Archive | July 17th, 2012

Former CIA analyst alleges China-Saudi nuclear deal


Washington Post

A former CIA officer who managed intelligence reports on Saudi Arabia has sent an uncleared manuscript to congressional offices claiming that China supplied nuclear missiles to the kingdom early in the George W. Bush administration.

“I believe the People’s Republic of China delivered a turn-key nuclear ballistic missile system to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over the course of several years beginning no later than December 2003,” writes Jonathan Scherck in a self-published book, “Patriot Lost,” which he provided to SpyTalk on Monday.

He also e-mailed copies to the offices of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Scherck, who became convinced that the White House was covering up the China-Saudi nuclear connection so as not to damage relations with a major U.S. ally and oil supplier, said he formed his conclusions while reading intelligence reports from Riyadh during his 18 months on “the Saudi account” in the Near East Division between 2005 and 2007, as well as talking with other CIA personnel in contact with the Bush White House.

“Based on the author’s knowledge of U.S. satellite imagery spanning this time period, along with first-hand accounts of revealing interactions between Cheney’s office and CIA management,” a press release says, “Patriot Lost details how — out of political expediency amidst the war in Iraq — the Bush White House opted not to intervene in an oil-for-nuclear weapons pact between the Chinese government and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This heavily shrouded deal and Washington’s shocking complicity constituted a flagrant violation of the long-standing but crippled Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ratified decades ago under the Richard Nixon administration.”

But his manuscript provides little in the way of detailed evidence for his conclusions.

Scherck joined the CIA in 2004 but quit before finishing the agency’s rigorous clandestine career training course, in November of that year. He then joined SpecTal, a Reston, Va.-based intelligence contractor, which assigned him to the CIA as a collection management officer on the Saudi desk. He supplied SpyTalk with corroboration of his agency employment and correspondence with the CIA’s Publications Review Board over his manuscript.

Scherck also said he was fired “because of my continued interaction with the NGA” – the National Geospatial Agency, which provides spy satellite pictures to the CIA and other U.S. intelligence components.

He said he tired of the board’s “foot dragging” on his manuscript, although he had submitted it only in April, the correspondence shows. Negotiations can drag on for several months.

Publishing the manuscript without the CIA’s approval opens him to criminal prosecution.

CIA spokesmen were not readily available for comment. Spokesman for Feinstein and Hoekstra could not be reached. (Update: A Feinstein spokesman later said the office was “still digesting” the manuscript and would have no comment.)

“I was a contractor supporting America’s intelligence community,” Scherck writes.

“As a contractor working at CIA … I served as a middleman between HUMINT [human intelligence] collectors in the field overseas and policymakers downtown at the White House and National Security Council. But in this role, I was one of only a few individuals in Washington with access to what was being said overseas at the time about Saudi Arabia’s procurement of a new ballistic missile system from China. “

“I read things, I heard things, I saw things,” he continued. “Admittedly, I did not see all—but I saw enough.”

Over the years there have been constant reports on secret collaboration among China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in nuclear and ballistic missile development.

Posted in USAComments Off on Former CIA analyst alleges China-Saudi nuclear deal

IsraHell lawmaker tears up “abominable” New Testament, throws it in trash


by crescentandcross


Israeli Knesset member Michael Ben-Ari tears up the bible before dumping it in the trash.

A member of the Israeli parliament has torn up a copy of the New Testament and thrown it in the trash.

An edition of the Bible had been distributed to all members of the Knesset by Victor Kalish, the head of a Christian publishing society.

According to Israel’s NRG news website, Kalish sent the book along with a letter explaining that it was a new edition with thousands of references, “that sheds light on the [Old Testament] Scriptures and helps to understand them and also shows the close connection between the Scriptures and the New Testament and how many of their prophecies are fulfilled in the New Testament.”

New Testament belongs in “garbage can of history”

**Ben-Ari, however termed the book a “provocation,” tore it up and threw it in the trash, an act that was apparently caught on camera.

“This abominable book [the New Testament] brought about the murder of millions of Jews in the Inquisition and autos da fé,” Ben-Ari was quoted as saying, “This is a provocation by church missionaries and there is no doubt that this book and those who sent it belong in the garbage can of history.”**

Tzipi Hovotely, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing party, sent a request to the speaker of the Knesset urging him to ban the distribution of “missionary” materials, NRG reported.

Destruction of bible comes as Christian Zionists meet in Washington

Ben-Ari’s destruction of, and insults toward the Bible, come as Christians United for Israel(CUFI) – what claims to be the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States – meets for its annual conference in Washington.

Alice Bach attended the conference and heard the opening speech by its founder Pastor John Hagee who claims, in order to justify his support for Israel, that the bible is “a Zionist text.”

What would the thousands of Christian Zionists attending CUFI say if they saw an Israeli Knesset member destroying the Bible and dumping it in the trash?

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on IsraHell lawmaker tears up “abominable” New Testament, throws it in trash

Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal


Facebook Contributed More to Monitoring Americans Than All Other Sources Combined, and Cheaper, too.

by  Jim W. Dean, VT Editor

Who’s behind those Foster Grants – The CIA, of course.

Well, now it is official. Mark Zuckerberg was not so smart after all, but just fronting for the CIA in one of the biggest Intelligence coups of all times.

But there remains one small problem, the CIA is not supposed to monitor Americans. I guess we will hear more on that soon from the lawyers once the litigation gets cranked up.

Personally I will be more interested in how this is going to effect the stock offering and shares as all Americans should own the entity that has been spying on them.

And then there are the SEC full disclosure regulations and penalties. It’s bonanza time for the lawyers.

Could the loophole the CIA used be that, ‘you aren’t being spied on if you are willingly posting everything a repressive regime would love to have on your Facebook account, with no threats, no family hostages, no dirty movies or photos that could be released?

But enough with the lead in. Let’s take you directly to our source where you can get it straight from the source’s mouth, including seeing Zuckerberg getting his award.

We really need your comments on this below so we can speak to power with one voice…something that can rarely be done around here.

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I am not stupid…all of my Facebook material is all made up, including all of my friends. I am in the safe zone. My momma didn’t raise no fool. But how about you?


YouTube  CIA and Zuckerberg

Hope you enjoyed the spoof folks. I thought it was great. And congrats to the Onion News Network gang  on getting those 3.7 million YouTube views !!! :-)

Posted in USAComments Off on Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal

Media Scoundrels Endorse Sham Libyan Election

by Stephen Lendman


In their book titled “Demonstration Elections,” Edward Herman and Frank Broadhead described US-staged elections.

They’re manipulated to consolidate American power and influence public opinion to believe sham processes are legitimate.

Herman and Broadhead defined what goes on as:

“A circus held in a client state to assure the population of the home country that their intrusion is well received.”

“The results are guaranteed by an adequate supply of bullets provided in advance.” They’re freely used to achieve desired outcomes.

The authors’ main theme was that “elections held under conditions of military occupation and extensive pre-election ‘pacification’ ” aren’t free.

They’re conducted to install client regimes. Those in charge are pro-Western puppets, not legitimate leaders.

US-style democracy is engineered. It’s illusory, not real. Force backs it to assert control.

Elections are instruments of US dominance. Selling deception is crucial. Media scoundrels regurgitate the Big Lie. Herman says “the media leopard never changes its spots.”

Managed news substitutes for truth and full disclosure. Readers and viewers are deceived and betrayed. It happens repeatedly at home and abroad.

Libya’s July 7 sham elections are the latest example. Democracy was absent from the ballot. Puppet National Transitional Council (NTC) leaders manipulated the process. On Tuesday, votes were still being counted.

It hardly matters who wins. Washington engineered its own victory whether Islamists or secularists take charge separately or in coalition government.

They’ll serve as proxies for power, privilege, and neoliberalism’s death grip. Ordinary Libyans want to live free. Liberation depends on fighting for it.

Protracted struggle continues. Libya remains a cauldron of violence and instability. Washington needs these conditions to justify its presence. US and perhaps other NATO forces guard Libyan oil installations and other strategic sites.

Media scoundrels say nothing. Instead, they hailed Libya’s first democratic election. Fiction substituted for fact. Democracy was nowhere in sight.

Wall Street Journal editorial said Libyans “joyously voted….The vote for a new legislative body wasn’t perfect but went off better than expected.”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most Libyans have a different view. Media scoundrels excluded them from those quoted.

They downplayed a nation in shambles, millions impoverished on their own, extreme human misery, protracted conflict, and liberation struggles likely continuing for years.

On July 9, a New York Times editorial headlined “Libya’s Election,” saying:

“Freed from (Gaddafi’s) repression, (Libyans) cast ballots Saturday in the country’s first free election in decades.”

“This is a heartening outcome because the election of a national assembly, judged by independent observers to be reasonably free and fair, was not a given.”

Thus spake the Newspaper of Record. It represents power and privilege. It supports corporate interests. It cheerleads imperial wars. It backs US client regimes. It endorses sham elections pretending to be legitimate ones.

On Tuesday, Reuters headlined “Wartime PM (Mustafa Abdul) Jalil takes early lead in Libya vote,” saying:

Initial tallies suggest Islamist parties did worse than expected. Jabril says “his multi-party alliance is neither secular nor liberal and includes sharia Islamic law among its core values.”

It hardly matters. At issue only is who pulls the strings and controls things. Libya’s government is headquartered in Washington. Other countries America destroyed are dominated the same way.

“Democratic transitions are invariably long and messy,” said The Times. Ignored was that America spurns democracy at home and abroad. Money power runs things. People have no say.

Nonetheless, The Times called Libya’s election “a huge step away from the Qaddafi nightmare.”

In fact, most Libyans supported Gaddafi. The longer war raged, the more it grew. Near the end of conflict it was overwhelming. It likely still is given what Libyans lost.

His 1999 Decision No. 111 afforded all Libyans free healthcare, education, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, subsidies to study abroad and for couples when they marry, and practically free gasoline.

Libyans also got free use of land for agriculture. The idea was to foster self-sufficiency in food production. Moreover, all basic food items were subsidized. They were sold through a network of “people’s shops.”

Until NATO arrived, Libyans had Africa’s highest standard of living. Oil revenues provided them. They also stimulated economic development. According to “Qaddafi and the Libyan Revolution,” authors David Blundy and Andrew Lycett said:

“The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated.”

“Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services.”

“New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard.”

“All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car, and most have televisions” and other conveniences.

“Compared with most citizens of Third World countries, and with many (others), Libyans have it very good indeed.”

Gaddafi’s Green Book explained Jamahiriya benefits, saying:

“The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”

“Women, like men, are human beings.”

They could vote and participate politically. They could also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the 1969 Constitutional Proclamation, Clause 5, they got equal status with men. Education and employment were included even though men played a leading role in society.

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

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

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

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

Green Book ideology rejected Western democracy and exploitive capitalism. It was one among other reasons why Washington wanted Gaddafi ousted.

On January 4, 2011, the Human Rights Council (HRC) prepared its “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya.”

It said Gaddafi’s government protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also praised his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” of its security forces.

Washington’s intervention prevented its expected overwhelming approval. Instead it was postponed. Now it’s buried. It’s little more than a little known footnote about Libya under Gaddafi.

According to The Times, Libya’s transition will be “long and messy” because it has “almost no government institutions to build on.”

At the same time, Saturday’s elections represent “a huge step away from the Qaddafi nightmare.”

So much for truth and full disclosure. Times editorials exclude it.

The view from the Washington Post matches its deception and disingenuousness. On July 9, its editorial headlined “Libya’s all-important post-election steps,” saying:

Gaddafi “left (Libya) with no recognizable political institutions, no rule of law and no established political parties.”

The Post, like all other US scoundrel media, excludes “recognizable” truths in its commentaries.

After decades under Gaddafi, it said, “Saturday’s general election was a remarkable achievement.”

At most, it was “remarkable” deception. Legitimacy was entirely excluded.

Libya’s new government will succeed, said the Post, if its leaders can “impose(e) its authority across the country, including disarming militias or integrating them with official security forces….”

“NATO’s intervention….paved the way for Saturday’s landmark election. Now the Obama administration and its allies should help the new authorities attain their goal of a democratic Libya.”

In fact, Libya is colonized and occupied. Carving up its corpse for profit began last year. Ordinary Libyans are entirely excluded.

What Gaddafi gave, Washington-led NATO destroyed. New puppet leaders will replace interim ones. Exploitive neoliberalism’s death grip stays in charge. The new Libya resembles a level of hell Dante forgot, not liberation.

For Libyans, their protracted struggle to live free continues. It won’t end until America’s imperial scourge is vanquished.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Media Scoundrels Endorse Sham Libyan Election

Denis Rancourt’s Struggle for Justice


by Stephen Lendman


Injustice defines Western societies. America long ago spurned rule of law principles. Canada marches in lockstep.

Democratic values are quaint and dying. So are honor, integrity, righteousness, and believing right over wrong matters.

Even university officials and complicit staff members are tainted. Academia proves not so hallowed ground.

Denis Rancourt is a distinguished tenured University of Ottawa physics professor. He’s a recognized expert in his field.

His students called him a “phenomenal teacher.” His classrooms provided an enriching learning experience. He inspired student confidence and academic achievement.

He also champions equity, justice, and human rights. Political activism led to his dismissal. On U of O’s campus, it’s not safe to advocate right over wrong.

Beginning in September 2005, university officials targeted him unfairly. They oppose his support for Palestinian rights. They’re some of the world’s most oppressed people.

They live under militarized occupation hell. Institutionalized racism harms them. Israeli state terror is policy. Palestinians are treated like subhumans. Their crime is praying to the wrong God.

Rancourt eloquently supports them. He also expresses views forthrightly on political and environmental issues, professional ethics, lobbying, scoundrel media influence, and the right of all persecuted people to live free.

He does it in articles, broadcasts, blog postings, at public venues, and in classrooms when he taught. He did the right thing and got punished.

In 2007, he criticized the university’s irresponsible pro-Israeli position. In response, administration officials targeted him unfairly.

On June 3, 2008, Allan Rock became president. He’s a former Canadian politician, UN ambassador, and staunch Israeli supporter.

As UN ambassador, he voted against supporting Palestinian rights. As U of O president, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association reprimanded his banning a student poster about Israeli Apartheid Week.

The student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) supports Palestinian rights. Rock pressured a student union president into distancing the organization from OPIRG.

Rock’s unprincipled pro-Israeli position puts him at odds with human rights advocates like Rancourt.

In September 2008, he instructed his executives and hired lawyers to target Rancourt. By November 2008, he and his graduate students were locked out of their laboratory. Their equipment was dismantled.

By December 2008, Rancourt was suspended and removed from campus under police escort.

Rock launched a personal vilification and persecution campaign. He went all out to get Rancourt.

In March 2009, he was fired. His office books and research files were crated and removed.

Rock runs U of O like a police state. Academic priorities are secondary to wealth, power and imperial interests. Students and faculty alike are targeted for supporting issues he and like-minded extremists spurn.

Fundamental international and Canadian laws don’t matter.

Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional bill of rights, states:

“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.”

Article 7 assures “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Academic and speech freedoms are inviolable. Without them all others are at risk. America spurns them with impunity. So does Canada and university officials like Rock.

Spurious pedagogical reasons were used to fire Rancourt. Claiming them was sham cover for political persecution. Rancourt explained as follows:

“I was fired under the false pretext of having arbitrarily assigned high grades in one course in the winter 2008 semester.”

In doing so, “the university had to dispense with due process. In the words of the professors’ union’s lawyer, my dismissal was ‘both a denial of substantive and procedural rights….and a contravention of the basic principles of natural justice.’ ”

His “critical pedagogy” focused on learning. It rejected regurgitating professorial views for high grades. Most Western university classrooms operate their way. Doing so betrays students who come to learn and become better prepared for adult life.

Political activism led to Rancourt’s firing. His teaching methods had nothing to do with it.

He became persona non grata. Weeks before his dismissal, he learned that university officials used a “fast track process” against him. They wouldn’t engage him in dialogue. They refused to appoint a committee of his peers to evaluate him.

Rock ordered him hung out to dry. Methods used against him would make despots proud.

They included covert tactics, false pretense inquiries, a student spy, and professional reporters enlisted to produce transcripts of his academic and professional talks at other universities to use against him.

It may have been the first time a university used a student to spy on a professor and like-minded students.

The student hired reported directly to Rancourt’s dean and to U of O’s Legal Counsel. Doing so violates Canadian and international law.

The game plan was get Rancourt. Underhanded, devious, lawless practices were used. They couldn’t fire him on legitimate grounds because there were none. So contrived reasons were invented instead. Doing so violated legal, ethical and moral principles.

Rock colluded with Israeli Lobby efforts. At issue was institutionalizing ideological extremism on campus. Outliers are targeted for removal. Rancourt became U of O’s public enemy number one.

He called what went on emerging fascism. It’s virulent in politics and at universities. Under Rock, it infests U of O’s campus. His administration relegates academic freedom to quaint artifact status.

Only what he says goes. Violate that rule and get fired. That’s how despots operate. Rock does them proud.

Democratic values are persona non grata on his watch. U of O is a hotbed of autocratic extremism. It’s inhospitable to academic freedom. Learning also suffers.

U of O Law Professor Joanne St. Lewis colluded with him against Rancourt. Last year, she sued for $1 million for comments about her on Rancourt’s blog. She charged racism. Doing so was spurious.

At issue was her unprofessional relationship with Rock. The student union released a public report about systemic U of O racism. Rock asked St. Lewis to immediately assess it in writing. He wanted her to discredit the student report. She obliged.

In response, Rancourt called her a “house negro.” He cited Malcolm X. In 1963, Malcolm first used the term.

In response, a Statement of Claim (SOC) against him said:

“The Defendant’s conduct and actions are reprehensible insulting, high-handed, spiteful, and outrageous. Such conduct warrants condemnation by this Court by means of an award of punitive damages.”

“Professor St. Lewis will rely upon the entire conduct of the Defendant before and after the May 16, 2011 Notice to the date of judgment in this action.”

It added that “(t)he Defendant defamed Professor St. Lewis in furtherance of his personal animosity towards President Allan Rock and the University of Ottawa which terminated him as a Professor.”

Last October, it was learned that U of O is paying St. Lewis’ legal fees. Borden Ladner Gervais’ chief attorney wrote Rancourt, saying:

“The University of Ottawa is reimbursing professor St. Lewis for her legal fees incurred in her defamation proceeding(s) against you.”

“Your defamatory remarks about professor St. Lewis were occasioned by work which she undertook at the request of the university and in the course of her duties and responsibilities as an employee.”

He added that U of O officials have a “moral obligation” to support St. Lewis. It smacks more of collusion. Rancourt said funding her violates his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“It is established that a corporation or in this case a large institution that is publicly funded cannot sue an individual citizen (for) criticizing the institution or corporation,” he explained.

“An individual is always allowed to sue someone else individually to protect their reputation like in a defamation lawsuit, so professor St. Lewis had the right to litigation against me but the university does not.”

Rancourt called her action a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). They’re used to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with legal costs until they’re bankrupt. Winning is secondary. Often it doesn’t matter at all.

Rancourt one-on-one against St. Lewis is one thing. Right or wrong, she’s entitled to sue. Doing so with U of O funding is quite another matter. It discredits her action altogether.

It shows rancor and malicious intent. It suggests a conspiracy to inflict maximum harm. It’s not about alleged defamatory comments.

It’s an all-out assault on a distinguished, principled academic. He deserves praise, not persecution. St. Lewis allied with the wrong side. Maybe one day she’ll acknowledge her mistake. So far she shows no signs of relenting. Perhaps Rock eggs her on.

Rancourt filed a so-called “champerty” motion. On August 29, it will be heard in court. He moved that her action be dismissed for abuse of process. At issue is U of O’s deep pockets funding her. Doing so smacks of collusion and injustice.

On June 20, Rancourt also filed a “refusals and productions” motion. At the motion hearing, he was denied the right to cross-examine a U of O affiant.

He also submitted an expert’s affidavit. It established the authenticity of a document showing a March 2012 Rock/St. Lewis’ counsel Richard Dearden email communication.

The expert’s affidavit was called inadmissible. Reasons may be explained when the court rules on his “refusals and productions” motion. On July 24, proceedings on it resume.

Rancourt represents himself against two experienced legal teams. They’re from two of Canada’s largest law firms. Public funding and student tuitions pay them.

Fairness and justice are absent in proceedings. Defaming, persecuting, and breaking Rancourt alone matter.

U of O Assistant Law Professor St. Lewis teaches civil liberties, social justice, comparative South African and Canadian constitutional law.

She also taught courses in critical race theory, history of legal thought and criminal justice administration.

She co-chaired the Canadian Bar Association Working Group on Racial Equality.

Given what she teaches students in classrooms and perhaps lectures on publicly, her actions against Rancourt are especially unprincipled.

She’ll have to explain her motive better than what’s claimed so far. Saying Rancourt maligned her doesn’t wash.

He freely expressed his view. Canadian and international law permit it. Suing against what’s legal and just suggests something else entirely is involved.

Rancourt’s endured months of expensive legal proceedings. His struggle continues. He deserves much better. American and Canadian courts target their best. Justice doesn’t matter, only might over right.

On August 29, 2011 Law Times News headlined “U of O law prof suing colleague over ‘house negro’ remark,” saying:

In 1963, Malcolm X first used the term. He said it described subservient slaves to their white masters. In return, they got special privileges. They included better living conditions and treatment.

The St. Lewis/Rancourt dispute dates from November 2008. U of O’s Student Appeal Centre (SOC) of the Student Federation released a report titled “Mistreatment of Students, Unfair Practices and Systemic Racism at the University of Ottawa.”

It said “Arab, Black, and Asian men and women – these are the students that most often get accused of academic fraud.”

In response, Rock had St. Lewis evaluate its findings. She called the report “very unprofessional.” She said its findings were “unsubstantiated, inconclusive and inflammatory.”

She claimed racist accusations were exaggerated. Doing so ignored prima facie evidence. Her evaluation ran 19 pages. She alleged “significant methodological errors.” She cited an “apparent lack of understanding of the administrative processes of the university.”

She claimed it showed “complete failure to conduct a systemic analysis in support of its conclusions of systemic racism.”

She said at most a miniscule percent of the university population too small to matter is affected.

Doing so ignored systematic U of O racism and abuse. A November 2011 lawsuit charged it. A January 30, 2012 press release explained, saying:

“Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials.”

Those charged include Dr. Jacques Bradwejn (Dean of the Faculty of Medicine), Dr. James Worthington (Ottawa Hospital’s Vice President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety), Dr. Paul Bragg (Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education), Dr. Eric Poulin (Chair of Cardiac Surgery), Dr. Richard Moulton (Neurosurgery Chair), Dr. Fraser Rubens (Cardiac Surgery Program Director), and Dr. John Sinclair (former Neurosurgery Program Director.

Charges relate to university discrimination against foreign medical students at both provincial and national levels. It also focuses specifically on U of O abuses.

They’re not isolated examples. They’re systemic against domestic and foreign students as well as university staff of color.

Plaintiffs charged conspiracy to injure, public office malfeasance, defamation, intimidation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, U of O liability for negligence and breach of contract, vicarious liability, and violations of the 1990 Human Rights Code.

They also said defendants treated them “in a high-handed and oppressive manner. The conduct of the University and the individual defendants described herein constitute such wanton and reckless disregard of their professional duties, their contractual obligation as well as their Charter obligations, and (have) caused such devastating harm that an award of punitive and aggravated damages is warranted.”

Damages plaintiffs suffered include loss of income, reputation, mental distress and suffering (including depression and anxiety), loss of future employment as surgeons, and loss of time and opportunity to pursue other medical specialties.

In 2008, St. Lewis prepared her assessment. A January 30, 2012 press release announced the above lawsuit. However, U of O racism is likely longstanding.

St. Lewis is Black. She teaches civil liberties, social justice, and Canadian constitutional law. It’s hard imagining she’s not familiar with examples of campus racial injustice.

Rancourt criticized her assessment. He said “rather than being an independent report, and far from being of professional caliber, (her) evaluation is prima facie intended to diffuse a media and public relations management liability for the University.”

He suggested that St. Lewis “acted like president Allan Rock’s house negro when she enthusiastically toiled to discredit a (credible) 2008 SAC report about systemic racial discrimination at the university.”

He added that Malcolm X first used the term. He provided a video of him stating it. People in Western countries use pejoratives often without retaliatory lawsuits.

Filing them is rare. Why bother when targeted individuals can respond in kind. St. Lewis’ action was politically motivated. She seeks $500,000 in general defamation damages, $250,000 in aggravated damages, and $250,000 for punitive ones.

She also wants a court order to remove Rancourt’s post and a published apology. A member of her legal team, Richard Dearden, said:

“The damages to professor St. Lewis increase and continue every day that the defamatory publications are available via the Internet – these defamatory statements must therefore be taken down.”

“The compensatory and punitive damages claimed relate to the injury to reputation caused by the defendant.”

Rancourt defended his comments, saying:

“Those who argue that the same point could have been made without using the term ‘house negro’ have the onus to explain why this racial socio-political term should not be used in circumstances where it applies.”

“Public discourse is not served by those who, in this way, would censor accepted expressions which contain taboo words.”

“Those who argue for this censorship in all media circumstances are saying ‘be polite’ and ‘be sensitive’ as a first requirement, thereby effectively drawing attention away from the actions which are being criticized.”

“It is the institutional behaviour that needs examining, not the arguable benefits of censorship or self-censorship.”

When justified, proper, and credible, it’s legitimate to call a Black person a house negro. When accurate, it’s not racist.

It’s no different than calling Wall Street bankers and other predatory capitalists crooks or saying politician A, B, and or C is corrupt.

These and similar charges happen regularly. So do people making true or untrue defamatory comments all the time.

Some do it against business or professional associates. Others target neighbors. SLAPP lawsuits don’t follow. If they did, courts couldn’t handle the volume.

Allegations against Rancourt aren’t proved. Hopefully they won’t be. They never should have been filed in the first place.

On June 30, Rancourt updated his “champerty” motion. On August 29, it will be heard in court. U of O deep pockets fund St. Lewis. Doing so violates his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

St. Lewis and U of O jointly stand to gain. Rock admitted under oath that he decided to entirely fund Plaintiff’s litigation. No spending cap is imposed. He’ll do what it takes to get Rancourt. That’s his mission, not justice.

St. Lewis apparently is a willing co-conspirator. Do her social justice/civil liberties courses teach this stuff? Her students and prospective ones ought to know.

Perhaps they’re better off in other classrooms. U of O ill serves them. Enrolling elsewhere should be prioritized. Allan Rock’s death grip should be avoided.

He defiles speech and academic freedoms. He spurns Canadian and international law. He enforces what no one should tolerate.

Systemic racism and institutionalized injustice infest the University of Ottawa. An environment inhospitable to learning results.

Politicized campuses defile speech and academic freedoms. Avoiding U of O should be prioritized.

A Final Comment

Rancourt represents himself. He’s pitted against experienced teams from two of Canada’s largest law firms.

Litigation is expensive. It exhausted his savings. His legal defense fund needs help. All donations go for legal and court costs.

Please visit his funding page and help as able.

Posted in USAComments Off on Denis Rancourt’s Struggle for Justice

Kidon Killers in Service of Satans

By Ismail Salami

A new book reveals that a department known as Kidon within the Mossad has dispatched assassins into Iran in order to murder the nuclear scientists, thereby stunting the country’s nuclear energy program.

Authors Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman in their book Spies against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars state that the notorious spy agency has killed at least four Iranian nuclear scientists, including targeting them with operatives on motorcycles, an assassination technique used by the elite killers at Kidon.

The Kidon killers “excel at accurate shooting at any speed and staying steady to shoot and to place exquisitely shaped sticky bombs” and consider it their hallmark.

Kidon, known to be one of the world’s most efficient killing machines, is technically described as a little Mossad within Mossad.

Tasked with carrying out covert ops across the world, Kidon has embarked on a number of black ops and assassinations in different countries.

Those who kill for Kidon are selected either from within the Mossad spy agency or from among the natives of the countries where they plan to carry out assassinations.

For instance, in case of the nuclear assassinations conducted in Iran by Kidon, they basically hired people with Iranian or dual nationalities. One of the Mossad assassins was Majid Jamali Fashi who confessed he had cooperated with Mossad for financial reasons only.

Majid Jamali Fashi assassinated Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, a professor at Tehran University in January 2011 by blowing an explosive-laden motorbike via a remote-controlled device. He reportedly received training from Mossad inside Israel as well as $120,000 to assassinate the Iranian scientist. According to his confession, Jamali Fashi received forged documents in Azerbaijan’s Heydar Aliyev Airport to travel to Tel Aviv.

He confessed, “I woke up early in the morning and as we were trained I went to the warehouse. I had to prepare the box which contained the bomb. I took the motorbike out of the house and reached a location that I had to contact them. I went to the alley [where the professor resided]. It was vacant. No one was there. I brought the bike to the sidewalk and parked it in front of the house. They told me that the mission had been accomplished and that I had to discard my stuff.”

Jamali Fashi was executed under the Iranian judicial system on 15 May, 2012. Parenthetically, Azerbaijan has in recent years become an apparent haven for Mossad spies and assassins.

Majid Jamali Fashi, the Mossad-hired assassin, was executed under the Iranian judicial system on 15 May, 2012.

Another Mossad operative of Iranian nationality has been identified as Ja’far Khoshzaban, alias Javidan, who has been working under the auspices of Azeri security forces and who has been involved in nuclear assassinations. Iranian intelligence ministry has demanded the extradition of Mossad’s Iranian spy from Azerbaijan. Iran has reportedly obtained documents, suggesting that Azeri officials have aided and abetted Mossad and CIA agents in their targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, namely Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. As a matter of fact, CIA is constantly mentioned along with Mossad as the main elements in the nuclear assassinations.

Ahmadi Roshan was assassinated on January 11, 2012 when an unknown motorcyclist attached a magnetic bomb to his car near a college building of Allameh Tabatabaei University in northern Tehran.

Using the same ‘sticking bomb technique’, the Kidon assassins attached bombs to the vehicles of Iranian university professors Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi and detonated the explosives on November 29, 2010. Professor Shahriari was killed immediately, but Dr. Abbasi and his wife only sustained minor injuries.

As a rule, the Kidon kill team is comprised of four highly seasoned men: 1. Tracer 2. Transporter 3. Helper 4. Killer. The tracer spots the target. The transporter guides the assassination team to the target. The helper basically serves as the motorcycle driver who helps the killer and the killer is tasked with shooting the target or attaching magnetic bomb to the car of the victim.

According to the Spies against Armageddon, the Kidon agents are well-trained in shooting and placing “exquisitely shaped sticky bombs” and consider it their hallmark.

These facts aside, it rather seems sort of naïve to disregard the role of the CIA-backed MKO terrorists in the nuclear assassinations and give all the credit to the Kidon agents. There is solid evidence which evinces the MKO role in the assassination of the Iranian scientists.

American commentator Richard Silverstein believes that the primary source of income for the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) comes from the assassinations the group conducts within the Iranian soil at the behest of the Mossad. He argues that “If you’re a terrorist on behalf of Israel, as MKO is, then you’re kosher as far as (US-based Israeli publicist) Dershowitz is concerned. And your money is golden. Where does the money come from? Possibly from the Iran assassinations the MKO performs on Mossad’s behalf, which undoubtedly pay well. Then there’s the possibility that the USD 400-million Bush allocated for destabilizing Iran in 2007 has found its way either to the MKO or Mossad (or both)”

More to the point, the CIA works in the same satanic league with the Mossad and MKO. Time and again, the officials in Washington have encouraged and even confessed to the killings of the Iranian nuclear scientists.

Former US senator Rick Santorum callously described the assassination of Iranian scientists as “wonderful,” threatening that those who work for Iran’s nuclear program “are not safe.”

“On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing, candidly.”

He also said, “I think we should send a very clear message that if you are a scientist from Russia, North Korea, or from Iran and you are going to work on a nuclear program to develop a bomb for Iran, you are not safe.”

Also, former Bush administration ambassador to the UN John Bolton said on Fox News that the killing of an Iranian scientist and sanctions against Iran constitute only “half-measures in the quest to stunt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Former White House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for covert action, including “taking out their scientists” and cyberwarfare.

Quotations of this nature are legion and all these facts reinforce the idea that Washington has been making clandestine efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear energy program in cahoots with Tel Aviv and their lackey i.e. the MKO.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Kidon Killers in Service of Satans

Media and The 9/11 Cover-Up: BBC Accused of Breaking Its Own Fairness Rules

BBC* reported the “collapse” of WTC-7 almost half an hour before the demolition. Its 9/11 coverage hasn’t gotten any better since then.

Craig McKee’s Truth and Shadows blog is consistently high-quality, and its comments section is becoming a 9/11 truth movement forum. Below is McKee’s latest post.  -KB

By Craig McKee

The first time I walked into the offices of my university newspaper to offer my services, I noticed a slogan on the wall that read: “Don’t cover the news, UNcover it.”

That distinction appealed to every idealistic bone in my body. There were 206 of them then, give or take. Things have settled a bit since, but I’m still idealistic to a fault. Even so, my expectations of the mainstream media – at least when it comes to the big picture items – can’t get much lower.

Instead of uncovering the news, now I’d settle for: “Don’t cover it up.”

But that’s exactly what the major media have been doing with 9/11 for nearly 11 years. They have been utterly complicit in the deception since the first moments after the North Tower was hit. And it’s not just the “corporate” media that have driven the cover-up, publicly funded media outlets have been just as guilty.

It’s one of those state funded networks that is now having its own rules used against it. Three British members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have filed three formal complaints with the venerable British Broadcasting Corporation for its biased 9/11 coverage.

Peter Drew, Paul Warburton, and Adrian Mallett are using the publicly funded television network’s own rules to highlight its failure to fairly report the facts of 9/11. The three have launched their complaints with the BBC Trust claiming that the network failed to live up to its own Royal Charter and Agreement in two documentaries released last year – The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On and 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip.

The complaints allege that the docs were not fair, not accurate, and that critical information was deliberately withheld from viewers to further an agenda supporting the official story. The complaints have reached the highest levels of the BBC complaints process, and the complainants are now requesting a face-to-face meeting with BBC Trustees to discuss the situation. A possible result could be an apology or the screening of some documentaries with different points of view (such as films produced by AE) to balance out the record.

The BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement states: “The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter specifies that we should do all we can “to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality” in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.”

In its Editorial Values we read: “Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.”

Not even close. They haven’t even attempted to be fair. The BBC first enraged truthers with its 2007 program9/11 Conspiracy Files. It is filled with such blatant disinformation that it provoked a counter documentary called9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy. This film chronicles how the BBC’s film slanted its coverage to support the official story.

Here are just a few of the issues with that BBC film:

  • The fact that the FBI didn’t have enough evidence to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11 was not mentioned
  • That FBI director Robert Mueller stated in 2002 that they had no proof that the 19 alleged hijackers were in fact on the planes that day was not mentioned
  • They relied on Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics to back the official story, rarely challenging any of his statements
  • The film stated that the U.S. was unprepared to deal with hijacked aircraft even though 67 planes had been intercepted after going off course or out of contact the year before
  • The fact that most of the steel from the towers was hauled away without being forensically tested was not mentioned
  • That the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 20 minutes before it happened was not mentioned
  • Contradictions in the Flight Data Recorder data for Flight 77 was not mentioned
  • That Israelis linked to Mossad were arrested after “chronicling” the destruction of the towers was not mentioned

This is just touching the surface. There was a lot more they “missed” and a lot of key witnesses they didn’t interview as shown in British Broadcasting Conspiracy.

If 9/11 Conspiracy Files and the Ten Years On follow-up weren’t bad enough, the BBC produced a kind of Magical Mystery Tour attack on “conspiracy theorists” in 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip to coincide with the 10th anniversary last year.

This ugly piece of work has Irish comic Andrew Maxwell taking five people who don’t believe the official story of 9/11 on a road trip to visit the scenes of the “attacks” so he could show them the error of their ways. The film features the magic conversion of the fakest of 9/11 truthers, Charlie Veitch.

Maxwell wonders aloud at the beginning of the film about how the experience of seeing these 9/11 sights and talking to “experts” might change the views held by these kooky conspiracy theorists.

“Do they harden their opinions?” he wonders in the voice-over. “Or do they step back and realize there was real suffering here?”

Get it? People who don’t believe the official story are insensitive to, or unaware of, the suffering that occurred on 9/11. He also states that he’s “as certain and certain can be that Osama bin Laden order the attacks.” AE911truth is encouraging people to write to the BBC and to Labour Party MP Tom Watson in support of the complaints. Watson is a member of the parliamentary media select committee, which has responsibility for the BBC. For details and sample letters, check here.

None of this, of course, is new. The majority of what has passed for 9/11 journalism is little more than propaganda in support of the official story. At best, basic questions are not asked, and the most obvious anomalies and inconsistencies in the official accounts are ignored or glossed over. At worst, we get a superficial and condescending dismissal of “conspiracy theories” with lip service being paid to telling the public what those theories are based on.

The only real investigative journalism on 9/11 is being done by independent journalists, researchers, and alternative news sites. For an excellent analysis of media complicity, I recommend Barrie Zwicker’s Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.

In Canada, we have the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which also has a Charter requiring it to be fair and accurate. The CBC also showed the BBC documentaries in question as well as producing its own 9/11 programs (as part of the current affairs show The Fifth Estate) with very mixed results. I have to say, hearing about what’s being done in the UK is giving me ideas. But that’s another story.

Source: Media and the 9/11 cover-up: BBC accused of breaking its own fairness rules


Posted in USAComments Off on Media and The 9/11 Cover-Up: BBC Accused of Breaking Its Own Fairness Rules

The United States of IsraHell and the 2012 Election

by Eileen Fleming


ACCORDING to the website:

iVoteIsrael is a diverse group of Americans who currently reside in Israel. We come from all over Israel, and all over the US. We are deeply concerned about the safety, security and future of Israel. Most importantly, we want to see a President in the White House who will support and stand by Israel in absolute commitment to its safety, security and right to defend itself.

“Americans for Jerusalem” is a registered 501(c)4 and will run the iVoteIsrael Campaign – with the “desire to see a Congress and Administration who will support and stand by Israel in absolute commitment to its safety, security and right to self-defense.”

From a 25 June 2012 Press Release:

On June 5, sixteen year Jewish, Democratic incumbent, Rep. Steve Rothman was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Bill Pascrell. The Arab American Forum, an anti-Israel organization with a goal of de-legitimizing Israel actively campaigned on behalf of Rep Pascrell and claimed to have registered more than 1,000 voters, mobilized another 10,000 and raised $100,000 for Rep. Pascrell. The AAF claimed record breaking voter registrations of Muslims and Arabs in NJ and that interest in this election has been record setting on many fronts.

The President of the AAF, Aref Assaf accused Rep. Rothman of putting the concerns of his NJ constituents second to the concerns of the Israeli government with his accusation of, “Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America.”

Among Rothman’s ‘crimes’ was that he signed J-Street’s ‘Gaza 54 letter‘ which included condemnation of Israel with regard to Operation Defensive Shield.

A Little History of Operation Defensive Shield Every American Needs To Know:

On April 3, 2009 the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a fact-finding mission “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

The Council appointed the Jewish Justice Richard Goldstone, a South African Constitutional Court judge and the former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Justice Goldstone issued the 575-page report on September 29, 2009 and the Goldstone Report accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes perpetuated during the 22 days of assault on Gaza which began two days after last Christmas day, when the Israeli military launched Operation Cast Lead; a full-scale attack on Gaza that killed 13 Israelis and 1,400 Palestinians.

Over 5,000 Palestinians were injured, 400,000 were left without running water, 4,000 homes were destroyed, rendering tens of thousands who are still homeless because of Israel’s targeted attacks upon them, their schools, hospitals, streets, water wells, sewage system, farms, police stations and UN buildings.

The 22 days of Israel’s attack on the people of Gaza was enabled by US-supplied weapons and we the people of the US who pay taxes provide over $3 billion annually to Israel although Israel has consistently misused U.S. weapons in violation of America’s Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts.

America is the worlds largest arms supplier to Israel and under a Bush negotiated deal with Israel which Obama signed onto; we the people who pay taxes in America are to provide another $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

During the 22 days of Israeli assault on Gaza, “Washington provided F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME. The weapons required for the Israeli assault was decided upon in June 2008, and the transfer of 1,000 bunker-buster GPS-guided Small Diameter Guided Bomb Units 39 (GBU-39) were approved by Congress in September. The GBU 39 bombs were delivered to Israel in November (prior to any claims of Hamas cease fire violation!) for use in the initial air raids on Gaza. [1]

In a 71-page report released March 25, 2009, by Human Rights Watch, Israel’s repeated firing of US-made white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes.

“Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza,” provides eye witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza.

“Human Rights Watch researchers found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended in January.

“Militaries officially use white phosphorus to obscure their operations on the ground by creating thick smoke. It has also been used as an incendiary weapon, though such use constitutes a war crime.

“In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops,” said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren’t in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died.” [Ibid]

During the 22 days of attack on Gaza, the UN Security Council, Amnesty International, International Red Cross, and global voices of protest rose up and demanded a ceasefire, but both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed resolutions to support a continuation of Israel’s so called “self defense.”

In November 2006, Father Manuel, the parish priest at the Latin Church and school in Gaza warned the world:

“Gaza cannot sleep! The people are suffering unbelievably. They are hungry, thirsty, have no electricity or clean water. They are suffering constant bombardments and sonic booms from low flying aircraft. They need food: bread and water. Children and babies are hungry…people have no money to buy food. The price of food has doubled and tripled due to the situation. We cannot drink water from the ground here as it is salty and not hygienic. People must buy water to drink. They have no income, no opportunities to get food and water from outside and no opportunities to secure money inside of Gaza. They have no hope.

“Without electricity children are afraid. No light at night. No oil or candles…Thirsty children are crying, afraid and desperate…Many children have been violently thrown from their beds at night from the sonic booms. Many arms and legs have been broken. These planes fly low over Gaza and then reach the speed of sound. This shakes the ground and creates shock waves like an earthquake that causes people to be thrown from their bed. I, myself weigh 120 kilos and was almost thrown from my bed due to the shock wave produced by a low flying jet that made a sonic boom.

“Gaza cannot sleep…the cries of hungry children, the sullen faces of broken men and women who are just sitting in their hungry emptiness with no light, no hope, no love. These actions are War Crimes!”

Most noteworthy for American Patriots to comprehend are iVoteIsrael’s following bullet points

Children of American citizens born abroad (even if they have never resided in the U.S.) are eligible to vote in all federal elections in 22 States (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia. Even if your state does not appear on this list you are still encouraged to send in an application.

As an American citizen you have a legal right to vote in all elections. As an Israeli-American, the next President and Congress will probably have a significantly more profound impact on your life and security than the average American.

Whether we like it or not who wins the US presidential election has a big influence on the State of Israel. As Israel’s best ally and biggest supporter, we need to make sure that the United States has someone running the country that has the best interest of Israel in mind.

You vote in the state and county of your last residence. Children of American citizens who have never lived in the U.S. vote in the State and County of their parents’ last residence.

Posted in USAComments Off on The United States of IsraHell and the 2012 Election

Nationalism versus capitalism in USA: guess which one wins?


By Lawrence Davidson
Lawrence Davidson considers the essence of capitalism and how its corollary in the age of the free market – outsourcing of production to countries with cheap labour, no or weak trade unions and minimal regulation – is impoverishing Americans who nonetheless continue to believe that the system confining them to poverty is the best in the world.

Two ideologies

There are two very powerful and fully internalized ideologies in today’s America: one is nationalism and the other is capitalism.

Nationalism: Pope John Paul II once remarked that “pervading nationalism imposes its dominion on man today in many different forms and with an aggressiveness that spares no one”. Whatever else you might think of this pontiff, he makes a good point here – and one applicable to the USA. American politicians never tire of telling us that ours is the greatest nation on earth and, for the world’s sake, we must aggressively (often by war) expand our freedoms, as well as our general culture, to the ends of the earth. Actually, this is a message that has been repeated for two hundred years and “its dominion” here in the “land of the free” is manifest. For many citizens, this assumption is one of the primary reasons we invaded Iraq, hang on in Afghanistan and swear eternal loyalty to the Israelis. It is probably the case that American political and civic leaders invoke God and national manifest destiny more than those of any other nationality.

Capitalism: This is the world’s prevalent economic system. It is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. Wage labour is an important element on the cost side of the capitalist ledger. So are things like safe working conditions and worker benefits. The capitalist impulse is to minimize costs so as to maximize profit, and so left to themselves, capitalists will pay workers (white collar or otherwise) the lowest possible wages and deny or minimize all other benefits. They will ignore worker safety and deny any responsibility for worker health. The only reason these important aspects of the work place prevail at all is because of the pressure put upon the capitalist system by unions on the one hand, and government regulatory agencies on the other. If you want to maximize the probability of economic depression, just destroy all effective government regulation of the economy and outlaw unions.

Ideologies at odds

Nationalism and capitalism are quite different ideologies, yet somehow Americans have mixed them up. Take a list of what are considered the best things about capitalism: equality, achievement, freedom, growth and even happiness, and then compare them to a list of things considered the best about America: equality, opportunity for personal growth, freedom, a longer and fuller life. What do you know! They’re almost the same. This is odd and not a little illogical. Why so? Well, consider the fact that these ideologies are operating in opposition to one and other. And doing so right out in the open.

“… American capitalism has been sticking it to American nationalism, at least to the extent of destroying a minimum of 2.9 million jobs over the past decade. Is this an example of capitalism promoting achievement, or growth, or happiness?”

Here is a good example. On 11 July 2012 Fred Grimm, a columnist for the Miami Herald, wrote a piece entitled “This column was made in the USA.” In it he notes that “last year the Wall Street Journalsurveyed employment data from a number of the nation’s heftier corporations … and found that while they were cutting their domestic workforces by 2.9 million over a decade, they had hired 2.4 million people overseas”. What sort of jobs are being exported by American corporate executives with, one assumes, the approval of their largely American stockholders? It turns out that they are not just your mundane factory floor jobs. They also include the work of accountants, radiologists, architects, mortgage banking officers, computer technicians and journalists (outsourcing the writing of local news stories to underpaid reporters in places like the Philippine).

As the Wall Street Journal noted, this has been going on for a while now. Back in a 12 January 2004 edition of the Harvard Business School’s online publication, Working Knowledge, James Heskett told us that “arguments based on accepted [those accepting are not named] macroeconomic theory generally come down in support of the free exportation of jobs”. But then Heskett quoted Brad Leach’s observation that “the real question is how to deal with the disproportionality of this impact: the broad, shallow, positive impact on product prices versus the narrow [sic], deep, negative impact on individuals”.

In other words, American capitalism has been sticking it to American nationalism, at least to the extent of destroying a minimum of 2.9 million jobs over the past decade. Is this an example of capitalism promoting achievement, or growth, or happiness? Certainly not for those 2.9 million American ex-employees. So, just how could American corporations, the executives and stockholders of which are, one assumes, loyal and patriotic Americans, do such a thing?

Capitalism wins

Well, it would seem that nationalism has met its match. It has been overwhelmed by that which lies at the heart of capitalism: profit. Thus, consider a hypothetical American corporation A which makes socks in town X and has done so for a hundred years. At some point corporation A finds itself confronted with competition from cheaper socks made abroad and allowed into the US by the millions of pairs because of laws placed on the books by free-market American senators and congresspersons. These foreign socks are being willingly purchased, instead of A’s more expensive domestic brand, by red blooded American consumers. So, the executives of corporation A face a serious problem. It does not take them long to figure out that if they move out of town X, where the labour costs are relatively high, and relocate to some foreign country with no unions or government regulations, their labour costs will go down and their competitiveness and profitability will go up. But to do so will destroy the economic basis of town X and the lives of its patriotic citizens who have loyally served corporation A for generations. So, what do you do? Well, just ask the residents of all the defunct textile towns on the US east coast from New England to the Carolinas.

“…when it comes to the so-called commonsense demands of business, profits are more important than life itself (except perhaps the lives of the investors).”

Very few entrepreneurs or their customers are going to admit that such issues as cost, profit and price are more important than every one of those things listed as the best of capitalism and nationalism. No, they will just ignore the distinctly second-place status of equality, freedom, doing your best, growth and happiness, etc. and they will pretend that the economic destruction of workers’ lives is an unavoidable consequence of commonsense business. Blame it on the natural laws of macroeconomics if you must. Also, there is no sense in American victims of this process feeling indignant towards the foreign workers who have inherited their jobs. When the time comes for Mexican or Chinese or Indian workers to organize and achieve regulation of their industries so as to obtain decent wages and benefits, their lives in turn will be ruined as their employers run away to other places with lower labour costs, fewer required benefits and lower corporate taxes. For when it comes to the so-called commonsense demands of business, profits are more important than life itself (except perhaps the lives of the investors).

Coping mechanisms

I think that a growing number of Americans, witnessing (among other things) the long-running export of their livelihoods, do sense that the ground is moving under their feet. A 19 November 2011 New York Times op-ed by Charles Blow, entitled “Decline of American exceptionalism”, reports that a Pew Research Centre poll found that just 49 per cent of Americans agreed with the statement “our people are not perfect but our culture is superior to others”. That was down from 60 per cent in the year 2002.

It is hard to see your culture as superior when so many jobs are being shipped abroad. Yet, if we can extrapolate out from the Pew poll, nearly half the nation still seems to manage it. How do they do it? Here are some suggestions:

1. Displacing a sense of powerlessness. Whether you are the victim or it is your neighbour, one just doesn’t know what to do about the situation. But it helps to believe that, even though jobless, you live in a great country, the power and traditions of which assure that you are better off than some worker in an Indonesian sweatshop turning out upscale Nikes. Holding on to that thought, many of the displaced buck up and start looking for other, usually less lucrative, work. Some of them may also take to beating up their kids or spouses when frustrations of the job search run high.

2. Dealing with cognitive dissonance. One has two contradictory concepts in one’s head at once (the US is the greatest show on earth versus too many of our jobs are being exported, contributing to the fact that a lot of us are getting poorer) and it is uncomfortable. So, one naturally tries to reconcile the problem. For instance, you can tell yourself that the dichotomy is temporary and will disappear after a period of economic adjustment. Or, this is a great opportunity to get retrained for a position better than the one you just lost (ignoring the fact that the effectiveness of retraining programmes is now being called into question).

3. The phenomenon of volunteering. For those who have lost their jobs but retain enough of a pension or savings to live on (usually an older crowd hovering around retirement age), one can take solace in the world of volunteers. Actually, this is a pattern of work which allows a lot of non-profit, and some for-profit businesses as well, to get free labour. So, the worker ends up doing for free what he or she should rightly be paid for – particularly in an avidly capitalist society like ours. It is a cockeyed sort of situation, but it does allow many older, displaced workers, to salvage some self-esteem even while they are exploited.


Most often our lives are too narrowly focused to allow us to understand the larger economic and political forces impacting us. We know our local area, we know the work we do (or did) and we know what those in leadership positions tell us. But all of this knowledge turns out to be inadequate when we are hit by debilitating social change. Then most of us feel helpless and passively resign ourselves to what we consider fate, or perhaps God’s will.

We are trained from childhood to behave like this. Remember temper tantrums? When our children throw them they soon learn that it doesn’t work. As adults we seem to have carried over the lesson. Relatively small numbers of us do occasionally loudly protest our situation, but with rare exceptions what do we learn? It doesn’t work. Perhaps we should try harder.

The ideals of capitalism, so ardently believed in, turn out to be false except for (as the current saying goes) the fortunate 1 per cent. And those of nationalism? They too are drilled into our heads from childhood. But, alas, they cannot substitute for one’s supper.

Posted in USAComments Off on Nationalism versus capitalism in USA: guess which one wins?

LOL!!! Netanyahu blames Iran for thwarted Cyprus terror attack


by crescentandcross

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu blamed Iran on Sunday for what he described as an attempted Hezbollah attack against Israeli targets in Cyprus, the second time this month he has pointed a finger at Tehran for attempted terrorist attacks against Israelis abroad.

Earlier this month he charged that Iran planned an attack against Israeli targets in Kenya after two Iranians were arrested on June 25 for possession of 15 kilograms of explosives.

‘Cyprus: Lebanese man planned attacks on Israelis’
Cypriot authorities on July 7 arrested a 24-year-old Swedish passport holder of Lebanese descent, after he tracked the movement of Israeli tourists on the island.

Netanyahu, at the weekly cabinet meeting, said: “This attempted terrorist attack was under Iranian auspices. It is part of an Iranian plan. Iran perpetrates terrorism in Asia, Europe and America – it attempted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US. Iran perpetrates terrorism in the Middle East and, of course, we call on the international community to take urgent action against Iran, which is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world.”

Cypriot Justice and Public Order Minister Loucas Louca said authorities were waiting for the results of their investigation before releasing further information.

“This is a serious and delicate case and any statements may harm the case,” he told reporters on Sunday.

A Cypriot government source said the arrest took place following information from foreign intelligence agencies.

An Israeli official said the Mossad was involved in the investigation. Asked if a Mossad tip had prompted the arrest, the official declined comment.

Netanyahu accused Iran earlier this year of being behind attacks – both attempted and carried out – on Israeli targets in Georgia, India and Thailand.

Iran denied involvement.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on LOL!!! Netanyahu blames Iran for thwarted Cyprus terror attack

Shoah’s pages


July 2012
« Jun   Aug »