A Day in the Life: 4/21/9
prez
Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses
Yearning to Breathe Free
Via <pr...@usa-exile.org>
April 21, 2009
From: "Jacob G. Stansbury, Jr." <dam...@cox.net>
Date: April 20, 2009 1:38:05 PM GMT-05:00
Subject: Kissinger Tells President Medvedev... BBy September
WeBll Have CONFISCATED ALL PRIVATELY OWNED GUNS..."
Jake's comments:
This should be read from the URL link below.
For further verification, simply search "kissinger guns".
Get ready. Without arms, we will have no freedom ... no
food ... nothing.
Jake
*******
Kissinger Tells President Medvedev... bBy September Webll Have
CONFISCATED ALL PRIVATELY OWNED GUNS..."
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/
gun_control/news.php?q=1237833478
========================================================================
=============================================================
NOTE: This is a landmark of Judeo-Christian hypocrisy: at an
international conference against racism a national leader is jeered
because he expresses himself in an anti-racist manner. Yes, the same
national leader said the Holocaust is a myth. This is of course
inaccurate but it has nothing at all to do with racism--just as I'd
not be a racist if I said that Monsanto (another holocaust) is a
myth. Eight Christian nations (zero Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim
ones) boycotted it merely because this national leader would be
present at it! Bah! -- kl, pp
Ahmadinejad Jeered at Anti-Racism
Conference
(CNN) -- The opening of a United Nations conference in Switzerland on
anti-racism was marred by chaotic scenes Monday as protests and a
walkout by delegates disrupted a controversial address by Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
o?<
The presence of the Iranian leader at the conference had already
prompted Israel to withdraw its ambassador from Switzerland, while
several countries including the United States are also boycotting the
gathering.
Dozens of delegates walked out of the chamber as Ahmadinejad accused
Israel and the West of making "an entire nation homeless under the
pretext of Jewish suffering ... in order to establish a totally
racist government." o?< Watch delegates make their exit B;
He said Zionism, the Jewish national movement, "personifies racism,"
and accused Zionists of wielding economic and political resources to
silence opponents. He also blasted the United States-led invasion of
Afghanistan.
Protesters in brightly colored wigs interrupted Ahmadinejad as he
began to speak, shouting: "You're a racist!" in accented English.
But some delegates cheered, while security officers dragged at least
two protesters from the chamber.
Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign
Minister Avigdor Lieberman called Ambassador Ilan Elgar home to
protest a meeting between the Swiss president and Ahmadinejad,
Israel's foreign ministry said in a statement.
"The meeting of a president of a democratic country with a notorious
Holocaust denier such as the Iranian president, who has openly
declared his intention of wiping Israel off the map, is not in
keeping with the values represented by Switzerland," the ministry said.
Netanyahu's office had earlier said the diplomatic move was a
response to the presence of Ahmadinejad at the conference.
Ahmadinejad has said that the Holocaust is a myth, and Iran hosted a
conference in 2006 questioning the Holocaust, in which about 6
million Jews were killed.
The United States, among others, is refusing to send envoys to the
Durban Review Conference.
The U.N. high commissioner for human rights said Sunday that she
regrets -- and is "shocked" by -- the United States' decision to
boycott.
"I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States' decision
not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia,
racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide," High
Commissioner Navi Pillay said in a written statement.
"A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate
their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns
of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of
intolerance... These are truly global issues, and it is essential
that they are discussed at a global level, however sensitive and
difficult they may be," she said.
The U.S. State Department said Washington's decision was based in
part on a conference document that "singles out" Israel in its
criticism and conflicts with the United States' "commitment to
unfettered free speech."
President Barack Obama noted Sunday that the United States had
previously warned it would not attend the conference if the document
was not sufficiently altered in advance. According to the State
Department, the document contains language that "prejudges key issues
that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and
Palestinians."
The language reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of
Actions from the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa, which the
United States has said it won't support.
Obama said the United States hopes to partner with other countries
"to actually reduce discrimination around the globe, but this
(conference) wasn't an opportunity to do it."
Australia, Canada, Germany and Italy, among others, are also
boycotting the conference. Poland announced Monday it too would pull
out of the conference.
Netanyahu on Monday praised the countries that refused to attend: "I
congratulate the nations that boycotted the show of hate."
"Israel regrets that the conference ... has once again become hostage
to one-sided, non-constructive politicization and biased rhetoric,"
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, said in a
statement Sunday.
o?<
The head of the World Jewish Congress denounced the upcoming
conference as a platform for anti-Semitism.
"It has already become clear that the Durban Review Conference will
become yet another platform within the United Nations for spreading
anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda," said the group's president,
Ronald Lauder.
----------------------------------------------
From: International Action Center <action...@action-mail.org>
Date: April 20, 2009 12:10:57 PM GMT-05:00
Subject: PROTEST U.S. BOYCOTT OF U.N. DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE VS.
RACISM
Sign the Online Petition Protesting the Obama Administration's
Boycott of the U.N. Durban Review Conference Against Racism -
Over 1100 signers and 120,000 messages sent - ADD your name now!
SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION AT http://www.iacenter.org/racism/
durbanreviewpetition
VIEW CONFERENCE DOCUMENTS AT http://www.iacenter.org (see section
on Durban Review Conference in middle column)
Send a message to President President Barack Obama, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, U.N. Ambassador
Susan Rice, Congressional leaders, Durban Review Conference
Preparations Committee Chair Ms. Janat Al-Hajjaji, U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights Ms. Navanethem Pillay, U.N. General
Assembly President d'Escoto-Brockmann, U.N. Secretary General Ban,
members of the U.N. Security Council and U.N. member states including
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Syria Venezuela, Sudan, Nepal,
Pakistan, Oman, Mozambique, Libya, Miyanmar, Lebanon and others, and
Major media representatives including the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press,
Reuters, Al Jazeera, the North Africa Journal, Egypt Today, the
Beirut Times, the Jakarta Post, and the Sudan Mail. Let them know
that you are PROFOUNDLY DISAPPOINTED at the Obama Administration's
decision to boycott the U.N. Durban Review Conference Against Racism,
taking place April 20-24 in Geneva, Switzerland.
Text of the Petition:
To: President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice
President Joe Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Congressional
leaders, Durban Review Conference Preparations Committee Chair Ms.
Janat Al-Hajjaji, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms.
Navanethem Pillay, U.N. General Assembly President d'Escoto-
Brockmann, U.N. Secretary General Ban, members of the U.N. Security
Council and U.N. member states including South Africa, Zimbabwe,
Somalia, Syria Venezuela, Sudan, Nepal, Pakistan, Oman, Mozambique,
Libya, Miyanmar, Lebanon and others, and Major media representatives
including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles
Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, Al Jazeera, the North Africa
Journal, Egypt Today, the Beirut Times, the Jakarta Post, and the
Sudan Mail.
I hereby express my profound disappointment with the Obama
Administration for its decision to boycott the Durban Review
Conference Against Racism scheduled to be held in Geneva,
Switzerland, in opposition to its professed policy of engagement with
the global community.
It is an embarrassment for the Obama Administration to continue the
Bush Administration's practice of refusing dialogue with others.
Moreover, given the painful history of racism in the U.S. it is
shameful for America to refuse to participate in a conference against
racism.
All those who oppose racism and other similar forms of discrimination
had hoped and expected that the Obama Administration, a source of
great hope for change with a new agenda, would embrace the historic
significance of this international gathering against racism.
The 2001 UN Conference on Racism held eight years ago in Durban,
South Africa had the overwhelming support of people of the world -
both through their governments and through thousands of delegates
representing many hundreds of NGOs and organs of civil society.
Midway through that historic gathering the U.S. and Israel walked out
because the latter was criticized for its apartheid practices against
Palestinians. The Bush Administration also opposed concrete action to
redress the history of hundreds of years of slavery and racism. How
can we ever resolve these issues without participative dialogue?
In preparing for the April Conference against Racism the majority of
countries from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, have shown an
extraordinary willingness to operate on principles of open-minded
compromise and dialogue with the United States. Rejection of this
offer by refusing to even come to the table will be seen as an
arrogant assault on the processes of diplomacy and will encourage the
international community to brand the United States administration as
one obstructing the struggle against racism.
I am shocked that the U.S. has also supported the marginalization of
Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the Durban Review
Conference, seeking to ensure that they are not able to participate
or that their freedom of speech is strictly limited, for example, by
failing to support an NGO Forum.
NGO participation, often through NGO Forums, has been an
indispensable part of every major UN human rights conference. It is
therefore essential that the Preparatory Committee and the High
Commissioner for Human Rights make every effort possible to provide
the resources and logistics for a vigorous public mobilization for
the UN Durban Review Conference.
I urge the Preparatory Committee to take immediate steps to carry out
their responsibility to facilitate NGO participation, especially the
participation of NGOs from developing countries who have suffered the
most from racism and other similar forms of discrimination.
I am deeply dismayed that the Obama Administration chose not to
participate in this international gathering without threats or
preconditions and in a spirit of mutual respect for all other
nations, especially those whose people have suffered so grievously
from racism.
Sincerely,
(Your signature will be appended here based on the contact
information you enter in the online form at the link below:)
SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION AT http://www.iacenter.org/racism/
durbanreviewpetition
International Action Center
www.iacenter.org
c/o Solidarity Center
55 West 17th St 5C
New York, NY 10011
For further information call: (212) 633-6646
========================================================================
============================================================
Obama's Real Plan
in Latin America
by Shamus Cooke
o?<
Global Research, April 20, 2009
At first glance Obama seems to have softened U.S. policy toward Latin
America, especially when compared to his predecessor. There has been
no shortage of editorials praising Obamabs conciliatory approach
while comparing it to FDRbs bGood Neighborb Latin American policy.
Itbs important to remember, however, that FDRbs vision of being
neighborly meant that the U.S. would merely stop direct military
interventions in Latin America, while reserving the right to create
and prop up dictators, arm and train unpopular regional militaries,
promote economic dominance through free trade and bank loans,
conspire with right-wing groups, etcb&
And although Obamabs policy towards Latin America has a similar
subversive feeling to it, many of FDRbs methods of dominance are
closed to him. Decades of U.S. bgood neighborb policy in Latin
America resulted in a continuous string of U.S. backed military
coups, broken-debtor economies, and consequently, a hemisphere-wide
revolt.
Many of the heads of states that Obama mingled with at the Summit of
the Americas came to power because of social movements born out of
opposition to U.S. foreign policy. The utter hatred of U.S.
dominance in the region is so intense that any attempt by Obama to
reassert U.S. authority would result in a backlash, and Obama knows it.
Bush had to learn this the hard way, when his pathetic attempt to
tame the region led to a humiliation at the 2005 Summit, where for
the first time Latin American countries defeated yet another U.S.
attempt to use the Organization of American States (O.A.S.), as a
tool for U.S. foreign policy.
But while Obama humbly discussed hemispheric issues on an bequal
footingb with his Latin American counterparts at the recent Summit
of Americas, he has subtly signaled that U.S. foreign policy will be
business as usual.
The least subtle sign that Obama is toeing the line of previous U.S.
governments b both Republican and Democrat b is his stance on
Cuba. Obama has postured as being a progressive when it comes to
Cuba by relaxing some travel and financial restrictions, while
leaving the much more important issue, the economic embargo, firmly
in place.
When it comes to the embargo, the U.S. is completely unpopular and
isolated in the hemisphere. The U.S. two-party system, however, just
canbt let the matter go.
The purpose of the embargo is not to pressure Cuba into being more
democratic: this lie can be easily refuted by the numerous dictators
the U.S. has supported in the hemisphere, not to mention dictators
the U.S. is currently propping up all over the Middle East and
elsewhere.
The real purpose behind the embargo is what Cuba represents. To the
entire hemisphere, Cuba remains a solid source of pride. Defeating
the U.S. Bay of Pigs invasion while remaining fiercely independent in
a region dominated by U.S. corporations and past government
interventions has made Cuba an inspiration to millions of Latin
Americans. This profound break from U.S. dominance b in its bown
backyardb no less b is not so easily forgiven.
There is also a deeper reason for not removing the embargo. The
foundation of the Cuban economy is arranged in such a way that it
threatens the most basic philosophic principle shared by the two-
party system: the market economy (capitalism).
And although the bfight against communismb may seem like a dusty
relic from the cold war era, the current crisis of world capitalism
is again posing the question: is there another way to organize society?
Even with Cubabs immense lack of resources and technology (further
aggravated by the U.S. embargo), the achievements made in healthcare,
education, and other fields are enough to convince many in the region
that there are aspects of the Cuban economy b most notably the
concept of producing to meet the needs of all Cubans and NOT for
private profit b worth repeating.
Hugo Chavez has been the Latin American leader most inspired by the
Cuban economy. Chavez has made important steps toward breaking from
the capitalist economic model and has insisted that socialism is
bthe way forwardb b and much of the hemisphere agrees.
This is the sole reason that Obama continues the Bush-era hostility
towards Chavez. Obama, it is true, has been less blunt about his
feelings towards Chavez, though he has publicly stated that Chavez
bexports terrorismb and is an bobstacle to progress.b Both
accusations are, at best, petty lies. Chavez drew the correct
conclusion of the comments by saying:
bHe [Obama] said I'm an obstacle for progress in Latin America;
therefore, it must be removed, this obstacle, right?b
Itbs important to point out that, while Obama was blistening and
learningb at the Summit of Americas, the man he appointed to
coordinate the summit, Jeffrey Davidow, was busily spewing anti-
Venezuelan venom in the media.
This disinformation is necessary because of the bthreatb that
Chavez represents. The threat here is against U.S. corporations in
Venezuela, who feel, correctly, that they are in danger of being
taken over by the Venezuelan government, to be used for social needs
in the country instead of private profit. Obama, like his
predecessor, believes that such an act would be against bU.S.
strategic interests,b thus linking the private profit of mega-
corporations acting in a foreign country to the general interests of
the United States.
In fact, this belief that the U.S. government must protect and
promote U.S. corporations acting abroad is the cornerstone of U.S.
foreign policy, not only in Latin America, but the world.
Prior to the revolutionary upsurges that shook off U.S. puppet
governments in the region, Latin America was used exclusively by U.S.
corporations to extract raw materials at rock bottom prices, using
cheap labor to reap super profits, while the entire region was
dominated by U.S. banks.
Things have since changed dramatically. Latin American countries
have taken over industries that were privatized by U.S. corporations,
while both Chinese and European companies have been given the green
light to invest to an extent that U.S. corporations are being pushed
aside.
To Obama and the rest of the two-party system, this is unacceptable.
The need to reassert U.S. corporate control in the hemisphere is high
on the list of Obamabs priorities, but hebs going about it in a
strategic way, following the path paved by Bush.
After realizing that the U.S. was unable to control the region by
more forceful methods (especially because of two losing wars in the
Middle East), Bush wisely chose to fall back a distance and fortify
his position. The lone footholds available to Bush in Latin America
were, unsurprisingly, the only two far-right governments in the
region: Colombia and Mexico.
Bush sought to strengthen U.S. influence in both governments by
implementing Plan Colombia first, and the Meridia Initiative second
(also known as Plan Mexico). Both programs allow for huge sums of
U.S. taxpayer dollars to be funneled to these unpopular governments
for the purpose of bolstering their military and police,
organizations that in both countries have atrocious human rights
records.
In effect, the diplomatic relationship with these strong U.S.
balliesb b coupled with the financial and military aide, acts to
prop up both governments, which possibly would have fallen otherwise
(Bush was quick to recognize Mexicobs new President, Calderon,
despite evidence of large-scale voter fraud). Both relationships
were legitimized by the typical rhetoric: the U.S. was helping
Colombia and Mexico fight against bnarco-terrorists.b
The full implication of these relationships was revealed when, on
March 1st 2008, the Colombian military bombed a FARC base in Ecuador
without warning (the U.S. and Colombia view the FARC as a terrorist
organization). The Latin American countries organized in the bRio
Groupb denounced the raid, and the region became instantly
destabilized (both Bush and Obama supported the bombing).
The conclusion that many in the region have drawn b most notably
Chavez b is that the U.S. is using Colombia and Mexico as a
counterbalance to the loss of influence in the region. By building
powerful armies in both countries, the potential to intervene in the
affairs of other countries in the region is greatly enhanced.
Obama has been quick to put his political weight firmly behind
Colombia and Mexico. While singing the praises of Plan Colombia,
Obama made a special trip to Mexico before the Summit of the Americas
to strengthen his alliance with Felipe Calderon, promising more U.S.
assistance in Mexicobs bdrug war.b
What these actions make clear is that Obama is continuing the age old
game of U.S. imperialism in Latin America, though less directly than
previous administrations. Obamabs attempt at bgood neighborb
politics in the region will inevitably be restricted by the nagging
demands of bU.S. strategic interests,b i.e., the demands of U.S.
corporations to dominate the markets, cheap labor, and raw materials
of Latin America. And while it is one thing to smile for the camera
and shake the hands of Latin American leaders at the Summit of the
Americas, U.S. corporations will demand that Obama be pro-active in
helping them reassert themselves in the region, requiring all the
intrigue and maneuvering of the past.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer
for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at
shamu...@yahoo.com
========================================================================
==============================================================
From: Erin Schumacher <erin.r.s...@gmail.com>
Date: April 20, 2009 11:00:30 AM GMT-05:00
To: prez <pr...@usa-exile.org>
Subject: population reduction 2012
http://www.infowars.com/population-reduction-2012/
my brother sent me this. i've read stuff like this before...i'm sure
you've heard about these things?
========================================================================
=============================================================
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
CIA Waterboarded al-Qaida Suspects 266 Times
By Matthew Weaver and agencies
The CIA waterboarded two al-Qaida terror suspects a total of 266
times, according to a report that suggests the use of the torture
technique was much more extensive than previously thought. Continue
Obama Reprieve For CIA Illegal: U.N. Rapporteur
By Mark Heinrich; Editing by Robert Woodward
President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA interrogators
who used waterboarding on terrorism suspects amounts to a breach of
international law, the U.N. rapporteur on torture said. Continue
Will Obama Wash Bush's Dirty Laundry?
"President Obama, You Are Wrong"
By Keith Olbermann:
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" Takes on President
Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA Interrogators for torture.
Continue
Behind the US Banksb Profit Reports
By Barry Grey
The banks are continuing, with the blessings of the Obama
administration, the same predatory policies that generated massive
fortunes on Wall Street and eventually plunged the US and world
economy into the deepest crisis since the Great Depression. Continue
bAmerica Lives in a Fascist Stateb b Trend Forecaster
By Russia Today
The merger of corporate and government powers in modern America is
plain and simple fascism, believes Gerald Celente, the founder of the
Trends Research Institute and publisher of Trends Journal. Continue
Bailout Indignation
How about a test of your injustice barometer?
By Ralph Nader
You might think that the reckless, avaricious, giant corporations,
having shrunk the economy, cost millions of jobs and then demanded
that taxpayers be dunned for years into the future for multi-trillion
dollar bailouts, would show contrition, regret, or self-restraint of
their power over Washington. Continue
Empire Foreclosed?
By Mark Engler
One current danger is that Obama, while rejecting the brash
unilateralism of the Bush administration and pulling back the fist of
U.S. hard power, will return to a softer form of imperial power.
Under Bill Clinton, the United States used multilateral institutions
such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization
(WTO) as primary instruments of foreign policy. While staffed with
economists in business suits rather than grunts in fatigues, these
bodies exerted considerable control over foreign peoples. Continue
The Tower of Basel
Secretive Plans for the Issuing of a Global Currency
By Ellen Brown
Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
issuing our global currency? Continue
Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC
By Jeff Stein, CQ SpyTalk Columnist
Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime
involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap
telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice
Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials
of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful
pro-Israel organization in Washington. Continue
Major Scandal Erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and
AIPAC
By Glenn Greenwald
Back in October, 2006, Time reported that the DOJ and FBI were
investigating whether Harman and AIPAC "violated the law in a scheme
to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House
intelligence committee" and "the probe also involves whether, in
exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to
persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials
caught up in the ongoing investigation. Continue
Israel 'a Totally Racist Government': Ahmadinejad
By Press TV
Addressing a UN anti-racism confab Iran's president minces no words
in calling Israel 'a totally racist government' formed on the back of
'military aggression'. Continue
UN Protects Israel From Racism Charges
By Nora Barrows-Friedman
Israel-Palestine has been deliberately eliminated from the official
programme, structured by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (UN OHCHR). Civil society groups believe that the United
States, countries within the European Union and Israel pressured the
UN to omit a review of Israel's racial discrimination against
Palestinians. Continue
In Case You Missed It
The Coming Breakup of American Zionism
By Norman Finkelstein
Independent scholar and author, Norman Finkelstein, speaking at
Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. The title of the
lecture is "The Coming Breakup of American Zionism". Continue
The Westbs Hysterical Reaction to North Korea
By Scott Ritter
While both North Korea and Iran have come under strong international
criticism and sanctions for their respective nuclear and missile
activities, it should be noted that neither nation has acted in a
manner which violates international law. Continue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
What is Canada Doing in Haiti?
The bOttawa Initiative on Haitib: Humanist Peacekeeping orb&?
- by Jean Saint-Vil - 2009-04-20
Never to Forget the 1999 US-NATO-EU Agression against Yugoslavia
Belgrade International Conference
- by Belgrade Forum - 2009-04-20
VIDEO: Taxpayers, Where Is Your Money Going?
Tax dollars are allocated to financing the war and the "bank bailout"
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2009-04-20
Obamabs Mexican House Call
- by Michael Werbowski - 2009-04-20
Obama shakes Hands with Hugo Chavez
- by Courtenay Barnett - 2009-04-20
Obama's "Love Letter" to the CIA Distorts Historical Truth
- by Sherwood Ross - 2009-04-20
Putting Finance Capitalism "Back in Its Box"
- by Stephen Lendman - 2009-04-20
A Black President Doesnbt Mean Racism is gone in America
- by Prof. Peter Phillips - 2009-04-19
Timeline of Gaza Marine Zone, Fishermen and Natural Gas Deposits.
An Update
- by David K. Schermerhorn - 2009-04-19
The criminalisation of political dissent in Britain
- by Julie Hyland - 2009-04-19
Spying on Americans: "Business as Usual" under Obama
NSA "engaged in 'overcollection' of domestic communications"
- by Tom Burghardt - 2009-04-19
Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away
- 2009-04-19
Global Financial Crisis Hits Asia: China asks Asia to set up 'reserve
pool'
- 2009-04-19
"America lives in a fascist state" b trend forecaster
- 2009-04-19
========================================================================
================================
Haitians Overwhelmingly
Reject Electoral Sham
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, April 20, 2009
On April 19, sham elections were held to fill 12 open seats in the 30-
member Haitian Senate, but most Haitians refused to go along.
Earlier in February on procedural grounds, Haiti's Provisional
Election Council (CEP) disqualified Fanmi Lavalas (FL) candidates
from participating, the party most Haitians support.
Mass outrage and apprehension showed up in Priorities Project (HPP)
pre-election polls with only 5% of eligible voters stating an
intention to participate.
HPP's Jacob Francois told Inter Press Service (IPS):
"We organized our census primarily through town hall meetings, where
organizers spoke to people in groups and individually. From this we
tallied the opinions of what we estimated to be 65,000 from an eight
million population." From this sampling, a 5% participation rate was
calculated.
Francois added: "They just do not learn. They can't exclude a major
party," and do it on a first time ever procedural technicality,
"that's total exclusion. It will undermine the entire process. In
addition, the CEP has no business (interfering with) the internal
affairs of Lavalas," or taking orders from Washington to do it.
Secretary General of the Organisation of American States, Jose Miguel
Insulza, said in a press release:
"I cannot help but express my concern about the possibility that an
important group of Haitian citizens might feel that they are not
being represented in this process."
In a pre-election radio interview, one Haitian activist said:
"In the matter of elections, basically what you have is a decision to
explode Fanmi Lavalas (FL)....with the complicity of President Rene
Preval (and the international community)....because everyone knows FL
is the majority party in the country."
Meanwhile, the Haiti Information Project (HIP) reported at 3:00PM on
April 19 that "today's senatorial elections (are) a total failure."
Port-au-Prince polling stations "had more election workers and police
than actual voters." Normally busy city streets were "virtually
deserted. A rough exit sampling from journalists (on the ground)
shows that voter turnout may be as low as 3%."
Astonishing. Imagine holding a national election and virtually no one
shows up. Because of clear electoral rigging, FL leaders urged
Haitians to support a national boycott. In overwhelming numbers, they
complied by staying home and not voting. Whoever wins, it will be
impossible to call the results legitimate.
========================================================================
======
From: "Jacob G. Stansbury, Jr." <dam...@cox.net>
Date: April 20, 2009 1:09:35 PM GMT-05:00
Subject: Fwd: [ghosttroop] Fw: [MedicalConspiracies] Things You
Should Know/: Eric Nordstrom's PATRIOT NETWORK ALERT
From: pepe <cfv_...@yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list ghost...@yahoogroups.ca
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Information you will want to save into your archives as well as
forward. M.
Eric Nordstroms PATRIOT NETWORK ALERT
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL AMERICANS - THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Item 1 - Government Documents)
The United States Constitution 1787
Complete document required reading. The instruction manual for America.
http://pyrabang.com?id=3c894a
War Department Duties of Citizenship 1928
Training manual given to ww1 vets after army draw down. Teaches
duties of citizenship
http://pyrabang.com?id=eea842
Emergency Banking Relief Act 1933
Congress overthrew the Constitution in 1933. The USA died and hasn't
been revived.
http://pyrabang.com?id=3c69d5
Freedom From War Pub 7277 1961
Department of State. Disarm all except UN. World government. Dissolve
US military.
http://pyrabang.com?id=add399
Summary Of Emergency Powers 1973
Senate Document describes why the us constitution is no longer used.
US died in 1933.
http://pyrabang.com?id=eef738
Our American Government 2000
Congressional document describing our form of government etc.
http://pyrabang.com?id=a3db35
National Emergency Powers 2001
Continuation of the elite overthrow of the Constitution. Presidential
Caesar powers.
http://pyrabang.com?id=b9ef14
Civilian Inmate Labor Program 2005
Army Regulation 210-35 placing civilians labor camps. Not for
prisoners, for you!
http://pyrabang.com?id=ee60a3
Are You A Terrorist? Find Out Here
Homeland Security extremism doc for law enforcement. Radicalized
Americans. Are you one?
http://pyrabang.com?id=ea19d2
========================================================================
==============================================
Violating Americans' Privacy Rights: Intelligence-gathering centers
across the US under cloak of secrecy
Global Research, April 19, 2009
MASF
America's Mysterious Fusion Centers Raise Alarm, Paradigm Could Unite
All Americans
WASHINGTON b Intelligence-gathering centers sprouted across the US
and acting under cloak secrecy are raising concerns for violating
Americansb privacy rights, while Muslims complain that the
mysterious centers are particularly targeting them.
"Any domestic intelligence activity poses a potential threat to
American values because it involves the government secretly peeking
into the private lives of people," Mike German, Policy Counselor for
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a former FBI Agent,
told IslamOnline.net.
Nearly 60 so-called fusion centers have emerged in cities across the
country in the dying days of the Bush administration.
Established under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), their
initial purpose was serving as a communication network to aid local,
state and federal authorities in gathering information on possible
gang, criminal and terrorist-related conduct.
But civil rights experts fear the centers have overstepped their
intended purpose to secretly collecting and disseminating information
about low-abiding citizens.
"We have documented many instances of improper intelligence
activities involving fusion centers on our website," German says.
Whether the government has probable cause to justify this invasion of
privacy is unknown because it is done under excessive secrecy.
"The law enforcement and intelligence agencies only answer to
themselves, which is inherently undemocratic," contends German.
"Itbs dangerous to give such a broad mission in an intelligence
context because it will ultimately lead to over-collection."
The New York Times reported Thursday that the National Security
Agency had engaged in "over-collection" of Americans' domestic
communications on a scale that went beyond limits set by the Congress
last year.
Congress authorized intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court
approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the US.
After 9/11, the Bush administration authorized a secret warrantless
spying on Americans and tapping into the country's main communication
networks without court warrants.
Dangerous
Imam Mahdi Bray, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society
Freedom (MASF), agrees that the secrecy under which these centers
operate poses a threat to civil liberties.
"Many Americans, including public officials, are not aware of these
centers and the threat they pose on American society," he told IOL.
"Ironically, it might also be noted that even the Department of
Homeland Security is recognizing that fusion centers represent a
major problem.
Muslims rights groups complain that fusion centers are particularly
eyeing their community, estimated at nearly seven million.
"Contrary to its original 'intent' of gathering information related
primarily to gangs, criminals, terrorists, it is now abundantly clear
that the real targets of the DHS fusion center network are members of
the American Muslim community at-large," said Bray.
Muslims have become sensitized to an erosion of their civil rights
since 9/11, with a prevailing belief that Bush's America was
targeting their faith.
"Fusion centers collect information particularly about Muslims,
generally fromb& Islamophobes, neo-cons and self-appointed right-wing
terrorist experts," said Bray.
He regretted the data collected suggests that even activities such as
Muslim boys' scouts, girls' scouts troops or voting registration
should be viewed with suspicion.
Bray added that they also propagate stereotypes about mainstream US
Muslim organizations, accusing them of disloyalty, being a "5th
column", or a front for radical groups abroad.
"A clear example of the danger that fusion centers represent would be
the information pertaining to mainstream organizations in Virginia.
Theybve taken a youth organization like the Muslim Student
Association and accused it of being a front for radical Islamic
organizations," he explained.
"This is ridiculous, and would even be hilarious, if it wasn't for
the fact that such inaccurate information gets filtered down to local
law enforcement where it gains credibility because it came from a
national government agency," lamented Bray.
"These centers are dangerous and detrimental to the civil liberties
of not only Muslims but all Americans."
========================================================================
======
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8004517.stm
Key Role of Forests 'May Be Lost'
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News
o?<
o?<
Coniferous forests are particularly susceptible to climatic changes
Forests' role as massive carbon sinks is "at risk of being lost
entirely", top forestry scientists have warned.
The International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) says
forests are under increasing degrees of stress as a result of climate
change.
Forests could release vast amounts of carbon if temperatures rise
2.5C (4.5F) above pre-industrial levels, it adds.
The findings will be presented at the UN Forum on Forests, which
begins on Monday in New York.
Compiled by 35 leading forestry scientists, the report provides what
is described as the first global assessment of the ability of forests
to adapt to climate change.
"We normally think of forests as putting the brakes on global
warming," observed Professor Risto Seppala from the Finnish Forest
Research Institute, who chaired the report's expert panel.
"But over the next few decades, damage induced by climate change
could cause forests to release huge quantities of carbon and create a
situation in which they do more to accelerate warming than to slow it
down."
Debate defining
The scientists hope that the report, called Adaption of Forests and
People to Climate Change - A Global Assessment, will help inform
climate negotiators.
o?<
Warm winters have allowed spruce beetles to cause widespread damage
The international climate debate has focused primarily on emissions
from deforestation, but the researchers say their analysis shows that
attention must also be paid to the impacts of climate change on forests.
While deforestation is responsible for about 20% of greenhouse gas
emissions from human activities, forests currently absorb more carbon
than they emit.
But the problem is that the balance could shift as the planet warms,
the report concludes, and the sequestration service provided by the
forest biomes "could be lost entirely if the Earth heats up by 2.5C
or more".
The assessment says higher temperatures - along with prolonged
droughts, more pest invasions, and other environmental stresses -
would trigger considerable forest destruction and degradation.
This could create a dangerous feedback loop, it adds, in which damage
to forests from climate change would increase global carbon emissions
that then exacerbate global warming.
The report's key findings include:
b" Droughts are projected to become more intense and frequent in
subtropical and southern temperate forests
b" Commercial timber plantations are set to become unviable in some
areas, but more productive in others
b" Climate change could result in "deepening poverty, deteriorating
public health, and social conflict" among African forest-dependent
communities
The IUFRO assessment will be considered by delegates at the eighth
session of the UN Forum on Forests, which has the objective of
promoting the "management, conservation and sustainable development
of all types of forest".
Co-author Professor Andreas Fischlin from the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology commented: "Even if adaption measures are fully
implemented, unmitigated climate change would - during the course of
the current century - exceed the adaptive capacity of many forests.
"The fact remains that the only way to ensure that forests do not
suffer unprecedented harm is to achieve large reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions."
========================================================================
=============
NOTE: I thoroughly suspect that the emotional barriers to 9/11 Truth
are nearly the same as those to free (over-unity) energy. -- kl, pp
From: Kevin Barrett <kbar...@merr.com>
Date: April 20, 2009 9:01:52 AM GMT-05:00
Subject: F&B radio tomorrow: Ken Jenkins on "Psychology of 9/11 Truth"
o?<
Ken Jenkins of http://www.911tv.org will be my guest Tuesday,
4/20/09, on Fair and Balanced: 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon - 1 pm
Eastern) on http://www.noliesradio.org
Ken Jenkins is an electrical engineer, videographer, and 9/11 truth
activist who is one of the few experts on both the scientific and
psychological aspects of 9/11. He has worked extensively with Dr.
David Ray Griffin, and has been instrumental in getting 9/11 truth
DVDs to a broad audience. His new article "The Truth is Not Enough:
How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth" http://
www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/KenJenkins_9-11_psychology.pdf will be
published in the forthcoming 2009 edition of Global Outlook.
Thanks for listening, and feel free to send me your questions for Ken.
Kevin
Dr. Kevin Barrett
www.truthjihad.com
========================================================================
============================================================
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/137389/
is_it_possible_the_war_on_pot_is_on_its_last_legs_/?page=entire
Is It Possible the War on Pot Is on Its Last Legs?
By Nathan Comp, In These Times. Posted April 20, 2009.
As a medley of border violence, recessionary pressure, international
criticism and popular acceptance steadily undermines America's
decades-long effort to eliminate drugs and drug use, the U.S.
movement to legalize marijuana is gaining unprecedented momentum.
Once derided and dismissed by lawmakers, law enforcers and the law-
abiding alike, marijuana reform is sweeping the nation, although the
federal government appears committed -- at least for the time being
-- to largely maintaining the status quo.
A week after Attorney General Eric Holder announced in March that
raids on state law-abiding medical marijuana dispensaries would end,
the Drug Enforcement Agency effectively shut down a San Francisco
dispensary, claiming it violated both state and federal laws.
But to paraphrase Victor Hugo, not even the strongest government in
the world can stop an idea whose time has apparently come.
Indeed, support for legalization is at an all-time high, and
continues to grow. In 1969, just 12 percent of Americans favored
legalizing marijuana, the Holy Grail of cannabis advocates; this
number had tripled by 2005, according to a Gallup poll. Barely three
years later, another poll showed 44 percent of Americans support
legalization.
"If we continue on this curve -- and there is no reason to think we
won't -- we'll hit 58 or 60 percent by 2020," says Allen St. Pierre,
executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML). "We're seeing also that the government is
finally playing catch up with the people."
In February, a California state lawmaker introduced a bill to
legalize and tax pot, and marijuana reform bills are being debated in
at least 37 other states. (Last November, Massachusetts became the
thirteenth state to decriminalize adult possession, while Michigan
became the thirteenth state to legalize marijuana for medical use.)
All told, more than one-third of Americans now live in a state or
city that has legalized medical marijuana or decriminalized its
recreational use.
"It's the busiest period for marijuana law reform ever," says St.
Pierre. "Legalization is definitely on the political horizon."
Growing Calls for Reform
Arguments for ending the war on weed -- that marijuana is safer than
alcohol and that its prohibition leads to violence, exorbitant
enforcement costs, billions in lost tax revenue and infringements on
civil liberties -- haven't changed much since the 1970s.
But the arguments have taken on unusual gravity over the last year,
as drug-fueled violence along the Mexican side of border has excited
fears that the carnage and mayhem will spill over into American
cities. Testifying before a House panel in March, a top Homeland
Security official warned (PDF link) that the cartels now represent
America's largest organized-crime threat, having infiltrated at least
230 American cities. Already, police in Tucson and Phoenix have
reported a surge in drug-related kidnappings and murders.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently acknowledged that
America's "insatiable" appetite for drugs has helped fuel the cartel-
related violence. In fact, the Mexican cartels reap as much as 62
percent of their profits -- and derive much of their power -- from
American marijuana sales, which total $9 billion annually, according
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
But Mexican weed represents only a sliver of America's annual
cannabis consumption. Each year, Americans spend a whopping $39
billion on domestically grown marijuana, and another $7-10 billion on
weed smuggled in from Canada. In short, untaxed and unregulated
marijuana is America's -- if not the continent's -- largest cash
crop, more valuable than corn and wheat combined, according to
DrugScience.org.
The growing sense that America's marijuana policy is more harmful
than the plant itself is leading some cash-strapped states to rethink
the efficacy of locking up non-violent offenders and consider taxing
medical marijuana, despite the federal prohibition on doing so.
Several California cities are already taxing medical marijuana sales.
Oregon's legislature is debating whether to regulate and tax it as
well. (Last year a bill that would have allowed Oregon liquor stores
to sell marijuana failed.)
And in the first such step by a state government, New Mexico's
Department of Public Health is now overseeing the cultivation and
distribution of medical marijuana, brushing aside legal concerns that
state employees could face federal drug conspiracy charges.
Although marijuana reform has gained little traction in Congress,
last year Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) cosponsored a
bill to protect medical marijuana patients and decriminalize
possession of small amounts of marijuana. "It's no longer just
potheads who want this," says Bill Piper, director of national
affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We're at the tipping point, in
that we're seeing the most sustained discussion ever by media and
policymakers."
Although President Obama jokingly brushed aside economic arguments
for ending marijuana prohibition during his March 26th online town-
hall discussion, a mounting body of research underscores their validity.
In 2005, Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron published a
report showing that legalization would save $7.7 billion each year on
enforcement, while generating as much as $6.2 billion in taxes. In
response, more than 500 leading economists wrote an open letter to
federal and state officials supporting a regime of legalization and
taxation.
With increasing frequency, mainstream media outlets are also
advocating major changes to U.S. drug laws. In March, the Economist's
editorial board called for the legalization of drugs, and CNN, Time
magazine and other publications have published op-eds supporting an
end to marijuana prohibition or calling for an "honest" discussion
about legalizing drugs. Also earlier this year, the Latin American
Commission on Drugs and Democracy, which includes three former heads
of state, issued a report condemning drug prohibition and calling for
cannabis' legalization.
"[Cannabis] consumption has an adverse impact on the user's health,
including mental health," the 17 commission members wrote. "But the
available empirical evidence shows that the harm caused by this drug
is similar to the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco."
Given President Obama's penchant for pragmatism, Piper chalks up
Obama's dismissive response regarding legalization as a first-term
answer to a second-term question. "There is debate as to whether he
was even joking," Piper says, "because in many ways he's signaled
that this administration will take a different approach to drug policy."
The bVanguard' of Legalization?
American attitudes toward cannabis have softened considerably over
the last decade, yet they remain largely ambivalent about reform.
"Most people agree the laws are too harsh, but many of these don't
want to see it legalized, either," says Mason Tvert, who in 2005 co-
founded SAFER Colorado, which promotes marijuana as a safer
alternative to alcohol.
Economic arguments like those supported by Miron's Harvard study,
says Tvert, are ineffective because the same could be said of hard
drugs like cocaine and heroin. Legalization, he says, will happen
only when people realize that marijuana is safer than alcohol.
"The problem is that people still have a perception of harm that's
been built up over many years," he says. "If marijuana were legalized
tomorrow, in 10 years these perceptions would be very, very different."
Tvert agrees that perceptions about marijuana are rapidly evolving
for the better. Earlier this year, when a picture surfaced showing
Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps smoking from a bong, many
expected the 23-year-old to lose many of his endorsements. But only
Kellogg's dropped him. Even more surprising, the move seemed to hurt
Kellogg's more than Phelps, as surveys showed the move injured its
brand reputation.
For those seeking higher office, past pot use is no longer the
political death knell it once was. When asked if he ever smoked pot
in 1992, Bill Clinton claimed he didn't inhale, and in 2005, tapes
surfaced of George W. Bush acknowledging past marijuana use after
years spent dodging the question. Remarkably, voters seemed largely
unconcerned by Barack Obama's candid admission that he once used both
marijuana and cocaine. "This is a huge turning point in people
admitting to past use and not suffering any consequences," says Piper.
With public acceptance growing and states increasingly at odds with
federal marijuana laws, how much longer can Washington remain
impervious to calls for reform? NORML's St. Pierre, who says there
are major chinks in the armor of blanket prohibition, believes
federal reforms are imminent.
"At some point, we'll have run the gauntlet of states that have
passed reform bills by popular vote," he says. "It's getting harder
for people to say we're going to hell-in-a-basket when the state next
door has had these laws for years without problems. This generation
is on the vanguard of legalization."
========================================================================
==============
From: Rick Davis <rda...@yin.or.jp>
Date: April 20, 2009 7:11:30 PM GMT-05:00
Subject: News links, April 21, 2009
China mulls law on military mobilization
China Lends Abroad to Ease Oil Deals
"China is making a push to lock up energy reserves across the globe
by offering much-needed credit to governments, the latest in a $10
billion oil-for-loan deal with Kazakhstan."
At last some good sense: China rules out pursuit of African farmland
"China has said it will not join the growing trend of outsourcing
food production by investing in overseas farmland, particularly in
Africa, expressing doubts that such deals could improve its food
security."
Britain facing 'worst recession since World War II', Darling to admit
in Budget
GHANA: Plummeting profits drive tomato farmers to suicide
China Announces $10 Billion Asian Infrastructure Investment
Mexican arms race: bigger guns for drug cartels
Hitachi says outlook tough, mulling state funds
Nippon Steelbs Profit Fell 60% to 140 Billion Yen, Nikkei Says
Big drop in output of German crude steel
Pakistan lacks capacity to fight Taliban: Kaufman
Interview with Matt Simmons, Part 3
U.S. bank lending drops in February despite bailouts: report
U.S. closed banks match total for all of 2008
U.S. may convert banksb bailouts to equity share
Tons of released drugs taint US water
California's drought raises rural-urban tensions over water
Who is former CIA director Hayden really protecting?
Goodbye Bland Affluence
Bank Fears Sink Stocks
Read how it's done: Big bank profits are bogus! Massive public
deception!
Banks Face $400 Billion More in Losses, JPMorgan Says
Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC
US Airlines Hardest Hit In Global Financing Crunch
Shoe throwing: India's passionate fling
UN chief: economic crisis threatens more racism
Thai Officials Extend State of Emergency in Capital
Blackwater still operating in Iraq
==================================================================
From: Rick Davis <rda...@yin.or.jp>
Date: April 19, 2009 8:00:17 PM GMT-05:00
Subject: News links, April 20, 2009
UK: Secret police intelligence was given to E.ON before planned demo
Oz: The good oil is that stocks are already running thin
For Chinabs new left, old values
Bank of Japan May Cut Economic, Price Outlook as Spending Falls
G8, G5 farm ministers meet on food crisis
Comment: Considering their idea of a "solution," I see no good end to
this.
Platinum and palladium markets find their own stimulus
Video: William K. Black on loan fraud
US: Canned Ham, Going Once, Twice: A Rise in Grocery Auctions
Zero Percent on Treasury Bills as China, Fed Policies Converge
Jobless Rate Climbs in 46 States, With California at 11.2%
US retail sales in surprise 1.1 pct drop in March
Transition movement
Ethiopia/USA/Somali piratesb cover-up
========================================================================
=============================================