08  

Chávez Wins to the Displeasure of the West

John Robles

Chávez wins to the displeasure of the West

President of Venezuela Hugo Chávez has won the presidential elections with a comfortable lead over his rival in an election many were calling a choice between socialism and capitalism, in the South American country socialism won, to the great displeasure of the West. What the election means for the future of Russian-Venezuelan relations is a continuing and strengthening of close ties and cooperation on all fronts.

This cooperation is something the West and those in Washington’s sphere of influence may not be pleased with. This includes social and cultural collaboration, energy production and the development of energy resources, business, manufacturing, agricultural and scientific development and lastly cooperation in the areas of military development and cooperation.

Speaking to ecstatic supporters gathered around the presidential palace on the eve of his clear victory in the national elections, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez declared that "Venezuela will continue along the path of democratic and Bolivarian socialism of the 21st century."

In an election that many in the West saw as a referendum pitting the ideals of socialism against those of capitalism, the people of Venezuela made their choice loud and clear, and they are happy with the path of Democratic Socialism that Chávez has been the champion of.

Shortly after the election results became clear Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with the leader and congratulated the charismatic Chávez wishing him continued success in the post of president.

During the course of the conversation both leaders gave high marks to the level of mutually beneficial cooperation that has been reached by both countries and confirmed Russian and Venezuela’s shared aim to further strengthen what have traditionally been friendly relations.

The leaders also spoke about further developing and completing many joint plans and stated their commitment to continuing the constructive dialogue between the governments of both countries at all levels.

On the other side of the spectrum the reaction from the West was far from warm, with the White House reacting faster than it did when President Putin was re-elected but not congratulating the elected leader himself. The frosty reaction from the White House to the leader who not long ago said he supported US President Barack Obama came in the form of a terse press statement congratulating the Venezuelan people and not Chávez himself.

As one of the few countries left in the world which pursues a robust and independent foreign policy agenda and internal policies which are far from those which Washington would characterize as being in keeping with their own self-serving interests, Venezuela has found itself increasingly in Washington’s sights. Recently it has even been openly discussed, albeit in hushed tones, that the West may have plans to eliminate Hugo Chávez and even launch military aggression against the Opec Member.

In the field of energy alone Venezuela has been a thorn-in-the-side of the US for a long time with Washington displeased over many of the policies and practices of state controlled oil company PDVSA, including what it sees as “discount” prices offered to the country’s “Socialist Allies”.

Venezuela has some of the largest oil reserves in the world and the West is displeased that they are not able to get their hands on the pie as much as they would like to. On Monday analysts at J.P. Morgan predicted that the win by Chávez would further stifle foreign investment, meaning there will be much less possibility of the West getting their share of Venezuela’s riches.

  Experts and analysts from all the over the world may also see the win by Chávez as a cementing of his position on the US list for regime change with many continuing to say that after Syria and Iran Venezuela will be next.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_09/Chavez-wins-to-the-displeasure-of-the-West/

Jar2 

7 October 2012, 21:51  

Russia in the Biased Media: Report on Chieftains, Trees and Religious Hatred

John Robles

In this installment of the Media-Bias series we look at more twisting of the facts, omission of the context, and sheer fabrications, in attacks on Russia involving the infamous group Pussy Riot. In another piece the elected President of Russia is once again demonized and the Russian people are portrayed as ignorant simplistic slaves. Russians are not slaves to anyone, and yes, there is democracy in Russia.

In yet another piece of “balanced reporting” by the Washington Post titled “Shoring up Putin in Russian countryside” another attack on Russia’s elected leader and the Russian Government, we once again see the same lack of context and omission of facts, the use of clichés and half-truths, and the stretching and manipulation of facts to make yet another event appear sinister and evil and a sign of some Machiavellian machinations by President Putin’s Government.

The writer, Kathy Lally, immediately draws a black foreboding cloud over her canvas of Russia by calling the elected head of the local administration in Izhevsk a “local chieftain”, she then goes on to claim as fact ridiculous “events’ that barely deserve the attention to be repeated but as they appear in such a respected publication demand retraction.

Calling the head of the local administration a chieftain, as if they are running around in fields living in tents is one thing, but stating as fact that the Head of the Republic of Udmurtia, walks around with a notebook with election percentage results for the United Russia Party and makes decisions regarding social programs and government projects based on the results, is insulting, scandalous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the facts and reality. What is more it shows a complete disregard for journalistic ethics and a propensity for creating facts to suit the message.

The big story for the writer is a project to build a road and facilitate parking in the courtyard between several buildings which required the cutting down of some trees. One of the buildings houses government offices allowing the writer to target the project. What she does not mention that beyond the courtyard where the trees are that need to be cut down there are thousands of trees and city itself is surrounded by thousands of kilometers of forests.

The writer also claims that when she harassed a local opposition candidate who refused to talk to her and then she presented herself at his offices anyway, he told her that “he could be barred from the ballot if anyone photographed him talking with an American”. Something that would be true for an American politician as well if he were photographed secretly speaking to “Russians”. The fact that he did not want to talk to a questionable reporter writing a smear piece on Russia never enters her mind.

Lastly she claims that the city manager of Izhevsk told veterans that funding depends on the how United Russia did in their districts, another fantasy provocation and twisting of reality.

Sure United Russia may be involved in running the government, they campaigned in elections, won seats, and took part in the democratic electoral process but no matter how you want to paint it, the fact is that the government is not being run “for” the United Russia Party, as many hacks in the West want to portray, part of it may be being run “by” them, and if voters are unhappy they will be voted out.

Russians are not slaves to anyone, and there is democracy in Russia. One last point the writer made is citing the banning of USAID from Russia and painting this as some move by Putin. She ignores the facts about USAID and the subversive activities they fund all over the world, and sees the CIA Front through her US Government Issued rose-colored-glasses. It is critical to note that this was a decision by the Foreign Ministry and the Russian Government, not a personal one by the President. And really? What right does USAID have to subvert governments in the first place.

Moving on:

Another key phrase in stories we will touch upon in today’s media bias piece is one we see time and again and one the West loves to use all the time when pointing their fingers at others, that phrase is “Witch Hunt”. The phrase is once again used in yet another article in the Western press about the group “Pussy Riot” a group created by Western backers to bring about a divide in Russian society and to cause the questioning of the legitimacy of the Russian Government by the people.

It is important to note that even their name was created for a Western audience, and like their Ukrainian counterparts FEMEN their provocative slogans are for some “strange reason” always written in English. The first article in question, like almost all on the topic, again ignores all of the facts in the case and the activities of the members of the group before they were finally arrested and fails to take into account the context and the rage at their “stunt” justifiably felt by the majority.

Anna Nemtsova in a piece for the Daily Beast claims that the political youth group Nashi was hunting for the remaining members of Pussy Riot. She says that the group has a special investigative unit headed by Konstantin Goloskov which offered a reward for the names and addresses of the remaining members who are hiding from police. The writer is obviously unaware that such information has been available on the Russian net for a long time but I guess that is not important.

The fact that the group may be assisting the police is of course portrayed as something bad and evil, as if the group is being unfairly persecuted for their “innocent” deeds, which include being filmed have sex in a museum, and ignores the fact that if what she writes is true then this shows broad widespread displeasure by the populace in general with the activities of the group in question.

Nemtsova portrays the youth group Nashi as some sort of evil part of “Putin’s internal and foreign political machine” and Nashi activists as easily and cheaply bought supporters who would join demonstrations just for the chance to get a free bus ride to Moscow. She also claims the Nashi “commissars” are given parliamentary seats, ignoring the fact that under Russia’s democratic system these seats and positions are won in elections. She ends her “article” by comparing “The witch hunt to McCarthyism”. Clearly she knows nothing about McCarthyism to make such a comparison.

Another article on the same topic in the Guardian makes the statement that the case “highlights the crackdown on freedoms since Putin returned to the presidency in May” and also ignores everything the group did in the months leading up to their arrest, including a performance on Red Square for which they were merely fined. Although their sentence was dropped from 7 to 2 years for a religious hate crime, as with all the Western Press this leniency is ignored.

This great crackdown they are speaking about must mean the implementation of fines for illegal activities inciting hatred and a threat to the populace or perhaps the requiring of foreign funded political organizations to declare the source of their incomes, I would assume. As the write gives no examples and makes such a broad all-encompassing statement one can only assume.

An article in the New York Times sporting the headline “Moscow Court Postpones Pussy Riot Hearing” immediately tries to shed a bad light on the court with the headline although the reason for the postponement was the fact that one of the members of the group decided to fire her lawyer during the court hearing.

The article also ignores the basic details in the case and parrots the Western Media claim that this was simply a “Punk Prayer”. Something I have never heard of happening in the West. The article makes no issue over the fact that political statements were spliced into a video of the “punk prayer” later, something which should prove to anyone that their act was one of religious hatred and not a political statement as they are claiming.

The article also takes no issue with the fact that, as they report: “Ms. Tolokonnikova and her husband were filmed having sex in a museum alongside other couples, in a 2008 “protest” against Dmitri A. Medvedev…” something that no normal “protestor” or anyone in their right mind for that matter, would do.

Once again we see that the Western Press is using the case to deride Russia and to paint Russia in a bad light and continues to ignore all of the facts in the case and the actions of the group which had they taken place in any Western country would have had them locked up in a mental institution or worse.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_07/Russia-in-the-biased-media-report-on-chieftains-trees-and-religious-hatred/

Jar2 

6 October 2012, 13:26  

Media-Bias and Gazprom: Western Media Rehashes “Tired Clichés of Kremlin Intrigue”

John Robles

This week Western media blames Moscow for engaging in a conspiracy to make shale gas unpopular. For example, the opening of one of the articles is sensational and right out of the cold war “The Kremlin is watching, European nations are rebelling, and some suspect Moscow is secretly bankrolling a campaign to derail the West's strategic plans.”

And just like the article says, despite exploiting cliché cold-war terminology from the very start, it’s not about the cold war, or geopolitical machinations or even military cooperation, it’s about natural gas drilling.

The article cites two shale gas fields in the US as evidence of what the writer calls “vast reserves of gas buried in deep shale rock” yet ignores the difficulties in extracting shale gas, the high-cost and the environmental concerns.

The writer also blames Moscow for engaging in a conspiracy to make shale gas unpopular by citing anonymous “industry watchers” who say “Russia is bankrolling environmental groups that are loudly opposing plans for fracking in Europe.” Fracking is the term used for a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing. The writer also fails to mention the real dangers of the practice and tries to paint Russian President Vladimir Putin in a bad or conspiratorial light because he spoke about how dangerous fracking was.

Calling Russian energy giant Gazprom “state controlled” gives the concern a less-than-legitimate connotation and ignores the fact that all energy and strategic industries worldwide are in one way or another “state controlled”, this is true for the US as well.

The article cites low gas prices in the US as something that the has gotten the world’s attention but plays down the fact that, again, shale gas is expensive to extract and that the current prices in the US are abnormally low and will rise in the future. A fact stated by Gazprom executive Sergei Komlev, whom the article cites.

Lastly the article attempts to paint an overall picture that the US may be able to provide cheap gas to Europe and compete for that segment of the Russian gas market, something completely unrealistic but that Americans want to hear, underlined by Mitt Romney who has repeated that he "will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of European nations on Russian sources of energy."

The whole article completely ignores many important undeniable facts, one being that part of Russia is physically in Europe, another is that Russia already has pipelines into Europe and is providing Europe with cheap gas, and the last that the US is an Ocean away and has not pipelines or realistically competitive means to get any quantity of gas to Europe, let alone on a regular and competitive basis.

Promises that the US can compete in the European gas market may sound good to the American electorate and in political speeches but lacking a pipeline from Texas to Europe such promises are merely dreams and empty political rhetoric.

The only way for the US to actually compete in the European gas market is for them to take control of resources in the Middle East for example, which would also allow them to compete elsewhere, a fundamental reason for the US’ current resource wars throughout the Middle East.

I am not the only one taking the Western Media to task, this time on the subject of media bias and slanted reporting against Gazprom. Gazprom’s spokesman Sergei Kuprianov also took on the issue much better than I could, being a man who is truly in the know of all of the nuances, in a letter to the Washington Post. According to Mr. Kuprianov the Washington Post ignored the realities of “Gazprom’s recent strategic decisions” and rehashed “tired clichés of Kremlin intrigue”.

 “Rehashing tired clichés of Kremlin intrigue” is something the Western Press seems unable to get out of the habit of doing. In case anyone needs reminding, and obviously many do: the Cold War has been over for a very long time people.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_06/Media-Bias-and-Gazprom-or-Western-media-rehashes-tired-clich-s-of-Kremlin-intrigue/

Jar2 

4 October 2012, 18:49  

Beating Women Acceptable for US Police

John Robles

During a Puerto Rican Day parade and festivities in the US city of Philadelphia Pennsylvania, a brutal police officer was filmed punching a defenseless woman in the face as she had her back turned to him, bringing another act of criminal brutality under the authority of color to the forefront, and begging the question: What is wrong with America?

Yet another in a seemingly endless stream of cases of extreme police brutality in the US is having international resonance as another video posted on the internet goes viral and the world watches as a Philadelphia police officer brutally punches a small defenseless Puerto Rican woman, named Aida Guzman, in the face as she has her back turned to him and is walking away. The force of the blow was enough to throw her off her feet and knock her to the ground. Her crime? She reportedly was charged with spraying the police with a children’s toy called silly string, a harmless substance used at parties and celebrations.

The event took place during Puerto Rican Day festivities where a massive police presence had gathered. Those celebrating were enjoying their holiday and not engaged in any sort of act of protest or demonstration. They were attempting to celebrate their cultural heritage, not the heritage and history that Puerto Ricans have faced from the US, mirrored by the brutal event, but the cultural history of their people.

Just a little history for the international readers: Puerto Rico is an island in the Caribbean and a U.S. possession which was annexed by the US in the 1950s. Puerto Ricans are small minority in the US and are subjected to institutionalized discrimination and persecution and are often the objects of racist attacks by members of varying race groups. US states classify Puerto Ricans as belonging to different race groups, with some calling them white, some black and some Latino.

Puerto Ricans have classically been treated as second class citizens in the US, although they possess US citizenship from birth and many have large percentages of Indian blood flowing through their veins, from the native Taino Indians, who the US has classified as “exterminated.”

Back to the case at hand, the officer, one Lieutenant Jonathan Josey, deemed to be an outstanding officer by the police, has not been charged with any crime although it is clear that his actions were criminal and monstrously brutal.

Josey is no stranger to the people of Philadelphia when it comes to police brutality. He is also no stranger to those on the singles circuit where Josey nominated himself Sexy Single for 2006 and posted pictures of his half-nude self complete with tattoos and pierced nipples on the web for all too see.

According to local press reports Josey, a 19-year-veteran of the police force, has over 20 complaints against him that have been filed with the internal affairs division. Yet he is still on the street. One such case against him, according to the site Opposing Views, states that Josey, pulled over a car and with no evidence of wrongdoing, accused a man and his sons of being drug dealers, he then used his gun to terrorize them and beat the hell out of all of them, before arresting them on false charges.

Yet NBC Philadelphia reports that according to Deputy Police Commissioner Richard Ross, Josey has a good reputation. His “good reputation” does not stop with the above listed incidents. Josey also shot and killed a US veteran while off-duty in what was reported as a failed robbery attempt. The city of Philadelphia praised him for the killing.

Josey was also the subject of a lawsuit for which the city had to pay $7,500.00 to settle after he kicked, punched and threw an innocent man against a wall while supposedly searching for a weapon, another in a long series of brutality complaints against Josey.

Judging from local media reports the US press seems to be, for some reason, more worried about his 19-year-career and the “blemish” on his record and not the scars and damage that must have been done to the face of the little lady he punched.

There are also racial undertones to this case. If the woman was white and not Puerto Rican, the outrage would be extreme and on the other side of the spectrum if the officer had been white it would have been called a racist attack. Yet this was an act by a black cop beating a Puerto Rican woman, the press and the pundits are showing their indifference and trying to play neutral. Had it been black on black, we would probably not even have heard about this.

The officer has over 20 complaints, and this one just happened to be filmed. How many other innocent people did he beat and terrorize that we do not know about? How many members of the poor and defenseless side of society too afraid to file a complaint against an attacker in uniform is this man guilty of attacking? Can this type of behavior be supported by police departments?

Judging by the reaction in Philadelphia, this may be normal behavior and even commendable and heroic. How many hundreds if not thousands have been the victims of police violence in Philadelphia that we will never know about? How many animals such as Josey are currently working for US police departments? Millions?

In his half nude “Sexy Single” photo, posted by NBC news, with his tattoos and pierced nipples, Josey was apparently sitting in a housed owned by Al Capone in Atlantic City New Jersey. What location more befitting for a thug who beats defenseless little Puerto Rican women and preys on the weak than the former home a thug and killer of legendary proportions. Will Josey be arrested and punished? Not likely.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_04/Beating-women-acceptable-for-US-police/

Jar2 

4 October 2012, 15:14  

Georgian Elections Beginning of End for Saakashvili and Turkish-Syria Border Clash: Will NATO Interfere?

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list comments on latest developments in Georgia and NATO’s emergency meeting surrounding the situation on the Turkish/Syrian border and its role in the region. He claims that: “NATO countries and their Allies in the Persian Gulf aren’t going to back down no matter what Syria does.”

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/04/1291230588/Rozoff%5b1%5d.jpg 

Hello Rick. How are you?

Very good John.

I’d like to speak with you a little bit about the latest developments in Georgia... and with NATO... and with Turkey and Syria of course. IF could start out with the parliamentary elections in Georgia. They look like maybe the beginning of the end for Saakashvili. In your opinion if he goes and relations are normalized with Russia, how will this affect NATO’s long-term geopolitical plans in the region?

That’s an interesting proposition, I certainly hope that better relations with Russia will ensue with the departure of Mr. Saakashvili who has been a disaster both for his own country and the region. However, I would temper our enthusiasm right now and of course you are referring to the fact that the opposition Georgian Dream party garnered 55% in the parliamentary election which is a handsome victory, they really trounced Saakashvili’s party. And the individual Saakashvili will eventually depart as president not immediately evidently as he is refusing to step down until the presidential election but his likely successor, the head of Georgian Dream political party, or coalition I guess it is, Bidzina Ivanishvili has announced today that his first stop, when he does become president, his first visit will be the United States. So, I don’t think we are going to see a qualitative difference in foreign policy orientation even with the change of political parties at the top in Georgia right now and of course the head of Georgian Dream has also announced that he is sustaining or maintaining his country’s commitment to joining both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. So, time will tell but I wouldn’t be overly optimistic about a dramatic transformation.

So, you think NATO’s plans, and their integration or drawing in of Georgia, into the NATO fold... That will remain unchanged?

It will remain unchanged from the point of view of Brussels and certainly of Washington, which has invested, as you indicated in an article 2 days ago, has invested so much in Georgia, that it is not going to allow the change of a president, or the replacement of the current president to affect their geopolitical designs in the South Caucasus as a whole, but certainly in Georgia in particular.

What do you think about the opinion of the Georgian people, I mean, if they decide that they don’t want this?

This is an encouraging aspect, I mean, it is clearly a referendum on Saakashvili and he clearly was rejected by a handsome majority of the Georgian electorate which is an indication of what many people inside and certainly outside of the country suspect which is that Saakashvili has ruled through fair means or foul, usually foul, and that he did not have the mass support, as was evidenced by the parliamentary vote, you know, that he always claimed to have, and that his contentions or his boast in that respect of course being echoe dutifully by western leaders, US, in the first place. And I am not quite certain if the west puts all of their eggs in his basket and has now had them broken or if the West was not instrumental in supplanting him with his successor. It is a matter of speculation to this point. But the question you raised about better relations with Russia is something that has been pledged by the presumed next president of the country and that will probably be more on the economic front, John, than it would in terms of Georgia’s relationship with the Pentagon and with NATO.

I see...

Reminder

Now... Speaking of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen just had his term extended and he said his main goal is ending the so-called "mission" in Afghanistan. How does this coincide with plans by NATO to keep bases in Afghanistan for the "very" long term?

I think, as you're intimating, part of the logic perhaps in extending Rasmussen’s post as Secretary-General of NATO is to not change horses in mid-stream, if you will, to have the same person in place, the head of the military alliance which runs the International Security Assistance Force, through the so-called draw-down or transistion period scheduled for 2014. Not that he's going to be there in 2 years. But that, ahem, to make a change at this point would be disadvantageous to the west in terms of US plans to maintain major air bases and other military facilities in the country, and we are talking about the Bagram Air Base of course outside of Kabul, the Shindand Air Base not terribly far from the Iranian border and other major potentially strategic military facilities in Afghanistan. The US has already announced, you know, both military and political elected officials, have announced that the US is not leaving and Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said repeatedly, recently as a matter of fact, that just because the troops will be drawn down in 2 years, doesn't mean NATO is leaving Afghanistan, NATO intends to stay there as it has stayed in Kosovo for 13 years and still maintains a presence in Iraq as a matter of fact.

Last time we talked about NATO’s silence and the fact that they were probably planning something, most obviously an invasion of Syria comes to my mind. Last night Turkey attacked Syria in retaliation for supposed attack, which killed several citizens of Turkey. With all of the mercenaries and terrorist ammassed on the Turkish and Syrian border can we be sure that this was the Syrians that did this? And... anyway... what's your view? Do you think this will be the catalyst, that NATO apparently wants, to invade Syria?

It could well be, but it's certainly a marked escalation of provocations that have been occurring since last summer. We recall of course the Turkish warplane that violated the air space of Syria in June and was shot down by Syrian air defenses, and then towards the very end of July-beginning of August, Turkey deployed troops, tanks, armored personnel carriers and missile batteries to within 2 kilometers of the Syrian border ostensibly in pursuit of fighters in the Kurdistan Worker's Party. So, there has been a steady escalation of provocations and what appear to be, you know, attempts to bait or to provoke Syria into some sort of military response, which would then be portrayed as an active aggression, permitting Turkey once again, as it did last night (Brussels time), and as it did in June which is going to NATO headquarters in Brussels convening a meeting of what's called the North Atlantic Council, that is the Ambassadors of the 28 NATO member states, and pledging their collective support to Turkey in any mlitary confrontation with Syria. So in the very least what has occurred...

Incidently, so I don't forget the point:There’s no definitive proof right now that the mortar shell that landed in the Turkish village, resulting in the tragic deaths of 5 civilians and the wounding, I believe of 8 others, it has not been established that this was fired by Syrian government forces, and as you indicate the fact that there are ragtag groups of insurgents fighting for, ahem, and we don’t even know the nationality in many instances, but, with different political orientations and different agendas, gives us reason to believe that the mortar shell or the explosion could have been caused by them, by the rebels as well as by the Syrian government. However, I think it’s imperative that we recall that just the preceding day there were 2 terrorists bombings in the Syrian city of Aleppo that killed as many as 50 people, killed as many as 50 people, wounded as many as 122, by recent accounts I have seen. This is a city very close to the Turkish border. And, ah, you know, it defies logic to, ah, to not take into account the fact that these terrorist atrocities could well have been committed by individuals who have been allowed free passage across the Turkish border.

We have to recall that no other country would tolerate this sort of armed attack from a neighboring state without some kind of action.…

Reminder

Rick gives example of US War of 1812...

…but this is something countries do: they defend their borders! And to suggest that Syria has no right to do that is evidently, as the West maintains, is first of all foolhardy and is another example of double standards.”

I don’t think the issue was that they were defending. They’re saying that Syria bombed first apparently.

Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that the Syrian government intentionally launched mortar attacks inside Turkey.

Sure, sure..

The very worst thing the Syrian government can be accused of doing is miscalculating and accidentally firing a mortal shell across the border. This is something entirely different than a planned act against the neighboring nation.

The NATO Council met last night and they have come out warning Syria to stop its “aggression against Turkey”. What do you make of this statement?

“This was an emergency meeting of North Atlantic Council, it is one of the few occasion where it has met at night, to underline the urgency of this. And the actual NATO statement includes the following passage, and this verbatim:“In the spirit of indivisibility of security and solidarity deriving from the Washington Treaty, that is the founding treaty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Alliance continues to stand by Turkey and demands the immediate cessation of such aggressive acts against an Ally.” That’s part of the statement. And Anders Fogh Rasmussen was also quoted, stating, his concerns about events, and I am quoting him here: “On our South-Eastern border.” That is the Turkish-Syrian border is now officially proclaimed as NATO’s South-Eastern border. Suggesting strongly, that NATO sees this as an attack against the entire military alliance as well as against Turkey….

….What was discussed at the meeting was the so-called Article 4 provision in the Washington Treaty, or what’s actually called the North Atlantic Treaty, the founding document of NATO: which states, “The parties that are NATO member states will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.” That certainly suggests that NATO once again reserves the right to respond collectively in alleged defense of Turkey.”

Would you agree that they’re just waiting for the right chance to invade Syria?

“That’s exactly it. What’s remarkable is the very day before, whatever the nature of the incident is that resulted in the deaths of the Turkish civilians near the border, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Genady Gatilov warned reporters of potential NATO intervention against Syria! The quote from him says, “In our contacts with our partners both in NATO and in the region we’ve called upon them not to look for pretext in order to carry out a military operation.” That’s a quote from the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. And, ah, a paraphrase of his comment stated explicitly that some provocation could occur at the Turkish-Syrian border that may give NATO the green light to intervene in Syria, so, within 24 hours or perhaps less precisely such an event occurrs.

Hypothetical, if you will: What if Bashar al-Assad comes out, he condemns the deaths of the five Turkish citizens and initiates an investigation? Would that stop NATO, do you think?

The Syrian government has already expressed regret over the deaths of the Turkish civilians without being able to establish the cause of those deaths. And, ahem, my assumption will have to be at this point, that the “fix-is-in” and that no matter what the Syrian government says or does, Western plans – that is plans of NATO nations and their Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Persian Gulf, they’re not going to back down. They are nothing if not relentless, we have seen that demonstrated repeatedly in the recent years in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya, and now Syria. And whatever the Syrian government can issue, and probably already has issued statements that should defuse the crisis but everything rides on how Turkey chooses to respond. We know that they’ve already launched artillery attacks inside Syria and according to Today’s Zaman, one of the leading newspapers in the country in Turkey, tanks, missile batteries and other military hardware have been moved up to the Syrian border again as it was at the end of last July.

RecepTayyip Erdogan said that any military equipment belonging to the Syrian armed forces which were to approach the border would be seen as a threat. Does that mean that Syria does not have the right to protect their borders?

Evidently that is what Erdogan means and what his western backers, his NATO allies intend which is to say that Syria has no right to protect its own borders from cross-border insurgent and terrorist attack, but that Turkey reserves the right to strike inside Iraq at will, to move, as we talked about a couple of times, fairly massive military formations up to the Syrian border, but that Syria doesn’t have a reciprocal right to protect its own border. Keep in mind Syria is a country under siege, not Turkey.

Right, right.

Yesterday the Iraqi government mentioned for example that they are going to hold a vote in the parliament about rescinding the right of foreign troops to be stationed in Iraqi territory and that’s direct allusion to Turkish troops that are in the northern part of the country in the majority Kurdish area of northern Iraq, and have been there since 1995. So, Turkey reserves the right to station troops inside bordering countries even with the opposition of the central government, reserves the right to launch airstrikes and infantry attacks and so forth inside neighboring countries but disallows Syria the right to protect its own territory.

Very good point.

Reminder

What is your prediction, I am very interested to know, where do you think this is going to go? What do you see happening in a week or two?

You know, there is an optimistic perspective and there is one that’s been kind of tempered by experience. And the second suggests that the fact that Turkey has directly struck inside Syrian territory intentionally and as we’ve discussed a moment ago, it is uncertain who fired the mortar round that caused recent deaths in Turkey but even for the sake of argument, if it was Syrian military, it was certainly, almost definitely, not a conscious and deliberate attempt to fire inside Turkish territory. So, the fact that Turkey has launched a deliberate military strike inside Syria given the situation in that country over the past 18 months, is again an escalation of this conflict to a hitherto unprecedented dangerous level, and that’s what is important to note. What NATO, the United States and Turkey plan, we could speculate but I would say, you know, the comments you eluded to by Erdogan and by other Turkish officials are extremely bellicose at this moment and certainly suggest that they are willing to threaten Syria if not act further against it.

Thank you very much Rick, anything else you'd like to finish up with? We're almost out of time.

Yes. This isn’t immediately related to Syria though on one instance it actually is. I am going to cite 2 examples. There were reports in the last few hours of demonstrations in the Iranian capital of Teheran that are allegedly motivated by economic factors including the fact that, if the story is true, that their currency, the real. has been devalued by 1/3 because of the crippling sanctions instituted, enforced by the United States and its NATO allies in the first place. There may be efforts to destabilize the situation, or at least distract the attention of Iranian government preparatory to a Turkish-NATO attack on Syria. There is also, and this is not so far-fetched as it may sound on the surface, there is also an upcoming presidential election in Venezuela. And the preferred method of the United States to undermine and ultimately overthrow the handful of governments in the world that still have an independent foreign policy orientation have to be seen not strictly in relation to Syria, but the fact that: if successful in Syria, the US would be further emboldened to step up with regime change and possibly even military intervention plans for nations like Iran and Venezuela and others after them.

Thank you very much, Rick, I really appreciate it.

Yeah, and I hope you get some sleep, John.

 Okay...

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_04/Turkish-civilians-killed-on-Syrian-border-NATO-ready-to-intervene-interview/

Jar2

3 October 2012, 11:00  

Is Assange Running for the Office of US President?

Wikileaks exclusive press release

Is Assange running for the office of US President? Wikileaks exclusive press release

Once again being threatened by the US Pentagon, which is set on advancing its own extra-territorial agenda and subjugating the world to the US’ will, Wikileaks and Julian Assange have decided to fight back against the US’ unilateral stance that the entire planet and all of its citizens are under its jurisdiction. Wikileaks has decided to do so during the US Presidential elections, offering the US electorate the choice of more of the same, or supporting the truth, for it is only the truth that can bring about change.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have decided to intervene in the US presidential elections offering the American electorate and the world real “Hope” and what may be their only chance for real “change”. Not the “Change We Can Believe In” or the “Hope” of Obama’s last presidential campaign, we won’t even mention the hopelessness being offered by the Republicans, but a real chance to change the policies and the actions of the US government by exposing what they would rather the world did not know.

Is Julian running for the office of US President? Can an Australian, trapped in an Ecuadorian Embassy in the United Kingdom, run for the presidency of the United States? The answer is no and no. It is much more complicated and actually much more honest than that.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have been the subject of US persecution for so long that some of us may forget a very simple fact that for some reason has been lost in the global debate. The US has no right whatsoever, not now and not ever, to go after anyone at Wikileaks. The fact of the matter is quite simple, the United States of America has no jurisdiction over anyone involved in the case they have fabricated against Wikileaks, no matter how they want to stifle freedom of speech and the press, and no matter how much they want to portray it as a crime that the malfeasance and war-crimes of the US Government are revealed, they simply do not have jurisdiction. Period, end of discussion.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have finally decided to attack this point head on are now placing, as they put it: “the Obama administration within our jurisdiction.” Wikileaks claims that being subjected to laws without representation is an injustice to Americans, which is exactly what the US has been attempting to do to Wikileaks.

Nowhere have I seen in the public debate questions being raised as to how in the world can the US have the unmitigated gall to go after someone for violating some archaic internal US law like the Espionage Act of 1917 when that person and his organization have absolutely nothing to do with the United States and when their actions were not committed on US soil.

The United States has long ago stepped way outside of its own bounds and has unilaterally decided that the entire planet is under its jurisdiction. We could ask this question about almost anything the US does unilaterally anywhere in the world. For example in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria and in even here in Russia, what right does the United States of America have in dictating to the world what it should do? Under what right and under what jurisdiction does the US have to tell Syria who their president is? Under what right does the US have to fund uprisings all over the world and assassinate the leaders of sovereign nations, or for that matter even a Taliban warlord in Afghanistan?

The US has no right, and every unilateral invasion of a sovereign country, and every single drone strike and every single person that the US and its military adventures around the planet have killed are crimes against all humanity. The US has never had the right under any law but their own to carry out any of these things.

Sadly the world has grown accustomed to be subjugated and dictated what to do by the United States of America. This has been going on for decades but the fact is that people are beginning to wake up, slowly but surely, and they are beginning to realize that they are being subjugated and their countries and rights are being taken over by the US. This is embodied by what has happened to Julian Assange and those at Wikileaks and many others the world over, including yours truly.

The United States arrogantly and imperialistically expects you and I, citizen of the world, to bend to their will and do their bidding and allow them to do what they like in your country and in any country they please, and if they can not do so openly they will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to meet their goals. For Wikileaks this means keeping quiet and according to the Pentagon destroying documents the US Government does not want anyone to see.

The arrogance and utter insanity of it all was underlined last Friday, September 28th, when the US Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. According to Julian Assange: “Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of over 100,000 civilians.”Assange also says that Little told him “… continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States Government represents a continuing violation of law”.

A “continuing violation of the law”? When did US law apply to extra-territorial cases? When did the entire planet and the 8,500,000,000 or so citizens of the world who are not Americans get together and decide that they would abide and adhere to US laws and allow the US to arrest, kidnap, incarcerate, torture, prosecute and persecute them as it saw fit? I must have missed that one.

We saw this extra-judicial, extra-territorial arrogance applied to others, for example Victor Bout and Constantin Yaroshenko, Russians entrapped in and kidnapped from, third countries and we see this every day in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and anywhere else the US is fulfilling the kill orders of their “Commander in Chief”. The man who received a Nobel Peace Prize yet signs a daily “kill list”.

Wikileaks has thus entered the US election process to ask US citizens and the citizens of the world to support them economically and politically and support their efforts at getting the truth out. Yes the truth, something that the US Government has long claimed to have a monopoly on as well.

According to Wikileaks the US “Democratic” Party is “… building a state within a state, placing nearly 5 million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret process, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the security state but without moral competition from another system, it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated.”

Julian Assange failed to mention one thing, and this is the most important fact, the growth and malignancy of the US system has affected and influenced not only “almost every American” but also most of the world in one way or another. Should this unilateral “global-judge-jury-and-executioner” be allowed to continue on the path of global domination and subjugation of the entire planet? The answer is no.

Julian Assange has also once again exposed Obama’s hypocrisy stating that it was Wikileaks’ revelations that: “… forced the U.S. out of the Iraq War by exposing the killing of Iraqi children causing the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of immunity, which forced the U.S. withdrawal.” This is backed up not only by the Afhgan War Files but also by the Global Intelligence Files.

Assange also says, and this completely flies in the face of all US claims: “It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Saleh to bomb his own people.”

So as Julian Assange and millions of others now believe: if you want real change in Washington it doesn’t matter what party you vote for. What is truly important is that you support the truth, for as a wise man once said; “It is the truth that shall set you free.”

The URL for the WikiLeaks Donate 2012 campaign:www.wikileaks.org/donate2012

Voice of Russia publishes WikiLeaks’ press statement:

Jar2

WikiLeaks Press Statement

WikiLeaks enters U.S. election campaign

Last Friday, on Sept 28, the Pentagon again threatened WikiLeaks. Pentagon spokesman George Little demanded WikiLeaks destroy its publications, including the Iraq War logs which revealed the killings of over 100,000 civilians. Little said “continued possession by WikiLeaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law”. The Pentagon also again “warned Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks” against “soliciting” material from U.S. military whistleblowers.

In response WikiLeaks has decided to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.

The United States government claims Mr. Assange and the WikiLeaks organization are within its jurisdiction. In reply, we place the Obama administration within our jurisdiction. All American school children are taught that being subject to laws without representation is an injustice. This is the backbone of the American Revolution. We claim our representation and now initiate a campaign to transform Democratic and Republican votes into economic and political support for WikiLeaks and its 1st Amendment values. This election day, do not vote for the Republican or Democratic parties. Instead, cast the only vote that matters; vote with your wallet - vote for WikiLeaks.

The Democratic Party promised to open government. But instead it is building a state within a state, placing nearly 5 million Americans under the national security clearance system. It has classified more documents than any previous administration, classifying even the process used to decide who will live and who will be killed. The U.S. administration hurtles towards dystopia: secret laws, secret process, secret budgets, secret bailouts, secret killings, secret mass spying, secret drones and secret detention without charge. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have led to the withdrawal of the security state but without moral competition from another system, it has grown unchecked to influence almost every American. Four more years in the same direction cannot be tolerated.

The Obama administration continues to conduct a “whole of government” investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature” into WikiLeaks and its people. It has fuelled the extrajudicial banking blockade against the organization and has held an alleged WikiLeaks source, Bradley Manning, in conditions that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, found amounted to torture. Mr. Assange has been formally found to be a political refugee, but U.S. ambassadors warned countries like Switzerland not to offer him asylum. President Obama has called Bradley Manning guilty before trial and Vice President Biden has named Julian Assange a 'hi tech terrorist'. The Obama-Biden campaign brags of having prosecuted twice as many national security whistleblowers as “all previous administrations combined”. This is not acceptable.

Politicians always say your decision, come election-time, will determine the future. But as has been seen with the Obama administration, deciding on who gets into formal office is not a meaningful choice, because when you vote your party into government you also vote the government, including all its agencies and friends, into your party. At the same time, parties taking office are concurrently eliminated as the restraining voice of opposition.

But there is another option.

Government agencies and corporations know that knowledge is power. That is why they spend literally billions to keep their plans and actions secret from all of us.

They know that together we can force them to act differently.

It was WikiLeaks’ revelations - not the actions of president Obama - that forced the U.S. administration out of the Iraq War. By exposing the killing of Iraqi children WikiLeaks directly activated the Iraqi government to strip the U.S. military of immunity, which in turn forced the U.S. withdrawal.

It was WikiLeaks’ revelations and pan-Arab activists, not the Obama administration that helped to trigger the Arab Spring. While WikiLeaks was exposing dictators from Yemen to Cairo, Vice President Joseph Biden was calling Hosni Mubarak a democrat, Hillary Clinton was calling his government “stable” and the U.S. administration was colluding with Saleh to bomb his own people.

And it was WikiLeaks’ revelations, not the White House that led to the reform of the largest children's hospital network in the United States. 

Last year, the Pentagon got $662 billion for its 2012 war chest. For WikiLeaks to continue its work to bring transparency to powerful institutions through the mass publication of leaks with the greatest potential to lead to more just forms of governance, we need to build a bigger 'war chest' too.

In early December 2010, WikiLeaks was receiving $120,000 per day in donations from the general public. In response to pressure from Washington, and entirely outside the law, financial institutions, including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of American and Western Union, erected a banking blockade against WikiLeaks, stripping the organization of 95% of its funding. Although WikiLeaks has won every court case to date against the blockade, these Washington linked institutions continue to appeal.

So, for the next 34 days, beginning on October 3 2012, we are launching a new fundraising campaign running up to Election Day, 6 November.

You can still donate to WikiLeaks using a variety of easy methods, including workarounds for Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. These donations go to fund WikiLeaks' publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade. We are expecting an answer shortly on Visa's appeal against the Icelandic court's ruling that declared their blockade illegal, and decision makers are expected to meet soon on our European anti-trust banking case.

If you wish to contribute to Julian Assange's legal defence costs, you can still use your credit card but you will need to make a separate donation to the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Staff Defence Fund, administered and audited by Derek Rothera & Co. Full details are on our donate page. You can also donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund from our site.

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting", Milan Kundera.

 Julian Assange

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_03/Assange-s-WikiLeaks-enters-U-S-election-campaign/

Jar2

2 October 2012, 18:48  

Saakashvili: Loss of a Geopolitical Chess “Queen”

John Robles

The loss of Mihail Saakashvili’s party in parliamentary elections in Georgia may spell the end for his regime and a return to democracy in Georgia. It may also spell the warming of relations, soured by Saakashvili, between Russia and Georgia. For the West the elections may be the first step towards his removal from power, the loss of a “Queen”, in their game of geopolitical chess.

Suffering an unexpected blow at the polls in the parliamentary elections, tie-eating Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in the middle of the night conceded defeat, opening the trap-door beneath his own feet and paving the way for real change and real democracy in Georgia, but pundits and experts are already saying that he will undoubtedly find a reason to dissolve parliament and call for new elections.

The blow to the plutocratic despot is one that the West cannot allow to stand as they have too much to lose and have invested far too much to quietly just go away, lose their influence and simply mothball all of their plans for the integration of Georgia into the Western Sphere.

It is no secret that Saakashvili is the “West’s man in the Caucuses” the darling of Hillary Clinton and Obama’s US State Department, NATO headquarters and the Pentagon and the intelligence services of the UK and the US. He is yet another despotic dictator that has murdered, oppressed, strangled, tortured and subjugated his people with the support of the West in exchange for advancing their geopolitical agenda in yet another region far removed from their own borders yet where they want control.

The VOR’s Dmitry Babich has already gone into the hypocrisy of the West with regard to Saakashvili, so I won’t go into that right now. Suffice it to say that the hypocrisy when it comes to Saakashvili is total and all encompassing and characterizes the total anti-Russia hysteria by the West, something they need to propagate to continue to have support for their intrusions on the sovereignty of the countries in the region and to justify their aggressive military build-up and the expansion of NATO into the Caucuses.

What the complete loss of power of the Saakashvili regime will mean for the West and for Saakashvili himself is hard to predict exactly, the opposition has shown leniency toward him, so it is possible he may remain in some sort of position of power for the mid-term. However what few have focused on is that his loss may open the door to prosecution and punishment for the crimes he has committed against his own people and against innocent civilians.

These crimes include the recent revelations that his “security” apparatus was responsible for torturing and illegally detaining people opposed to his regime and a plethora of charges that could be brought in relation to how his regime has stifled dissent and cracked down on anyone opposed to his regime. But that would only be the start, there are those who have accused Saakashvili of crimes that could be tantamount to treason for selling out his country to the interests of the West, although prosecution for such a crime is unlikely, that would be one possibility which would end in his execution.

The biggest worry for Saakashvili and his Western paymasters right now should be whether Saakashvili will end up having to face the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. According to an article regarding a European Union-Commissioned Report on the invasion of South Ossetia in 2008 by Russia Today, back in October of 2009, citing Interfax, Nestan Kirtadze, international secretary of Georgia's Labor Party concluded that:

“The commission accused Saakashvili of war crimes. Namely, of unleashing active hostilities, of a massive, wide-scale military operation in the South Ossetian capital Tskhinval and the use of prohibited types of weapons, of shelling and destroying nonmilitary facilities, and of attacking military personnel from the peacekeeping mission that was mandated by the United Nations.”

As there is no statute of limitations on war crimes Saakashvili has a lot to worry about and had better stock up on ties.

The winners of the parliamentary elections have said that they will normalize relations with Russia, with the West screaming indignantly about “Russian Influence” as they once again conveniently ignore their own attempts at influencing the country.

As we might recall Georgia shares almost half of her borders with Russia and has classically fallen into Russia’s sphere of influence. We should also remember that that until Saakashvili came to power Russia and Georgia shared a rich and proud history and very close ties and good relations in trade, economic and other cooperation, education and more. This was beneficial for the peoples of both countries.

Saakashvili was one of the crowning jewels in NATO and the West’s consolidation of power and control after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Who would have ever thought that the country that gave the world and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Joseph Stalin would become a pawn of Western expansionism?

The fall of Saakashvili would mean many things for many people, for one, the tens of thousands of refugees from Georgia that have fled to Europe and other countries could finally return home. It would also mean the utter failure of Hillary Clinton and the West’s plans at geopolitical domination in Russia’s backyard, a nice retirement present and the crowning failure of her diplomatic career.

Regardless of all my musings it is too early to count our chickens. Saakashvili is still in power and will do everything possible, including killing his own people, to stay in power. We will probably see attempts to dissolve parliament, call for a recount of the vote, which he will win, and a massive crack down on the Georgian opposition. Saakashvili has too much to lose to quietly acquiesce and has shown he has no qualms about taking his country down into the abyss with him.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_02/Saakashvili-the-loss-of-a-geopolitical-chess-Queen/

Jar2 

1 October 2012, 23:25  

State Sponsored Terrorism: How USAID Funds Terrorist Groups

John Robles

'State sponsored terrorism' or USAID funds terrorist groups

The amount of information available is growing which points to the fact USAID is much more than it seems and that it is deeply intertwined, if not in fact an integral part, of the CIA. According to the Global Intelligence Files at Wikileaks one of the most overt cases of USAID interference and proof positive that it is in fact engaged in activities that are far beyond what it claims to be doing, was recently uncovered and involves the financing of subversive operations in Cuba.

It is sometimes difficult for people to understand and accept the sheer magnitude of the murderous and criminal things that the American government is capable of doing. Many people are ready to turn a blind eye and would rather be ignorant when they are presented evidence of monstrosities being committed by their government, labeling anyone who dares to question the official line as a kook or a conspiracy freak. We saw this with 9-11, when respected and educated structural engineers, architects, scientists and eyewitnesses reported on facts which brought the official version into question and these people lost their jobs, their freedom and many, their lives.

While investigating some of the activities of USAID (at the start this article was to be about their meddling in Russia) I learned more and more about what they actually do and the picture continues to become more horrible with each new revelation.

The activities of USAID in the past include everything from secret and even overt sterilization programs to facilitate selective control of certain race groups and peoples, population control experimentation using disease and even famine and even subverting governments and sovereign nations through the manipulation of educational institutions, critical infrastructure and using the most vulnerable segments of populations as tools to fulfill their own secret agendas.

This may sound bad enough but it gets worse, much worse. Not only is USAID a tool of the CIA and an instrument to bring about the fulfillment of the black operations of remorseless and conscious less monsters but it is a tool disguising itself as an innocent “friend” and a promoter of the more nobler aspirations of mankind. It is among other things a “tool” which finances terrorists and terrorist acts which kill innocent people.

This is clear in Cuba, which has been the target for US terrorism. Not only what might be called “state sponsored terrorism”, but as operation Northwoods showed the world, state planned, financed and executed terrorism. Sure project Northwoods was stopped by Kennedy, and it may be one of the reasons he was assassinated, but new evidence once again shows that the US Government will do whatever it takes to meet their objectives.

If you are not familiar with Project Northwoods it involved the US Government staging real terrorist acts in the United States, killing untold numbers of US citizens, blowing up airliners, sinking warships and staging various attacks on US properties and military installations and then placing the blame on Cuba, so that it could then invade the small Caribbean nation.

The projects details are strangely reminiscent of the events of 9-11. Project Northwoods passed through the entire chain of command, all the way to President Kennedy’s desk, who refused to sign it. When the information was finally leaked out it clearly showed that there are those who have no regard for human life when it comes to meeting their objectives in positions of great power in the US Government. If George Bush had been presented a plan to fly drone aircraft into the World Trade Center and fire a stinger missile into the Pentagon to serve as a catalyst for a global war of domination masked as a war on terrorism, would he have signed it?

According to an e-mail citing a report by the Granma newspaper, while Americans are suffering, schools are closing, unemployment is viral, healthcare is unattainable, and there are a myriad of other more pressing social issues, the U.S. Government set aside $3,400,000.00 to "… finance subversive operations in Cuba."

The money was reportedly transferred to one of the many anti-Cuba groups in Miami that are responsible for conducting anti-Cuban Government operations in Cuba, including acts of terrorism. The organization in question, the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba (FHRC), a subsidiary of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), is involved in carrying out terrorist acts in Cuba.

The FHRC is located in Miami Florida and was founded by CIA-terrorist agent Jorge Mas Canosa and Luis Posada Carriles, men responsible for the loss of dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent lives. Their close relationship with the CIA and far-right senators and representatives is also at issue in the e-mail.

Luis Posada Carriles is one of the most proliferate terrorists of modern times, not only was he one of the organizers of the1976 terrorist bombing of Cubana Airlines flight 455 that killed 73 passengers, but he has a long history of terrorist activities and working with the CIA including work under the alias "Ramon Medina," with the “Contra” program run by Lt. Col. Oliver North in the Reagan National Security Council. In 1998 he admitted in interview with Ann Louise Bardach for the New York Times that he was responsible for a string of hotel bombings in Havana which injured eleven people and killed an Italian national. He was also imprisoned in Panama for trying to assassinate Fidel Castro in December 2000 with 33 pounds of C-4 explosives.

The e-mail, or rather the article it refers to, call the funding embezzlement, citing the case of a different Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) subsidized by USAID, the Center for a Free Cuba, owned by Felipe Sixto, the right-hand man of CIA agent Frank "Paquito" Calzon.

If we accept what is now part of the public record, that through USAID the CIA and the US Government funds terrorist and subversive activities then would it be much of a stretch of the imagination to postulate that they have done the same in Russia? This would include funding Chechen terrorists and their terrorist activities and operations some of which required amazing amounts of funding, planning, resources and funding.

Subversive activities in Russia would also include funding, recruiting and planning for the usurping of the government and the organization of a “color” revolution, things such as population control to facilitate the long term plan of diminishing the population and in the end a complete end to the Russian people and the Russian state. Sound far-fetched? All of these have been planned and discussed and talked about, and the ideal tool for bringing such events about was USAID.

In another e-mail Fred Burton at Stratfor was asked to verify how many people on a list of Americans killed abroad were undercover operatives to which he unconvincingly said that many were not CIA, but what was interesting is that he did say that one Laurence Foley, who was killed in 2002 in Amman Jordan, was CIA and working under U.S. Agency for International Development official cover and Freddie Woodruff, who was shot dead in Tbilisi, Georgia in 1993 was the CIA Chief of Station.

As I stated in an earlier report, USAID has long been known to be a front company for the CIA, this fact alone should be enough to raise the warning flags but if we now add to that the fact that they are active in the funding of terrorist acts it makes the organization an even worse one than most of us could have imagined.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru .

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_01/State-sponsored-terrorism-or-USAID-funds-terrorist-groups/

Jar2 

1 October 2012, 13:06  

Julian Assange Calls Obama a Hypocrite

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Julian Assange calls Obama a hypocrite - interview  http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/10/01/1288499761/220px-Wikileaks_Spokesperson_Kristinn_Hr..ank,_Brisbane,_Australia_110623.jpg

Download audio file

In the ongoing dialogue between the countries, the Ecuadorian authorities are trying to find a solution for Julian Assange, aimed at granting him safe passage to Ecuador. The official spokesperson for WikiLeaks talked with the Voice of Russia about the continuing fight against the banking blockade and explains why Assange calls Obama a hypocrite.

Part I 

Part II

Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Mr. Kristinn Hrafnsson, he’s the spokesperson for WikiLeaks.

Regarding Ecuador again, have there been any signs of movement as to how he’s going to be transferred? Have you heard anything? Have they discussed that?

No, I mean, there’s ongoing dialogue between the countries where Ecuadorian authorities are putting great effort into finding a solution. As I mentioned earlier, they have said, of course, that the UK authorities must respect the rights of the Ecuadorian authorities to grant asylum to Julian Asange, and grant him safe passage to go to Ecuador. The UK authorities are still maintaining that their commitment to a European arrest warrant and European cooperation supersedes any less consideration which is, of course, a very damaging thing to the image of human rights, because, I mean, Julian has been granted an asylum on the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s hope that there’ll be progress. As long as people are discussing and having a dialogue, I’m certain that at the end there’ll be a positive outcome and justice will prevail.

I hope so! Have you still had any problems with the banking blockade and your servers being attacked or have they quieted down on that?

No, at the moment we’re, of course, continuing our fight against the banking blockade by legal means and it has been a painstaking and very costly fight, but we’re continuing that, not just for WikiLeaks’ sake, but for the sake of countering the financial powers in the world who have taken upon themselves to impose a totally illegal blockade on a media organization, which is unprecedented and has to be fought! We’re now waiting, in the next coming days, for the outcome from Brussels where more than a year ago we and our partner in Iceland filed complaints against the credit card companies for infringing the laws, the anti-trust laws, on the European economic area and the European Union. And we hope that the Anti-Trust Division of the European Commission will take up formal investigation into the wrongdoing of the credit card companies and punish them severely for what they’re doing.

I see. Have you heard anything from the Australian government? Have they been in contact with you or Julian? Or are they still being quiet?

Well it’s very worrying and it’s very disappointing to Julian that the Australian authorities have not shown enough support and he has condemned the fact that the Australian authorities are not protecting him as a citizen of the country. And it has raised grave concerns among many Australians who think that the Australian authorities have abandoned him. There’s great pressure upon the government in Canberra to make amends and change the position.

Was this discussed by Julian when he was in contact with the UN? Nobody brought up that fact?

He mentioned that fact in his presentation.

Reminder

How is he? The world wants to know. I know you speak with him regularly. How is Julian?

Julian is holding up pretty well, I mean, he is in good spirits and, uh, he is a dedicated person and he is not caving in and will, of course, see this to the end. He’s been under very tough circumstances for a very long time now: under house arrest before he entered the embassy, but he is a revolutionary so he’s not unaccustomed to rough conditions. He will hold out as long as necessary.

Sir, is there anything you would like to finish up with? I really appreciate you taking the time to speak to me…

Julian mentioned in his presentation, yesterday, a very important thing which is hypocrisy of the Obama administration and he was referring to Obama’s speech to the UN, a day earlier, where Obama tried to gain some credit for support to the Arab awakening, which, in our view, is nothing more than hypocrisy if you consider the fact that his own administration was supporting the dictators that were overthrown up until the last moment, ah, the: Ben Ali government until to the very end in January 2011 and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt a little later. It’s quite surprising that he would stand before the United Nations and claim some kind of support for the Arab uprising against those dictators which the US government, his own government and previous governments had supported relentlessly, as very good allies throughout the years and I’m certain that if that US support, of those dictators, had not been in place, we would have seen these sort of uprisings, as we witnessed last year, much earlier. So, it’s nothing but hypocrisy to claim some sort of credit for supporting the Arab uprising.

In Libya they were supporting Muammar Gaddafi before they invaded the country.

The hypocrisy doesn’t end there, because if you consider, for example, the track record of the Obama administration when it comes to crackdown on whistleblowers, which is in total contrast to the promises and the platform, actually, where, ah, which Obama was campaigning on four years ago before he was elected, where he praised whistleblowers, where he encouraged whistle blowing and also as a very strong supporter of whistleblowers. But as soon as he got elected, he has this spurious track record of being the President whose administration has relentlessly fought whistleblowers and challenged them and threatened them with the Espionage Act of 1917 which is a terrible thing, which carries the death penalty. And more whistleblowers have been prosecuted, or persecuted, under the Obama administration than under any other administration in the post-WWII era and even under presidencies combined, prior to him taking office four years ago which is a very worrying trend and another example of the Obama hypocrisy.

Sure, I couldn’t believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize while he was engaged in two wars, he never closed Guantanamo, he’s taking away the civil liberties of the American people and he goes ahead… and he got the Nobel Peace Prize. What do you think about that?

Well I challenge you to talk to the children, the fatherless children of the individuals who have been killed in drone strikes, in Waziristan, ask them if they think that Obama deserved the Peace Prize.

How can a man who signs off on a daily kill list win a Nobel Peace Prize? I don’t understand myself.

That’s a very good question!

Ok, sir, thank you very much! I really appreciate it! I hope we can stay in touch and that we can speak to you soon when things develop further.

No problem!

Okay, thank you very much sir and good luck there in the US!

Bye bye

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_01/Julian-Assange-calls-Obama-a-hypocrite/

Jar2 

29 September 2012, 01:51  

Communicating with the Enemy US Attempts to Equate WikiLeaks as its Own Al Qaeda - Part 2

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Communicating with the enemy or WikiLeaks = Al Qaeda? - interview. PART II http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/09/29/1288576251/kristinn-hrafnsson-julian-assange.jpg

Download audio file

The official spokesperson for WikiLeaks talked with the Voice of Russia about Wikileaks being placed in the same category as Al-Qaeda by the US Military who called contact with Wikileaks “communicating with the enemy” and he pointed out that a journalist can't be controlled by fear.

PART I

This is part 2 of an interview with Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official spokesperson for the WikiLeaks organization, which he gave to The Voice of Russia.

A lot of things that pertain to the way the Swedish authorities and the Swedish prosecutor's office and the foreign office have been handling this matter, is suspicious. One thing that of course is very suspicious is the total denial of the Swedish authorities to grant him some kind of certainty and guarantee that he will not be extradited further to the United States from Sweden on the basis of his work in WikiLeaks.

It has been claimed by the Foreign Minister in Sweden, Carl Bildt, that the Executive in Sweden cannot do that. Prominent academics and experts have pointed out that it is totally incorrect. It is the decision of the Executive whether to extradite or not.

Sure! There was the news report yesterday that papers were released (these were declassified documents) and that Julian was called an "enemy of the state" by the United States Government. Can you comment on that?

What we published yesterday, and produced, were documents that were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Those documents pertain to an investigation into, ah, possible wrongdoing by U.S. service personnel stationed in the UK. A woman that had shown support for the WikiLeaks cause and for Bradley Manning and was therefore investigated for the possibility of having handed information over to the WikiLeaks. In the documents it is said that the crime being investigated was defined as “communicating with the enemy”. So, in that context the enemy supposedly is WikiLeaks. It is a very worrying sign if it is true that the US military has categorically defines WikiLeaks as the enemy, it will place WikiLeaks in the same category as Al Qaeda.

Unbelievable! You have no concerns for your own safety, being there in the United States, with all that happening?

I’m a journalist and I have been a journalist for 25 years and a journalist cannot be controlled by fear.

Sure, I hear you! Regarding Ecuador again, have there been any signs of movement as to how he is going to be transferred? Or have you heard anything, have they discussed that?

No, I mean there is an ongoing dialogue between the countries where the Ecuadorian authorities are putting a great effort into finding a solution, as I’ve mentioned earlier. They have said of course that the UK authorities must accept the rights of the Ecuadorian authorities to grant diplomatic asylum to Julian Assange and grant him safe passage to go to Ecuador. The UK authorities are still maintaining that, ah, their commitment to the European arrest warrants and European cooperation supercedes any such consideration which is of course a very damaging thing to the image of human rights because, I mean, Julian has been granted an asylum on the basis of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And let’s hope that there will be progress and as long as people are discussing and having a dialogue   I’m certain that in the end there will be a positive outcome and justice will prevail.

Listen, are you still having problems with the banking blockade and your servers being attacked? Or have they quieted down on that?

No, at the moment we are of course continuing our fight against the banking blockade, by legal means, and it has been painstaking and a very costly fight. But we are continuing that, not just for WikiLeaks’s sake but for the sake of countering the financial powers in the world who have taken upon themselves to impose this totally illegal blockade on a media organization, which is unprecedented and has to be fought. We are now waiting, in the next coming days, for the outcome from Brussels where more than a year ago we and our partner in Iceland, filed a complaint against the credit card companies for infringing the anti-trust laws of the European economic area, and the European Union. And we hope that the Anti-Trust Division of the European Commission will take up a formal investigation into the wrongdoing of the credit card companies and punish them severely for what their doing.

I see.

Reminder

Have you heard anything from the Australian Government? Have they been in contact with you or Julian? Or are they still being quiet?

Well it's very worrying, and it is very disappointing to Julian, that the Australian authorities have not shown enough support and he has condemned the fact that the Australian authorities are not protecting him as a citizen of the country, and it has raised grave concerns among many Australians that think that the Australian authorities have abandoned him. And there is a great pressure upon the Government in Canberra to make ammends and change the position.

Was this discussed by Julian when he was in contact with the UN?

He’s mentioned that fact in his presentation.

How is he? The world wants to know. I know you speak with him regularly. How is Julian?

Julian is holding up pretty well and he is in good spirits, and he is a dedicated person and he is not caving in and will of course see this to the end. He’s been under very tough circumstances for a very long time now, under house arrest before he entered the Embassy. But, ah, he is revolutionary and not unaccustomed to rough conditions. So, he will hold out as long as necessary.

Okay, I see...

Julian mentioned in his presentation yesterday a very important thing which is the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration and he was referring to Obama’s speech to the UN, a day earlier, where Obama tried to gain some credit for support to the Arab Awakening, which in our view is nothing more than hypocrisy if you consider the fact that his own administration was supporting the dictators that were overthrown up until the last moment; the Ben Ali Government until the very end in January 2011 and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt a little later.

So, it is quite surprising that he would stand before the United Nations and claim some kind of support for the Arab uprising against those dictators whom his own Government and previous governments had supported relentlessly, as very good allies throughout the years. And I’m certain that if that US support of those dictators had not been in place, we would have seen these sort of uprisings, as we witnessed last year, much earlier. So, it is nothing but hypocrisy to claim some sort of credit for supporting the Arab uprising.

Close

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_29/Communicating-with-the-enemy-or-Assanges-WikiLeaks-equals-Al-Qaeda-interview-PART-II/

Jar2 

28 September 2012, 16:21  

Assange Extradition Determined by the Executive Not Courts

Kristinn Hrafnsson Part 1

Assange extradition determined by the executive not courts – exclusive interview

Download audio file

Kristinn Hrafnsson, the official spokesperson for WikiLeaks, calls Bradley Manning a hero and one of the most important whistleblowers in history, if he was in fact the source of the documents. He also stresses the fact that the Ecuadorian authorities’ offer to move Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden for questioning was turned down despite Assange never having tried to evade questioning to begin with.

PART 2

I was wondering if you could give our listeners a little bit of insight regarding Julian Assange’s conference before the United Nations General Assembly?

Well, as you can see from his speech he was using the opportunity to point out that the relentless persecution of WikiLeaks by the Obama Administration must stop. He mentioned of course the plight of Bradley Manning. And in details went into the situation with regards to the persecution of WikiLeaks here in the United States. Of course this is a venue that was offered by the Ecuadorian authorities who were hosting this event at the United Nations in the hope that by tsking part, he could get the ears of decision makers through that venue.

So, I understand you are in the United States right now. Do you have any problems there?

No, I did not have any problem entering the country and I hope I won’t have any problem exiting the country as well. I’m here on a diplomatic invite from the permanent representatives of the Ecuadorian authorities here at the UN and taking part in the events yesterday.

Was there any progress made, there, yesterday at the UN? Do you think anything is going to really come out of this?

Well, as far as I know there was a meeting today between the Foreign Minister Patiño from Ecuador and his counterpart from the UK William Hague where they discussed the situation and where the matters are with Julian Assange. As I know there was no definite outcome. But there was certainly the understanding that the dialogue would continue. The Ecuadorian authorities are doing their best in finding a solution to this standoff and have been offering a possible solution to it. And let’s hope that with the continued dialogue this will have a positive outcome in the end.

Did the dialogue go into the area of respecting the sovereignty of embassies? The subject of the planned storming of the embassy in London, did that come up?

Of course I’m not a privy to the diplomatic dialogue between the countries, it is not a direct WikiLeaks matter. But as far as I know the threat that was made earlier by William Hague to storm the Embassy in London has been withdrawn after a very strong protest, and not just by Ecuador but by all the Latin American countries. So, I think that is out of the picture and the threat is no longer there.

What do you think personally, Julian called Bradley Manning an American patriot and a hero, what do you think about Bradley Manning?

Well, he is the alleged source of the information that we have been publishing and he is going through extremely tough times and has been held for months upon end, under conditions that are described as tantamount to torture by the Special Rapporteur on Torture of the UN, Juan Mendez, which of course is a horrible thing to do to a young man. As far as one can understand about his motives, if indeed he is the source of this information, he did that after being disillusioned about the mission in Iraq when he witnessed that innocent people were being detained and being tortured for doing basically nothing, just opposing the political allies in Iraq. So, it seems from every indication that has been published, and everybody can see on the Internet that he is indeed a patriot. And if he is indeed the source of this information – he is one of the most important whistleblowers in history and a hero in my mind.

Reminder

Are you privy to any details regarding his incarceration? Is he still being woken up every 15 minutes and made to sleep without his clothes on etc? Are they still doing the same things to him they were doing?

No, not to my knowledge after a great pressure which I’m certain had an effect on changing his conditions. He was moved to another prison where his circumstances are more tolerable. This is just something that we have observed on the sideline we try our best as an organization to follow the plight of this young man. And we support him as much as we can in any way.

Regarding being sent to Sweden, can you comment on that at all, as far as there were some reports last week that Ecuador was planning to send him to Sweden? I found that very odd. Can you comment on that at all?

What I heard was that as a possible solution to this standoff the Ecuadorian authorities suggested "the possibility" that Julian would move from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden as an attempt to finish that phase that he is wanted for, which is basically questioning. He has not been charged of anything. As far as I know that offer was turned down and that possibility but it just shows that the Ecuadorian authorities are working hard on finding a solution that could end this standoff, and this matter. And I must emphasize that Julian Assange has never tried to evade being questioned. He agreed to questioning, he has offered himself for questioning for weeks when he was staying in Sweden. And after he moved to London he offered a go to the Scotland Yard or to the Swedish Embassy to be interrogated through video link, or he offered the Swedish prosecutors to travel to London to interrogate him there. But all his offers have been turned down and it is quite spurious how the Swedish prosecution authorities are handling the matter.

That sounds extremely suspicious to me!

A lot of things that pertain to the way the Swedish authorities and the Swedish prosecutors’ office and the foreign office have been handling this matter is suspicious. One thing of course that is very suspicious is the total denial until now of the Swedish authorities to grant him some kind of certainty and guarantee that he will not be extradited further to the United States which should be a relatively easy thing to do. It would suffice to make a political declaration that of course Julian Assange would never be extradited to the United States from Sweden on the basis of his work as a publicist and journalist of, ah, in WikiLeaks.

It has been claimed by the Foreign Minister in Sweden Carl Bildt that the Executive in Sweden cannot do that because it is a matter of the Judiciary. Prominent academics and experts have pointed out that it is totally incorrect. It is the decision of the Executive whether to extradite or not. If a request comes to the Swedish authorities, it is the Executive who takes the decision whether the person is extradited or not. If a person is offered for extradition he has then the opportunity to go to the court to challenge that. But first and foremost it is the Executive who makes the decision and it is very much in the hands of the Foreign Minister of Sweden to decide upon that. And it is in his hands to give a guarantee that Julian Assange as a journalist and editor and publisher will not be extradited to the US on the basis of his work at WikiLeaks.

Of course.

 End of part 1. Part 2

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_28/Assange-extradition-determined-by-Parliament-not-courts-exclusive-interview/

Jar2

27 September 2012, 23:47  

Anti-US Protests: Catalyst for More US War

John Robles

As the reaction the US film “The Innocence of Muslims” continues to rage on worldwide I have to wonder as to “The Innocence of the Americans” who have made the film, distributed it and refuse to take it down. Hard questions have to be asked in light of the fact that the popularity and support of the “War on Terror” is waning and the fact that it is an election year.

Are we to believe such a massive provocation is the work of some idiot working on his own in California or is there something else behind the whole affair?

Many experts and observers around the world believed that the worldwide anti-American protests that were set off by the US film “The Innocence of Muslims,” would have died down by now but as they cool off in one country they continue to spread to others and in some to gain strength and severity.

Decades of anti-US sentiment brought about by the US meddling in Muslim countries and constant insults to, double-standards towards, attacks on and disrespect for, the Muslim people have been brought to the surface and apparently this “Genie” which refuses to go quietly back into its bottle has become a juggernaut of rage against America.

Although the US would like to continue to paint a picture of blameless virtuousness and holier-than-thou innocence, the paint is beginning to run and the mosaic of intolerance, ignorance, double-standards and just plain pompous arrogance lying below the surface is being revealed.

The dossier on US wars in the Muslim world and its gung-ho meddling and subversion, brutal regime change and nation-building, or rather destroying, is now so voluminous that it is would require its own library to properly catalogue. Just as with the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the world is seeing the result of, and paying the price for, US short-sightedness, lack of advance planning and any sort of care or foresight when it comes to the consequences of its actions.

The film “The Innocence of Muslims” should have been justifiably and rightfully titled, “The Stupidity of Americans” for that it was it has shown, both in the internal US dialogue and the external “diplomacy” that has ensued after the “film’s” debut. However even if the US had reacted thoughtfully and fairly and shown respect for those of the Islamic faith and those who were justifiably outraged, there is serious doubt that the current blow-back could have been prevented, such respect and thoughtfulness should have been part of US diplomacy decades ago. People the world over have long memories as opposed to the three-minute-attention-span of the average American which is something the US obviously forgets.

Even more sinister might be the Machiavellian possibility that this is something the US counts on. If we take a minute to consider the fact that the US has become a country embroiled in and hopeless trapped in a self-propagating worldwide endless war against a methodology “terror” which can never be eradicated in all its guises, a war that needs constant fuel to keep its fires roaring, then we can postulate that this was a carefully planned means of continuing the endless cycle of violence that the US is feeding on.

When events such as these take place, and events such as 9-11, I always ask the question; “Who does it benefit?” The answer may not be a pretty one but time and time again, the answer seems to be the US military industrial complex and the endless war on terror. A war used as a pretext for taking control of resources, making billions in re-building shattered countries and promoting the furthering the US militarization and the taking over of the entire planet.

According to the Pak Tribune reporting on an interview Hafiz Saeed an extremist cleric and the purported terrorist mastermind behind the 2008 attack on the Indian city of Mumbai, which he gave to Reuters, “Obama should have ordered steps to remove the film from the Internet instead of defending freedom of expression in America.” According to Saeed: "Obama's statements have caused a religious war, this is a very sensitive issue and it is not going to be resolved soon. Obama's statement has started a cultural war."

This may be true in part but the statement is extremely nearsighted and historically hollow. The fact of the matter is that the so-called-religious-war has been going on for decades and was transformed into its present overt state by George Bush using the events of 9-11 as a catalyst. Whether you call it a religious war, resource wars or steps towards global military domination the end result is the same.

As for the protests over the film; they have spread to Bangkok, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland and Nigeria and are now targeting French institutions and even Google, which has not taken the video down.

If you are engaged in an endless war on terror that is losing popularity then you need to foment as much hate and breed as many “terrorists” as possible. The only way to beat such a strategy is to ignore the provocations. You can’t fight a war if there are no enemies, no matter how hard you try to create them yourself. Or can you?

The views and opinions expressed here are my own, I can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_27/Anti-US-protests-a-catalyst-for-more-US-war/

Jar2 

25 September 2012, 10:00  

Russia Says No to USAID

John Robles

USAID CIA

The Government of the Russian Federation has been forced to take measures against US interests to protect its sovereignty and after allowing USAID to operate freely on the territory of the Russian Federation for 20 years has informed the organization that, as of October 1st, it is no longer welcome. USAID has proven that its stated objectives are not keeping with its real activities in the country, activities which have served to undermine Russia and advance US interests.

MOVED HERE http://www.jar2.com/Topics/US_5th_Column_in_Russia.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_25/Russia-s-says-no-to-USAID-s-meddling/

Jar2 

24 September 2012, 14:08  

All Religions Must be Respected

Dr. Alon Ben Meir

Download audio file

The Voice of Russia's John Robles spoke to Dr. Alon Ben Meir on the desecration of religious sites and the reaction to the U.S. film "The Innocence of Muslims", in part 2 Dr. Meir speaks about the desecration of religious institutions and how all religions should be respected. He also talks about the double standard that exists in the United States and the responsibilities governments have to educate the people as to the real origins of acts such as the film in question.

PART I

Personally, even without the bombings and killings and terrorist acts, I have never heard of Muslim burning the Bible, for example.

No, they don’t, because for Muslim the Abrahamic religions are basically one and the same. Islam has been derived from Christian Judaic religions. 90% of the Koran is based on the Old Testament and the New Testament, so they’re not strangers to Judaism and Christianity. I mean, of course they may be conflicts, let’s say, in Egypt against the Coptic and in Syria against the Christians, but they will not take the Old and New Testament and burn it, because that’s against their very principle.

The recent desecration here in Russia of the Christ the Savior Cathedral – in the West they’re saying it’s free speech. What’s your opinion on that? What they did – they got into the part of the church where only priests are allowed to be.

Absolutely wrong. Nobody has a right to desecrate religious institution. This stands for mosques, stands for synagogues, stands for any kind of churches in any kind of denominations. This is very-very wrong. And this is really the center point here. If your dare to desecrate a synagogue or a mosque or a church – what you’re actually saying, you’re not only destroying the building, you’re actually expressing horrifying resentment to the religion that this institution, this building represents. That’s totally and completely inacceptable. No one should be able to justify awful acts like this. I don’t have to agree with precept of your religion and you don’t have to agree with mine. But we should have the capacity and the tolerance to accept one another, because a person’s belief is their own prerogative. And no one can take them away from them.

Thank you. You’re absolutely right. We need to respect each other. In the US do you think there’s a double standard towards Muslims? I mean, if somebody desecrates a synagogue or starts hate speech against Catholics or something – is the reaction the same in the US when people do this?

You know, it’s a very good question and a very sensitive one. What there’s today at this state is they look outside and they see conflict ranging in the Middle East and elsewhere, they see that 90% of them involve Muslims against Muslims. And so there’s a perception that Islam as a religion is a violent religion. I principally disagree with this, because people tend to forget history very quickly. And I say to them, “Look, what happened during WWII. 13 million died, by and large Christians by the hands of other Christians”. You can’t say that Muslims or Islam have monopoly on violence. This is not the case. The Arab world is going through major historic transformation. Any we tend to forget what the Europeans have gone through, what the US have gone through, what Russia have gone through – any revolutionary change as such, people pay tremendous price for that to do something better. We tend to forget that. So the perception is that Muslims are violent and therefore they deserve what they get. And this is a wrong perception. Probably if the synagogue was burnt, the reaction would be different, because that don’t see it the same way. But that’s the problem. And you need to correct perception by changing public narrative of what the Arab world is going through, not merely pushing for the democracy and freedom. It takes more than that.

I think everybody would agree that the killing of the Ambassador in Benghazi was abysmal. My question is do you think this was in a way revenge for killing for Muammar Gaddafi?

Entirely possible. But the truth is any killing of foreign officials in any country isn’t justified. If a country has done something wrong, the person representing this country should not be guilty of these charges themselves. That’s completely wrong. It’s also the responsibility of the host nation to provide security for all foreign representatives living in that country. That’s an absolute given and it should be honored and it should be respected, because without this, imagine, which country is going to send its ambassadors or officials into another country when they have to take their lives into their hands. The one thing I’d add to this is that knowing that the situation is tense throughout the Middle East – look what’s going on in Syria and still in Iraq, in Afghanistan and everywhere – I think that the state should also be more careful to argument their own internal security in various embassies. That’s just a wise thing to do. But real honor for the host government is to take the proper actions and condemn it immediately when it happens and bring the violators to trial for justice. That’s the only way you’re going to maintain civility and relationship between countries.

What effect, do you think, this film has had on relations between the Copts and Christians in Egypt and rest of the population? Apparently, the director of this film was a Coptic Christian activist. Has he helped his people?

I think he caused far greater damage than helped them, because this was stupid, ignorant things to do. You can’t help your people by offending other people. It doesn’t work that way. The relationship between Muslims and Coptic in Egypt has been tense for a while and if Muslims generally in Egypt feel that this was Christian Coptic, surely it is going even worse, because people tend to generalize. It’s also a mistake. A person who commits such transgression like the people who produced this movie – the general public, the Coptic community in Egypt shouldn’t pay the price for this. And again, the government in Egypt are to be very clear and very decisive by explaining things to the public. President Morsi himself should come up and say whoever produced this movies and whatever religion and ideology they hold, our believing should not affect our citizens. And that’s when the leadership comes to play a role. And if they don’t do so – basically, they’re giving a green line to continue the prosecution of Coptic wherever they are. And that’s not going to be good for Egypt as a country and for the future of Egypt as such. In every country where there’s demonstration, the government has an obligation to explain what we’ve been talking here about. Among people all around the world – Arabs, Jews, Christians, Buddhists – there’re craziest among them, no matter what you say or do. But you cannot blame the larger community for the misdeeds of the few. And that’s what government responsibility is – to explain to avoid further conflicts which are completely unnecessary.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_24/All-religions-must-be-respected-interview/

Jar2 

23 September 2012, 16:41  

Occupy Chicago

The NATO '5' and the Future of Occupy

Natalie Wahlberg

Download audio file

In part 2 of an interview with our correspondent John Robles, Occupy Chicago member and spokesperson Natalie Wahlberg speaks about the worsening employment situation in the U.S., the Chicago "5" who were arrested on trumped up sate charges during the past NATO summit and how you can support them and the future of the Occupy Movement. You can find part one here on our website. On September 23, Occupy Chicago celebrates their one year anniversary.

PART I

What is your opinion about the Republican and Democratic parties? Are there any differences?

At Occupy Chicago, we are nonpartisan social movement, so we do not support either party. Me personally, I truly feel that voting doesn’t really change anything, it would be illegal. So, to me there is no difference and this is the first election I will not be voting in. I’d rather be a conscientious objector engaged direct actions in my community. And we take dialog, offer education as opposed to just walking into a ballot booth once every four years and feeling like I’ve done my civic duty.

A lot of Americans feel the same way that there is no real difference between the parties, that big business and special interests control the entire US political dialog and landscape.

Yes, I believe that corporate interests and campaign donors are engaged in control of political campaigns, including the messaging, including the legislation as the one party wins, it’s all the same. And it comes down to the vast majority of 99% of the population who simply don’t have a voice in the very governing structures that rule their lives. Occupy Chicago, it has a one year anniversary and during that we will be going back to like all the early days at La Salle and Jackson Corner where we will see about how exactly we are going to make the world better. Currently there have been a number of arrests in Chicago from NATO, I work a lot with the Jail Support ladies.

Were you at the anti-NATO protests when they had this summit?

Yes, I was. I was on the street most of the week.

What is going on with the three guys that were arrested on terrorism charges?

The three men you are referring to are Brent Betterly, Jared Chase and Brian Jacob Church who were entrapped by Chicago Police Department informants, they go by the names of “Mo” and “Gloves”, but actually Chicago police officers, they triggered the situation and recorded alleged conversations where we don’t even know what was in, and the basis are these conversations that these three young men has been walked off. The question is why the city of Chicago is wasting resources in spreading nonviolent post-partisan social movements while the city is closing schools, closing mental health clinics. Why are they wasting their time?

And I know the conception is like “the NATO 3” but there were actually two other individuals that were arrested. That was Mark Neiweem and Sebastian Senakiewicz who were arrested by the Chicago Police informants for similar charges. So there are five men total who only had a conversation like you and I are having a conversation, only it was recorded, and they haven’t seen the light of day since May 16th . The Chicago Police Department illegally raided homes and disappeared people, if we didn’t have our amazing legal team from the National Lawyers Guild, I don’t know where we would be at.

I talked to the lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild when that happened.

Yes, for more information I would direct you to nato5.occupychi.org.

What else can you tell our listeners about your upcoming anniversary? Is there some where our listeners can take part or show their support for you guys?

I would say yes, absolutely. We welcome people watching us on iStream. I will take checkouts occupychi.org to find out who will be streaming and follow us on Twitter at Occupy Chicago. And I will be having live updates throughout the day. Sometimes the best thing people can do is simply reiterate, share information on Facebook, and share articles like half of Occupy is education. And the more people that know, the more that can be informed, and the more that chose to take part in this revolutionary dialog.

Is there like some address where people could send letters in support of the five guys that were arrested in Chicago?

Yes, please. On the nato5.occupychi.org we actually have a tab with letter writing on how to send letters. We call activists across the world to send postcards to these five men who have been locked up on ridiculous state created charges.

Where do you see occupy Chicago a year from now?

If you would have asked me this question like a year ago, I definitely would not have in vision this hardcore network of activists, including like lifelong connections and relationships of people working towards changing the society. Where do I see the Occupy in the next year, I’m not entirely sure. The thing is to follow like the rising stars over the Occupy Movement.

Has the situation changed in the US in the last year with employment opportunities, the education courses, is everything flat-lined? I know a lot of the original occupiers were college educated people who couldn’t get jobs for no fault of their own.

Yes, actually I was one of those people. When Occupy started I just graduated in May of that year with my master’s degree and I was looking for work for a really long time, and I couldn’t find any. I was a waitress…

A waitress with the master’s degree! Wonderful!

Yes. And then I got a low-paying level corporate job in PR, which one of my degrees is in. And through my connections and abilities at Occupy Chicago I well end up in a social justice oriented industry and I’m very happy here since. The troubled situation in the States is tighter. People need work – there is no work. I know that the unemployment numbers are improving, but if you actually look at the facts – people have stopped looking for work and they unemployment benefits have run out.

So, what you are saying is that the numbers are improving because people are no longer receiving benefits and they are just like falling off the radar?

Right! I don’t have the study in front of me. But if you look at some of the activists’ analysis once started like in 2000, it will be able to bring you to a more concrete analysis.

So, things are not getting better. Tell us about your anniversary gathering. Where is it going to take place if people want to attend it in the States?

We gather on September 23rd at 1 p.m. We have activities planned until 5 p.m. and those include music, poetry, family events. And we will have a letter writing corner for the NATO5. We will have a bookshop which was featured and planned at Chicago. It will be at La Salle and Jackson Street right in front of Chicago Board of Trade.

Ok, thank you very much, Natalie. I really appreciate it. You were listening to part two of an interview with Natalie Wahlberg, a member of Occupy Chicago. Thanks for listening.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_23/The-NATO-5-and-the-future-of-Occupy-interview/

Jar2

22 September 2012, 19:32  

Occupy Chicago

Occupy Movement is Alive

Natalie Wahlberg

Download audio file

The Occupy Movement has recently celebrated its one-year anniversary. Natalie Wahlberg from Occupy Chicago shares her view on the future of the movement with our correspondent John Robles.

The Occupy Movement recently celebrated its 1 year anniversary. Some are saying the movement is dying away. Do you think that’s true?

I think that the Occupy Movement is still alive and striving given the thousands of dedicated activists that arrived in New York to celebrate the 1 year anniversary. There’s also solidarity anniversary that we celebrated this Sunday, September 23rd, across the nation, including in Chicago.

Do you know anything about the arrests that occurred in New York during the celebrations?

Yes, I heard about the mass arrests. I’ve been watching it live. And the arrests make it evident that the government is afraid of our power, because there was no reason for mass arrests. People were snatched and grabbed, including journalists, including independent journalists and of course, activists.

What’s the current status of those who were arrested? Ha everybody been released yet?

As far as I am aware, everyone has been released.

I talked to some people with Occupy the RNC and Occupy the DNC. One of the organizers had said that the Occupy Movement was probably going to go away and be reformed under a different name or in a different way – do you think that’s true?

I don’t know. The Occupy has become sort of a melting pot for dedicated activists looking to change the state of American politics, global politics and the way we interact with one another. I mean, certainly, there’s a possibility that Occupy may grow and change. But I think at its core the whole dedication to creating a better world with committed individuals will never stop.

What are some of the achievements the Occupy Movement has attained in the last year?

Occupy has changed the public discourse about politics and corporate taxes, corporate donations to political campaigns. In addition, Occupy has started the Occupy Our Home Movement where we return properties taken away from its owners by banking structures. Another victory of the Occupy Movement is radicalizing individual’s fuel, who never quite considered themselves political, but are now accomplished journalists like Joe Macare, J.A. Myerson. Occupy has also given a rise to incredible new citizen media, also live-streaming. It’s created an entire universe full of people who are connected to one another through Twitter. I’d recommend seeing Occupied Air and a whole amazing list of dedicated people who spend their time supporting one another through whatever campaign Occupy is working on.

Do you think that Occupy has too many different issues that you, guys, are tackling?

Yes, there’re certainly myriad issues that come up with Occupy. And they’re all interconnected by a common steam in that economic inequality. The middle class has been demonized and criticized within series in Chicago with the Chicago Teachers’ Union Strike and how that changed a face of public idea of education.

Have you been active with the Teachers’ Strike? What’s going on right now? Did they get their pay raise?

They agreed to suspend the strike yesterday while negotiations were still ongoing.

Right now in Chicago I know a lot of schools have been closed and they’re looking at 40 students or more per class.

The teachers’ strike was partly caused by the large class sizes and the lack of resources in classrooms. Occupy Chicago supported the Teachers’ Strike in showing what people can do, like how they can take their power back into their own hands and then radically change the state. Our media, the Occupy Chicago Tribune, dedicated an entire print issue to the teachers’ struggle and the headline on the front page is “Solidarity”. So we’re indeed assisting in that fight trying to stop it from being corporatized.

What things do you see being done to corporatize, for example, education?

The things that you bought up, like looking at kids as dollar items, trying to fit as many of them in the class with few resources. Kids are looked at like something to be educated or something to teach how to think. We entirely disagree with that.

A lot of the camps were pulled down in a lot of the major cities. How did this negatively affect the movement in your opinion?

Occupy Chicago was the only occupation that did not have a camp. And we were able to achieve so much! Certainly, it was heartbreaking to watch my home destroyed. But at the same time it only galvanized me to fight harder. So, the answer to the question, “Did it damage?” is “Yes”, but it also galvanized my fight.

Some people have said that the Occupy Movement excludes blacks.

Absolutely not. Chicago is one of the most segregated cities in the world. And we work with neighborhood occupations like Occupy the Hood, Occupy the South Side which address the needs of all people, including people of color.

Are you, guys, active in any way in the elections in the US? Have you taken the position for or against either of the candidates? What’s your opinion about the Republican Party, the Democratic Party? Are there any differences?

We do not support either party. I truly feel that voting wouldn’t change anything, that it would be illegal. To me, there’s no difference. And this is the first election I’ll not be voting in.

 PART II

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_22/Occupy-movement-is-alive-Chicago-activist/

Jar2

19 September 2012, 19:05  

Endemic Corruption Leads to Mexican Jailbreak

John Robles

In the Mexican state of Coahuila 131 prisoners have escaped through a tunnel that was months in the making. The circumstances point to another case where corrupt officials and prison guards are suspected of involvement, underlining the need for reforms and the vetting of Mexico’s law enforcement officials. The problem is one that affects not only Mexico but the international community as well.

Another massive prison break in Mexico has the world focused once again on Mexico’s ongoing war against vicious drug gangs and battling drug lords.

The facts that we know are as follows; 131 inmates escaped from the prison in Piedras Negras in the Mexican state of Coahuila, a city near the US border close to Eagle Pass Texas. They apparently used a 21 feet (6.5 meters) long and 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide tunnel that had been under construction for some time and it is suspected that prison officials may have been involved or had knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the escape.

According to reports the prison housed less than 800 inmates and was not overcrowded, leading to further speculation as to the involvement of the guards since the number of escapees amounted to about a 5th of the prison’s entire population.

A public safety official in Coahuila, Jorge Luis Moran, said that the escape was the work of the Zetas drug cartel and that even prisoners who were not members of the cartel were forced to go along, reported Daily Mail quoting Associated Press.

Mexican media alleged that the Zeta cartel is engaged in a battle over the illegal narcotics corridor into the United States, through which millions of dollars worth of drugs enters the US, with the Sinaloa cartel run by drug lord Joaquin Guzman who is at the top of Mexico’s most wanted list. The Zeta cartel has been hit hard by the federal police and its members are dwindling due to arrests and fatal shootings, so the Mexican authorities believe the escape was planned to refill the ranks of the cartel.

In a statement released on Twitter the President of Mexico Felipe Calderon said that the escape was a deplorable act and that the vulnerability of state law enforcement institutions must be corrected.

The Daily Beast’s Christine Pelisek writes that the terrain through which the tunnel was dug was rocky and would have required special tools and equipment to cut through, pointing to further collusion between the prison officials and the escapees.

The escape once again brings to the forefront the absolute corruption that exists at the state level in Mexico underlined by the fact that this is by far not the first time that such a bold prison escape has taken place in recent years.

The current mass escape is also the second in recent history where over a hundred inmates escaped. The other such escape occurred in December 2010, when 153 inmates escaped from a prison in Nuevo Laredo, which ended with 41 guards being sentenced on charges related to aiding and abetting the criminals.

Another brutal escape occurred in February when 30 inmates escaped from a prison in Monterrey murdering 44 rival gang members in the process, afterwards 9 guards admitted to having aided them.

For the president and the federal authorities in Mexico the rampant corruption at the state level continues to be one of the most pressing problems in the country and the largest internal threat to Mexico’s national security.

The federal authorities in Mexico understand the need for reforms and have attempted to correct the situation by introducing mandatory background checks and drug testing for federal, state and local law enforcement officers and agents. To date the results have been dismal at all levels, with the numbers showing just how serious the situation is.

Speaking to the press on Monday Mexico’s Federal Secretary of the Interior Alejandro Poire said that progress in vetting the nations officers was slow. He said that out of the over 430,000 police officers at the state level and lower only 180,000 have undergone the vetting process and out of those approximately 65,000 had failed to pass the tests.

At the federal level the numbers are equally dismal with 2,045 federal officers out of approximately 36,000, failing the tests since 2006 and of those only 302 being fired. Under the guidelines set forth in the vetting program any officer at any level who fails the tests is supposed to be fired.

The authorities say that due to Mexico’s labor laws and the lack of new recruits, it is impossible to fire everyone who fails the tests. This means that Mexico has over 67,000 officers working on the front lines who are not able to pass simple background checks and the vetting process, and this is only after less than half have been tested.

This serious lack of a secure internal security apparatus is a grave threat to Mexico’s national security. As Mexico is the main gateway for most of the narcotics and contraband traffic into the ever consuming US “market” this is also a problem at the international level as it only helps to sustain the flow of illegal narcotics from all over the world into the US, the world’s largest and most lucrative consumer.

The transport corridors through Mexico allow growers, suppliers and criminal groups worldwide, from Afghanistan to Columbia, to get their products to their consumers.

 This means that the international community has a vested interest in assisting Mexico if there is ever going to be an end to the illegal narcotics trade. Something that is highly unlikely as long as the money flows with the blow.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_19/Endemic-corruption-leads-to-Mexican-jailbreak/

Jar2 

19 September 2012, 16:32  

Should Commonsense Rein in Freedom of Speech

Dr. Alon Ben Meir

Download audio file

Dr. Alon Ben Meir, a professor in international relations and affairs at New York University, talks about democratic transition in the Middle East and the roots of anger in the Muslim community over the anti-Mohammed film. Mr. Meir believes that the United States ought to educate the people that the Arab world is going through a significant historic transformation and that more sensitivity to the changes that are taking place is required to make the world safer for everyone to live in.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/09/19/1289734568/Meir.jpg

Hello Dr. Meir! How are you this evening?

Hello John! Nice to hear from you again.

Nice to hear from you too! Since last time we talked a lot of things have changed. The entire Muslim world has erupted in violence. We talked a lot about the dangers of regime change and bringing democracy to countries not prepared for it in the past. Is what we are seeing today part of that? And what do you think the root causes are to all the violence?

Well, you know, I think the change, the transformation from the dictatorial and despot leadership in the Arab world is inevitable. My concern is about the pace of change – how quickly it should or shouldn't be. My feeling is that pushing, like I mentioned to you earlier, for early election within literally months after the fall of the leadership probably doesn’t serve well the public.

I always maintain that a transitional government should be formed representative of all the segments of the population and to stay in power for 3-4-5 years to prepare the public, to prepare parties, for parties to develop their political agenda and give the public an opportunity to get familiar with the change itself. And when you rush for an election and you have a parliament and then the next day they wake up in the morning… ok, they feel freer perhaps but the socio-economic conditions have not changed a single iota. This is not the kind of transformation that is going to work and that’s been our concern all along.

Do you think these demonstrations worldwide... what is the connection there?

The connection is: you need anything to trigger this kind of violence because the truth of the matter is, the vast majority of young men and women in, say Egypt or Libya, have been despondent and despairing for so long. So, when there is something to trigger their anger they are going to do whatever it takes; they go to the street and they demonstrate and occasionally that is going to end up violently.

In this particular case some foolish people in the United States, in Hollywood or elsewhere, produced this video that is degrading the Prophet Mohammed and accusing him of being a womanizer, a child molester, and this has justifiably enraged many, many Arabs and Muslims around the world. The West, here specifically in the United States, they really have little understanding of Islam, it is more than just a religion, it is also a culture and a way of life for many Muslim and Arabs. And the Arab world doesn’t understand that in the United States there is real freedom and the Government cannot dictate to individuals what to write or what to produce, etc. There's that kind of cultural divide you might say, that is causing this misperception, that is bringing these conflicts to the fore.

What is missing in the efforts of both sides, in my view, is to begin remedy the situation by changing their public narratives in terms of each other. The new governments of the Arab world ought to say what America stands for, if they want to cooperate with the United States, if they want financial aid, if they want political support – they need to be speaking about it more positively; if the United States wants to have better relations, it ought to educate also the people, here, that the Arab world is going through a significant historic transformation and we have to show more sensitivity to the changes that are taking place. You know, maligning Mohammed who is considered so holy, a Prophet, is simply the wrong thing to do. And we seem to have, in the West, a propensity of making this type of mistake time and again and that’s unfortunate.

Yes, it is. Do you think that there has been anger simmering under the surface towards the United States for all the (for lack of a better word) meddling in the Muslim world that they’ve been doing for decades?

There is no question. There is a anger simmering, just below the surface. We have just concluded the war in Iraq that most Arab states and people, they do not agree why it happened, why it should have happened. And we are still fighting the war in Afghanistan that many, many Arabs and Muslims around the world do not justify. We continue to wage a war against terrorism and extremists. So, there is this underlining resentment and even hatred towards the United States.

But then, again these actions by the US ought to be explained. What happened, why is it happening? And I think the United States may be very good when it comes to waging a war but it is probably not as good at waging public relations to explain its position. And the same thing you might say is about the Arab states themselves. On the one hand they want American support, they want American military support, economic support, they want to borrow from international institutions where the United States has a tremendous influence. But on the other hand they malign the United States in the eyes of their public.

So, that doesn’t work. You can’t speak one language to the United States and different language to the masses. And there is that gap! And that is the kind of thing that is going to produce this type of reaction by the masses because, there is a gap: the divide exists.

Back to your previous comment, you were speaking about freedom of speech in the United States and how that’s not understood. Do you agree or do you think that freedom has a large responsibility with it, and freedom of speech should be limited or end when you start infringing on the freedoms of other people?

The freedom of speech, once you begin to tamper, you can say this but you cannot say that, that is not how it works. But the principle is that people who have the freedom to say what they want to say, they also must assume the responsibility and make every effort not to malign, not to debase other people, specifically other people’s religion. I always say to the people here: "When was the last time you’ve heard of a Muslim burning the New Testament in public."

Exactly!

"When was the last time they burned an Old Testament, when was the last time they criticized or maligned Moses or Jesus." They don’t do that because for them these three monotheistic religions are one and the same and they have a tremendous respect for these prophets. And I say this to them, because I say: "You need to show the same capacity, the same sensitivity and understanding that there are lines, borders to the freedom of expression" and that cannot be institutionalized by a government but certainly it can be reined upon by individuals themselves to maintain, if you have something so precious as the freedom to keep it you have to also be discriminating as to how to use that freedom that you actually have constitutionally.

 PART II

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_19/Should-commonsense-rein-in-freedom-of-speech/

Jar2

19 September 2012, 00:25  

Afghanistan: Spinning Failure as Success

John Robles

The number of green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan is increasing amid widespread rioting over the American film “The Innocence of Muslims” as the US attempts to make a saving face drawdown of troops from the country. Cooperation between “coalition” troops and the Afghans is being cut back as the attacks continue, yet the US is still trying to paint a different picture of their failure in Afghanistan.

The western media reports that this year alone there have been 37 attacks on the US, and its NATO and want-to-be-NATO allies, all part of George Bush’s coalition of the willing engaged in their endless world war on terror.

Just like at the beginning of the invasion when the US and the Western media reacted with horror and indignation anytime the Afghans fought back, branding them enemy combatants then terrorists and hauling them off to their illegal torture prison, outside of the jurisdiction of international law, in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the media in the West still don’t seem to get it. They continue to react with shock and indignation whenever the Afghan “allies,” yes that is the term they use now for the countrymen of the country they invaded, attack the "coalition" forces.

Let’s stop for a minute here and put things into the proper perspective. Unlike the Soviet Union, whose intervention was officially requested by the Afghan Government, the United States and NATO were never asked to enter the country, that’s one, two: the invasion of Afghanistan, and that is what it was no matter how the West hates to admit it, was never sanctioned internationally or even within the US, and Afghanistan never threatened the US, never committed an act of aggression against the US warranting invasion, and last and most importantly was never involved in the questionable events of 9-11.

The Western media says that the attacks by Afghan “allies” have killed 51 “international service members” this year with 12 attacks in August leaving 15 dead. Yet nowhere can you find an accurate body count of the innocent Iraqi people, including women and children who have died at the hands of the coalition. This is simple to explain and is part of the US propaganda war, the people back in Kansas don’t want to hear about it, the Afghan people are an abstraction, less than human, their lives do not count as much as those of the “coalition” forces. If the American people were to find out what the US is really doing in Afghanistan, they might become upset and call for an end to the military adventure.

The US’ vested interest in hiding the truth, including about Afghanistan, is obvious by the US reaction to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, yours truly, and anyone else who gets too close to the truth. The war should be over soon, you may think, at least that is what they want you to believe, not hardly, despite the fact that the US is to announce that 33,000 troops who were part of the “surge” three years ago, have left the country this actually means nothing. The number of troops will remain at close to invasion level with 68,000 US troops still in-country. That is the great pull-out?

The western media doesn’t mention this very real and provable fact, they continue to complain about Afghan "attacks," either they just doesn’t get it or they actually believe what they are writing when it comes to Afghanistan.

This is completely understandable, no one in the US wants to hear that they illegally invaded and decimated a country for no real reason, or at least not for the reasons they were lied to about and led to believe. No one wants to hear that their presence is not wanted and that they are aggressors and invaders: invaders who attacked one of the poorest and most defenseless countries in the world illegally and on false pretext and then stayed there for more than a decade killing the population without being able to claim any kind of a victory.

The media in the West complains that the spike in “insider” attacks is somehow souring relations between the US and its Afghan allies who are fighting side by side. Against whom? Against other Afghan people. The once-CIA-backed Taliban? The reality is that the US invaded their country, and is killing their people, so how is it that an Afghan could, in their right mind, fight alongside the invaders? Well apparently many are now taking the first chance they have to fight back. Not against their Afghan brothers and sisters but against the invaders.

This is something the US just doesn’t seem to understand. Even if there weren’t thousands of cases of innocent civilians being killed and the constant “scandals” that go unpunished, incidents of urinating on corpses, collecting body parts as trophies and the like, the US would never be welcomed in the country. They are invaders.

The latest in a spate of what are now called “green-on-blue” attacks an Afghan soldier in Helmand province opened fire on a vehicle he believed was driven by NATO soldiers slightly wounding a foreign staff member. Also on Sunday, an Afghan police officer shot and killed four American troops in Zabul and on Saturday a member of a government-backed militia killed two British troops, also in Helmand.

Of course the escalation in violence and attacks against the Americans is being painted in a different light by officials and the press and Instead of admitting that they are completely losing control of the country and the situation for them is growing worse by the day, people like U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, are attempting to paint the increase in attacks as a sign of the decrease in power by the attackers. Panetta said while visiting Japan that the “… insider attacks are the last gasp of a Taliban insurgency that has not been able to regain lost ground.” So the fact that they are attacking more means that they are in fact weaker? Ahem. Okay, but sorry, if you call a black kettle white it is still black.

Further underlining the US military adventure’s failure in Afghanistan and in their meddling in the Muslim world in general, on Tuesday September 18th a woman wearing a suicide vest blew herself up on a minibus in Kabul killing 12 people including 7 foreigners. According to reports the dead were mostly Russian and South African nationals. Apparently the attack was in protest of the infamous film “The Innocence of Muslims”.

In Kabul thousands of protestors clashed with police over the same film, in violence that was even worse that the outbreak that occurred at the beginning of the year over the burning of Korans by US troops.

On Monday NATO reported that it has cut the number of joint operations with Afghan soldiers and policemen in order to lessen the chance of insider attacks. This is the second such order given recently which further flies in the face of the claim that they are fighting "shoulder to shoulder" with the Afghans.

The Pentagon, for its part, has "suspended most joint field operations with Afghan forces because so many Americans are being killed by the men they are training" according to CBS News reports. This comes on the heels of a decision to end all joint patrols and operations without first obtaining approval from the command structure.

If they call that winning, I would hate to see what they call losing.

 

The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily express those of the Voice of Russia.

 They author can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_19/Afghanistan-spinning-failure-as-success/

Jar2 

18 September 2012, 11:24  

NATO: Secret Mission in Syria

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO. Mr, Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically and using Syria for that purpose.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/09/18/1288781123/Rozoff%5b1%5d.jpg

PART I

On July 4th Rasmussen talked about global NATO. At the same time another NATO official talked about closer cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council. What can you tell us about that?

It is very good of you to make that connection. And certainly the speech you are alluding to by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, I did a work on it, it is a very brief speech, by the way, and I believe I counted 27 times he used the words – global, globally, international and world – in reference to NATO. So, the so called North-Atlantic Treaty Organization has appropriated or arrogated onto itself the right to be a global military intervention force. And the Persian Gulf is one of the key geopolitically strategic areas where they are concentrating.

And this is again, in cahoots with the US talking about perhaps expanding the deployment of the so called X-band – portable missile shield radar sites of the sort that were placed in Turkey this year or in Israel four years ago into the Persian Gulf, into one of the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, as the US is exporting Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Area Defense Interceptors into those countries, so we are talking about a major military buildup - anti-missile, naval – and other forms of military buildup in the Persian Gulf states which are linked to NATO under what is called the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004 which was an overt effort by NATO to replicate other partnership programs around the world focusing on the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

I read somewhere that someone was calling for Israel to join NATO. Is that realistic do you think?

There was an article two days ago, if I’m not incorrect - the time zones are different of course, in Haaretz, the leading Israeli daily newspaper, calling for just that – for the formal inclusion of Israel into the NATO vis-à-vis the confrontation with Iran which would inevitably then pull the entire NATO alliance, including nuclear powers – the US, France and Britain – into any military conflict that could be initiated by Israel against Iran. It is not the first time the statements of this sort are being made. Indeed, Israel as a member of the Mediterranean dialog and military partnership with NATO, it was the first country to be granted an individual partnership initiative under the rubric of the Mediterranean dialog.

It is the only country in the Middle East, I don’t know how many of your listeners know this, that is not subordinate to the Pentagon’s Central Command which takes in all the rest in the Middle East as a matter of fact, from Egypt all the way to, say, Kazakhstan. Israel alone remains under the US-European command area of responsibility and the Chief Military Commander of the European Command is simultaneously the Chief Military Command of NATO in Europe, the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. So, that Israel has a very unique relationship with NATO, to begin with. And because of this geographical situation it may not be possible to be incorporated as a full member state, but politically and ultimately militarily has functioned as such for a long time.

A lot of eyes right now are on the upcoming presidential elections in the US. How would the current plans of NATO change if Republican Mitt Romney is elected president?

What we’ve seen since the creation of NATO in 1949 initially by the Democratic President Harry Truman, but its first military commander – the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe was Dwight Eisenhower who would succeed Truman as the President of the US and he was a Republican. Whatever differences exist domestically between the two major political parties and whatever shades of difference may exist between them on international affairs, one thing that is invariable and uniform is the endorsement of NATO as the US’s military arm in Europe. And as we’ve seen, since the Afghan operation began almost 11 years ago increasingly, and the Middle East Asia and with the war against Libya last year in Africa, I wouldn’t expect to see any substantial difference, not even a shade of difference to be honest between a second Obama or the first Romney Administration, in relation to NATO.

You’ve heard about his comments regarding Russia being geopolitical enemy number 1 etc. What do you make of those? Do you think it is just rhetoric? Or do you think he is really serious and if he becomes President, he is going to take an extremely hard line towards the countries he stated he would?

It is bold, I mean it is rhetorical and it is meant to achieve short term political gains in the presidential election in November. At the same time it is authentic and it is a serious danger, as you’ve pointed out, among the best commentaries I’ve read on the subject are on the Voice of Russia. But sometimes rhetoric gets ahead of itself and then a person’s acts on their own are reckless misperception or a commitment to the rhetoric they’ve been espousing. And I would by no means underestimate the danger of Romney Administration in terms of becoming even more provocative and even more bellicose towards Russia. And that’s a distinct possibility and it is definitely a factor in the presidential election.

How do Americans feel about that?

About the question of bating Russia, bating the Russian bear again as though we are living in the very depths of the Cold War and in many ways even worse. I wish I could tell you my fellow Americans have a decided opinion one way or any other on the matter. But the news media is such in this country, if I may speak poorly of your colleagues across the ocean, that superficial issues are dwelled on. The media event such as the Clint Eastwood speech at the Republican National Convention for example grabbed all the headlines. And substantive issues of the sort you have raised tend to be buried and people either don’t hear about them or hearing about them don’t pay a particular attention them. That’s a tragedy.

The US relations towards Russia and particularly any escalation and provocations against Russia would be plenty bad as they are. As within the world’s two major nuclear powers, I ought to be frank about that, it is the matter of the outmost importance and certainly deserves a lot more attention than it is receiving in the media. And as a result the average American voter, when they walk in the polling booth in November, on their list of priorities Russian-American relations are going to be very low if they exist at all.

Ok, Rick is there anything else that you’d like to finish up with?

No. but again I want to commend the Voice of Russia on it excellent coverage of international affairs. But it is very perceptive reporting on events within my country. Often times we don’t read comparable coverage from local news sources.

So, you are saying to get good news on the US you have to…

 Go to the other side of the world.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_18/NATO-secret-mission-in-Syria/

Jar2

18 September 2012, 00:05  

Death Toll from Muslim Protests Continues to Rise

John Robles

The death toll from protests against the US film “The Innocence of Muslims” continues to rise as protests continue to spread unabated around the world. Instead of calling for an end to the senseless violence and promoting peaceful protests many Islamic extremist organizations are calling for an even greater level of violence and for taking revenge.

The death toll from the worldwide protest against the American film that ridicules the Muslim prophet Mohammed, “The Innocence of Muslims” has continued to rise and currently stands at 14 according to the International Business Times. The latest deaths have occurred in Tunisia where 2 protestors were killed. Lebanese media reports that 1 person was killed in Tripoli, in Sudan 2 were killed and in Yemen 5 more people were killed in demonstrations around US Embassies.

As we reported earlier the demonstrations have continued to spread to other countries, and have now engulfed over 20 countries including European countries. The attacks on specific locations serving Western interests have not only been on US Consulates but have also included the diplomatic missions of Germany and other foreign countries and even in some cases locations such as a KFC restaurant.

Although the spark that lit the fire of Muslim rage around the world is the abysmal hack-job-of-a-film “The Innocence of Muslims” the underlying reasons have been simmering under the surface for decades. Unfortunately the backlash has led to the loss of more life and more bloodshed and violence and has once again served to focus the world’s attention not on the positive aspects of the Islamic faith but on the violence that they are capable of committing when pushed to it.

To truly understand the seeds of Muslim rage one must go back decades, to the Iran hostage crisis in the 1970’s, the original war in Afghanistan where the Soviet Union was asked to intervene and where the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Ossama Bin Laden were created and funded by the CIA and the West.

The reasons for their rage are many multi-layered and complex and would require a book to go into all of them properly, but chief among them is the discrimination and xenophobia that Muslims have to face worldwide. Other reasons may be oppressive regimes, poor living conditions in many of their countries, lack of education, dogmatic rules and inflexible teachings and a propensity for the acceptance of violence in the name of their religion, whether openly admitted or not. Add to all that constant and persistent US meddling into the internal affairs of countries worldwide, in particular those in the Islamic world, western resources wars, aggressive invasions of sovereign Islamic nations, the extra-judiciary executions of leaders and a US foreign policy that is disrespectful of, and ignores cultural differences and strives to propagate its own agenda and superimpose its own image on how people of the world should behave and act, and you have what you see today.

The world, for the most part, and the international community agree that the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi was an abysmal and abhorrent act and one that must be punished but the US did not have clean hands in Libya in particular, in facts their hands were dripping with blood. The film in question is therefore just the spark that lit the fuse that set off the bomb of Muslim rage.

The debate, if the largely one-sided argument can be called that, in the US and in other countries has begun whether this was a matter of freedom of speech. Which seems odd to me because normally freedom of speech stops when you begin inciting people into committing acts of violence or provoking a reaction by insulting or demeaning their beliefs, character, race or religion.

Here with have a fundamental debate that the world should be focused on. Where does “freedom” end and defamation begin? Freedom comes with great responsibilities and people like Terry Jones, Pussy Riot, Femen and the makers of this film are clearly as ignorant to this fact as are their “protests” and abuses, under the color of “freedom”.

The hypocrisy and self-serving nature of some espousing “freedom of speech” is deafening and needs to be addressed, and this nowhere more evident than in the US and in US policy worldwide.

In a free and democratic world there cannot be one country dictating and super-imposing its beliefs on the rest of the planet. When my freedom treads on the freedom of my neighbor that is where that freedom ends. However this requires thought, restraint and above all and foremost, respect for those who are different from us. This is not evident in US policy, which tends to hold the vein that “You will do as we say, or we will destroy you.” This is true in US policy worldwide, the cowboy diplomacy George Bush, and the either you are with us or against us has no place in the modern world, unless we are to submit to a global dictatorship by America.

Dr. Todd Green, who runs a blog at the Huffington Post, said it well in a piece on the topic: “We must go beyond the facile media explanations about intolerant Muslims and start to explore the complex political, economic, historical, and cultural circumstances that have contributed to these particular protests that are taking place in these particular geographies. And we must not be afraid to ask uncomfortable questions about how all of these circumstances have contributed to some of the frustrations and disillusionment that many in the Middle East have when it comes to their perceptions of the U.S. and its involvement in the region.”

Glenn Greenwald at the UK’s Guardian wrote an article on the free speech aspect and said: “… the US and its western allies have, in the name of combating terrorism, engaged in free speech assaults aimed primarily at Muslims which are far more dangerous…” “… with these same right-wing free speech champions remaining utterly silent, except when cheering it all on.” He proceeded to give an example of a young Muslim who was arrested and on terrorism charges for posting something similar on the internet which again shows the utter hypocrisy of US policy, the young many faces 23 years in prison.

Back to the current situation, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have called for even more attacks on US interests with Al-Qaeda urging even more violence and praising the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi and according to zeenews.com Hezbollah “seeking to foment the anger in Muslims.”

According to zeenews, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said that the US must be held accountable for the film. Nasrallah also called on the leaders of the Muslim world to take action and said: “We should not only express our anger at an American embassy here or there. We should tell our rulers in the Arab and Muslim world that it is ‘your responsibility in the first place’ and since you officially represent the governments and states of the Muslim world you should impose on the United States, Europe and the whole world that our prophet, our Quran and our holy places and honor of our Prophet be respected.”

Other Muslim leaders are attempting to defuse the anger of Muslims, with the site philstar.com reporting that: “The top cleric in US ally Saudi Arabia denounced the film but said it can’t really hurt Islam” and the head of the Sunni Muslim world’s pre-eminent religious institution, Egypt’s Al-Azhar, backed peaceful protests but said Muslims should counter the movie by reviving Islam’s moderate ideas.

Meanwhile the First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said."The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns this inappropriate and offensive action," "Certainly it will search for, track, and pursue this guilty person who has insulted 1.5 billion Muslims in the world."

Also in Iran the 15 Khordad Foundation a government backed religious foundation has raised the reward for killing the author of the book, “The Satanic Verses” Salman Rushide by $500,000 and it now stands at $3.3 million. The have said the person who fulfills the 1989 fatwa will receive the money immediately.

While the producer of the film has gone into hiding, one of the film’s main promoters, Terry Jones, has been denied entry into Germany. According to Der Spiegel Jones was banned from entering Germany after a far-right hate group, Pro Deutschland, announced plans of inviting him to a showing of the film. The German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle had requested the ban on the grounds that Jones was a "hate preacher" and a German Interior Ministry spokesman said Jones’ visit "runs counter to the interest of maintaining public order."

Der Spiegel also said Deutsche Welle reported that the group that had invited Jones had held rallies near mosques in Berlin, where they “displayed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad…”

Once again I personally would like to plea to all who are offended by this, do not resort to violence, you will just be playing into the hands of those who promote hate.

  The views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the Voice of Russia. The writer can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_18/Death-toll-from-Muslim-protest-continues-to-rise/

Jar2

15 September 2012, 22:02  

Canada Closing its Doors to the Roma

John Robles

Canada closing its doors to the Roma

The situation for the Roma in Europe is not improving. Trapped in a cycle of discrimination and poverty where they are not allowed a decent education and therefore cannot obtain decent jobs and in many cases segregated, not allowed proper health care and under constant attacks by ever increasing nationalist groups all over Europe, many turn to crime, prostitution and any other means they can to simply survive. This only reinforces the negative view of the Roma and leads to even more discrimination against them.

The Hungarian Roma community, which accounts for approximately 7% of Hungary’s population, continues to face discrimination in every aspect of their lives. Since a report issued by Amnesty International in 2009 little has changed for Hungary’s Roma, they still face discrimination and segregation in all areas of life. This includes public education, housing, employment and medical care.

The Roma not only face daily racism and discrimination but they have to contend with violent attacks by nationalist and neo-Nazi groups such as the illegal paramilitary Hungarian National Guard, which was disbanded by the Hungarian government but reformed and continues to grow. It is for the most part an anti-Roman organization whose members have included high level Hungarian officials in the past.

Last month the Hungarian Guard held an inauguration ceremony for 140 new members in a secret location in Dunaföldvár Hungary. Although the police came out in force, with over 300 officers taking part in an operation to shut down the ceremony and arrest members, the group managed to confuse police with decoys and misleading phone calls, and the police raided a location where none of the group’s members were actually present.

The discrimination of the Roma is by far not limited to Hungary, they face discrimination all over Europe but the reason that I am focusing on the Hungarian Roma is because soon they may have no place to go as many who were seeking asylum in Canada are being sent back and the doors for Roma asylum seekers in Canada are about to be all but closed.

With the passing of the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, a Canadian piece of legislation that some are calling the “anti-Roma law, the process for the Roma obtaining asylum will be all but impossible and their deportation will be much easier and quicker.

According to Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney, in a report on the cic.gc.ca website; “This legislation will help stop foreign criminals, human smugglers and those with unfounded refugee claims from abusing Canada’s generous immigration system and receiving taxpayer funded health and social benefits. Canada’s immigration and refugee system is one of the most fair and generous in the world and will continue to be so under the new and improved system.”

In reality the law will stop the waves of Roma that had begun to arrive in Canada and were abusing the system, often by returning to Hungary and still receiving benefits from the Canadian government. But the reason they return is not so simple as the government wants to portray. For many of the Roma they have no choice, many arrived in Canada with the hope for a better life but were trapped in conditions that were worse than the ones that they had left another example of the vicious cycle that the Roma are trapped in.

The new law now allows the Canadian Government the option of adding countries to a safe list in order to speed up the processing of refugees and deporting them. If a refugee comes from a country on the list, their claim will be processed in 45 days, not the 1,000 days that the other claimants have.

Such a move may help Canada to implement a universal no-visa policy for the entire European Union, something it currently does not have. For example Hungarians do not require a visa to travel to Canada but Czechs do. Their non-visa status was revoked due to the number of Roma claims for asylum.

According to the Budapest times the Canada Border Services Agency has recently reported that they are worried about the rising level of crime being committed by Hungarian Roma refugees in the country, these crimes mainly include skimming fraud and check fraud with a rising level of cases where checks are stolen and deposited into the bank accounts of refugee claimants who returned to Hungary.

The Budapest Times reported last year that the head of the National Roma Self-Government Flórián Farkas was warned by the Canadian Ambassador in Budapest, that Roma travelling to Canada “face prolonged and complicated procedures and have little chance of their asylum application being successful.”

So for the Roma seeking a better life and to break the cycle discrimination which starts with poor education, poor medical care and poor housing and continues and leads to job discrimination and no chance for quality employment and the betterment of their lives due to the previous reasons, another door appears to have been closed due to the actions of some who have supposedly cheated the system.

Unfortunately for the Roma the vicious cycle they are trapped in may not have an exit.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_15/Canada-closing-its-doors-to-the-Roma/

Jar2

15 September 2012, 12:26  

US Adm Wants Total Control in Cyberspace

John Robles

US administration wants total control in cyberspace

The recent upheavals in the world have taken attention away from a very important move by US President Obama that could strip away another large chunk of freedom from Americans and place another huge and important piece of the public domain under government and corporate control. President Obama has circulated an executive order that will implement measures that have already failed to pass Congress and were contained in the failed Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Again the pretense for stripping away freedoms is “security” and again the attackers are China and Russia.

Whenever the US issues another order or law regarding “security” the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. Why? Because this means that even more rights and civil liberties will be stripped away from the people and even more power will be had by the government.

Reports say that the Obama Administration is currently drafting what is called in the US, an executive order, giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the power and the responsibility to establish standards of cybersecurity that would protect banks, water plants, telecommunication networks and the U.S. power grid from electronic attacks.

On the surface and to those who know little about the real cyber attacks, the program dubbed Perfect Citizen, looks like something that is needed and should have been implemented yesterday, but hold on a minute, the devil is in the details and in who is behind the plans, namely the most secret of the secret US Security structures, the National Security Agency or NSA.

The problem with that for US citizens and in general is that it would give an intelligence agency control over a public system which may be an area of expertise by the NSA, responsible for signals and electronic security, but goes against the NSA directive not to spy on US citizens.

The plan which has wide-ranging implications and will basically allow the government to take control over the electronic grid, and this includes the internet, is deemed necessary by its proponents because the power grid of the United States is supposedly vulnerable and under constant cyber-attack. However this is far from the truth.

According to Michael Tanji over at Wired, first of all the networks in question, power grids and the public water supply systems are rarely if ever connected to wide area networks and the public internet. Secondly the operating and control systems they use are often proprietary, meaning they have no publically or even privately available analogues that are available and accessible to the public or to hackers who can reverse engineer them and find weaknesses or vulnerabilities that they can exploit.

So the law is not needed and the rationale behind it is false then why attempt to pass the law, bypassing the legislative branch, by using an executive order to do so? First of all because a similar bill failed to be passed into law earlier this year and second of all for the reason I have already stated, it would allow the US Government to take control of the internet and the public electronic grid which includes almost all forms of modern communications.

According to propaganda put out by the continuously more powerful Department of Homeland Security there are constant attacks that target everything from the US power grid to nuclear power plants.

Even scarier is information being disseminated by the National Security Agency itself. A report published byReuters quotes the head of NSA's Information Assurance Directorate, Debora Plunkett when asked how real the threat of hacking from China, Russia and other countries was, as saying: "Significant. I don't know how else to describe it."

Even worse she said that: "Some of today's national cyber actors don't seem to be bound by any sense of restraint." Meaning state sponsored cyber-attacks are out of control and state actors behave recklessly.

Again the White House is demonizing China and Russia which they claim are attempting to commit computer espionage in a wide range of areas and for wide ranging reasons. This and other false propaganda about massive attacks on critical infrastructure is designed to terrify the American populace into giving away even more of their freedoms and rights, yet despite this the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 failed and there are not public cries begging for more “protection”.

According to the US media the Obama executive order bears a striking resemblance to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 which failed to be passed by Congress. Many also say that an executive order in this instance violates Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution which says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that if a bill is not passed the president can single-handedly decide to make a law himself.

The practice of using executive orders is a controversial one which many see as a tool of an “Imperial President” as they allow the president to unilaterally and without oversight or public debate pass laws that may not be in the public interest. Former US President George Bush was famous for issues such orders many making crimes such as torture illegal after the fact and other designed to protect him and his administration from bothersome oversight, such as an executive order limited access to presidential papers.

The greatest fear regarding this executive order is that a partnership between the government and corporations under the guise of “security” to jointly control the entire US electronic grid is a step to merging corporate and state power, a condition which is better known as corporate fascism.

  There may be a real threat here, but the question lies, from where?

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_15/US-administration-wants-total-control-in-cyberspace/

Jar2 

14 September 2012, 23:27  

Muslim Rage Spreads Worldwide

John Robles

Protests against the US film Innocence of Muslims have begun to spread all over the world. There have been attacks on US Embassies worldwide as Muslim anger against US policies and meddling has continued to fuel the anger. The protests involving hundreds of thousands have remained for the most part peaceful with most of the most serious violence directed at US Embassies, businesses and in one case an American school was burnt down. Since the murders in Benghazi (Libya) there have been no reports of violence against Americans.

Mass protests by Muslims continue to spread to more and more countries as outrage in the Islamic words escalates due to the trailer of a US film ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed called the Innocence of Muslims which appeared on the Internet.

Although the film was the spark that lit the flames of the violence, massive longstanding grievances and anger against the US and their attempts to force their policies on countries worldwide as well as the US’ constant meddling into affairs in Muslim world are now serving to feed the escalating violence. The deep socioeconomic problems in Arab Spring countries, something that has not been addressed is also playing into the hands of Islamists and adding more fuel to the crisis.

All over the world governments are asking Muslims to show restraint and not to escalate the level of violence.

On Friday the protests spread from Egypt and Libya to other countries including Israel, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen. There were also widespread protests in countries outside the Middle East region, including but not limited to: Bangladesh, Kashmir, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Qatar.

Israel

In Jerusalem a protest near the Damascus Gate turned violent when protesters began throwing rocks at police. Apparently the protesters began to head in the direction of the US Consulate and were stopped by police using shock grenades.

According to Ynet news there were protests in Akko, in the Wadi Ara region and in the towns of Baqa al-Gharbia and Umm al-Fahmm, which were for the most part peaceful.

Yemen

Yemen saw some of the most violent protests with reports saying that security forces killed four protesters who were rioting near the US embassy in Yemen.

Sudan

In Khartoum hundreds of protesters stormed the German Embassy and set it on fire. Police used teargas to dispel the protesters who then began protesting outside the British Embassy nearby.

Kashmir

In Kashmir, in some of the largest anti-American demonstrations so far, at least 15,000 people took part in dozens of protests, chanting "Down with America," "Down with Israel" and calling US president Barack Obama a "terrorist." The country’s top cleric has demanded Americans leave the region immediately.

India

In Chennai, protesters threw stones at the US consulate, shattering some windows and burned an effigy of Obama. Police arrested more than 100 protesters.

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, about 5,000 people marched in Dhaka burning US and Israeli flags and calling for the death of the film-maker. Police stopped them from reaching the US Embassy.

Indonesia

In Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, protests were extremely peaceful as only about 200 protesters held a peaceful protest outside the heavily guarded US embassy in Jakarta.

Iran

There were more protests in Tehran including demonstrations outside the Swiss embassy (which represents US interests in Iran). Reports say Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, denounced the anti-Muslim film during Friday prayers.

Tunisia

Three protesters were killed outside the US embassy in Tunis, where demonstrators attempted to enter the compound. The demonstrators included ordinary Tunisians and Salafist activists. An American school was also set on fire.

Lebanon

One demonstrator was killed by security forces in Tripoli as protesters attempted to storm a government building. An American Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant was also burned down.

Syria

In Damascus hundreds of protesters gathered outside US embassy holding a peaceful demonstration. Protesters carried images of President Bashar al-Assad and chanted anti-American slogans.

Pakistan

Hundreds of protesters attempted to march towards the US embassy in Islamabad and were stopped by police far from the city’s diplomatic quarter where the embassy is located.

Qatar

Protesters filled the streets of Doha and lined the city’s main highway. No violence has been reported.

In closing I would personally like to ask all Muslims to show restraint and demonstrate peacefully as this was another provocation. Those who made the film want to see violence and want you to over-react. If you react violently you will be playing into their hands.

 Information gathered from multiple internal and external sources. Any opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at: jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_14/Muslim-rage-spreads-worldwide/

Jar2

14 September 2012, 18:48  

Workers’ Struggle: South African Style

John Robles

Thousands of striking miners in South Africa have refused a minor salary increase offer and have vowed to continue their strike against UK based Lonmin PLC. Workers at other platinum mines are said to be striking as well amid fears that the strikes may spread to the gold mining industry. It is a classic struggle between the workers and the bosses, yet the level of violence from both sides is alarming and continues to grow.

The wildcat strike by miners working for the London-based Lomnin PLC in Marikana South Africa continues to worsen with mine management continuing to refuse to make concessions to the miners and the miners refusing a minimal pay increase offer by management.

Almost a month ago workers at the Marikana mine and one at Karee, south of Johannesburg launched a wildcat strike in protest of low wages. The strike led to what is now known as the "Marikana Massacre" the single most lethal use of force by the South African security forces since 1960 and the end of apartheid. On August 16th the security forces killed 34 miners and wounded at least 78 more.

According to reports from the scene of the massacre the strikers were cordoned into a small area when police opened fire and were far from police lines when the massacre occurred. People at the scene claimed, and the evidence shows that the police hunted down the miners, cornered them, and instead of arresting them, opened fire.

Several thousand miners at Anglo American Platinum, another key supplier of platinum, also have gone on strike and the company has had to close its four Rustenburg mines.

The two companies make billions of dollars and account for a large share of the world’s platinum supplies with 80% of the world’s know platinum reserves located in South Africa which also accounts for close to a fourth of the world’s mined gold. Lonmin itself reportedly accounts for 12% of the world’s supply of platinum. There are fears that the strikes may lead to unrest in the gold sector as well.

The managers and owners of the company make millions and the company could well afford to raise wages but they are not concerned with the conditions that the workers face and are afraid an increase in salaries would cut their bottom line. Reflecting the days of Apartheid is the fact that the management of the mines is almost exclusively white, with the miners being almost exclusively black.

Although the miners are only asking for a pay raise there are many other conditions at the mines and in their living arrangements that are well below accepted norms.

Claims that the miners already earn more than the average are hollow as their living conditions, ones of poverty and squalor, in no way reflect the “affluence” that officials try to portray they possess. The workers currently want approximately $1,500 a month, three times more than they are making now which is about $500.

Most of the miners come from other areas so they do not have homes near Marikana. Many of them also have families back home, who they are trying to support and send money to, while living with friends or in extremely bad conditions. The mines do provide some minimal support but it is not enough to allow for a normal existence.

The Bench Marks Foundation  which calls itself: “…a unique organization in the area of corporate social responsibility”, says that despite all of the billions being made in the mining operations the benefits are not being shared by the miners and the surrounding communities.

The organization claims there are no employment opportunities for local youth, people live in sub-human conditions, there is high unemployment and there are conditions of growing inequality in the surrounding communities. In short the workers are exploited and the conditions under which they live and work do not reflect the huge profits that are being made.

According to International Labor Organization, a specialized agency of the UN for the miners the conditions are appalling and dangerous. The organization reported that the miners “… are exposed to a variety of safety hazards including falling rocks, exposure to dust, intensive noise, fumes and high temperatures, among others.” Yet the miners are only demanding a salary increase.

The strike has also brought to the forefront the internal struggle of the ANC and their close connections to the mining elite with some saying the strikes may affect President Jacob Zuma’s chance of being re-elected in an internal ANC election coming up in December.

The strikes also serve to underline growing worldwide displeasure by the working and the middle class with the power elites and big business who are not looking after the interests of the people but are only interested in making themselves rich.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_14/Workers-struggle-South-African-style/

Jar2

13 September 2012, 21:41  

Benghazi: Putin Speaks Out, Romney Out of Touch, NATO Gears Up for Next Aggressive War

John Robles

Benghazi: Putin speaks out, Romney out of touch, NATO gears up

The details about the events leading up to and surrounding the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi continue to come in as the world’s press tries to make sense of it all. Details are coming in that the film, which is reported to have sparked the violence, may have been a carefully planned hoax. As we cannot support the desecration of the Orthodox Faith neither can we support the desecration of the Muslim Faith, but above all we cannot support the killing of innocent individuals.

Speaking to reporters in Sochi Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out against the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi Libya: “We condemn this crime and offer our condolences to the victims' families. The safety of diplomats is protected by international conventions and if someone fails to recognize this, it means that they put themselves outside the framework of the law and outside the framework of modern civilization" President Putin said.

He also said that: "The religious feelings of people of all beliefs must be ‘handled very carefully’ and government reactions to religious provocation must be ‘tough and timely,’ otherwise the people who feel offended will take matters into their own hands to defend their interests and views.”

According to RIA-Novosti President Putin also used the opportunity to reiterate his argument that the West should not support popular uprisings against dictatorships in the Middle East because this could have unpredictable and hazardous consequences.

“We do not support any armed groups that attempt to resolve internal political problems by violent means.” Putin said. He added: “We do not understand these people’s final goals, and we are always worried about the possibility that if we support these armed groups, we could ultimately find ourselves in a deadlock situation. We fear that the region could fall into chaos and that is exactly what’s happening.”

Details about the film that led up to the events in Benghazi are becoming murkier and murkier. With investigative journalists all over the world discovering new details by the hour, the entire event looks like it may have all been secretly planned and orchestrated from beginning to end.

The first reports about what set off the events were of a two-hour film called "Innocence of Muslims" which was produced directed and written by one Sam Bacile, reportedly a California real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. Now things have changed, starting with the identity of the maker of the film, there are reports that nobody with such a name really exists, and there are reports from various sources that say he is not even Jewish and the whole Jewish angle was a provocation. Apparently what we do know is that the individual using the name Sam Bacile is an Egyptian, who speaks Arabic and English.

According to Yigal Palmor an official spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, speaking to the New York Times: "Nobody knows who he is, he is totally unknown in filmmaking circles in Israel, and anything he did: he is not doing it for Israel, or with Israel, or through Israel in any way." He also called the film’s maker "a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot."

According to the Guardian many of the actors in the so-called “film” were tricked and lied to into thinking they were filming a simple desert saga and that much of the dialogue was dubbed in later. There is also doubt that a two hour film actually does exist and speculation that the entire work consists of only the trailer that has been posted on the internet. It appears that the whole thing may have been a hoax.

Hoax or not the results are real and blood has been shed and the Muslim world has once again been thrown into even more upheaval as if it really needed anymore.

The United States, which never charged anyone with carrying out 9-11, has reported that they already know that al-Qaeda was behind the attack. This is disturbing because the United States is reportedly using and supporting al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria and many other locations as they did in Libya when the US back-insurgents killed Muammar Gaddafi.

Apparently those who killed Ambassador Stevens knew of a US safe-house and attacked that as well, suggesting inside information which may have had to do with Steven’s reported task of liaising with insurgents, terrorist groups and possibly al-Qaeda operatives during the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. We should recall that Benghazi was the “base of operations” if you will in the invasion and overthrow of Libya. A fact which may have led to the US’ false sense of security in the city.

US Secretary of State Clinton was disbelieving saying she asked herself "how could this happen in a country we helped liberate and in a city we helped to save from destruction." A far cry from her now infamous “We came, we saw, he died!” comment on US television regarding the death of Muammar Gaddafi.

One of the groups being blamed, Ansar al Sharia – meaning Supporters of Islamic Law - which reportedly has ties to al-Qaeda, denies responsibility in the attack. Another group, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is also suspected in the attack.

The fact that Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation, and was not shot, executed or decapitated suggests that the death may have been accidental but nevertheless this has had no influence on the US response.

The world wide reaction to the killing of Stevens is mixed and surprising for many. The solidarity with the US that was evident after 9-11 is long gone. Many blogs, social networking sites and websites are seeing an increase in the number of people who are against US policy and see this as a justified response to the brutal murder of Gaddafi and the continuing wars and meddling by the US in the Muslim world.

Many in Libya and Egypt are extremely displeased with the “democracy” they were promised after the fall of their leaders, as are many in the Arab Spring countries, where Islamic Fundamentalism is beginning to take a stronger hold over society as living and societal conditions continue to worsen.

The rioting and protests in Egypt over the film have died down but are continuing and there are fears that the anger and the outcry will spread throughout the Muslim World.

Official Washington has attempted to distance itself from the “film” which triggered the event and even with “Pastor” Terry Jones and his anti-Islamic hate speech, reaching the point that even General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones and asked him to withdraw his support for the film. Jones and his provocative Quran burning stunts have already been responsible for scores of deaths and riots, including the deaths of US servicemen in Afghanistan.

Official Moscow and the Russian Foreign Ministry support the fight against any kind of terrorism and have stated that this is a sign that the US and Moscow need to work closer in the fight against terrorism. Russia in no stranger to terrorism and the FSB and Russian Security Services have been extremely effective in preventing and thwarting hundreds of terrorist attacks by many of the same groups the US is fighting against.

According to NATO expert Rick Rozoff the “Alliance” is deploying two Aegis class destroyers off the coast of Libya as well as having already dispatched Marines to Benghazi and elsewhere in the nation. This includes the guided missile warship USS Laboon and the USS McFaul both equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

He wrote on his Stop NATO site that eight American Marines were flown into Benghazi by helicopter the day after the attack on the U.S. mission, with two of them being killed and two wounded in a fierce mortar attack on the building. Rozoff also wrote that the U.S. has deployed 50 members of the elite U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Libya.

Mr. Rozoff also wrote that: “… with NATO's military operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, one armed conflict inevitable gives way to another and the Western military bloc continues to execute plans to expand into a global military strike force.”

American politicians have for the most part been neutral towards the current administration and have refrained from placing blame or pointing the finger, most that is except Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, who attempted to misconstrue statements made by the US Embassy in Cairo and gain political mileage from the event.

The statement in Cairo was released before the events and read read: "The embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

Romney decided to take the statement out of context and say that the entire Obama Administration and the US Government were attempting to appease the terrorists and sympathize with them, recall the statement was released before the attacks in both Egypt and Benghazi.

Romney’s Tuesday night statement read: “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Many Republicans distanced themselves from the statement as it was an outright lie.

 The Guardian quoted “a very senior Republican foreign policy hand" as saying “They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it's just completely blown up, the statement was an ‘utter disaster’".

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_13/Romney-out-of-touch-public-response-unexpected-NATO-gears-up/

Jar2 

12 September 2012, 20:30  

US Ambassador Killed in Libya. Pastor Terry Jones  to Blame?

John Robles

A US film ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed has caused extreme backlash all over the Muslim world including the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. The largest attack has occurred in Egypt but the backlash from the film is still ongoing. Official Washington does not support the message in film and has closed its missions in Libya.

On Tuesday night the US Embassy in Benghazi Libya was attacked by angry Islamists apparently set off by a film aired in America which ridiculed the Islamic Prophet Mohammed.

According to reports during the attack an embassy employee was killed and Stevens was killed along with three other Americans when the vehicle he was riding in was attacked as it neared the embassy compound.

The attack on the embassy came shortly after an attack on the US Embassy in Cairo, where demonstrators tore down an American flag in protesting a two-hour film called "Innocence of Muslims" which was produced directed and written by one Sam Bacile, reportedly a California real estate developer and an Israeli Jew.

According to reports the film apparently, openly and with ridicule, depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a false prophet and a paedophile and shows him having sex and ordering massacres. According to media reports Mr. Bacile is unapologetic, blaming the deaths at the embassy on lax security and stating that “Islam is a cancer, period”!

The film is being promoted by Quran burning “pastor” Terry Jones and one Morris Sadek who is promoting the film on US television stations. Terry Jones, as we may recall is still actively preaching religious intolerance and inciting hatred and already has the blood of Americans and others on his hands after causing massive riots all over the Muslim world with his Quran burning stunts.

Officially the US states that they are against these kinds of provocations and that they support all religions, yet nothing has been done to these individuals who are causing real blood to be shed all over the world. Even with the bloodshed and backlash on US soldiers and US personnel overseas for some reason the US Government has not seen fit to stop these individuals from inciting religious hatred.

Many in the Muslim world and people in general see this inaction by the US Government as a sign that Official Washington supports the position of extremist anti-Muslim fanatics.

The light sentences and seemingly condoning attitude that has been taken to US and NATO Forces who repeatedly desecrate and have committed war crimes against Muslims does not help the US image in the Muslim world as well.

Another area which is causing backlash against the US is the failure of the Arab Spring and the US “missions” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The world is tired of the drone attacks, the killing of thousands of civilians, the assassinations, the torture and the military expansion of the US.

Our condolences go out to the families of those killed in the attacks on the embassy in Benghazi, but this is yet another sign that the US needs to change its policies.

In Libya the double standards and the lack of planning by the US are more to blame than the insurgents who supported the US in their war to kill Gaddafi and who then turned their weapons on those who brought them to power.

Under Gaddafi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt, such attacks on US Embassies would never have happened. The US’ lack of foresight and advance planning in unleashing the Arab Spring and effecting regime changes all over the region is going to have a continuing and growing backlash and instead of subjugating the people and controlling the countries in question, as the US has seen in Afghanistan, the opposite will be the case.

Again we have to condemn the violence of those who see violence as the only way to fight back, and we regret the death of yet the continued meddling by the US in countries all over the world is going to continue to cause backlash and will continue to escalate.

As many experts agree, including US based expert Alon Ben Meir, the failure of the Arab Spring was that the US mistakenly thought they could bring about “democracy” overnight in countries where the people had no idea what it means.

As the peoples of the Arab Spring countries and Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya begin to see their lives become worse, their countries continue to fall apart and the “promise” of democracy to have been a lie, they will turn to the Islamists, and if provocations continue against Muslims, the attacks will grow worse.

Maybe it is time the US thought about peace and stopped trying to dictate to the world what it should do, who it should befriend, what religion to believe in and how to run their countries?

The Voice of Russia regrets the killing in Benghazi of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and does not condone such violence.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_12/US-Ambassador-killed-in-Libya-Pastor-Terry-Jones-is-to-blame/

Jar2  

12 September 2012, 13:42  

US-Sponsored Haqqani Network Now a Terrorist Organization

John Robles

Created from a small organization by the US during the US-backed war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, the Haqqani network has now been classified as a terrorist organization by the US. What this means for the world at large, from a legal standpoint is really nothing, but what it means for the continuation of the endless “War on Terror” and the Bush doctrine of “Either you are with us or you are against us” may be a lot.

On Friday September 7, 2012 the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed an official order which formally designates the Taliban-linked Haqqani network as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), adding yet another organization to the US terror blacklist and giving the US further justification for the “War on Terror” and further global military expansion. The move will also allow the US to seize and go after the network’s considerable resources, under US law.

Whether the designation is legal under international law is not a question the US or its allies spend any time considering, and few countries dare to question the US policy started by former US President George W. Bush of “either you are with us or you are against us.”

Official statements and extensive media reports paint a picture of reluctance on the part of the US Government to make such a move and attempt to shift the blame on intense pressure by the US Congress, something perhaps done in an attempt to dilute the effect of the designation on US-Pakistani relations.

According to Western media and open source intelligence, the Haqqani network’s operatives freely move and operate in North Waziristan and other areas of Pakistan, as well as the Paktiya, Paktika, and Khost provinces of Afghanistan. The media also reports that network operatives provide support to terrorist organizations including the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda in the form of weapons, financing, sanctuary and even militants.

The Haqqani network’s financial assets are said to be vast and widespread and come from a wide range of legal and illegal activities all across South Asia and the Middle East.

The US blames the network for attacks against the United States, NATO, and Afghan forces, including the 2008 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, last September's attack on the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters and assassination attempts on President Hamid Karzai and others.

The move will also allow the US to label Pakistan a state that supports terrorism along with blacklisted countries such as Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria and give it another justification for the continuation of its “War on Terror”. All the US has to do is show ties between the Pakistanis and the Haqqani network - a campaign that has already started as proven by reports now beginning to circulate stating that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence Agency is backing terrorists. One such report quotes a Pakistani doctor who reportedly helped the CIA locate Osama bin Laden , Dr Shakil Afridi, who was speaking to Fox News, the US cable network famous for being a tool for promoting less-than-true propaganda.

The problem here is that the Haqqani network, as well as al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and even the Taliban all got their start with the help of the CIA and were all at one point (and may continue to) doing the US’ bidding.

Another problem is that anyone who fights the US, no matter where they be, is being classified as terrorists. We saw this during the invasion of Afghanistan, when anyone who fought the invaders was taken to Guantanamo, and we see this today. The US’ invasion of sovereign nations without an official declaration of war requires them to do so and to make even more terrorists in order to support their endless war.

It is common knowledge now that Jalauddin Haqqani and his fighters were leading recipients of CIA funding during the CIA backed war against the Soviet Union in Pakistan. Getting their start in the 1970s, they were supported and funded by the CIA and ISI throughout the 1980s.

Just like al-Qaeda and bin Laden, who was given the code name Tom Ossman, the CIA helped to make their organizations large and powerful and now the US is now waging an endless global war to supposedly try to eradicate them, if you believe their version. The fact is that it cannot be viewed as simply the “War on Terror”. This is only a pretext for global military expansion and the “terrorists” that the US created and is apparently fighting against, give the US the reason it needs to continue its military expansion.

Throughout the years, Haqqani has developed his network extensively even receiving money, weapons and supplies from Pakistan’s ISI. After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan he even served as justice minister and minister of tribal and border affairs after the Taliban came to power in 1996. Following the US invasion of Afghanistan he then joined the Taliban.

The events leading to the designation of the Haqqani network as a terrorist group and the attempted “disowning” began in 2011, when in September, at a congressional hearing, Admiral Mike Mullen, who at the time was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to Foreign Policy “…declared that the network of Jalaluddin Haqqani was a "virtual arm" of Pakistan's top spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.”

The same publication stated that: “Sherry Rehman, the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, brushed off the designation, calling it an internal US matter and noting that Haqqanis are not Pakistani nationals.” She went on to say, "It's not our business”, but added that Pakistan would maintain its counterterrorism cooperation with the United States.

Apparently such a designation is not seen by the Pakistanis as something that will hurt relations which are already at a low point if they can be said to exist at all after years of “incidents”. We should recall the two Pakistanis killed by a CIA contractor, the killing of 28 Pakistani soldiers on November 26, 2011, the unilateral US raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, incidents with drones and more. All of which may have been classified as acts of war. However Pakistan would not make such a designation as it has continued to attempt to appease the US.

The latest move will allow the US to begin seizing the resources of Haqqani and will allow the US military to expand the range of their targets in the region.

Even in disowning its children, those very children are still doing their master’s bidding.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_12/US-sponsored-Haqqani-network-now-reclassified-as-terrorist-organization/

Jar2

10 September 2012, 22:48  

US Educators Not Respected

John Robles

Chicago’s teachers have reached the end of their rope in negotiating with the Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel and have for the first time in 25 years been forced to go on strike.

The Chicago Teacher’s Union (CTU) announcement to go on strike Monday morning did not please the Mayor of Chicago whom many see as someone who only supports special interests and the very rich. A common complaint all over the US by those less fortunate has become louder.

As the Occupy Movement becomes more organized and the people more oppressed and at the same time less fearful as conditions grow worse, they see that they have nothing to lose.

In May of this year just before the NATO Summit and timed to coincide with May Day celebrations, Occupy Chicago and over 75 other protest groups banded together to protest numerous issues including school closures and low salaries. Of course due to the nature of May Day, chief among the issues was worker’s rights. Several Chicago area Unions took part in the demonstrations fighting not only to bring attention to key issues but for the very right to stay alive and continue to exist.

On Sunday night, after months of failed negotiations, Chicago Teacher’s Union President Karen Lewis said that: “Negotiations have been intense but productive, however we have failed to reach an agreement that will prevent a labor strike.”

Back in May I spoke to Rachael Perrotta, an Activist with Occupy Chicago and a Member of the Occupy Chicago Press Team and she said that Chicago has a serious problem with schools being outright closed and money that is meant for education going for things like the NATO Summit.

Rachael also spoke to NBC News in May and told them: "What we're seeking to do as Occupy is to become the glue that can bring all of these causes together, creating a gigantic coalition that can begin the hard work of fixing this country." She was speaking about the Occupy Movement bringing worker’s groups and unions together under one umbrella.

Having spent part of my childhood as a pupil in the Chicago Unified School District I can say one thing, conditions must be extremely bad if Chicago’s educators have decided to go on strike. Chicago has some of the toughest schools and some of the toughest kids in America. The teachers in Chicago are some of the toughest in the country and put up with conditions that are bad to begin with. If they have been pushed so far as to strike things must be completely unbearable.

One of the key issues that the Union and City are sparring about is a new system of teacher evaluation that Chicago Teacher’s Union President, Karen Lewis told the press could cause 6,000 teachers to lose their jobs within about 2 years.

The mayor Rahm Emanuel was also attempting to coerce teachers to extend the school day by 90 minutes so he could keep his campaign promise to do so, and attempted to skirt the Union and get them to ignore their contracts. The Teacher’s Union complained to the Illinois Educational Relations Board and the mayor stopped attempting to by-pass teacher contracts. However the city and the union reached a compromise in July where almost 500 laid off teachers were to be re-hired to work the extra hours required to extend the school day.

In the US teachers receive some of the lowest salaries in the country and the importance and difficult nature of their jobs in not appreciated and not rewarded as it should be. Chicago areas teachers are fortunate that they still have a union to look after their interests as many unions and labor organizations in the US are being done away with.

The CTU has 26,000 teachers who did not show up for work on Monday although according to the city a lot of concessions were made.

In the mayor’s opinion there are only two stumbling blocks left: the teacher evaluation system and the his demand that the principal of each school decide who works in the school as he is responsible for the educational level and the program in the school. Mayor Emanuel believes the Chicago Public School System (CPS) and the union should not have a hand in deciding what teachers work where.

Across the US teachers and unions are watching the situation in Chicago very closely because the issues in Chicago are issues which teachers all across the US share.

One of these is class size, which in Chicago has grown to over 40 students in a classroom. The mayor says this is not an issue but as a former educator myself and as any teacher will tell you, class size is a very important and a key issue for many different reasons, the main one being the quality of the education and learning that takes place. Giving teacher’s classes of such size and then basing their evaluations on the student’s results is a lose-lose situation for all those concerned and one which will back fire completely.

The Occupy Movement and many in the US see the rich as not doing enough for the common people and in the area of education this is clearly more evident than anywhere else. However why should the US Government promote and support quality education when a less educated population is easier to control.

This is a short-sighted strategy that is bound to lose. Quality education guarantees a prosperous future for any country, as such any country that does not value education, does not value its citizenry nor its own future.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_10/US-educators-not-respected/

Jar2 

8 September 2012, 20:38  

Quebec and 'Independence' in the Americas: History and Today

John Robles

With the secessionists winning the elections in Quebec the world is full of speculation that they will secede from Canada. In this piece I take a brief look at independence in the Americas and give my take on the Quebecers and others in North America who claim to want to be free but refuse to pay the price for that freedom.

Classically the French and the English have never really shared much love for each other. This goes back to the years of the great empire building and the wars for the Americas between the Spanish the French and the English, with the Portuguese and other nations playing a smaller role.

The Spanish, one could say won the wars for the Americas hands down, partly because they were able to assimilate better with the Indians and the indigenous peoples and rather than attempting to completely annihilate the natives they absorbed each other.

The Spanish won more territory taking over part of North America and almost all of Central and South America, with small areas won by the Portuguese.

For the French, loyal to France and the Monarchy it was a different story, the English, for the most part drunken cut-throats, murderers, and misfits of all sorts who hated England and were engaged in a campaign of genocide against the indigenous people, chased them far to the North where they too waged a war of annihilation on the Indians, albeit on a smaller scale.

The Tories, loyal to the United Kingdom and the Monarchy, were also chased to the North, by those who refused to pay allegiance to their homeland, in what is known as the American Revolutionary War.

With the grandiose schemes of Napoleon and then the successive failures of the French Empire, Quebec was a consolation prize for the French. It was a cold and unforgiving place that the English were not that interested in.

In the end the French in fact ended being subjugated and controlled by their historic rivals from across the La Mange as English speaking Canada and the Tories paid their allegiance to England and the Monarchy, and controlled what became to be known as Quebec.

Personally for me it is difficult to feel sympathy for any of these people as they committed the worst genocide in the history of all mankind against my people. Given that fact, they are all living on stolen land so any discussion of Quebec becoming independent from Canada seems to me to be absurd and a denial of history. Nevertheless the Indians are for the most part gone and those who are left are contained and voiceless, except for a very few.

Ignoring those facts, as the world has been trained to do, allow me to continue. The Quebec people are proud of their heritage, their language and their culture. They are also proud of what differentiates them from the English and in particular from the Americans.

Among these differences is violence in society. Many French Canadians view themselves as pacifists and violence, especially gun violence, in the country is rare. So the American style shooting outside of the victory speech by the new premier has many worried that this may be a sign that American style mass shootings may be coming to Canada. Not likely, as Canada has strict gun laws and a working social safety net for the population, including housing and healthcare, but nevertheless people are worried.

Will Quebec secede from Canada? Not likely, the people are too comfortable with what they have and the way things are, they may complain but few are willing to pay the price and go through all of the trouble that would be involved. Freedom and independence are not as important as all of the nice things they think they are provided with and many just want to be left alone to live their lives, pay their mortgages and raise their children.

So we have a continuation of the bickering and another question over the division of lands stolen from the Indians. Since this is an opinion piece I will give you my opinion: the Indian people should be allowed to hold a referendum on whether they wish the invaders to stay on their lands. Based on the answer then we should proceed from there.

Wishful thinking, since that is never going to happen and in fact the whole topic is not even worth discussing because it is up to the people of Quebec themselves to decide on whether or not they wish to stay a part of Canada, and they will not be doing so anytime soon.

They have too much to lose in their eyes and I have already said it would be too troublesome and adversely affect their comfortable lives. The same problem exists in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Maldives and a host of other territories or possessions where the people are too comfortable with the things they think have been given by the colonizers and fear the consequences of self-determination.

In this way capitalism and the West have manipulated and literally bought off much of the world. Were trade and import export levels balanced worldwide this would no longer pose a problem but unfortunately there are only a small group of countries controlling the flow of goods and services worldwide.

If this grip could be broken then there might be a chance for equality and an improved standard of living for the entire planet. This idea does not sit well with the United States or the world’s leading trade powerhouses, for when they lose the trade wars they lose a large tool that they use to advance their imperialist ambitions.

In reality it is strange for me, a person of Arawak (Taino) / Spanish descent, who has assimilated and been accepted in Russia to be writing about the French and English squabbles, people who not long ago brutally committed genocide against my people and are still bickering over the lands they stole, with the Quebecers making claims to wanting their own country on lands that are not theirs to begin with.

If the Quebecers want independence I say more power to them, they should stand up and have the fortitude to fight for their independence and stop whining. Many people’s would go to war for such a chance, all the Quebecers have to do is have a referendum and go through some difficulties. If freedom is not that important to them so be it, but stop whining.

I could say the same thing to my fellow Puerto Ricans, but they have been so brainwashed that the very idea of freedom, self-determination and independence is an abomination to them. They are too afraid to even think about such a thing and are content to be a US possession.

Before I go I just want to say to those who might write to me about Chechnya and the Russian Caucasus, those lands are and have been a part of Russia and were not annexed or taken possession of.

The question should not be where would we be without our McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Chevrolet cars, the question should be: “What would it be like to breathe freely?”

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at  jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_08/Quebec-and-independence-in-the-Americas-history-and-today/

Jar2

7 September 2012, 22:09  

Quebec Shooter Arraigned on 16 Charges

John Robles

The shooting outside a packed venue in Montreal, Canada where Quebec’s new premier was giving her victory speech may not have been targeting the premier. Canadians continue to express shock and disbelief at the incident. Many Canadians see Canada as a pacifist country and are not accustomed to incidents of political violence and mass shooting.

The man who died in the attack was killed as he was preventing the killer, who has now been named by police, from entering the building. Police have yet to charge the shooter on charges related to an attempted assassination.

The name of the shooter in the assassination attempt on the newly-elected premier of the of the Canadian province of Quebec has been released to the public and is reported to be one Richard Henry Bain, the soon-to-be-62-year-old owner of a fishing and hunting shop in La Conception, Quebec .

Thursday morning the suspect was arraigned in a court in Montreal on 16 charges, the most serious of which being first-degree murder for the killing of 48-year-old Denis Blanchette, the sound technician who Bain shot dead at the venue called the Metropolis during the victory speech and celebrations of the new premier and her party.

Police have still not released any information regarding the motive for the killing even though the suspect has undergone interrogation. There are reports that during the incident, the arrest and afterwards the shooter was rambling and incoherently making statements in English and French.

The details continue to come in including those regarding the mental health of Bain who was reported to be lucid and calm in court as he was arraigned. Apparently he suffered from and was being treated for bipolar disorder in the recent past.

The 16 charges he faces include first-degree murder, a charge of attempted murder for shooting and wounding 27-year-old David Courage, two charges of attempted murder for pointing his gun and attempting to shoot Quebec Security Service Officer Sargeant Stéphane Champagne and a bystander named Elias Ames-Bull (fortunately his gun jammed), a charge of aggravated assault, an arson charge for attempting to burn down the Metropolis with a highway-flare, a possession of explosives charge and multiple and varied weapons charges, mostly for improper storage and handling.

Bain is said to have owned more than 25 weapons and rifles with almost all of them being registered. According to police he had 2 weapons with him and 3 more in his black SUV which was parked nearby. The five weapons included a 9 mm semi-automatic Luger, a Beretta, a Ceska Zbrojovka carbine, a semi-automatic .22 caliber hunting rifle and .357 Magnum revolver.

Bain is said to have lived alone in a chalet near a lake in La Conception more than 2 and a half hours from Montreal. His neighbors and friends paint a portrait of a man with many failed business ideas but with no particular political positions or leanings. There are reports, however, that he may have been angry because the government did not allow him to expand his fishing camp.

According to local media reports Crown prosecutor Éliane Perreault said that for the time being Bain will not undergo a psychiatric evaluation as he is lucid and understands what is going on around him and appears to understand the charges against him.

The state appointed public defender who is representing Bain, Elfriede Duclervil, told reporters she had not had a chance to speak to her client as he was in intensive care but that she would do so after the hearing where it is reported Bain merely said okay when he was made aware of the charges against him.

Prosecutors and investigators have not ruled out further charges prompting speculation on whether he will be charged with conspiracy to assassinate Pauline Marois, as was reported initially at the time of the incident. Currently there is no evidence that the killing and attempted arson of the venue was connected with an assassination attempt.

On Wednesday night hundreds gathered to pay respects to the man Bain murdered, Denis Blanchette. Mr. Blanchete, the father of one, prevented Bain from entering the Metropolis Theater where Marois was giving her speech and paid for it with his life. Those who gathered packed the street outside the theater and held a candlelight vigil.

Premier-elect Pauline Marois has requested outgoing premier Jean Charest to grant Mr. Blanchette a civic funeral. Mr. Charest’s press secretary has told the press that Charest plans on moving forward with Marois’ recommendation.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_07/Quebec-shooter-arraigned-on-16-charges/

Jar2

7 September 2012, 18:21  

US a Hyper-Police State

Reverend Bruce Wright

Download audio file

Doctor-Reverend Wright spoke with the Voice of Russia about the activities at the DNC and about the struggle of the poor in the US. He also talked about the hyper-police state that the US has become and stated that the US needs to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/09/07/1285671336/bruce%20wright%20(1).jpg

Hello! This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Reverend Bruce Wright – he is with the Poor People’s Economic Human Right Campaign, he was also an organizer at Romneyville at the RNC in Tampa, and now is an organizer with Obamaville in Charlotte.

Hello Sir! How are you today?

I’m doing well.

So, you’ve been active in both occupations if you will, in Tampa and there in Charlotte. Can you give us some of the differences between the cities regarding the security situation? How you’ve been treated?

What is interesting about this particular convention as opposed to the Republicans’, is while the Republicans had officers that were all wearing the same uniforms, in Charlotte officers are wearing different uniforms but I will say though this city is a lot more locked down which is probably because, as he’s the President and not a candidate for presidency. But it does seem to me like the police are a bit more heavy handed here, there is a lot of checkpoints happening that didn’t happen at the other. They were both heavy handed but in this case I just think it is a bit more tough.

What activities has the occupation and the other protesters have taken part in so far?

There’ve been several actions from anti-war actions and anti-war marches; there’ve been labour marches and marches for reproductive rights. Tomorrow we will be having a march for the poor, homeless and unemployed which we are organizing. There are all kinds of marches and that kind of thing. There’ve been some marches related to civil liberties and that kind of thing as well.

Can you tell us about what you are doing there and what you and people there hope to accomplish while occupying the DNC?

What we are hoping to do is to bring out to the public the reality that neither party is really all that different, they are both owned by big money and big corporations. As I’m speaking to you the former President Bill Clinton is speaking and is trying spin it differently, saying that there is a difference. They’re obviously both owned by big money and corporations. And the premises they’re coming from - both are governed by politics that control money. Poor people and unemployed people have not really faired any better under Obama. That’s the reality that people are dealing with.

Do you see any difference between the policies of the Democratic Party and the policies of the Republican Party?

In essence no, because as I said Wall Street controls their concerns. We had eight million families put on the streets through forclosures during the Obama Administration. Unemployment remains high as it did under Bush. And the reality is that what controls the ideas and thinking of both parties has more to do with what is going to make 1% if you will, the wealthy, powerful and happy. There is a lot of talk on the part of Democrats but what they actually do in reality is not all that different.

A couple of experts several weeks ago were speaking about a possible revolution in the US, an actual uprising. Do you think that’s a realistic possibility?

I think that there are all kinds of possibilities and scenarios that may happen. I also know that a lot of the American public is very fearful. We’ve created a hyper police state and with a hyper police state we’ve managed to play upon people’s fears, and people’s fears govern how sometimes they’ll act. A lot of people that are angry and upset, as certainly the occupy movement reflected. As to whether it’s at the level that’ll allow the same kind of things to happen that have happened in North Africa or the Middle East, or even in Europe remains to be seen.

Do you think that’s a real possibility in the US?

It certainly is. I do believe our country is heading more and more to a super fascist state and consequently people are concerned and fed up. You know, again I think – how far it will go – it is not quite sure yet because Americans still have a lot of niceties, I’m of course not referring to the poor.

What differences do you see between the RNC and the DNC as far as the amount of protestors and demonstrators and the general mood there?

Well, I do think we here are much more solidified and organized, and effective at the RNC. Some of that has to do with, at the DNC, some of the so called liberals are co-opted by the Democratic Party, so I think there is a bit more lack of willingness to speak as strongly against Democrats. But there reality is that there are people protesting here and some of the protests think are being effective.

I’ve talked to other people and I’ve been told by many people that there is a huge amount of undercover police infiltrating all the groups. Is that true?

Absolutely! There hasn’t been the violence that there has been at others, I was at the RNC and Minneapolis-Saint Paul. But the violence can happen when perpetrated by the police. There was no violence on the part of the protestors, there was a lot of direct action and civil disobedience but not violence.

What do you think about the terrorism charges that were filed against three occupiers at the NATO protests in Chicago? Do you know anything about this?

I think that was blown way out of proportion And it was probably setup by the law enforcement, whether it’s the FBI, secret service, homeless security or local police, they’ve been known to entrap and fabricate. So, I do believe that’s entirely possible.

What are your plans for tomorrow and further down the line?

There is a march tomorrow for the homeless and unemployed and there will also be some actions during the Obama acceptance speech tomorrow night and throughout the day. The further plans after the conventions have finished are, of course to show up at the debates and also to try to bring forth to the public the fact that we can no longer just continue to support this two-party system as there are third-party alternatives such as the Green Party and that needs to be looked more.

How realistic now is a third party in the US, in your opinion? Do you think there will ever be a real chance for a third party candidate to breakthrough?

I think ultimately there will be one once people realize that both parties are really two sides of the same coin. And more and more people are realizing that. So, it takes time to build that kind of third party union but I think it is well on its way.

Speaking about foreign policy, now the Republicans have come out very against the Russian Federation. What do you think about the democratic platform? Is it any different towards Russia or is it all just empty rhetoric?

Well, our country does not want anyone else to prosper in the same way we are. It is like this kind of hyper-capitalism was hoisted upon Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union, it put the economy in a very difficult position and I think the US bears great responsibility for that. I think we need to stop meddling in other people’s economies or how they govern and we need to let the people of those countries decide how they want to govern themselves. Our interventionism, whether it is there or in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or even with Africon in Africa, we need to step aside and stop meddling in other people’s business.

That was an interview with Reverend Bruce Wright with the Poor People’s Economic Human Right Campaign. Thanks for listening.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_07/US-hyper-police-state-interview/

Jar2 

6 September 2012, 20:21  

"We don’t have a democracy"

Cheri Honkala - Vice Presidential Candidate

Download audio file

Cheri Honkala, Vice-Presidential Candidate with the Green Party in the United States, speaks about election, US parties and American democracy.

Cheri Honkala

Hello! This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Cheri Honkala – she is the Vice-Presidential Candidate with the Green Party in the United States and the founder of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign.

Moved Here http://www.jar2.com/Interviews/Cheri_Honkala.html

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_06/We-don-t-have-a-democracy-US-Greens-Vice-Presidential-Candidate/

Jar2

5 September 2012, 21:35  

Quebec Secessionists Win, Assassination Attempt of New Premier

John Robles

At the victory speech ceremony for Quebec’s first woman premier and amid celebrations by the Quebec independence party, a lone gunman attempted to assassinate the new premier, Pauline Marois. Much of the world’s press see the victory as a sign that Quebec will secede from Canada, as opposed to those on the ground, many of whom say Quebec’s independence is the stuff of pipe dreams.

Canada, with a murder rate less than 33% of that of the U.S., where even police in some areas remained unarmed and where politically motivated violence is extremely rare, the last political killing in the country occurred in 1970 when Labor Minister Pierre Laport was murdered by a radical nationalist group operating in Quebec, is appalled by an assassination attempt on the newly elected premier of Quebec Pauline Marois.

The attempt on the life of the new premier took place at approximately midnight on Tuesday in a Montreal concert hall where Ms. Marois was making a victory speech after she became Quebec’s first female premier and her separatist party Parti Quebecois, were victorious over the incumbent Liberal party.

An unidentified man of about 40 years old was killed and another injured when the 62-year-old shooter, a “large man” whose name has not yet been released, opened fire at the venue just after Ms. Marois began speaking in English, something rare for a Quebec politician. According to Reuters she had just finished saying that one day Quebec would be an independent country.

Local media has reported that the man killed by the gunman was a technician at the theater and that the injured man was reportedly the driver of a bus used by the Parti Quebecois campaign.

After taking the man into custody police confirmed that the target of the killer was in fact Ms. Marois. So far they have released few other details regarding the incident.

The killer was armed with a hunting rifle and a handgun and was wearing a black mask and a black cape. According to police he entered the theater through a back entrance at approximately midnight and shot the two victims.

The gunman was also reported to have attempted to set fire to the theater and succeeded to starting a fire near the back door which police were able to put out.

During the arrest, as the man was being dragged away by police, he is reported to have shouted in French: "The English are waking up!"

The shooting has shocked Canada and has brought international attention to the separatist movement in Quebec, where close to 90% of the population are French speaking.

The victory by Parti Quebecois and their leader Pauline Marois has some Canadians worried about the secession of Quebec from Canada. However Ms. Arois has said there would not be a referendum any time soon, although she did promise a vote which might be years away. This might be due to the fact that, according to Reuters: “…a recent poll showed only 28% percent of Quebecers back separation from the rest of Canada.”

Ms. Marois is not loved by all Quebecers, according to Michael Den Tandt at the Ottawa Citizen, (LINK 1) she is the candidate for the Pure Laine or “pure stock” meaning Caucasian, Christian, francophone.

The author says her policies will attempt to give Quebec more control over a slew of issues including immigration, copyright rules, foreign aid and she has promised to give certain Quebecers “citizenship cards”.

The Ottawa Citizen and other Canadian publications also say that there is very little chance of there being a referendum on independence. Among the reasons the fact that Quebecers themselves do not want it, “they just want to be left alone to live their lives” and there are no monumental issues that Ms. Marois can rally behind to call for such a referendum.

So despite the fact the secessionists have won a small victory, winning 54 of the 125 seats in the provincial legislature, which means the Liberals will now have to share power, it is still unlikely that Quebec will be moving towards independence anytime soon.

Welcome to the Quebec separatism debate Canada doesn't need
Read more: 
http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_05/Quebec-secessionists-win-assassination-attempt-of-new-premier/

Jar2

5 September 2012, 16:07  

The ‘Biased-Media’ and Its Desecration of Church

John Robles

Continuing this week’s look at the biased media we look at the Japan Times Online, the UK’s Independent and the Guardian as well as the New York Times.

In a piece titled Pawns of the neo-Putin era the author, Andrey Borodaevskiy, wastes no time in launching his attack on Putin although the piece turns into an article parroting views on the group Pussy Riot. In the first paragraph he assumes to know President Vladimir Putin’s state of mind, as many critics and politicians in the West love to do, stating as fact that the president felt “anxiety” due to certain people’s actions, who exactly cause such anxiety he does not say but of course we are to assume the writer means the “opposition”.

The author then states that the president began taking “revenge” and calls the president’s staff or supporters, “henchmen”. Again he does not state exactly who the henchmen are or the objects of said revenge, but for this writer it is not important who, neither are the facts, the whole idea is to attack.

I don’t pretend to know the president or his mind but I imagine if the president were to take “revenge” on everyone who caused him “anxiety” he would not have time to eat or sleep, let alone run the country and would have to go after everyone who ran against him or ever questioned him. If what the author were writing was to be believed, in particular that the president of the largest country in the world spends time getting revenge on everyone, and it is clear he himself does not believe what he is writing, then he would have been a bit more careful in what he says. Otherwise the KGB, which does not exist anymore, might get him!

As if to back up his already thin argument based on air, the writer then continues by citing a law that increased the fine for illegal public events which he has obviously not read and then taking it out of context makes it seem like the security services are just itching to arrest people. The law in question regards fines for illegal public activities which cause a danger to the public and society and was written to prevent the further abuse and non-adherence to the law that was starting to spread in Russia. A law made necessary by the actions of groups such as P-Riot, but that is not important either I guess. The reason for the changing of the law was brought about by the aforementioned group and the Western funded and backed, so-called “opposition”, after their events became more and more violent and scores of innocent people were injured and adversely affected.

Of course painting the picture of people who gathered to cause public discontent and throw rocks and spit at police, as innocent victims of oppression is to the writer’s advantage. The fact that the “opposition’s” leaders and many of the organizers receive instructions and money from a certain ambassador who specializes in organizing color revolutions as well as the fact that many of the “activists” were paid to attend events and provoke the state and police is something the author fails to say anything about, also not important since it does not serve his purpose.

The writer continues as an apologist for the greatest provocateurs of recent history, the group P-Riot. Calling their costumes “luminous”, obviously he forgot to check his dictionary before publication, and their “song”, filled with obscene language disguised as a religious hymn making a mockery of the church and the Orthodox faith, an “irreverent number”, he proceeds to attempt to paint a picture of the Russian judiciary as being politically motivated and the “girls” (women with kids) as innocent victims.

Calling the desecration of the holiest part of the holiest church of the Orthodox faith “regretful” and an “artistic carnival-like performance of a kind that can be widely seen around the world” and pretending to know better than the judge in the case how to deal with such an unprecedented case, the writer continues to attempt to make this into some conspiracy against the people by the “evil” state.

As with all of these apologists and detractors, I wonder why they never bring up, for example California’s three-strikes law that has people serving life sentences for things like shoplifting, or Islamic law which would have probably had every one of these “girls” executed. Well the answer is rhetorical, as always any opportunity to deride Russia is something they rarely miss.

I have asked many Western supporters of P-Riot what would have happened if the event took place in the Vatican or in the church where Barrack Obama worships and no one has answered yet. Perhaps we could ask Mr. Borodaevskiy what he would do if the “girls” barged into his mother’s house and gave a “performance”, after all, according to him it was not a hate crime but just good fun. Would he agree? Fat chance.

Another publication, the Independent, published an article by Roland Oliphant, which also wastes no time in painting a very dark picture of Russia for the reader by stating “investigators tried to link a double murder to the group”, the problem with this is obvious. He implies the investigators had some interest in doing something so illegal and beyond any accepted norms.

Just to mention it since no else is, the words "Free Pussy Riot" were scrawled in blood on the wall, in English. Remember this is Russia, why would the killers write in English? For the Western press perhaps? As no one has made a point of this fact perhaps it is something we could use to paint an even darker picture of how far Western forces would go, but we won’t go there will we?

The writer calls the P-Riot provocation a simple “punk prayer” (Perhaps the Western media should take the time to find and translate the “lyrics” before they write about it?), the Christ the Savior Cathedral he calls simply “a Moscow cathedral” again diminishing the importance of the event and says, in an attempt to show some connection with the authorities, that the photos were published by a “tabloid website known to have close links to the authorities”. Known by whom? I politely ask.

Near the end of the article the writer quotes Nikolay Polozov a lawyer for the (now he calls them) “art collective”, as questioning when the slogan was written. Maybe he should seek an answer from the authorities? But even though this is an unsolved double murder investigation since it is Russia I suppose for the writer it is enough to quote people not even close to the case.

The Guardian did quote the authorities, in a piece by Miriam Elder , published alongside an offer to buy the book “Mafia State” (another attack on Russia), yet makes the inference that unknown Kremlin supporters who say the group “… encourages dangerous radicalism” accuse the group of involvement. No such accusation was made.

Almost every piece in the Western press regarding the group takes the same sympathetic slant with very few if any presenting the view held by a majority of the Russian population and those of the Russian Orthodox Faith. The attack and provocation, which they claimed was an attack on President Putin, and the coverage of it in the West has now taken a much darker and wholly different nature and appears to have changed into perhaps what it was from the very beginning, an attack on the faith of most of the Russian people.

In seeking articles presenting Orthodox opinions I did come across one in the Western press that mentions the position of people holding Orthodox views in the New York Times. At first I was pleasantly surprised, but the pleasantness ended in a matter of seconds as unfortunately it was another unbalanced smear job, this time by oneRobert Mackey. The completely unbalanced and totally biased article wins my “most biased anti-Russian report of the week award”. Starting with the misleading headline, “After Pussy Riot Verdict, Christian Culture Warriors Run Riot in Moscow” it immediately paints an extremely negative picture of activists who defend the Orthodox Church.

“Running Riot” is the term the writer has chosen to describe 2 young men who have chosen to confront those who are openly blaspheming their faith, the term would better describe what the group P-Riot was doing in the lead up to the previous presidential elections, jumping on roofs, on top of trolley busses, the insides of metro stations, Red Square and other improper locations, a rampage which ended in one of the holiest places for the Orthodox faith.

The writer does call the P-Riot “song”, which was staged in the cathedral a “profane anthem” but calls the activities of the “conservative” Orthodox activists “audacious attacks” on “liberal” Muscovites. He tries to transpose internal American culture warfare parameters onto Russian Society. I am sorry to have to inform him but there are not “conservative” and “liberal” sides in Russia, that division in American society does not exist in Russia and to use this case in particular to attempt to instill a social divide is as stupid as the antics of P-Riot. Almost every Russian would agree the Christ the Savior desecration was a stupid attack. Many might argue as to the sentence or other points in the case, but the act itself is not supported by an almost absolute majority of Russians of all faiths and leanings.

Can one really be said to “barge into” a sex museum? Apparently for Mr. Mackey such a place of “reverence” deserves quiet respectful behavior, unlike a cathedral in the middle of a service I suppose.

The bias and derision of the Orthodox activists, whose actions were filmed by a television channel, continues for the rest of the article with the writer quoting the “moral icon of society”, sex museum director Alexander Donskoy, who makes wild exaggerations of the quiet Orthodox young men saying: they are; “…threatening our lives and tearing clothes off simple passers-by, and tomorrow they’ll go raid churches of other confessions and stab atheists.”

The writer attempts to paint a picture of the P-Riot attack as not being an attack on the Orthodox Religion, which is beyond the pale. If it were in fact something political they should have attempted to stage their provocation in a more “political” location. Red Square for example, as they already had, and were not locked up (a fact the Western Press has conveniently forgotten). After they “performed” on Red Square they were emboldened by the leniency of the authorities and they attacked the Church.

Freedom of expression, dissent, opposition, demonstrations, the right to be heard and represented are all natural aspects of a democracy, but you don’t attack the holy religious places of the people, no matter what the faith. No one could be so stupid to do so “accidently” and barring insanity, logically anyone who does so must hold a hatred for the religion they attack.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

That is all for now, if you have any examples of media- bias please send and we will try to include it and your letters in my next column. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

John Hellevig sent me this example from what he calls the “Propaganda Press” about misrepresentations regarding preparations for the Democratic National Convention. He recalls how President Putin was attacked with similar allegations.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_05/The-biased-media-and-desecration-of-church/

Jar2  

5 September 2012, 12:02  

NATO Holds Secret Meeting Approving Syrian Operation

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

Rick Rozoff spoke to the Voice of Russia's John Robles regarding the recent "quiet" of NATO and among the topics he touched upon were a secret meeting by NATO which apparently approved military operations against Syria. Mr, Rozoff says that NATO and its Western allies are attempting to isolate Russia and China politically and using Syria as a pretext. 

PART II

NATO has decided to stop training Afghan soldiers. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what you know about that? That seems to be the latest development. They’ve been very quiet lately, which worries me.

It worries us both, John. Yes, in fact NATO suspended, I suppose, what’s called the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan to develop, I guess, a more comprehensive and reliable system of, to use their own word, "vetting" potential recruits of the Afghan national army and this is after, as your listeners know, an unprecedented series of so-called “Green on Blue” attacks by Afghan military personnel against US and other NATO forces in the country. Simultaneously of course the United States’ armed forces in Afghanistan have announced that they are going to suspend if not terminate the training of Afghan police personnel, so it signals the west falling deeper and deeper into an intractable quagmire in South Asia.

Would you characterize this as part of an overall failure of US policy and NATO policy in Afghanistan?

Yes, it’s demonstrable, it's a signal, an indication of catastrophic failure in Afghanistan of course. On October 7th, which, say, next month, the US and NATO will be in Afghanistan for their 11th year and it’s certainly not produced any successful results, it’s led to the dislocation, impoverishment and in many instances, killing, of Afghan civilians without any measureable achievements even according to what the West itself claimed it had intended to do in Afghanistan when the first troops were sent there on October 7th 2001. However, I should mention, we are talking about a quiet NATO and for the most part they have been, arguably since the summit here in Chicago in May, but certainly over the last month or so, nevertheless, NATO is about to launch a fairly large scale air exercises, a series of air exercises in Czech Republic, something called Ramstein Rover 2012, which will include the participation of 12 nations, presumably, both NATO full member states and partners, and this is a test of what are called Forward Air Controllers by NATO, by the United States Joint Terminal Air Controllers. These are the people who call in support including attacks in Afghanistan. So, the fact that such a large scale air exercise clearly targeted either towards Afghanistan specifically, John, or with applicabilities for an Afghan-style operation elsewhere in the world afterwards, suggest that the US and NATO plans for Afghanistan have certainly not ceased and contrary to pledges that both US and NATO will draw down or withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2 years it certainly suggests that they are planning an ongoing military operation.

On Saturday September 1st an article was published on the Internet. They say that NATO has secretly authorized an attack on Syria. Do you know anything about that?

Yes, I do. It’s by Gordon Duff who was a former US intelligence official. It’s actually quite a valuable work. In the article he talks about a meeting of NATO’s military committee in recent days where there were 2 topics on their agenda, one was Greenland, which he passes very quickly as it’s not of primary importance, but the second was on Syria. And what Duff indicates in his article rather convincingly, I am persuaded, is that NATO is elaborating plans for military action in, and against, Syria. I think it’s noteworthy that the meeting of the military committee that the author refers to is nowhere addressed on the NATO websites including on the main NATO homepage. I don’t know how Duff gained access to that information, but certainly it suggests that NATO is keeping a low profile so as not to divulge what its plans may be.

I’ve seen some reports say that NATO is actually targeting Bashar Assad and the Ayatollah of Iran for regime change. Do you know anything about that?

You know, it’s nothing that we are going to see NATO openly acknowledge but it’s common wisdom at this point, or conventional wisdom. To use the expression that's current, "the road to Teheran runs through Damascus” which is to say that the proxy war by NATO forces and their allies amongst the Arab Gulf sheikdoms and the Persian Gulf is, say, a warm-up exercise, if you will, for a comparable campaign against Iran. In that sense, if you want to draw a historical parallel, it’s much like the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s where forces on both sides of the political divide in Europe and in the world gave support either to the Spanish Republic that is to the elected government or to the military insurgents of Generalismo Franco. To update that parallel, just as Mexico and the Soviet Union had sent military and other aid to the Spanish Republic, so Hitler and Mussolini supplied troops and war planes against the government. And something comparable is accruing in Syria now where the United States and NATO allies. There was recent story in the British press, that at least 200 special forces troops from Britain and France, leading NATO members of course, are active on the ground, and your listeners I am sure have heard or read comparable reports. So that what you have is a proxy war by the NATO forces and their sheikdom allies in Persian Gulf not only directly against Syria but by proxy against Iran which, as you indicated in your comments, is the ultimate target. Though as we've had occassion to discuss before on your show, John, the other two targets of the campaign against Syria are of course Russia and China, you know, diplomatically at this point. But one wonders if the Russian North Caucasus, China’s Xinjiang province could not be made into the next Syria at some point in the future.

What is NATO’s position on intervention by Russia and China in Syria and Iran?

 Of course there is no question about military intervention by Russia and China at this point but if you are talking about Russia and China’s defense of international law in the cases of both Syria and Iran, the position of NATO which has not been formulated as a collective position by the alliance, but certainly listening to the statements by the foreign ministers and the heads of states of the major NATO powers, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and others, it’s patently obvious that Russia and China are being criticized and in fact are being excoriated for having the alleged temerity to defend the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of other members of the United Nations such as Syria and Iran. So, the NATO members acting in collusion if not completely collectively under the banner of NATO are criticizing and more than criticizing, are attempting to politically, and diplomatically isolate Russia and China using Syria as a pretext.

That was PART I of the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_05/NATO-holds-secret-meeting-approving-Syrian-operation-interview/

Jar2 

5 September 2012, 11:55  

Resist RNC

Living in a Police State

Amos Miers

Download audio file

The Voice of Russia talked to Amos Miers an organizer with Resist RNC, an organization affilitated with the Occupy Movement and which helped to organzie and coordinate the activites of over 40 protest groups who demonstrated against the Republican Party and their policies at the Republican National Convention in Tampa Florida.

In PART II our interview Amos speaks about the GOP's wish to control women's bodies, stopping U.S. imperialism, the Occupy Movement, the U.S. federal government, police exageration of the threat posed by protestors and security measures in place in Tampa.

PART I

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/09/05/1285897626/amos.jpg

Hello! This is John Robles. You are listening to the second part of an interview with Amos Miers – an organizer with Resist RNC in Florida.

What would you say the situation is like for the lower class?

That’s even worse I mean they don’t even have a place to live. When it rains they get wet, they beg for food. They are in a very bad situation. In the middle class, even when it is difficult to get a job, even though we’re struggling, even though the middle class is struggling, we are still better off than a majority of the world. I have carpet in my home I have A/C in my home. Most people in this country, they know there is a problem, they know things aren’t right but they go home and turn on the TV and forget about it. And that’s the problem. We are still privileged. Even though we have problems in this country we are exploiting a lot of the world to get stuff and all the stuff comes here. So, we are kind of content because we are given all the stuff and all these products and all these services. So, it’s a little bit hard for a lot of those privileged people to wake up, even though they have a duty to. You know, I like my jeans, I like my cellphone. What I don’t like is I find out that I’m exploiting people because the jeans are being manufactured in plants where there are kids underage or there are girls being raped in the factories where they’re making my jeans or my phone has parts, there are materials being taken out of people’s countries and then they have their lands being destroyed. I don’t like that. I would like to have my technology but I would like to treat people equal in the process. And I think there is a way to do it and we need to take a step back and say – hey, the way we are doing things is wrong. We are privileged, we’re getting all the stuff but this is wrong. It is extremely wrong what we are doing.

What do you think about Code Pink? I know they have a very serious message. They have staged an attempt to do a citizen’s arrest on Condoleezza Rice. My question is regarding their costumes and some of the ways they are protesting. Do you think that detracts from their credibility?

I don’t think it does. There is a police helicopter, I don’t know if you can hear that or not, hopefully you can hear me ok. I think that it is part of getting the attention so that they can get their message to media. Code Pink is very effective at getting their message across. So, I think part of how they operate attracts attention and when they get that attention they are able to deliver a positive message, a very important message. So, personally I don’t think it takes away at all, I think they are very creative people. I think they are very talented people. I think they are very empowered people.

I was particularly speaking about costumes they were wearing, in the shape of female genitalia…

Right! And the costumes were actually… I mean the costumes I think are actually pretty attractive I mean they were well done. Yeah, it’s a female part but it highlights the issue that the Republican Party really wants to control women’s choices on how they need to handle their bodies. I don’t have any rights to tell anyone how they operate on their bodies, whether a man or a woman. So, part of that costume is to get that message across. So, I don’t get taken aback by that at all, I think it is very clever.

What is your organization’s (your opinion) the Occupy Movement’s stance on Republican promises to escalate tensions with the Russian Federation, and their naming Russia as geopolitical enemy number one? What would you say to those statements?

I think that there are countries on this planet that are realizing they need to band together and stop what America is doing. So, I don’t agree with what their statements are. You know, it is interesting that we get some of our news from Russia that is better news than in our mainstream media here. So, I think we don’t have any business telling other countries what to do, and if other countries want to help stop the imperialism of America, then I welcome that.

What’s the current state of the Occupy Movement in general, I mean if you can talk about the overall Occupy Movement in the United States. Pretty soon it’ll be the one year anniversary. Do you think they’ve achieved anything or made any significant accomplishments during the past year?

I think most of the accomplishments occurred in the very beginning. I was surprised that it spread like it did, although we were ready for something like that. What it did accomplish… The original task was focused on removing the corporate grip on our government; the very first important step for any other positive change in this country. However that message got taken away really fast and they started focusing on really all the other issues, I mean they just spread to every single issue known to man. And I think they really went down to the root cause first and not going the other way, that’s my personal opinion. And what they did do though, they’ve got us all talking. When I saw the Movement happening and DC was going to be planned, and then the Wall Street happened first. I’m like, oh, I’m going to go and check it out, I might check DC out. By the time I was getting my stuff in order to go see them the Movement happened in my own town.

The interesting thing about America is that we are not a community, we don’t talk to each other don’t even know our neighbors and we are a very individualized people, not all the culture, but most of Americans are very individualistic. And I didn’t know where the other people were that felt like me but the Occupy Movement helped connect us all. I found all the people in my backyard. There were a couple thousand people, that showed up in downtown Tampa and we all got to know each other, and now we are all connected. So, the number one success of Occupy in my opinion was that all the people that want to find ways to make a positive change are now talking.

Another thing it did was got the conversation happening and brought it out onto the forefront. People… You know, you can go into a store, go into a doctor’s office and have conversations about what’s wrong with our government now, and before, a lot of people shied away from those kinds of conversations. So, it made it ok to have these kinds of conversations. Beyond that, I think the Movement is struggling. I think they haven’t figured out what their next step is and they need to be more effective in their actions and really some goals need to be figured out, strategy put in place and then the correct tactics to get there.

So, we need discipline, people need to educate themselves on non-violent methodology and how to be more effective. And band together we need to be collective on this and achieve that goal. So, I’m not sure if there’s a future for Occupy but regardless, the energy that Occupy started is going to continue, if it is going to continue in a phase two or to continue under a different name in a different group, remains to be seen but that energy is going to continue one way or another. I just don’t know if Occupy itself has any future.

You just mentioned police helicopter flying overhead. What is the situation currently down there in Tampa?

Downtown Tampa is about a mile across and we are in the north-west corner of downtown at Camp Romneyville and the RNC convention is on the south-east corner. So, we are on the opposite corner of downtown from them. We get regular visits from law enforcement, they drive by. They have platoons of twelve that go on bicycles by us and they have these little motorized carts that come by us, they have vans, we’ve just had mounted-police come by us on horses. The first few days they tried to provoke some things and we maintained our discipline, kept it calm and kept it peaceful. They were trying to say that there is a violent contingent of anarchists who are coming to destroy the town, and that’s what the Federal Government tells our local politicians, and then they enact oppressive ordinances. I mean we’re basically in a police state environment in downtown Tampa right now: there’s 3,500 law enforcement from around the state, 1,700 National Guard. They have face recognition software and cameras throughout downtown. They have license plate software recognition… You drive in, they catch your license plate, they know who is coming in and who is leaving. With all that, there was the potential for them to misuse those resources. And really they kind of create this myth of this violent anarchist to justify the fascist state we are heading to and they convince the American public: Oh, it is ok to have this police state because we need to be safe from a couple of kids that want to throw some rocks through windows.

That was part 2 of an interview with Amos Miers an organizer with Resist RNC in Florida.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_05/Living-in-a-police-state-protest-organizer-speaks-out-interview/

Jar2  

4 September 2012, 17:03  

Democracy is Not a Business

Tighe Barry

Download audio file

Interview with Tighe Barry, the actor and an activist with CODEPINK. The group staged several protests and interruptions at the Republican National Convention last week, including interrupting Condeleza Rice twice and disrupting speeches by both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.

Have you ever heard of any connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Afghanistan and 9/11 that was actually believable?

Absolutely not. Actually, the United States government never said that Afghanistan was responsible for 9-11 because that would be beyond the pale! It’s one of the poorest countries in the world, there’s no centralized government. It would be impossible for a nation like Afghanistan to pull off an attack. But they used to lie that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was responsible. And we found that obviously Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And whether or not I feel personally that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and I feel that all dictators should be taken to task and should be brought down in peaceful, non-violent protests that are instigated by the people of that country, but to attack Iraq was wrong.

Back to the RNC, what can you tell us about current policies that your organization is against and how will they affect Americans if the Republican Party wins the White House?

Well, my personal opinion is that I know that their platform will be to continue the Bush tax cuts, to maybe add new tax cuts for the wealthy. I know it will be devastating for the poor and the middle class. But I don’t feel that there’s much difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties, to be honest with you. Any American can choose which party they want to vote for, but it behooves every single American to get out in the streets and say, no more! We’re not going to allow our government to spend more than the top 13 countries of the world!  The top 13 of our supposed adversaries. We outspend them all, in defense! And we’re an aggressive nation, we're an imperialist nation, and we need to put an end to that. We need to start taking care of our own people, we need to worry about the jobs at home, we need to worry about student tuitions, we need to improve our health care system to be on par with every other industrialized nation in the world. And we’ve failed miserably in those aspects.

Listen, I talked to an organizer with Occupy the RNC. He told me some things about the Tampa police. He told me that they actually had brought food out to the Occupier’s camp because they had run out of food and water. How have the police been treating you, guys?

The police have been fabulous! I think it’s amazing that the City of Tampa, the State of Florida and the Department of Homeland Security, would spend 55 million dollars of our money to just basically turn Tampa into an occupied zone. There are walls everywhere you look, fences. The police have been nice and I think they’ve been actually quite bored. And I think that’s helped them. Now we’re going to Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, and we’re going to see the same thing there. And we’ll see that it’s fear, the reason numbers were low in the Occupy and in the protest movement here in Tampa. It was because the city, the government and the state government instill fear in the people, really: fear of the police and fear of the protestors. Protestors were afraid of the police and the violence that they’ve perpetrated around the country on protestors and on Occupy. And the people of Tampa were afraid that there were these horrible, anarchist protestors. When every place we went, the police were surprised how incredibly non-violent and peaceful and just wanting to exercise the first amendment right to free speech.

So you’re telling me that the police were actually surprised as well? That they were told that there were going to be these horrible anarchists?

Oh, yeah, absolutely! They even said it to us on many occasions. They came out here the other day. I was grateful for the fact that it poured rain at one moment, because there were maybe 30-40 people in the street, that were continuing with the march that we knew the police were going to get violent at, because you could tell the level of attention there. And what they did; they brought out more SWAT, more anti-riot police, at least 6 to 1, riot police to protestor. And then suddenly the clouds opened up and everybody ran for cover, except for these SWAT, these riot police who were standing there looking drenched and cold in their brand new uniforms, their brand new military equipment that’s now being used on the city streets of the United States.

So, you’d say that police in the United States. have become completely militarized since 9/11 or in the last 10-15 years, right?

Yeah, it’s been gradually coming. I think this is part of the propaganda campaign of our federal government, of our state government and of our local government. I mean, the arms race is not limited to nation. Every single city that you get to nowadays seems to be upgrading into military-like equipment, they seem to be mimicking military in every aspect. They’re even starting to use drones in our country. And as a matter of fact, the President of the United States., Barack Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, who hasn’t found a war that he doesn't like, has called for the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, to open the US airspace to up to 30,000 drones by 2015.

I have one more question regarding the internal political situation in the United States.for the global audience because we don’t really know exactly what’s going on on the ground there. Has Obama done anything different than Bush? Or has he just, pretty much, rubber-stamped all of Bush’s policies?

I’d say your statement is absolutely correct. I do not feel the policy differences between George Bush and Barack Obama. I feel that the callousness and the vitriolic campaign that these two candidates are waging right now spells a more doomsday scenario for the United States, should Mitt Romney be elected, but I don’t think there’s going to be much difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, to be honest with you. They will continue the wars, ad nauseum, until the American people rise up and say; no more! We're not going to be surveilled. We’re not going to be beaten! We’re not going to be tear-gased anymore! We’re not going to allow the war machine to go over and attack other countries, like they plan to attack Iran! We’re not going to back despotic regimes like the one in Israel today or the one in Bahrain or others! We're just not going to be that kind of country.

Okay. Last question since this is the Voice of Russia and the Republicans have made very serious statements against the Russian Federation, officially stating that they will “Undo the reset", I don't know how you are with Russian policies, but they've also said they will "Curb Moscow”. They’ve said that they will train opposition activists in the United States and they said that Russia is the geopolitical enemy number one of the United States. How do you feel about that statement?

I think it’s laughable. I think the United States has little or no influence in Russia today. The fact of the matter is that most countries now in other parts of the world are starting to move away from the United States. The power that we once weilded is no longer there.

 Closing

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_04/Democracy-is-not-a-business-Part-II/

Jar2 

2 September 2012, 19:31  

This week in the 'Biased-Media': Putin, Romney and Berezovsky

John Robles

This week in the biased-media we have Berezovsky obliterating what little credibility he had left in a London courtroom, President Putin continuing to be attacked by anonymous entities lacking facts, “poor” Russia should be pitied because it has a plateful of problems and Romney a “bad” guy “wink-wink”. Those are some of the offerings we have this week from the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Economist and ForeignPolicy.com.

An event related to Russia this past week which received a lot of attention in the Western Press was the lawsuit in a London Court between “Oligarch on the run” Boris Berezovsky and Chelsea owner and multi-billionaire Russian businessman Roman Abramovich.

Although the case was one which the Western Media could have used once again to propagate anti-Russia sentiment and deride President Putin, media outlets were on the whole factual in reporting the case.

Berezovsky has been a poster boy for the West in the derision of Russia and in Western attempts to usurp President Vladimir Putin’s power, popularity and political support. However after the ruling and the statements by the judge in the case, Judge Elizabeth Gloster, it is highly unlikely he will now be much use to MI-5/6 and Western spin-doctors as his credibility was all but obliterated.

The Wall Street Journal, who we cited as being biased several weeks ago, was not apologetic towards Berezovsky calling the ruling “a culmination of Mr. Berezovsky's stunning fall from power.” However their reporting on the case also included the further promotion of misconceptions and half-truths about Russia.

The judge in the case, in a 38 page summary of her judgment dismissing the case, said Berezovsky was "…. an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be molded to suit his current purposes." She also said: "I regret to say that the bottom line of my analysis of Mr. Berezovsky's credibility is that he would have said almost anything to support his case."

Further blasting his credibility the judge said; "At times, the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events."

Berezovsky’s slanderous claim that he was pressured by President Putin into selling ORT television was also the subject of the judge’s ire, something which greatly upset Berezovsky and which might have resonance on his case for asylum as the claim was one of the cornerstones of his asylum application. The judge said flat out that she did not believe his claim.

After the ruling Berezovsky did what he did best, he blamed President Putin for his own failure, this time in the court saying he "had the impression that Putin himself wrote this judgment.” He also provided more evidence that he may be delusional, as was stated by the judge, and losing touch with reality when he accused the judge of “re-writing Russian history”, as it did not coincide with his own self-serving version of events.

In contrast, she found Abramovich, who did not appear at the hearing to be "a truthful, and on the whole reliable, witness."

Back to the Murdoch Owned Wall Street Journal, as I said above, they did present a slight slant that was not fully in keeping with reality. Their characterization of the case as coming out of “a post-Soviet soap opera” and “bordering on comedy” as well as references to the “Godfather”, “modus operandi” and the like only served to paint the events as less than legitimate, rather than blaming Berezovsky for making outrageous claims as he strives to rebuild his dwindling millions by suing everyone he can. All that said the coverage by the WSJ was on the whole surprisingly balanced.

Berezovsky did manage to further damage Russian business and the image of Russia by suing Abramovich in a British court as the case should have been heard in a Russian court. Holding the case in London was an affront to the Russian judiciary and damaging to its image. The case also damages the image of Russian business as it brought out old stereotypes and the dark side of Russian business after the collapse of the Soviet Union, an environment that no longer exists and which the Russian business community has worked hard to eradicate.

Moving on to a much more deceptive, layered and intricate anti-Putin piece published on one of the “blogs” of the Economist, we see anti-Putin propaganda reach an entirely new level. The piece deceptively begins by criticizing other “Russia-watchers” for “much talk and few facts” and immediately links to an article on the Guardian citing Stanislav Belkovsky whom the anonymous writer calls a “rumor-monger” and one who speaks “without citing sources”, in an obvious attempt to make the reader believe that what follows are credible and unbiased facts.

The piece is called “Nice Work” I would re-title it “Nice Try”. What follows is even more talk, conjecture, the twisting of the facts and the citing of questionable sources who clearly have an agenda of their own to promote.

The “anonymous” author continues to cite a “report” by Boris Nemtsov, someone whom the Russian media reported was in the pay of one of the western Ambassadors to Russia and who did everything possible to hurt President Putin’s chances of re-election during the last elections.

Anonymous also cites an unrelated Levada center report regarding general corruption in a way that attempts to show a link to President Putin and “research” by one Mikhail Dmitirev another person with an agenda to promote, which supports claims of discontent amongst the “middle-class opposition” in Russia.

Finally the piece finishes up with quotes from, (Are you ready for this?!), “A man in the city of Dzerzhinsk”, and a suggestion to visit a “mysterious palace” that the BBC investigated but was unable to prove belongs to anyone.

Nice try!

The next article to enter the radar screen appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and again is by an anonymous author. From the first sentence it paints Russia in a negative light continuing with its “problems” and attacking the Kremlin, democracy in Russia and President Putin.

The article slanders President Putin by saying things like “Mr. Putin could be described kindly as a control freak or a frustrated dictator.” It also paints Russia as some sort of 3 rd world country by saying WTO entry will “raise the living standard” and again attacks the president for the actions and deserved punishment of the group Pussy Riot.

The article which just repeated anti-Russian talking points then makes a final “apologetic” swipe at Russia by saying Romney was wrong in calling Russia geo-political enemy number one. Not for the million reasons that this is false, but because Russia has “a full plate of demanding problems”.

Bravo.

The last piece for now brought a small surprise when I found a two paragraph quote by yours truly in it. The article in question titled: "Russian press rips Romney and his promise of ‘Republican hell’" by one Uri Friedman, no anonymous author here, deals with the topic in a more or less balanced manner, however he does not counter or go against any of the statements made by Romney or support any of the points that were brought up in the Russian Press.

If there are Americans who feel differently from Romney it is not apparent from the article as there are no views presented from the other end of the political spectrum to counter Romney’s aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric.

Silent support or just a biting of the tongue? Hard to blame him for what he did not say, but still.

That’s all for now. If you have any examples of “biased-media” please send us a link and please send me your comments and I will publish them in the next edition. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_02/This-week-in-the-biased-media-Putin-Romney-and-Berezovsky/

Jar2

31 August 2012, 18:57  

RNC Unified the People Against a Common Enemy

John Robles

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_08_31/RNC-unified-the-people-against-a-common-enemy/

Jar2

31 August 2012, 15:46  

Resist RNC: Protesting Dems and GOP

Amos Miers

Download audio file

Amos Miers, an Organizer with Resist RNC in the US, shares his group’s ideas and explains why they are protesting against Republicans at the Republican National Convention. Miers says that instead of working for the people, both parties are working for special interests, so it doesn’t really matter for Resist RNC who’s going to win – the Democrats or Republicans.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/08/31/1287311711/amos.jpg

What are the main reasons and what are the main points of the Republican agenda that have caused the Occupy Movement and your movement and other protest groups to protest the RNC Convention there?

We're actually protesting the Republicans and Democrats, we're protesting the fact that the two parties aren’t representing the people at all. Without getting into the fine points, the fundamental message is that neither party is representing the people and they're actually duopolies that are beholden to corporate interests and we are trying to get our government back.

Are the Occupiers there? And your organization, are there people involved from all over the country? What’s your relationship with the Occupy Movement and with CODEPINK and with the other protest groups?

There's over forty groups that have endorsed us and endorsed our message. And our main role at this event, we're local here in Tampa, and our main function is to provide support and logistics for the protestors so that they have a safe place to be, that they have food and water, rest rooms, and things like that. Also sleeping arrangements in our camp. So we support all the messengers that are coming and provide them with all the information on where to go and where all the locations are for them of protest. Our relationship with CODEPINK and Occupy Wall Street: we coordinate with their organizers, more so with Occupy Wall Street – a lot of their people are encamped in our location, Camp Romneyville, there's about 80 of them sleeping in our camp.

How many Occupiers are there? And how many protesters overall are there, right now, in Tampa by your estimate?

I think the largest that we’ve seen is thousand people, but tere's only a few hundred currently around Tampa. A little bit larger today because there were a lot of actions, they went over to a power plant and blockaded the power plant., but this year, for a wide range of reasons this was an extremely low turn-out. It almost became a non event. but the reason that - I think there's several reason why we had such a low turnout- one, ah, there’s a lot of infiltration in the groups. With the federal government, there’re a lot of provocateurs that keep groups fighting amongst each other. And then on top of that there’s a lot of fear put out about what the cops are willing to do with this RNC. There's a heavily-militarized-police state environment. Beyond that there was a storm that came through and it scared a lot of people because when a lot of the protesters come, they use a campout, they don’t have means to stay in hotels like the Republicans do. So usually at a protest like this we encamp, and so, the storm scares people off! But beyond that, you know, people in this country are struggling, most of the protesters fighting are now waging, you know, fighting for peace and fighting for justice, and they're struggling. They're on pay check away from becoming homeless themselves. So a trip like this: it's a pretty far distance, you know it's really far south, the South-East corner of the US. It’s a long drive. And the resources are very low. we're in dire straights in this country.

Expanding on that topic. Do you see things are getting better or worse if Republicans come to power?

I think worse. But, to be honest, most of us don’t believe there’s a difference. We believe it's a soap-opera made for people. Yes, there’s a philosophy in the Democratic Party and there's a different philosophy in the Republican Party and Americans argue about the differences, but most of us are seeing that it's a staged event, and all they do: it's the same deck of cards that they reshuffle ever four years and instead of working for the people, they’re working for special interests, so it doesn’t really matter to us who’s in a Democrat or Republican because they’re controlled from the first moment they step into office, so we still see that there’s an agenda being laid down to bring our country to a fascist state and whether it’s Mitt Romney or Obama it’s going to be the same.

Reminder

Who do you think is behind that agenda? Is there some secret group or is it large corporations? Who would you say is behind all that?

There’s an extremely ultra-elite wealthy group of people that run the world and there's some of them that are known, some of them are unknown and corporations themselves. So a little bit of both so when we call it “the 1%”, we’re really saying that the 1% of the people that are controlling the rest of the planet, we're really heavily in this country anyway. And it’s been that way since before the country was founded. When we read the true history of the United States, we find out that 1% of the people controlled the land and really controlled the country, to begin with. You know, they first wiped out the native Americans, and when they couldn't enslave the Native Americans, because they were so anarchist and socialist, they refused to be enslaved they brought in the Africans to come here and work and be their slaves and also the white servants from Europe, so there was 99% of the people being abused from the beginning of this country. And the messages now come back more than 200 years later about who is the threat: it's the ultra-power elite, and that's the message, it doesn't matter what party is in there they’re going to be controlled by the wrong people. P\The people we elect into office don’t represent the people they represent special interests.

What would you say to critics, regarding the Occupy Movement in particular, what would you say to people who say that they exclude minorities and blacks? 

Unfortunately, there’s some truth to that. When it first started it really galvanized mainstream America, and there was a lot of mainstream in the movement, but it pretty quickly got to be just the hard-core people. What really kicked off that movement was college kids. We’re told in this country, if we go to school for 18 years and we work hard and get As and we listen to the authorities and we do this or do that and then go to college and get a good degree, that we are set, you know, that our lives are going to be great. We borrow a lot of money. We get into massive student loan debt   And these students come out, you know, spent 20+ years of their lives listening to everyone and they find that the system is fully broken, that there’re no jobs and they have all this debt. And yes, it is really mostly white middle class. They’re just now realizing that hey there some problems, so they have a lot of work to do, to eally engage the minorities and that’s something we have to work on. So I think there’s some truth to it. There’re a lot of different ethnic groups represented in the movement, but I think majority is white middle class. So we have a lot of work to do because that's a privileged class that just beginning to realize that the problem goes much deeper than just how they were affected because if you go to any city across our nation, you’ll find poor areas in every city, there's those poor black communities, there's even poor white communities and there's poor Hispanic communities, in every single city across our nation and they know from birth what is going on in this country. And they know things are wrong. And they don’t’ necessarily have a voice in the movement and that needs to change.

For our world audience, because we are international here, if the upper middle class and the privileged class are suffering that badly in the United States – I mean, you guys can’t get jobs etc. etc., what would you say the situation is like for lower class?

That’s even worse. I mean they don’t even have a place to live. When it rains they get wet! They beg for food. They’re in a very bad situation.

End Part 1

 PART II

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_08_31/Resist-RNC-protest-against-the-Republicans-and-Democrats-interview/

Jar2 

31 August 2012, 13:42  

CodePink Disrupts Mitt Romney’s Speech at RNC: “Democracy is not a business!”

Medea Bejamin

CodePink disrupts Mitt Romney’s speech at RNC: “Democracy is not a business!” - interview

Download audio file

The Voice of Russia’s John Robles spoke with Tighe Barry, an activist with the CODEPINK Organization in the U.S. The group staged several protests and interruptions at the Republican National Convention this week, including interrupting Condeleza Rice twice and disrupting speeches by both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Mr. Barry tells why they wanted to disrupt Mitt Romney’s speech. Mr. Barry did the interview in place of the co-director of CODEPINK, Medea Benjamin, who was injured by the delegates during the protest staged during Mitt Romney’s speech.

I understand you’ve just left RNC. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what happened?

It was exciting to be able to disrupt presidential candidate Mitt Romney from the Republican Party, but at the same time it was distressing, because the people in the audience were violent towards me. One guy gave me a headlock trying to get my banner, but we were able to stand up and say over and over, “Democracy is not a business!” and that Mitt Romney cannot buy democracy and cannot buy the presidency of the US.

So you actually just disrupted Mitt Romney’s speech?

Yes. There were three of us.

And how difficult was it to get into the RNC? Did it take a lot of planning?

It took some planning. We were given some passes, but the security there is very tight. As we’ve been doing for many years – we’ve been actively protesting the money in our politics that’s destroying the democracy and the country of the US.

Wonderful! You’ve just said that co-director Medea Benjamin was injured someway? Was that by the police? What happened?

Not, it was not by the police – it was by the people there, by the attendees. The police actually were able to do their job. They seemed to be very professional and they would just grab you and just pull you out. But it was Republicans around us that got violent.

So the delegates actually were physically violent? Oh my god!

Yes! And they were using use of language, spitting, I mean, they were pretty disgusting!

Spitting? They spat on you?

Yeah! And one woman put gum on one of our other activists. I don’t know how low you can go!

And these were Republican delegates?

Yes. And I mean there were terms used tonight that would make you stomach turn. One of the speechmakers that we had to listen to said that “this is our country and we own it!” Like it’s a piece of estate and you can purchase it!

We?

“We” meaning the Republican party or “we” meaning the wealthy – the way I took it. I mean this is a wealthy person, former Mayor of Carmel Clint Eastwood.

Clint Eastwood said that?! He said that the US is their country and – what else did he say?

And they own it!

And they own it…

And he got a round of applause, a standing ovation for that. “It’s our country and we own it!” And this is the way the politics is going in US, where it’s to the highest bidder. Democracy is to the highest bidder and it’s not the country that I was promised when I was born or where I grew going to my school. And now I’m 50 years old! I was promised a country that is compassionate. And we were united and we all stuck together.

Listen, your people have managed to disrupt the race two times – if I’m correct – and Paul Ryan? Can you tell our listeners a little bit about those events?

Yeah, we went to see Condoleezza Rice, that was an event that she was hosting and we went twice, like you said, we were there to say, “Condoleezza is a war criminal, they used lies to get us into the war in Iraq and now we’re at war with five countries.” We don’t declare wars. But now we have the world’s largest embassy in Iraq and all the drones promised to be taken out of Iraq are now in the hands of the state department. So the group which was supposed to be there for diplomacy and for trade agreements and other such things now has its own private army. And we were there to talk to Condoleezza Rice about the fact that she was part of the war machine that killed over million people and she should be held responsible for that as the Republican Party says it’s the party of personal responsibility and as of yet none of war criminals – George Bush, Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell – were taken to ask for that. Our President today says, “We don’t look back.” But everyone knows that if you don’t learn from history – you’re destined to repeat it.

Of course.

So I was there in the front line to not repeat it.

Of course. Recently a general called Hillary Clinton “spokesperson for the US military” – what do you know about that?

The actual closeness of the State Department with the Department of Defense – the Department of War as we turn it – is evidential. They’re working together to justify wars around the planets, to justify army people who are not democratic and our dictators such as in Bahrain. We need to educate the American public that our State Department which is supposed to be a diplomatic arm of our government is actually no more than a spokesperson for the Department of War/Defense.

How many officials that are guilty of war crimes has your group attempted to affect as citizens to arrest on?

Every single one of them. We’ve got close to Dick Chaney, Carl Rove – who we also construe as war criminal because his propaganda machine was the one that came to turn on the weapon of mass destruction and instill fear in the American public. I talked to a high official within the Republican party just the other day here in Tampa who stated that “Iran was responsible for 9/11”

Now it’s Iran!

These are attacks that they’re luring themselves to, to bolster their new attacks on sovereign nations.

Who would you say was behind 9/11?

The problem that we’re having as American citizens is amount of transparency that our government is involved in. Today everything seems to be top secret. Everything seems to be not worthy of the American public’s ears. So I can only assume that it was a group of criminals that took down the buildings in NY whether it was conspiracy within our own government or it was al-Qaeda. Who it was I don’t know exactly, but I do know that it was a group of criminals and those criminals should be held responsible and should be dealt with in court of law. And what we mistakenly did – we attacked a country, a sovereign nation and called them the criminals! And a nation is not a criminal! A nation is a nation.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_08_31/CodePink-disrupts-Mitt-Romney-s-speech-at-RNC-Democracy-is-not-a-business-interview/