Does Israel Really Have a Right to Exist?

by Susan Abulhawa

(Originally posted June 15th, 2009, at dissidentvoice.org)

Following Netanyahu’s much anticipated policy speech, politicians and journalists, like mindless automatons, have set about repeating Israel’s tired mantra that Palestinians should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Never mind the fact that the PLO and Palestine Authority have obliged this ludicrous call, not once, but four times. And never mind that Israel has always denied Palestine’s right to exist, not only as a nation, but as individuals seeking a dignified life in our own homeland.

Does anyone find it interesting that Israel is the only country on the planet going around with this incessant insistence that everyone recognize her right to exist? Given that we Palestinians are the ones who have been dispossessed, occupied, and oppressed, one might expect that we should be the ones making such a demand. But t hat isn’t the case. Why? Because our right to exist as a nation is self-evident. We are the natives of that land! We know we have that right. The world knows it. That’s why Palestine doesn’t need Israel or any other country to recognize her right to exist. We are the rightful heirs to that land and this can be verified legally, historically, culturally, and even genetically. And as such, the only true legitimacy Israel will ever have must come from us abdicating our inheritance, our history, and our culture to Israel. That’s why Israel insists we declare she had a right to take everything we ever had — from home and property, cemeteries, churches and mosques, to culture and history and hope.

Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948. Those Palestinians and their descendants still languish in refugee camps. Israel attempted a similar scenario in 1967 when they conquered the remainder of Palestine, but Palestinians then couldn’t be dislodged from their homes as easily. This remains true, despite 40 years of Israel’s violent and oppressive military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Despite home demolitions, land confiscations, rapacious building of Jewish-only colonies, endless checkpoints, targeted assassinations, bombings of schools, hospitals, municipal buildings and malls, closures and denials; despite the massive human rights abuses, the imprisonment and torture of men women and children alike, the separation of families, the daily humiliations; despite the massive killings — Palestinians remain. We still resist. We still live, love, and have babies. As much as we can, we rebuild what Israel destroys. Such are rights!
Rights are inherent and inherently just, like the right to live with dignity and to be masters of one’s own fate. It is a human right not be persecuted and oppressed because you happen to belong to one religion and not another.

That Israelis simply take property belonging to Palestinians is not a right. That is theft. That Israel cut off the movement of food, medicine and other basic goods to the Gaza strip, causing massive malnutrition, economic collapse and misery because Palestinians elected particular leaders is not a right. That is an affront to humanity. That Israel rain death from the skies on an already battered and starved Gaza, murdering over 3000 human beings and maiming thousands more in a single month is not a right. It’s a war crime. That Israel has employed every imperialistic tactic to subjugate, humiliate, break, and expel an entire nation of principally unarmed civilians because of their religion is not a right. It is a moral obscenity. That every Jew from Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia be entitled to dual citizenship, one in their native country and one in Israel, while the rightful heirs to the land linger as refugees without citizenship anywhere is not a right. It is an outrage.

I’m sure my words will be twisted in some way to imply that I’m advocating pushing Israelis “into the sea” or some other asinine claim. So let me be explicit: We all have the right to exist, to live, to be masters of our own destiny. We all have the right not to be oppressed by others. Such rights are inherent to every individual living in that land: Jew, Muslim, or Christian. But Israelis do not have the right to create particular religious demographics by causing the demise of the natives. To be a Jewish [or Muslim or Christian] state, where privilege is accorded to those belonging to a particular religion at the expense of those who do not is not a right.

A nation that discriminates against and oppresses those who do not belong to a particular religious, racial, or ethnic group is not a light onto nations. It is a blight. And to recognize such racism as a human or national right goes against every tenet of international law. It defies the basic sense that the worth of a human being should not be measured by their religion, any more than it should be measured by the color of their skin or the language they speak.

Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin, a work of historic fiction and the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine. Read other articles by Susan, or visit Susan’s website.

Russia Says No To GMOs, Monsanto Angry At Science

Russia’s main consumer watchdog organization, Rospotrebnadzor, yesterday suspended the import of all American grown, Monsanto GMO corn, following the publication of a French study in the Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal which found that even minimal exposure to genetically modified corn caused severe liver and kidney damage, as well as mammary tumors (breast cancer) in lab rats.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also ordered an evaluation of the peer-reviewed study, and has promised to petition the European Union to block the import of all GMO corn should the findings be substantiated.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Caen, took a full two years to complete, and investigated the effect of genetically modified food on the rats over the span of the entire lives. Previous studies have evaluated the safety of GMO crops based upon only a small portion of the lives of the test subjects.

Monsanto, for its part, has disparaged the study, calling it “insufficient” and scientifically unsound, and producing a whole array of associated, pro-GM scientists who call into question the study’s findings. The agro giant has been forced to engage in international damage control since the publication of the study one week ago.

Among the accusations of bias aimed to discredit the study’s conclusions is that the particular breed of rat used in the study is naturally more prone to mammary tumors than other breeds, and that this was not taken into consideration by the researchers when they compiled their conclusions.

But now Dr. Michael Antoniou, a specialist in molecular genetics and leading member of Criigen (Committee of Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) has come out in defense of the study’s scientific credibility, stating that

“The key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the former they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal, if at all…Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised for welfare legal reasons due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts…[T]here are big differences between the tumour frequencies in the control and the experimental groups. Claims that the results are just the result of random variation in a rat line that has a high frequency of tumours is not valid.”

Dr. Antoniou further lauded the study for its breadth and scope, saying that it was unique among other studies of its kind for evaluating the potential risks associated with GMO corn over the life spans of the rats, rather than for just a limited period of time:

 “This study used more rats in test groups, for a far longer duration than any previous investigation employed by industry to obtain approval for this and other GM crop products.”

Meanwhile, Jose Bove, ranking member of the European Parliament’s commission for agriculture, has called for an immediate halt to all cultivation and importation of GM crops throughout the European Union, stating that “it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes.” He encouraged the European Parliament to act on the study’s findings, saying:

“National and European food security agencies must carry out new studies financed by public funding to guarantee healthy food for European consumers.”

GM crops have already been outlawed in the UK, Germany, New Zealand, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia. And now Russia has joined the list. Whereas, in the United States, repeated efforts to require that GM foods simply be labeled as such have met with failure.

But then, perhaps it’s no wonder, as President Barack Obama only recently appointed a former vice president of Monsanto to a senior advisory position at our own Food and Drug Administration.

INDEFINITELY DETAINED: Former Marine Sentenced to Minimum 30 Days in Psych Ward for FB Posts – No Charges, No Rights

Brandon Raub, the 26-year-old Marine and Iraq war veteran who is currently being indefinitely detained because of inflammatory posts made on his Facebook page, faces yet another hurdle following a psychiatric “evaluation” on Monday.

Raub is being held against his will and without charges at John Randolph Psychiatric Hospital in Hopewell, Virginia, following an arrest (though some have challenged the technical accuracy of this word) by numerous FBI agents and the Chesterfield County Police Department on the 16th of August.

He was lead away in handcuffs without being read his rights, and it was only following his detainment that his mother received a call from FBI Agent Sherry Grainger, who informed her of the following:

“We have taken your son. He has been arrested by the Chesterfield County Police Dept because he assaulted an officer and resisted arrest. He has been arrested and taken to the Chesterfield Police Department.”

As was reported previously, the CCPD initially told  a different story, claiming that the arrest was spearheaded by the FBI, with Chesterfield officers only assisting the agents involved. Additionally, CCPD claims that Raub has not been charged with either resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, directly contradicting the claims of Agent Grainger.

Some have observed that one of the more disturbing aspects of this case is that neither the FBI, nor the CCPD, nor the Secret Service which assisted with Raub’s initial interview after he was taken into custody, seem to want to take responsibility for his detention. The Richmond spokesperson for the FBI stated unequivically:

“When we left we had not arrested him, we had not placed our hands on him, we did not detain him and we did not charge him.”

Brian Leary, Secret Service representative, released the following statement:

“The Secret Service assisted the FBI with the interview. He was not arrested by the Secret Service. The Secret Service will continue to monitor the situation. We have no further comment at this time.”

And the CCPD also effectively washed their hands of the matter, writing that:

“Raub was evaluated by a Chesterfield mental health official, who determined that he should be held under a temporary [detention] order and transported to John Randolph Medical Center for additional evaluation.

Raub was not arrested and he faces no criminal charges in Chesterfield.”

On Monday, Raub was forced to undergo a psychological “evaluation” at the psychiatric hospital where he is currently being held. According to his mother, the evaluation “was 15 minutes long, and basically the evaluator said that he was not ready to go back into society and he needed additional psychiatric treatment.” The evaluation resulted in Raub being sentenced to a minimum of 30 days in the mental hospital, despite the fact that no charges have been brought against him.

According to Russia Today, the government is utilizing state legislation (Virginia State Code §37.2-808) which states that authorities may indefinitely detain a person without charges in a mental institution upon obtaining a recommendation from a medic.

The Rutherford Insitute, a civil rights watchdog group, has begun to assemble a defense on behalf of Raub. A statement posted on their website from the executive director of the Institute, John Whitehead, reads as follows:

“For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights [to freedom of speech], but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon.”

Rutherford Institute lawyers decried the government’s decision to hold Raub without charges for the next month, saying that “government officials again pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration.”

Raub himself, during a telephone interview with the Times-Dispatch, had the following to say:

“I really love America, and I think that idea that you can be detained and sent somewhere without due process and a lawyer … is crazy.”

NDAA In Action: Former Marine Indefinitely Detained For Facebook Posts

A former Marine and veteran of two wars, Brandon Raub was arrested late Thursday evening at his house in Virginia for inflammatory comments that he made on Facebook.

The arrest was made by numerous FBI agents in conjunction with the Chesterfield County Police Department. Raub was not read his rights, according to numerous witnesses, and was initially taken to an undisclosed location. It has since emerged that he is being held indefinitely and without charges at John Randolph Psychiatric Hospital in Hopewell, Virginia.

His mother, Kathleen Thomas, was reportedly contacted by FBI agent Sherry Grainger, who informed her of the following:

“We have taken your son. He has been arrested by the Chesterfield County Police Dept because he assaulted an officer and resisted arrest. He has been arrested and taken to the Chesterfield Police Department.”

However, upon contacting the CCPD, Thomas was told that her son was arrested by the FBI, and that “[the arrest] was an FBI matter and [CCPD officers] were just there to assist them.” Additionally, the CCPD states that Raub has not been charged with either resisting arrest or assaulting an officer.

Agent Grainger went on to tell Thomas that the comments which appeared on Raub’s Facebook page had been deemed “terrorist in nature.” Thomas then asked the agent whether or not free speech still exists in the United States of America, to which Grainger responded: “Yes, we still have freedom of speech.”

Brandon Raub had been outspokenly critical of the US government’s official story surrounding the events of 9/11, and was a vocal advocate of what some have referred to as “the Ron Paul Revolution.”

His Facebook comments included references to the coming of a new American revolution, a 9/11 cover-up, and the necessity of honest government. Some examples of his more recent posts follow:

Courage. Loyalty. And Honor. [August 16th]

The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it. [August 14th]

Do you know why the American people will win the civil war that is coming? Because we are Americans. [August 12th]

Whether or not one agrees with the sentiments expressed by Brandon Raub, his defenders are quick to point out that what he has said on Facebook is not illegal, nor do his comments justify his indefinite detention without charges at a mental hospital.

His mother reports that Raub is due to see a judge on Monday, but as of now still has no idea why he’s been arrested or held against his will.

Civil rights activists are concerned that this arrest may be a sign of things to come under the government’s seemingly limitless power to detain American citizens without charges, as specified by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law on New Year’s Eve 2011 by President Obama.

The Obama administration has been engaged in a fierce courtroom battle over the legislation since a May 2012 injunction against the “indefinite detention” provision was issued in federal court.

The injunction was issued after a lawsuit was brought against the federal government on behalf of such notable plaintiffs as Noam Chomsky and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, which argued that the NDAA was unconstitutional.

Judge Katherine Forrest agreed, saying that indefinite detention “failed to pass Constitutional muster” and issued an injunction barring the administration from arresting and indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges or trial. Judge Forrest stated:

“In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more. An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an [anti-American] force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.”

The White House, however, is challenging the injunction and demanding that their power to indefinitely detain anyone they deem a “terrorist” be restored.

Worse, the Obama administration is refusing to disclose whether or not the government has abided by the federal injunction. Journalist Tangerine Bolen, a plaintiff in the suit filed against the NDAA, stated in an op-ed that:

“Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama’s government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.”

So despite a federal injunction prohibiting the Obama administration from acting upon the “indefinite detention” provision, could the arrest of Brandon Raub and others like him be the first sign of things to come in the new United States? And more importantly, what is our role now, as active and informed citizens of a democracy apparently under siege?

Catholic Church Covered Up Popular Priest’s Illegitimate Child

The Catholic church has had a tough week. And on Pentecost, too!

Rome was rocked by yet another in a series of scandals, as it emerged that Father Thomas Williams, the public face of the Legionaries of Christ, a religious order begun in 1941, fathered a child that the Church attempted to keep secret for at least the past 7 years.

The Legionaries suffered a similar humiliation back in 2009, when it was revealed that their founder, Father Marcial Maciel, had lead a double life throughout his association with the Church, and was not only a pedophile and drug addict, but started two families that he concealed from the Holy See.

Father Thomas Williams, an American based in Rome who has made numerous speeches and written several books on Christian morality, was allowed to continue his public ministry by the current leader of the order, Father Alvaro Corcuera, even after his illegitimate child was revealed.

Father Corcuera stated that he found out about Williams’s child “early in [his] new assignment” as leader of the order, in 2005. Although Corcuera had urged Williams to “start withdrawing from public ministry”, critics and activist groups charge that such a recommendation was not severe enough.

One such group, named the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), released a statement calling strongly on the Pope to fire Corcuera, saying:

“Virtually nothing will change if the Pope and other Church officials continue to let their colleagues and underlings act recklessly and deceitfully – year after year after year – and get by with saying, when they’re caught, ‘Oops, sorry, I goofed.’”

The Legionaries scandal comes on the heels of the arrest of Pope Benedict’s personal butler on charges of spying. The butler, Paolo Gabriele, is accused of contributing to an enormous dump of classified information, since dubbed “Vatileaks”, which revealed internal financial corruption and bickering about money.

Additionally, it was reported last week that the chief Vatican exorcist, appointed by Pope John Paul II, has implicated the Church in the unsolved murder of a 15-year-old girl, allegedly to cover up regular orgies participated in by high-level Church officials.

The Vatican has yet to officially respond to each allegation.

15-Year-Old Girl Murdered to Protect Vatican Sex Parties

The Vatican’s chief exorcist, appointed by Pope John Paul II, claims that the unsolved murder of 15-year-old Emanuela Orlandi, a case dating back to 1983, can be traced to underground sex parties organized for high-ranking members of the Catholic Church.

Father Gabriele Amorth alleges that at that time, regular orgies were organized by the a former archivist at the Holy See, monsignor Simeone Duca, as well as the Vatican gendarme (private security force) at the behest of Vatican officials. He states:

“Parties were organized, with a Vatican gendarme acting as the ‘recruiter’ of the girls. The network involved diplomatic personnel from a foreign embassy to the Holy See. I believe Emanuela ended up a victim of this circle.”

This is not the first time Father Amorth has ruffled sacerdotal feathers with his outspoken opinions. In 2010 he commented that the sexual scandals rocking Rome were proof that “the Devil was at work in the Vatican.”

The Orlandi case has stymied Italian police for nearly 30 years. Just last month, acting on an anonymous tip, they opened the coffin of notorious Italian gangster Enrico De Pedis, buried in Sant’Apollinare basilica near the center of Rome, in search of Emanuela’s remains. Bones found inside the tomb were tested and proven to belong to someone other than De Pedis, and DNA testing is currently underway to determine whether or not they’re Orlandi’s.

Father Amorth dismisses such notions, however. He remains convinced that after Emanuela was recruited to perform at a Vatican sex party, she subsequently fell victim to the criminal appetites of various Church officials:

“This was a crime with a sexual motive…I have motives to believe that this was just a case of sexual exploitation. It led to the murder and then the hiding of her body. Also involved are diplomatic staff from a foreign embassy to the Holy See.”

The Vatican has offered no comment on Father Amorth’s allegations, though they maintain that they have always complied with any official request regarding the Orlandi case.

 

 

Adventurer Searches for Bin Laden’s Body, Fears Assassination

A professional treasure hunter in California is actively seeking the remains of Osama Bin Laden, allegedly dumped from a U.S. Naval vessel after the raid that took the life of the terrorist leader last May.

Bill Warren, an adventurer and expert on shipwrecks, wants to recover the body of the infamous Bin Laden in order to subject it to DNA tests and prove or disprove the official government story of Osama’s death.

According to Gizmodo, Warren doesn’t buy the Obama administration’s narrative of the events of the night of May 1st, 2011, and hopes to come closer to truth by recovering the body (whomever it belonged to) that the Navy threw from a ship on that fateful night:

Warren—who claims he has discovered more than 200 shipwrecks during his career as a treasure-hunter—says that bin Laden’s body is still at that same location, deep under water. His thought is that, since the Navy weighted down the bag, the body hasn’t moved from where it was dropped. He is now trying to rent Russian deep diving equipment to locate his payload, and to conduct DNA tests once he finds him…Warren says he is doing this because he doesn’t “believe the Obama administration” and he wants to have proof that it is really his body.

Numerous individuals expressed disbelief and incredulity in the aftermath of the assassination of Al-Qaeda’s number one, just a little over a year ago today. Pakistanis are still reeling from the perceived violation of their national sovereignty, with many openly doubting the official version of events provided by the White House.

Tasvir Hussein, a resident of the Abbottabad neighborhood where Bin Laden was supposedly found, expressed his outrage:

“I’m not very sure whether Osama was here or not because the way his so-called dead body was dropped in the sea, what was the reason? Why did they have to do that? Why couldn’t they have produced evidence?”

Hussein´s views echo those of thousands of average Americans who doubt the veracity of the government’s story. Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, was just denied a request that its members had submitted in District Court for the release of the photos of Osama Bin Laden’s body.

The presiding judge who denied the request issue the following statement with his ruling:

“A picture may be worth a thousand words. Yet, in this case, verbal descriptions of the death and burial of Osama Bin Laden will have to suffice, for this court will not order the release of anything more.”

President Obama agreed, saying in an interview on 60 Minutes that “we do not tout our trophies”.

Of course, it can be argued that this is not consistent with the government’s attitude following the execution of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the brutal killing of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, with pictures of the latter appearing on the front page of multiple national newspapers.

Treasure hunter Warren, for his part, is determined to locate Bin Laden’s supposed body, his only fear being that Obama administration might attempt to kill him or sink his boat before he can accomplish his mission.

With Obama’s recent murder of American citizens, his signing of the NDAA, and the destruction of civil liberties under his administration increasing at a breakneck pace, Warren can hardly be blamed for being concerned.

The 8 Hour Workday, Minimum Wage, and Other Things to Remember This May Day

Today, May 1st,  is known and celebrated everywhere around the world as International Workers’ Day.

Well, almost everywhere. In the United States, President Dwight D. Eisenhower officially declared May 1st to be “Law Day” in 1958. This was on advice of his legal counsel, in order to avoid the populist and (eek!) socialist stigma of Workers’ Day.

Ironically, May 1st is commemorated as International Workers’ Day because of what happened in the streets of Chicago, Illinois, in 1886.

Prior to unionization and pressure from worker’s associations, most employees in the United States were forced to work upward of 12-14 hours per day following the industrial revolution. In 1810, Robert Owen, one of the early socialist thinkers, began advocating for the 8-hour workday as part of his utopian ideal, and introduced the rallying cry of “8 hours for work, 8 hours for recreation, 8 hours for rest.”

It caught on. On May 1st of 1867, the workers of Chicago implemented a general strike which brought the city’s economy to standstill for an entire week. In 1872, the building trades workers of NYC struck until they won the eight hour day. But despite national popular support, and a slew of toothless legislation aimed at pacifying the labor guilds, the 8 hour work day remained a dream for the majority of the population.

On May 1st of 1886, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions passed a resolution in Chicago stating that “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labour organizations throughout this jurisdiction that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution by the time named.”

Three days later, on the 4th of May, a large assembly of workers and tradesmen met in Haymarket Square in Chicago to peacefully protest for the legal codification of the 8 hour day. The police were called to drive the protesters out. An unknown individual hurled a bomb at the police as they sought to deprive the workers of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful assembly. In response, the police opened fire indiscriminately on the crowd, resulting in the wounding of scores of protesters, along with the deaths of 4 civilians and 7 police officers (it’s not clear whether the police were killed in the bomb blast or were caught in the crossfire of the shooting that followed).

This became known as the Haymarket massacre. Numerous leaders of the labor movement were subsequently rounded up and arrested, and despite the court’s affirmation that not one of them had actually thrown the bomb, seven men were sentenced to death. Two sentences were commuted by the Governor, and one man committed suicide in prison. The remaining four were hanged November 11th, 1887.

The subsequent strikes around the country resulted, over the next 20 years, in an 8-hour workday for the majority of unionized trade workers. May 1st, 1886, is still looked upon as the date on which the movement truly found its feet, and the repercussions of the May 1st Chicago resolution gave the movement its first martyrs. International Workers’ Day commemorates their fight.

Sadly, the national implementation of the 8-hour workday for all citizens wouldn’t occur until the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 under FDR’s New Deal. This piece of legislation was also the first to mandate a Federal minimum wage to check the rampant growth of sweatshop labor in the industrial sector:

Before the minimum wage was introduced during the Great Depression of the 1930s, there was no national minimum wage, or indeed any legislation to protect workers from exploitation. Because of this lack of regulation tens of thousands of workers were routinely exploited in sweatshops and factories, forced to work in horrible conditions and for pennies a week. Early attempts by labor unions to create a mandatory minimum wage were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that they “restricted the worker’s right to set the price for his own labor”. This allowed employers to continue exploiting their workers through the Great Depression of the 1930s, when incredible demand for jobs caused wages to drop even further to an all-time low.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees were legally guaranteed a fair wage for an honest day’s work for the first time in the history of the United States.

The important lesson to take away from both of the above stories is that our rights, even the most seemingly basic of them, were not given to us freely from above. We had to take them. Whether it was through protests, strikes, legal battles or even street brawls, our grandparents and great grandparents had to forcefully wrest control of their own destinies from the hands of the bankers and the industrial monopolies of the time.

As America continues its backward slide into 1920s-style corporatism, with more and more of our rights and civil liberties being stripped away in order to appease the wealthy and the powerful, now more than ever we need to bear in mind the incredible power we command when we stand united against the tyranny of moneyed interests and political corruption.

Something to think about, this May Day.

Rockefeller Predicts Terror Attacks During 2012 Olympics, London Militarizes Police

The 2012 Olympics, to be held in London, have been the focus of increased scrutiny from civil liberties advocates around the globe, due in the main to the intense and, according to some, excessive security measures planned for the event.

A recent article in the Daily Mail points out that police officers in London are beginning to look more like soldiers than cops. In response to last week’s attempted suicide bombing, members of the police force turned out sporting firepower that would be more at home on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan than in the streets of suburban London. The Daily Mail reports:

In addition to a Heckler and Koch MP5 sub-machine gun, [the police are] carrying not one but two Glock self-loading pistols and a CS gas grenade. It is difficult to imagine anyone further removed from the traditional bobby on the beat.

And this isn’t the extent of the security beef-up as the opening ceremonies for the 2012 Olympics approach. It’s emerged that the UK government is seeking to install surface-to-air missiles on the tops of numerous high-rise residential buildings which surround Olympic Park, in case of an aerial terrorist attack. Again from the Mail:

Surface-to-air missiles may be stationed on top of flats as the last line of defence against a suicide jet targeting this summer’s Olympic Games…From there, they could use a multi-million-pound laser-guided system developed for modern warzones to shoot down a helicopter attack or suicide bombers piloting an aircraft. The range of the missiles is 3.4miles, which means they could reach St Paul’s Cathedral, Canary Wharf or parts of the North Circular from the flats in Bow, East London.

This is cause for concern in the minds of numerous residents whose homes would be occupied and turned into defensive bunkers by the UK military:

Resident Brian Whelan, 28, said his suspicions were raised when he saw soldiers examining [a] water tower a few weeks ago.

He said: ‘I don’t think in a democracy the military go round occupying private property and turning it into a military base without communicating with people.’

Local MP Rushanara Ali said she would be raising the matter in Parliament tomorrow. She said it was ‘unprecedented’ for missiles to be placed on residential buildings, adding: ‘This is a heavily built-up area. There has been no consultation – people have been told that this is what is likely to happen and people are very worried.’

All of this in a country that has already come under fire from civil libertarians for its Big Brother style surveillance of the English people. A report from The Guardian in May of 2011 stated that there are currently 1.85 million CCTV cameras in the UK, amounting to 1 camera for every 32 people living in the country.

Is this increase in security a sign that London expects terrorist activity at the 2012 games?

Perhaps the most chilling piece of information to emerge regarding the upcoming Olympics is a prediction made by the Rockefeller Foundation in a study entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, first published in May of 2010.

The study, which ostensibly explores the ways in which “technology could profoundly alter how we address some of the most pressing challenges in the developing world”, presents four “very plausible” visions of the future, each of which explore the positive and negative consequences of our increasing reliance upon technology.

In the third hypothetical narrative, entitled “Hack Attack”, described as a vision of “an economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge,” the time in which we’re currently living (2010-2020) is labeled “the doom decade” due to all of the disastrous events that are predicted to unfold over that ten year period.

An earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a famine in China and a tsunami off the coast of Nicaragua are among the grim natural disasters which the Rockefeller Foundation puts forward as part of their dystopian vision of the future.

And on page 34, specifically, they describe a horrific terrorist attack which will claim the lives of 13,000 people at the Summer Olympics in London. The report reads:

Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.

Some have compared this to the infamous Project for the New American Century report, published in early 2000 and authored by numerous soon-to-be members of the Bush administration, that called for a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to facilitate the authoritarian changes the report’s authors desired.

Is the Rockefeller prediction simply hypothetical speculation? Or could this constitute a veiled warning regarding a terrorist attack planned for the 2012 games?

Whether or not an attack occurs, we can all be certain of one thing: that governments around the world will continue to use the threat of terror to further consolidate their power, and to strip the citizenry of their rights and civil liberties.

Top Five Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama

The only reason you’d continue to support a man like Barack Obama in 2012 is that you haven’t been paying any attention to his policy choices over the last 3 years.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not advocating voting for Mitt Romney. The man is a well-oiled political robot, and the generally negative response he’s received from pillars of his own party illustrates that clearly enough. For the life of me, I’m not sure how anyone on either side of the political spectrum could possibly be enthused about the current election cycle.

But this article is for all those in my generation who continue to believe in the empty promises of the Obama administration, despite all evidence to the contrary. This is an easy-to-use fact sheet on why Barack Obama does not deserve your vote in 2012.

Obama’s administration has upheld the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, further stripped the American people of their civil liberties, overstepped its Constitutional bounds, gotten into bed with the bankers and the nation’s wealthiest citizens at the expense of the average working man, and has broken innumerable campaign promises, governing in direct opposition to the once-hopeful slogan of “Change We Can Believe In”.

What follows is a short list of five reasons to not vote for Barack Obama.

#1: Passage of the NDAA

On December 31st, 2011, while everyone was busy ringing in the New Year, Barack Obama quietly signed into law a piece of legislation far more draconian than anything offered up by the Bush administration. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which outlined the budget for U.S. defense expenditures at home and abroad, includes a notable section (1021) under the heading of “Counterterrorism” which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of aiding and abetting terrorist activities, without trial.

Section 1021 reads as follows:

Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force…includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

“Covered persons” is subsequently defined as “any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of [terrorist] enemy forces.” A “belligerent act” is never defined, and neither is it stipulated that an individual must be found guilty in a court of law in order to be treated as a supporter of terrorism. Suspicion alone is enough.

The Section continues, stating that “disposition under the law of war” is to be interpreted as referring to “detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities…” This effectively nullifies the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which is applied to all citizens in the Constitution of the United States, and guarantees them a fair and free trial in civilian court. And, of course, the “end of hostilities” is open to debate as well. The “war on terror” is a war declared on an abstract concept, not a nation state or even a particular organization of people, so how and when can it possibly end?

For his part, in the signing statement, President Obama assures us that his “Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens”, and that the government “will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law”.

But very few of us will be satisfied with hoping that our government will not choose to exercise the power it’s been newly invested with. It’s a dangerous gamble.

And more to the point, as Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) made clear on the floor of the Senate, it turns out that the Obama administration insisted that the controversial provision be included and that no exemption be made for U.S. citizens. In fact, numerous proposed amendments specifying that the American people be exempt from indefinite detention were defeated, apparently under pressure from the White House. Why insist on it if you don’t plan on utilizing it?

In its defense, the Obama administration has pointed to subsection (e) of Section 1021, which reads:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

But this is, as critics have pointed out, simply “meaningless rhetoric” designed to assuage our fear without actually guaranteeing our rights. The folks over at The Tenth Amendment Center, a civil liberties watchdog group, have this to say about it:

This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

Johnathan Turley of The Guardian describes this bill as a “Mayan moment” for civil libertarians. “2012,” he says, “is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.”

#2: Extension of the PATRIOT Act Without Revision

The PATRIOT Act, considered by most civil liberties groups to constitute a gross invasion of privacy, came up for a one year renewal in early 2011. Barack Obama  had campaigned on the notion that legislation like the PATRIOT Act ought to be revised to include regulatory oversight, in order to avoid any possible abuse of power.

Obama’s official campaign statement regarding the war on terror, entitled “Barack Obama: The War We Need To Win”, stated that: “As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”

But in the run-up to renewal, the Obama administration dramatically reversed its stance on the bill. Not only did Barack Obama fully support the Act, sans revision, he issued an official statement requesting that it be extended for not one year, but three! The statement made clear that the President “would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013.”

The Act’s renewal was successful, and specific provisions again came up for re-authorization in the middle of 2011. Obama unconditionally supported their renewal, as well, and as Politifact reports: “By reauthorizing the Patriot Act, President Obama guaranteed (barring any judicial action) that the law will live on in its current form until June 1, 2015.”

And this, of course, is not the extent of Obama’s trampling on the freedoms of the American public. The recent passage of CISPA, a draconian piece of legislation aimed at imposing government control on the internet, or the Executive Order entitled “National Defense Resource Preparedness”, which allows the Executive branch to seize control of the nation’s industries, transportation and energy, as well as to utilize the military domestically however the President sees fit; all of this represents a systemic pattern, not a handful of isolated incidents.

#3: Murder of American Citizens Overseas

On September 30th, 2011, Barack Obama ordered the targeted killing of American and Yemeni Muslim Imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was suspected (but never tried or found guilty) of being a top-ranking member of Al-Qaeda, working for the organization as one of its most influential recruiters.

Several weeks later on October 14th,  his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also murdered in a CIA drone strike, while on his way to a barbecue. Abdulrahman was a full American citizen, born in Denver, Colorado.

Al-Awlaki and his son were just two names on the government’s targeted killing list, which was started during the Bush administration and has been continued and added to during Obama’s tenure in office.

The targeted killing of American citizens, depriving them of the due-process guaranteed to them under the Constitution is more than cause for concern. It represents a fundamental violation of our most basic right as members of American society. The administration’s justification for the murder of al-Awlaki is that there was no other way to eliminate the threat he posed to the country.

Of course, critics have pointed out that this would in no way be considered an acceptable argument in the context of domestic criminal behavior. Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh, for example, could not have been killed in an air strike without due process simply because arresting them was difficult.

Meanwhile, Eric Holder (who has advocated the suspension of Miranda rights for any American citizen suspected of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations) stated unequivocally that the murder of American citizens falls within the purview of the President, and that it’s legally justified under the following three circumstances:

First, [if] the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, [if] capture is not feasible; and third, [if] the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

Which puts our fates squarely in the hands of the Executive branch and its “thorough and careful review” (the details of which are not disclosed to the general public), rather than in the hands of a jury of our peers. Again, we’re asked to simply trust that the government won’t overstep its bounds. And were trust enough, we never would have needed to depart from the monarchy.

This is Orwellian reasoning, and were it coming from the mouths of the well-known players of the Bush administration (say Rumsfeld or Ashcroft), the left would quickly condemn it. As it stands, however, there’s been relatively little public outcry over this flagrant violation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights outlined in the 5th Amendment, which states clearly that the government cannot deprive citizens of life or liberty without due process, regardless of suspected criminal activity.

#4: Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the 1%

On December 17th, 2010, President Obama signed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans for another two years.

The tax cuts amounted to 858 billion dollars of lost revenue between 2010 and 2012. That’s 858 billion of revenue lost during a time when we’re actively pushing to cut the salaries of teachers, to layoff firefighters and police officers, and to bust up public sector unions in order to scrimp and save a few pennies here and there.

The Obama administration, for its part, defends itself by stating that if they hadn’t extended the tax cuts, all legislative efforts favored by Democrats would have been blocked by the Republicans in the Senate.

However, as we’ll see below, Obama’s relationship with big business, big banking, and the wealthiest individuals in the country is far from reluctant.

So when Obama says (as he did just a few nights ago, while “slow-jamming” the news with Jimmy Fallon) that those on the right want to pay back the national debt only as long as it doesn’t include taxing billionaires, remember that it was Obama who put his signature to a bill that cost the country nearly 900 billion dollars for the sake of easing the burden on the nation’s wealthiest.

#5: In Bed With the Bankers

Obama, during the 2008 election cycle, received $1,013,091 from Goldman Sachs, $808,799 from J.P. Morgan, $736,771 from Citigroup, $624,618 from Time Warner, and multiple millions of dollars from various other moneyed interests in the financial sector.

Compare that to McCain’s donor list, which features the same corporate players, but about half of the amount of money donated from each company.

Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel (now Mayor of Chicago), earned millions of dollars in investment banking after leaving the Clinton White House in 1999, much of it working in collusion with Goldman Sachs.

Then there’s the revolving door between Goldman and the Obama administration. More than a few prominent members of Obama’s team have enjoyed a long and profitable relationship with the banking giant. McClatchy reports:

Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

Meanwhile, allegations surfaced long ago that Goldman used its influence with the Obama administration to address charges of fraud leveled against them by the Securities and Exchange Commission. During their bout of legal troubles with the SEC, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein visited the White House on at least four separate occasions to meet with President Obama. Their topics of conversation remain a mystery, of course.

And Obama’s collusion with the banking system goes further than that. In 2010, Obama began actively pursuing negotiations with five of the largest banking organizations in the country, stating that he would drop all investigations into their mortgage-related crimes (which caused the 2008 financial crisis) in exchange for a one-time payoff of roughly 20 billion dollars to the American people.

The deal was struck in February of this year, and the banks agreed to a 26 billion dollar settlement in exchange for immunity. The New York Times reports:

After months of painstaking talks, government authorities and five of the nation’s biggest banks have agreed to a $26 billion settlement that could provide relief to nearly two million current and former American homeowners harmed by the bursting of the housing bubble, state and federal officials said.

Reuters continues:

In exchange, the banks would get immunity from civil lawsuits by the states, as well as similar guarantees by the Justice Department and Department of Housing and Urban Development, which have participated in the talks. State and federal officials declined to say if any form of immunity from criminal prosecution also is under discussion.

The deal comes on the heels of new revelations that the banks continue to engage in all of the risky and potentially illegal practices which brought about the 2008 collapse. According to Reuters:

…major banks and other loan servicers have continued to file questionable documents in foreclosure cases. These include false mortgage assignments, and promissory notes with suspect or missing “endorsements,” which prove ownership. The Reuters report also showed continued “robo-signing,” in which lenders’ employees or outside contractors churn out reams of documents without fully understanding their content.

Critics contend that this deal amounts to bankers buying their way out of jail. Which of course it does. This from Politicalvelcraft.org:

[Iowa Attorney General Tom] Miller has repeatedly lied, on behalf of Obama, that the banks would be granted only limited immunity from their crimes, despite multiple leaks from within his group to the London’s Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal, insisting that in fact, the banks will be given a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for everything.

Obama, beholden as he is to the banking system and big business, is no friend to the average, American worker. His record over the last three years speaks for itself.

(BONUS!) #6: Warmonger in Chief

Yeah, I know I said “Top Five”, but this is too important to ignore.

In March of 2011, the Obama administration began airstrikes in support of rebel forces, aimed at ousting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya.

We have spent upwards of 1 billion dollars in Libya, though that’s not what’s gotten politicians from both sides of the aisle riled up. President Obama, who campaigned on the rule of law, and portrayed himself as the anti-Bush, the candidate who would respect Congressional authority and reign in the Executive branch, never sought Congressional approval for military action in Libya.

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the President has 60 days from the beginning of any conflict to obtain official Congressional authorization for the use of military force. Obama, in a move which ruffled the feathers of many of the members of his own party, simply refused to comply. His administration stated flatly that the rules don’t apply to Libya:

“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops. None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”

And further:

The president said he welcomed “Congressional action in support of the mission,” which “would underline the U.S. commitment.” But the administration argues this “support” is not required. It says the action in Libya is not war but, euphemistically, a “limited kinetic action.”

But many – Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike – feel differently. Jules Lobel, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, stated that the Obama administration is “definitely supporting hostilities in a context where they could be fired upon. They are involved in a war, and the fact that they are in a support role, that I don’t think is dispositive in the War Powers Resolution debate.”

Obama’s unilateral action in Libya caused Representative Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina to introduce a resolution in the House that calls for the impeachment of President Obama should he fail to obtain authorization for the use of military force from Congress in the future.

Meanwhile, Obama is ratcheting up the rhetoric in the march to war with Iran. A story released several weeks ago in the Jerusalem Post asserted that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has issued a final warning to the Iranians: the upcoming round of diplomatic negotiations in April represent the last chance to avoid military conflict. An unidentified Russian diplomatic source is quoted as saying:

“The invasion [of Iran] will happen before the year’s end. The Israelis are, in effect, blackmailing Obama: either he supports the war, or he risks losing the support [of the Jewish lobby].”

Speaking at joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron earlier this morning, President Obama seemed to deliver the same message to the world, saying that the “window for diplomacy is shrinking”:

“Tehran must understand that it cannot escape or evade the choice before it. Meet your international obligations or face the consequences.”

And in Syria, reports have been coming in for some time (unreported, for the most part, by the mainstream media) that U.S. Special Forces are already on the ground and actively seeking the destabilization of the Assad regime.

An email from Reva Bhalla, Director of Analysis for the Texas-based “intelligence provider” Stratfor Corporation, described a plan being formulated by NATO and the United States to commit terrorist attacks in Syria in an effort to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

The email, released as part of the Wikileaks Stratfor dump, includes details of a joint strategic meeting which took place at the Pentagon on December 6, 2011, and included at least one representative from both the UK and France.

Bhalla was informed by those present that, media reports to the contrary, US Special Forces commandos were already on the ground in Syria, attempting to “commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces [Assad's support base], elicit collapse from within.”

The email records that:

After a couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.

It’s troubling, to say the least, picturing the President ordering unilateral military force with the Nobel Peace Prize dangling around his neck.

So what happened to the era of law and order Obama was supposed to usher in? What change did this President bring? How much hope do you have for the future after reading the above? Obama has followed in the footsteps of his murderous, Constitution-shredding predecessor.

Spread this around to those who should read it. Don’t cast your vote for yet another madman on a power trip.