A non-profit news blog, focused on providing independent journalism.

Friday, 30 January 2015

Ukraine chief of staff 'thwarts Western allegations' by admitting no combat with Russian troops

Ukraine_conflict

© Reuters / Alexander Ermochenko

Members of the armed forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic drive a tank on the outskirts of Donetsk, January 22, 2015.



The Ukraine army's chief of staff has admitted that Kiev troops are not engaged in combat with Russian units, thereby thwarting all Western allegations of Moscow's "military invasion," said Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov.

"Yesterday afternoon the Chief of the General Staff - Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine - Viktor Muzhenko officially acknowledged during a briefing for foreign military attachées that Russian troops are not involved in the fighting in the country's southeast," Konashenkov said on Friday.


Given the fact that Muzhenko directly supervises military operations in the southeast, "his statement is a legal fact, which thwarts numerous accusations made by NATO and Western states" concerning Russia's alleged "military invasi" in Ukraine, the spokesman added.


The Russian Defense Ministry, however, was puzzled by a statement from Muzhenko's subordinate, Sergey Galushko, made several hours later. According to Galushko - an employee of the Department of Information Technology - Russian troops are located in the so-called "second echelon."


On Thursday, Muzhenko said "the Ukrainian army is not engaged in combat operations against Russian units. He added, however, that he had information about Russian individuals fighting in the country's east. He also said the Ukrainian army has everything it needs to drive off armed units in Donbass. His speech was aired by Ukraine's Channel 5 television, owned by President Petro Poroshenko.


Ukrainian servicemen

© Reuters / Valentyn Ogirenk

Ukrainian servicemen sit atop armoured personnel carriers



Commenting on Muzhenko's statement, Galushko said that reporters were only allowed at the open part of the meeting. He said that later, during the closed part, the chief of general staff said that Russian units are "in the second tier."

Muzhenko himself did not elaborate on the initial statement.


Kiev began a military assault on eastern Ukraine's Donetsk and Lugansk regions in April 2014, after they refused to recognize the country's new, coup-imposed authorities. According to UN estimates, more than 5,000 people have died as a result of the conflict.


Since the start of Kiev's military operation, Ukraine and Western states have repeatedly alleged that Russia has a military presence in the country's east. Moscow has refuted those claims on multiple occasions.


Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow's arguments on Wednesday, calling on those who believe the opposite to prove their point. "I say it every time: if you are so sure in stating that, confirm it with facts. But no one can or wants to provide them," he said.


The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said it has not registered any movement of military vehicles at the Russia-Ukraine border checkpoints it observes, according to a statement made on January 22.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Anti-Syriza propaganda begins: Greece framed as 'emerging hub for terrorists'

Greece's new anti-austerity and anti-Western Oligarchy ruling party, Syriza, is coming under attack from an all too familiar angle. Keep in mind that this accusation came on the very first day Syriza took office.

According to CNN, "there may be some 200 people in the country with links to jihadist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or the al Nusra Front". Supposing this is true, should we not instead look to those who funded and created those groups; namely Western nations?


ISIS Nusra Leader

© unknown

Does Greece really have a terrorist problem?



An unnamed "source close to the Greek intelligence services told CNN" of this alleged problem, so for all we know this could be a complete lie; probably from the mind of a pro-Western, anti-Syriza propaganda agent working for Wall Street and the City of London. Accusations of such magnitude require far more than an unnamed source before we can verify their existence in the realms of reality. This spectral source supposedly said "Greece is not a target, just a gateway into Europe and a stop on the fighters' return home", which essentially paints the entire state of Greece as a problem.

CNN says of this source that "he added"; in regard to his alleged statements. How does this unnamed source feel about having his anonymity damaged in this regard? This is an absolute failure in narrative construction, and suggests to us that questioning this piece is not an unwarranted task.


Furthermore, "One analyst who has studied jihadist travel patterns says there are indications that militants are setting up logistical, recruitment and financial cells in Greece". We might suggest this 'analyst' is hardly worth using as a source if they do not wish to have their name tied to their analysis. Would one not want to be known as the person who first called the apparently approaching crisis? Or perhaps, there never even was an 'analyst' in the first place and these are the wild delusions of a pro-Oligarchy agent.


Concerning 'financial cells' being a problem, this writer recently wrote a graduate-level essay on the association of tax havens with terrorism. The essay's findings suggested that 'tropical' tax havens are no longer an issue in this regard, but some banks based in the United States are operating in a clandestine, unorthodox manner allowing anyone to anonymously open and operate a bank account; perfect for 'financing cells' (See Jason Sharman, 2010, ).


Syriza protest sign

© unknown

Greece has every right to make the statement they have given to the world



While there are legitimate concerns in Greece regarding migration, as "Greek Interior Ministry acknowledges it has little idea of the number of people living illegally in Greece", we must be incredibly wary of anyone attempting to frame a state as a "hub for terrorists". We only need look to Iraq and Afghanistan to understand the huge problems that such a framing can cause. It has also been used to push for hard intervention, although essentially unsuccessfully, in Syria. French President Hollande recently rejected any plans for unilateral action in Libya, another state now facing the 'terrorism hub' framing, which could subsequently have been a motive for the recent attacks in Paris.

Yesterday, we already heard of a potential Operation Gladio-style move against Greece. It is beyond doubt that nations such as Britain fear the rise of an anti-austerity party, and Syriza's victory is guaranteed to cause an upheaval. Unless we have hard, tangible proof that Greece does have a terrorism problem, we should reject anonymous, reckless accusations; especially as they have the potential to lead to disastrous intervention policy with truly horrific consequences.


Let us leave Syriza alone, perhaps for more than 24 hours (something CNN has been unable to do), and allow them time to prove themselves to Greece and the world; free from interfering and meddling hands. We cannot, ever again, fall into the propaganda trap we have heard far too many times already. Are we not still waiting for those WMDs to be found in Iraq?


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


You could soon go to jail for protecting yourself from bullets: Congress proposes body armor ban

Body Armor Ban

© Free Thought Project



Washington, D.C. - A new piece of legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives, H. R. 378, labeled the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, which if enacted would deprive law abiding citizens of another means of self defense.

The legislation, forwarded by Rep. Mike Honda, would ban citizens from ownership of enhanced body armor, defined as "body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06" in the bill.


Level III and higher body armor can defeat most common rifle ammunition.


The body armor in question has a sole purpose of protecting the wearer from potential serious injury or death from being shot.


If passed, this bill would usurp people's ability to own a truly defensive form of protection, with penalties for possession/ownership ranging from fines to jail time or both.


In his press release, Rep. Honda states:




"This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement."




This speaks to the heart of the law enforcement problem in America.

Laws are continually being proposed to solve problems that don't exist, which is exactly how we have gotten into the current police state mess we find ourselves in.


The reality is America has less major crime than at any point in the last 40 years, and yet we have cops patrolling American streets as if they are in the Korengal or Fallujah, and treating the citizens as such, with absolutely no regard for the Constitution.


Perhaps if Honda put as much effort into disarming the overly militarized police, as attempting to take away law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves from would-be shooters, people wouldn't have the impetus to wear body armor.


The armor is purely defensive in nature, and people should always have the ability and right to defend themselves against attack.


The right to self-defense is the right from which all other rights are derived. As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life, or hinder the preservation thereof.


The Supreme Court has held that the police have no duty to protect citizens, so that responsibility now falls squarely on the shoulders of individuals themselves.


To take away people's ability to access defensive armor, after telling them that they are on their own and are owed no protection by law enforcement, almost seems like a cruel joke.


Why should a law-abiding American, that takes steps to defend themselves passively, be criminalized?


Interestingly, government employees and personnel who work for the various government agencies, departments, or "political subdivisions" are exempted in the bill.


Additionally, the bill states that citizens who own body armor prior to the bill taking effect, would, in essence be grandfathered in and be treated the same as government personnel.


Where is the sense in government banning something that provides people protection from harm?


The logic of this bill is so askew that it wouldn't be surprising if perhaps next they will try and pass a bill that outlaws hiding behind things while being shot at.


In a continuation of that logic, law enforcement could use the PR line; "If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you need to hide behind anything?"


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


New US regs say passengers cannot fly without biometric ID card

REAL-ID Card

© PoliceStateUSA

Sample Alabama REAL ID card.



The ability to travel in the United States is about to become more restrictive as the TSA announces it will soon be enforcing new identification standards in American airports.

Beginning in 2016, passengers attempting to pass through a federal TSA checkpoint will be subject to the requirements of the REAL ID Act. To that end, the TSA will put higher scrutiny on travelers' identities, and will only accept a federal passport or a "REAL-ID" card, which is issued by the states to meet federal requirements.


Passengers will not be allowed to fly through an American airport without submitting to the advanced federal specifications.


Both federal passports and REAL-ID cards require a number of unique personal identifiers to be stored together in government databases, including his or her full name, date of birth, Social Security Number, scanned signature, and other identifiers.


Both cards require biometric data: a front-facing digital photograph of the passenger's face, which is ultimately used with a facial recognition database.


"It is a choice," flippantly explained David Fierro, the Public Information Officer for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. "If you use a passport when you're traveling you don't have any problems. If you use your driver's license as identification, you'll need to either apply for the Real ID card or get a passport."


ORIGIN OF 'REAL ID'


The enhanced security measures stem from the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, a U.S. law enacted by President Bush that states that a Federal agency may not accept state-issued identification cards without complying with a number of enhanced standards of the REAL ID Act.


The states were given a number of years to comply, and many moved to pass their own laws to meet the benchmarks of the REAL ID Act. Due to some sluggish response, DHS extended the compliance deadline several times.


Unfortunately, most states were all too willing to bend to the requirements of the federal government in order to obtain "state certifications" of compliance. To signify their compliance with the federal standards, many states are now issuing identity cards emblazoned with gold stars in the corner.


According to the Department of Homeland Security, only Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and American Samoa have not met REAL ID standards as of January 2015. By DHS estimates, 70%-80% of all U.S. drivers are already carrying around REAL ID cards or live in states that have received extensions for compliance.


Some states have even gone as far as to require the applicant to present birth certificates, W-2 tax forms, bank statements, and/or pay stubs to verify one's identity before handing out the new REAL-ID cards. Some cards have RFID chips embedded in them.


Among the 39 benchmarks of the REAL ID Act, state ID cards have to be scannable with a bar code reader, and the states are required to share access to an electronic database with all other states.


Once DHS begins enforcing the REAL ID standards, Americans without a compliant state ID will be effectively prohibited from flying at a commercial airport. Passengers would need to obtain passports even to fly on planes that never leave the United States.


THE ILLUSION OF SECURITY


The REAL ID Act was ostensibly sold as a security enhancement to protect the country against terrorism and illegal immigration. It received overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats, passing 388-43 in the House and 99-1 in the Senate.


However, a few rose in opposition to REAL ID, including Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), who was perhaps its most outspoken critic. Dr. Paul, a former presidential candidate, called REAL ID a "Trojan horse" which "transform[s] state drivers licenses into de facto national ID cards." In an impassioned speech on the House floor on February 9, 2005, Paul laid out a number of specific objections to H.R. 418:



The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver's licenses. It contains no limits on the government's power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.


Ron Paul

© AP Photo/Mary Ann Chastain

Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.



Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that "the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses." So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.


This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the "Drivers License Agreement," this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!


This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person's exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person's appearance on a registry of firearms owners.



REAL ID cards streamline the process for the centralization and federalization of our private biometric data, while offering very little true benefit. In the words of Congressman Ron Paul, the program " offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state."

Its difficult to argue otherwise when passports may soon be necessary to travel domestically.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Administering antibiotics to mothers during birth alters the microbiota of newborns




Giving antibiotics to mothers while they are giving birth affects the process of establishing the intestinal microbiota of the new born baby
, according to a study led by the Spanish National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas de España-CSIC, in Spanish) and recently published in . In the case of premature babies, the study says, the alterations could be even more serious.

At birth, bacterial colonization of the gut begins, and this is key to the maturation of a newborn's immune system. Any disruption that occurs in this process, experts believe, could increase the risk of the baby suffering various diseases in the future. "In previous studies we have found large differences in the process of bacterial colonization between preterm and term infants and wanted to delve into perinatal factors responsible for these differences. We knew that breastfeeding, vaginal delivery and antibiotics could be key factors," explains to Gut Microbiota Worldwatch Miguel Gueimonde , lead author of the study.


The first factor investigated was antibiotics. To do this, researchers started with a sample of 40 infants, 27 of whom were premature, and divided the babies into four groups according to whether they or their mothers had received antibiotics at birth or during delivery. They took stool samples from the infants after one day, after several days, after one month and, finally, after three months, and analysed the samples using technologies of mass DNA sequencing.


One of the most amazing things that the study discovered, explained Gueimonde, is that what most influence the infant microbiota are the antibiotics administered to the mothers during labour. Even a single dose has been shown to have a significant effect on the colonization process.


Giving mothers antibiotics during labour is a common practice in Spain: three in ten women receive them to avoid infection. However, this protocol is not risk-free for the baby, as it might contribute to raise the levels of enterobacteriaceae, microorganisms that may be pathogenic in the microbiota of the child for at least the first month of life. In the case of premature babies (whose microbiota, compared with that of term infants have fewer beneficial microorganisms), researchers have found that "these particular characteristics of prematurity are also increased by perinatal exposure antibiotics," says Gueimonde.


The researchers say that this study lays the foundations for rethinking protocols used during labour and for promoting the development of nutritional supplements that can help babies to compensate for the treatments that are often essential, helping the restoration of their intestinal microbiota.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


New Mexico district attorney refuses to indict cops after grand jury calls shooting 'unjustified'


© Roswell Police Department

Police shooting victim Roberto Mendez



A special prosecutor says she won't pursue charges against two Santa Fe police officers who shot a 26-year-old man in the cheek in August 2013 as he tried to flee in an SUV that his mother had reported stolen.

A Santa Fe County grand jury, in a rare finding in an officer-involved shooting, determined last year after reviewing evidence in the case that the shooting was not justified .


But Roswell District Attorney Janetta Hicks announced Thursday in a letter to New Mexico State Police that she will not prosecute Officers John DeBaca and Stephen Fonte. First District Attorney Angela "Spence" Pacheco had asked Hicks to serve as a special prosecutor in the case after the local grand jury's October finding.




Tom Clark, who represents the injured man, Roberto Mendez, said he was in shock when he learned that Hicks had declined to prosecute the case. "This means that the grand jury doesn't mean anything," Clark said. "I would have liked to see justice out of the criminal justice system," he said, adding that he plans to file a lawsuit against the city. In September, Clark filed a tort claim notice informing the city of his client's intention to sue.

Hicks' announcement comes at a time when police use of force is under heightened scrutiny around the country. Earlier this month, District Attorney Kari Brandenburg of Albuquerque filed murder charges against two Albuquerque officers who had fatally shot James Boyd, a 38-year-old mentally ill homeless man who had been camping illegally on a mountainside in March 2014. Brandenburg said she was deviating from her past practice of presenting evidence in officer-involved shooting cases in secret grand jury proceedings because she wanted transparency in how the widely publicized incident is handled by the criminal justice system.




Hicks' letter says that after she reviewed evidence of the Santa Fe officers' actions, she determined that "a reasonable person in the same circumstances would be in fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or others and might use deadly force."

Police have said that DeBaca and Fonte were involved in the Aug. 8, 2013, encounter that left Mendez with a gunshot wound to the cheek. But they said Mendez, who has a criminal history dating back to 2006, nearly hit the officers with the SUV he was driving before they fired at him.


The incident began at an Allsup's convenience store at Cerrillos Road and Calle la Resolana where, according to police accounts, officers confronted the occupants of an SUV that fit the description of a vehicle reported stolen by its owner, Mendez's mother.


Mendez, who had four passengers in the vehicle - another man, two women and a 4-year-old boy - had refused to get out of the SUV, police said in a statement following the shooting. Instead, he put the vehicle in reverse, hitting a patrol car, and then drove toward officers while "trying to flee the parking lot," police said. "During this time, the officers fired their weapons at the vehicle," the report said.


At the time of the shooting, Santa Fe police said Mendez was armed. But state police investigators later determined that Mendez was not armed at the time.


Dashboard camera video of the incident shows the two Santa Fe officers approach the SUV. Mendez then puts the vehicle in reverse and rams their patrol car. The two officers shoot several rounds at the SUV, the video shows, and after a short car chase, they corner the vehicle in the parking lot of the Big 5 Sporting Goods store on Cerrillos Road, where Mendez is arrested.


DeBaca, who has been with the city police force since May 2011, fired the shot that hit Mendez in the mouth, investigators said. Clark has said the bullet was lodged in Mendez's jaw. Both officers are still with the force but are working in department offices rather than patrolling streets.


Chief Eric Garcia said Thursday that he's glad the two officers will soon be able to get back on street patrol and "serving our community."




Hicks said Pacheco doesn't have an option of pressing charges against the officers, since she appointed Hicks as the special prosecutor. "As such, she no longer has authority over the case," Hicks said in an email.

Pacheco said Thursday that she had no comment on the case because she no longer has jurisdiction.


The Santa Fe district attorney, who had served as a prosecutor from 1989 to 2000 and was first elected district attorney six years ago, said in October that it was the first case she's aware of in which a grand jury found an officer-involved shooting unjustified. She said she has presented about half a dozen such cases to grand juries.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Ukraine neo-Nazi Far Right portrayed as heroes by Rupert Murdoch-owned Sky News


© Reuters / Valentyn Ogirenko

Members of the Ukrainian far-right radical group Right Sector stand outside the parliament in Kiev March 28, 2014



On January 22nd, Rupert Murdoch's Sky News (Murdoch founded it, his son James headed it for a while, and their 21st Century Fox owns "a controlling stake" in it) telecast a puff-piece for Ukraine's right-wing extremists, several times calling them "heroes" to "patriotic" Ukrainians. This segment of their documentary series "Ross Kemp: Extreme World," was titled "Ukraine: The Rise of The Right."

In it, Ukraine's "far right" are described as being patriots who are protecting all of Ukraine from a Russian invasion, and who are therefore being increasingly admired by Ukrainians. It says : "The ultras [ultra-rightists] are actually patriotic young people who are ready to fight - not only on the Maidan, but also at the war for our land. ... These men - seen now by many as heroes - are fighting for the Azov Battalion in Mariupol, Maryinka and Iliovaisk."


The message is that whereas these far-rightists were previously despised, they now are widely respected: "Just a few years ago they were on the fringes of society - shunned for their violent behaviour and xenophobic beliefs, but since the 2014 Maidan revolution - and the subsequent fighting against pro-Russian groups - their popularity has grown."


In the segment here, the presenter, Ross Kemp, says, at 15:25, that, Ukraine "faces the threat of a full-scale Russian invasion. NATO has called the crisis in Ukraine, the biggest threat to European security since World War Two. Amidst this chaos, volunteer far-right battalions have put up some of the strongest resistance." He then notes that the city of Mariupol in Ukraine's southeast "is currently being defended by a right-wing militia called the Azov Battalion."




At 17:55, Kemp refers to "occupied Crimea," as if Crimea (which had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954, and where far more of the residents still considered themselves to be "Russian" than "Ukrainian") had been seized by Russian troops, instead of Crimea having been protected against invasion of troops from the new Ukrainian Government immediately after the February 22nd coup in which Obama had seized control over Ukraine's Government, by the use of paid mercenaries ('volunteers') from the nazi Right Sector, who were headed by Dmitriy Yarosh, and by other racist mercenaries, some from outside Ukraine.

Ross Kemp is then in Mariupol, where he says: "Just to give you an idea of how vulnerable this city is, in the distance is Russia, all the way along there [and he points at the supposedly feared Russia]. ... In May of 2014, Mariupol was one of several cities seized by pro-Russia separatists. ... How did a predominantly far-right militia[Azov] end up defending one of Ukraine's most important cities? ... The fight to defend Mariupol has made the[Azov] Battalion specialists in urban warfare. The majority are ordinary Ukrainians united by a sense of patriotism[he doesn't say 'nationalism,' but 'patriotism,' so as to give it an attractive odor]."


He also doesn't deny that "some" of the Azov fighters are White-supremacists (they make it too obvious). At 20:25, he says: "But there's an altogether darker ideology that unites some Azov members." A swastika is shown; then an Azov fighter is interviewed saying, '''It's a war with Russia.'" The idea Rupert Murdoch's man Kemp wants to convey here is that these fighters are "patriots," who are "volunteering" to "defend" Ukraine against "pro-Russians" and against "Russian troops" (he uses that phrase though there's actually no sign of any of those). He ignores that Obama's team had taken over Ukraine during a coup which was long in the planning and which used the public "Maidan" anti-corruption demonstrations as merely a 'democratic' PR backdrop . In fact, here is the U.S. State Department's Victoria Nuland, telling the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, on 4 February 2014, whom he is to place at the top of the post-coup Government; and, when the coup occurred, this "Yats" was indeed the person who became appointed 22 days later. No hint of such background is given in Rupert Murdoch's 'news' (propaganda) report.


At 30:20, Ross Kemp says:



"Since February of 2014, Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists have been locked in a bloody battle for control of towns in the east. [Actually, the civil war had started not in February 2014, such as he says, but on 9 May 2014. The Obama coup had occurred in February 2014, overthrowing the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, for whom more than 70% of the residents in southeastern Ukraine had voted; and the civil war didn't start till May because it wasn't clear till May that the newly installed Government wanted the residents in the southeast to die or else to flee to Russia - to be gone from Ukraine. Obama didn't want them voting in any future Ukrainian national elections, because that would jeopardize the lasting-power of his coup-Government.] This is the town hall of Mariupol. Five months ago, Russian separatists stormed this building. ... The Russian supporters were made to leave, but when they did, they torched it."



[He's there trying to convey the idea that "Russian supporters" had torched the town hall in Mariupol. But, actually, it wasn't the "town hall"; it was the police station; and there's no indication that the locals had torched it. Instead: On 9 May 2014, which is the very day that Ukraine's civil war started throughout southeastern Ukraine (in response to the May 2nd massacre in Odessa), the local police force refused to take commands from the invading Ukrainian Government troops of western Ukraine, who were then entering Mariupol to take the city over. Anti-coup people entered the building in order to occupy it, and a battle ensued between the Kiev troops and the Mariupol locals. The locals were driven out by Ukraine's military; and the police station was torched, but no one knows by whom.

Here is video of the police station on fire, on 9 May 2014.


[embedded content]




Here is a detailed description and another actual video of the burning; and the description that's given, which comes from a resident there, makes clear that the invading troops burned the building down because the local police refused to accept the authority of the newly imposed Government. But the "town hall" also had been involved in Ukraine's invasion.

[embedded content]




Here is a Reuters article on 7 May 2014, reporting that "Ukrainian forces seized the rebel-held city hall in the eastern port city of Mariupol overnight, driving out pro-Russian activists, then withdrew, making no attempt to hold onto the building, witnesses said. .... Witnesses said the soldiers left after smashing furniture and office equipment." Maybe they burned it later. The vandals were the haters - the very people whom Ross Kemp so obviously admires. In any case, what Kemp is saying about the event is almost certainly false. He pretends to be a videographer, but his video presents no evidence - merely assertions by Ukrainian Government officials and soldiers.]

Here and here and here are how what Kemp fearsomely calls the "pro-Russian separatists" (or, as Reuters had referred to them, 'activists') in Mariupol first encountered the Obama-coup-regime's troops, as those troops invaded Mariupol slaughtering residents on 9 May 2014. And here is what had happened at the largest southeastern city, Donetsk, just three days earlier, on May 6th. That Donetsk video refers to the Ukrainian oligarch or aristocrat Kolomoysky. He was the man who had financed the massacre on May 2nd of entirely peaceful anti-coup demonstrators in Odessa - the massacre that had actually caused the people in the other rejectionist cities to become separatists. It caused some southeastern areas to go all the way to refusing to accept the Obama-installed coup-government at Kiev, and to establish instead their own independent nation, in order to protect themselves from the (it had by then become blatantly clear) rabidly anti-Russian racist-fascists, or nazis, whom Obama had placed into power in Kiev. Obama needed the May 2nd massacre in order to terrorize the people in the southeast so as to cause them to form their own government to protect themselves from it, thus enabling the 'legitimate' Government (the one that Obama had just installed in his actually illegal coup) to call them 'Terrorists' and so to have an excuse to bomb and drive them out, so as to eliminate the residents in the pro-Yanukovych area, so that no similar


Ukrainian President would ever again be able to be elected by voters in Ukraine. This was essential in order to get Obama's imposed illegal nazi Government to stick, to last. Kolomoysky was an ally, and an employer of the family and friends, of key people in the Obama Administration, and all of them could benefit enormously from killing and driving out lots of residents in the heavily-pro-Yanukovych southeastern portion of Ukraine.


At 31:30, Ross Kemp says: "After months of attacks, Kalinovka [he pronounced it 'Kalikovka'] is a ghost town. All of the houses have been abandoned here." He doesn't even care to mention why the surviving residents had left: Ukraine's troops had been shelling, bombing, and shooting at them, so survivors fled into the separatist-controlled area, or else into Russia.


At 33.00, he's at the border heading into Donbass (the separatist-controlled region), and is told by the nazi troops to go back from whence he came, because press presence might draw fire from pro-Russian snipers just beyond that demarcation-line - which is just a lie, but the sucker or propagandist apparently took everything that these fascists told him as being the gospel truth, and he was basically a mere video stenographer for these nazis anyway, not a real journalist (who questions everything).


So: Ross Kemp went back to Mariupol. He didn't even care to get the opponents' side of this war. The nazis told him to go back to Mariupol, so he did. This is Rupert Murdoch's 'news' operation: one-sided 'news' only. (Any intelligent person who watched the 'documentary' up to that point, had to recognize by now that this was really no 'news report' at all, but pure war-propaganda. Even if that fact hadn't become blatant before, it now became blatant.)


At 39.00, Kemp says: "The city [Mariupol] formed its own militia because of the threat posed by Russian separatists and, the Russian Federation." An interviewed Ukrainian official, a woman, tells him that "Russian troops ... systematically destroyed" the city. She calls herself a "nationalist." No evidence is presented - and none is asked for - to support her "Russian troops" allegation. He just accepts everything she tells him.


At 41.30, he says: "You can see why regiments like the Azov Battalion and other far-right battalions are gaining support here. Because they're volunteers who are making the ultimate sacrifice to defend the city. And so people here are rallying to their cause." Actually, most of the "people here" must both hate and fear the nazis. The residents know that they'll be killed if they express any support whatsoever for the anti-coup, or anti-'Maidan,' side. To a 'reporter' like Kemp, it makes no difference what the reality of or for the residents there is.


In other words: This documentary by Rupert Murdoch's Sky 'News' is just pro-nazi propaganda, which conflates "nationalism" with patriotism, and which presents nazis as being heroes, instead of as being the rabid anti-democratic bigots that they actually are.


The Obama-installed coup-government was assigned by Obama, and by the IMF, to exterminate as many of the residents in the Donbass region of southeast Ukraine as possible, because 90% of these residents had voted for the very man, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Obama's nazis overthrew on 22 February 2014. (The dark purple region on that map, in the far east of Ukraine, is the area that had voted at least 90% for Yanukovych; and it's the area that broke away from Ukraine in May 2014 and is being bombed by Obama's Ukrainian forces. That area was traditionally called "Donbass," but many of its inhabitants now call themselves "Novorossiyans," or new Russians, because they want to be part of Russia, which their region used to be part of.) So, this Government sent these nazis in, to finish the job, for Obama and for their own oligarchs.


Do the viewers of Sky 'News' want to know any of that background? Apparently not - after all, they are viewers of Sky 'News.' They are fascists, and many of them are like Obama's team: they are nazis - racist fascists. (Most of those viewers probably just call themselves "conservative." Of course, they won't acknowledge that Obama too is "conservative.")


That video was called "Part 2" of Kemp's propaganda-film about how heroic Ukraine's nazis are. Here is "Episode 1" (or "Part 1," as alternatively tagged). Most of it is actually the same video and text, except organized differently (placing the emphasis upon the failure of the post-coup Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to be sufficiently nazi to satisfy these 'patriots').


Here is a bit of the relevant historical background that Murdoch's operation decided to hide from both versions: "The Nazis Even Hitler Was Afraid Of."


And here is the current geopolitical context of Obama's February 2014 take-over of Ukraine.


Ironically, the view that the rightist oligarch Murdoch is spreading - that Putin is the aggressor in this war and that Obama is not - is exactly the same view that the leftist oligarch George Soros is spreading about it. In fact (as can be seen from Soros's many statements and actions there), both of those Western oligarchs are remarkably similar, and Soros could as well have hired the people who hired Ross Kemp as Murdoch did. Kemp's 'documentary' is 100% in line with Soros's many essays about the situation in Ukraine. The biggest difference between these two aristocrats is that they're in different lines of business - different rackets. (Here is a partial list of the companies that Murdoch controls. Soros is instead an investor and a 'philanthropist.')


DISCUSSION


When 'right' and 'left' merge and become one, at nazi (i.e., racist-fascist), such as does occur in the top aristocratic circle (especially regarding Ukraine), then what authentic meaning remains to standard political debate? What does the public then know of 'democracy'? How is democracy then even possible? It's not. (And that linked-to scientific study, specifically of the U.S., proves that the U.S. is not a democracy. But this problem is far broader than merely the U.S.)


Perhaps wealth-inequality is getting to be so extreme as to close out even the possibility of democracy. Let's not fool ourselves about how big the challenge is; it's enormous:


On 9 October 2013, Credit Suisse issued their Global Wealth Report 2013 , authored by Anthony Shorrocks, Jim Davies, and Rodrigo Lluberasis. It reported that the world's richest 0.7% owned 13.67 times as much as did the world's poorest 68.7%. That super-rich 0.7% (each with net-worths above $50,000,000) owned 41% of this planet's private assets. The world's richest 8.4% owned 83.3%. The world's richest 31.3% owned 97%. So: the bottom 68.7% owned just 3%. (All of these findings are calculated from the data shown on page 22.) Overall, the share of global wealth was "barely 1% for the bottom half of all adults" worldwide (see page 4). Furthermore, economic mobility into and out of the billionaire class, during the latest ten-year period (2000-2010), was low: only 24% entered or left the class during the decade (see page 28).


According to Vilfredo Pareto, who was the father of today's 'welfare' economics and also the "Karl Marx of fascism" (and also Benito Mussolini's personal teacher), there is no rational basis for economists to consider any of this extreme wealth-inequality to be sub-"optimal."


No wonder aristocrats favor such a 'free market' (and such an economic theory).


But it won't do Ukrainians any good, and it's slaughtering the people in Donbass. However, any of that richest 0.7% who care enough, one way or the other, about what's happening there, are promoting the nazis, who are doing those aristocrats' dirty-work, regardless of whether nazi bigots are aware of the fact, or even care whom they're actually serving, or why. Any of those nazis who are in the bottom 68.7% of the world's wealth-pyramid - the people who collectively own just 3% of the world's private wealth - are probably driven more by their hatred than by their greed, anyway. They're like sleepwalkers, or robots. Push their psychological buttons, and they're on, "for the cause." True-believers, in some Big Lie or other. And, so, they 'volunteer' their services far cheaper than do people who actually care. (Most of their payment comes to them in the form of the personal pride they get, for their race and nation. It doesn't come out of any aristocrat's hide.) In that sense, they value themselves appropriately: dirt-cheap. (Of course, they don't understand this.) They're a bargain for their unrecognized masters, who push true-believers' buttons by hiring propagandists such as Ross Kemp.


But, as for the residents in Donbass: these people are total victims in all of this.


Recommended article: Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Saudi King Salman dismisses Prince Bandar from National Security Council




Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (R) and Prince Bandar bin Sultan.



King Salman on Thursday issued a number of royal decrees that removed or changed a number of top Saudi officials.


The new king, who succeeded the late King Abdullah last week, also removed Intelligence Chief Prince Khaled bin Bandar from his post and appointed him as his advisor.


He also sacked two of the late king's sons from big jobs.


King Salman replaced Riyadh Governor Turki bin Abdullah with Faisal bin Bandar, and reinstated Khaled al-Faisal as Mecca governor less than two years after he was replaced by Mishaal bin Abdullah.



The new king, however, kept in place Abdullah's other son Miteb as the Minister of the National Guard.

King Salman also reshuffled a number of posts in the cabinet, while keeping unchanged the oil, foreign, finance, defense, interior, labor, transport and economy, and planning ministers.


The 79-year-old king also eliminated a dozen councils and specialized committees while creating two main bodies for security and economy affairs.


The former king died on January 23 at the age of 90 after weeks of being hospitalized with a lung infection. He had suffered frequent periods of ill health in recent years.


The new monarch, who has suffered at least one stroke that has left him with limited movement on his left arm and is believed to be suffering from Alzheimer's, is taking over at a time when King Abdullah's demise is expected to fuel a power struggle within the ruling family.


His succeeding to the throne also coincides with the kingdom's grappling with dissent in the east and the region's attempting to deal with the repercussions of the terrorism funded and the extremism exported by Riyadh.


Riyadh has also turned into a butt of criticism for sending shockwaves throughout the international economy by allegedly fixing oil prices.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Protesters at planned anti-Islam event "welcome to come in for a cup of tea"


mosque

© Unknown

Clonskeagh Mosque in Dublin



Protesters who attend a planned anti-Islam event outside Clonskeagh Mosque on Sunday are welcome to come in for a cup of tea, the Islamic Cultural Centre has said.

Speaking to today, Summayah Kenna, spokesperson for the centre, said they had been informed by members of their community about plans for a protest. "Like any protest we can't and we will not object," she said. "Everybody has a right to protest. All we can ask is that it goes off peacefully."


Plans for the protest have been circulating online, and it is said the event has been organised by an Irish anti-Islam group. A counter-event has also been organised by Anti-Imperialist Front Ireland.


Kenna said that the centre is busy at the weekends and that they "hope sincerely that things go as normal". "Any protesters are welcome to come in for a cup of tea," she said, adding that the centre, which is home to the mosque, is open to all.


She added that they are "not overly concerned", but will be "observant" while the protest is on. "Our hope is everything will go peacefully."


A garda spokesperson said:



We facilitate peaceful protests but we encourage organisers to liaise with the gardaí.






Comment: This is reminiscent of what a mosque in York, England, did in May 2013 during an English Defence League (EDL) protest. The mosque countered the protest with tea, biscuits and football:

A York mosque dealt with a potentially volatile situation after reports that it was going to be the focus of a demonstration organised by a far-right street protest movement - by inviting those taking part in the protest in for tea and biscuits. ...


...after members of the group accepted an invitation into the mosque, tensions were rapidly defused over tea and plates of custard creams, followed by an impromptu game of football.


Mohammed el-Gomati, a lecturer at the University of York, said: "There is the possibility of having dialogue. Even the EDL who were having a shouting match started talking and we found out that we share and are prepared to agree that violent extremism is wrong."




Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Ukraine's top general admits: "No Russian troops are fighting against us"

Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.

Here is a screen-print of a google-chrome auto-translation of that statement:



[embedded content]




The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.


The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.


Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.


Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.


If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false, then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


8-year-old questioned by French police for "defending terrorism"


© BFMTV

France is in a state of “collective hysteria,” says Sefen Guez Guez, the lawyer for a second grader questioned by police in France





Just when it seemed that the crackdown on free speech in France could not get worse, French police today questioned a second grader on suspicion of "defending terrorism."

BFMTV says that administrators at a primary school in Nice reported the child to police on 21 January after the boy allegedly said that he "felt he was on the side of the terrorists."


"A police station is absolutely no place for an eight-year-old child," the boy's lawyer Sefen Guez Guez told BFMTV. He said that the incident showed that France was going through a state of "collective hysteria."


Guez Guez said that on 8 January, the day after two French gunmen attacked the offices of the magazine , the boy, whose name has been reported as Ahmed, was in class when he was asked if he was "Charlie."


"He answered, 'I am on the side of the terrorists, because I am against the caricatures of the prophet,'" the lawyer said.


Since the murders of the cartoonists and the lethal attack by a third French gunman on a Jewish supermarket, French government officials and media have adopted the slogan "Je Suis Charlie" - I am Charlie - to indicate social conformity and support for official policies, all under the guise of supporting free speech.


The Collective Against Islamophobia in France, which has taken up Ahmed's case, provided these additional details: "On 8 January, Ahmed, a second grader, was called on by his teacher who asked him if he was Charlie. Being of Muslim religion and aged only eight, he opposed Charlie Hebdo because of the caricatures of the prophet, and responded naively that he was on the side of the terrorists. Angered, the teacher sent him to the principal, who was in the class next door, and who asked him three times in front of the whole class, 'Are you Charlie?'"




The child's parents were called in and "played an educational role, explaining to him what terrorism really was and why one should be on the side of the victims," Guez Guez said.

Principal calls police


Instead of leaving the matter there, on 21 January, the school principal lodged two complaints with police, one against the child for "defending terrorism," and another against the child's father for trespassing.


According to the lawyer, the child had been deeply upset and isolated after what happened, so his father accompanied him to the school playground on three occasions after 8 January, before being told he was not allowed to do so.


Fabienne Lewandowski, a spokesperson for the Alpes-Maritimes regional police, confirmed to BFMTV that they received the complaints. Lewandowski revealed that the school principal claimed that the child had said "French people should be killed," "I am on the side of the terrorists" and "the journalists deserved to die." The child then allegedly refused to take part in a government-decreed minute of silence.


"During our interview, the child indicated that he had said some of these words, but did not really understand what they meant," the police spokesperson said. "The purpose of this interview was to understand exactly what had happened, and what could have led him to say this."


"We can regret that this took the form of an official police interview," Lewandowski said, "but under the circumstances, we could have gone even further."


According to the police spokesperson, the father "showed regret for his son's words."


The Collective Against Islamophobia in France said that his interview by police "was an additional trauma that illustrates the collective hysteria that has ensued since the beginning of January."


Prosecutors in Nice have yet to decide how to proceed in the case.


Victim of bullying?


Ahmed has said that he was a victim of bullying by the school principal, according to his lawyer, BFMTV reported. On one occasion, the child was playing in a sandbox. According to the child's account relayed by the lawyer, the principal told the boy, "stop digging in the sand, you won't find a machine-gun in there."


On another occasion, Ahmed, who is diabetic, alleges the principal deprived him of his insulin, saying, "Since you want us all to die, you will taste death." The principal has denied the accusation.


Guez Guez said that Ahmed's parents planned to lodge a complaint about the school's behavior.


According to Le Figaro, the French education ministry confirmed that the school principal had also made a report about Ahmed to child protective services.


Government crackdown


While Ahmed's case may seem extreme, the complaint against him is enabled by an atmosphere of intolerance and authoritarianism fostered by the French government.


Since the attacks in Paris, the government has launched an unprecedented crackdown, condemned by Amnesty International as well as French civil rights groups, in which it has jailed dozens of people for things they have said, under the vague charge of "defending terrorism."


Previously, as The Electronic Intifada reported, one of those arrested was a sixteen-year-old high schooler, for allegedly posting a caricature mocking .


Yesterday, French President François Hollande used an International Holocaust Memorial Day speech to confirm that his government plans to tighten its control over what people are allowed to say online and stiffen penalties for illegal speech .


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Hysteria? 8-year-old questioned by French police for "defending terrorism"


© BFMTV

France is in a state of “collective hysteria,” says Sefen Guez Guez, the lawyer for a second grader questioned by police in France





Just when it seemed that the crackdown on free speech in France could not get worse, French police today questioned a second grader on suspicion of "defending terrorism."

BFMTV says that administrators at a primary school in Nice reported the child to police on 21 January after the boy allegedly said that he "felt he was on the side of the terrorists."


"A police station is absolutely no place for an eight-year-old child," the boy's lawyer Sefen Guez Guez told BFMTV. He said that the incident showed that France was going through a state of "collective hysteria."


Guez Guez said that on 8 January, the day after two French gunmen attacked the offices of the magazine , the boy, whose name has been reported as Ahmed, was in class when he was asked if he was "Charlie."


"He answered, 'I am on the side of the terrorists, because I am against the caricatures of the prophet,'" the lawyer said.


Since the murders of the cartoonists and the lethal attack by a third French gunman on a Jewish supermarket, French government officials and media have adopted the slogan "Je Suis Charlie" - I am Charlie - to indicate social conformity and support for official policies, all under the guise of supporting free speech.


The Collective Against Islamophobia in France, which has taken up Ahmed's case, provided these additional details: "On 8 January, Ahmed, a second grader, was called on by his teacher who asked him if he was Charlie. Being of Muslim religion and aged only eight, he opposed Charlie Hebdo because of the caricatures of the prophet, and responded naively that he was on the side of the terrorists. Angered, the teacher sent him to the principal, who was in the class next door, and who asked him three times in front of the whole class, 'Are you Charlie?'"




The child's parents were called in and "played an educational role, explaining to him what terrorism really was and why one should be on the side of the victims," Guez Guez said.

Principal calls police


Instead of leaving the matter there, on 21 January, the school principal lodged two complaints with police, one against the child for "defending terrorism," and another against the child's father for trespassing.


According to the lawyer, the child had been deeply upset and isolated after what happened, so his father accompanied him to the school playground on three occasions after 8 January, before being told he was not allowed to do so.


Fabienne Lewandowski, a spokesperson for the Alpes-Maritimes regional police, confirmed to BFMTV that they received the complaints. Lewandowski revealed that the school principal claimed that the child had said "French people should be killed," "I am on the side of the terrorists" and "the journalists deserved to die." The child then allegedly refused to take part in a government-decreed minute of silence.


"During our interview, the child indicated that he had said some of these words, but did not really understand what they meant," the police spokesperson said. "The purpose of this interview was to understand exactly what had happened, and what could have led him to say this."


"We can regret that this took the form of an official police interview," Lewandowski said, "but under the circumstances, we could have gone even further."




According to the police spokesperson, the father "showed regret for his son's words."

The Collective Against Islamophobia in France said that his interview by police "was an additional trauma that illustrates the collective hysteria that has ensued since the beginning of January."


Prosecutors in Nice have yet to decide how to proceed in the case.


Victim of bullying?


Ahmed has said that he was a victim of bullying by the school principal, according to his lawyer, BFMTV reported. On one occasion, the child was playing in a sandbox. According to the child's account relayed by the lawyer, the principal told the boy, "stop digging in the sand, you won't find a machine-gun in there."


On another occasion, Ahmed, who is diabetic, alleges the principal deprived him of his insulin, saying, "Since you want us all to die, you will taste death." The principal has denied the accusation.


Guez Guez said that Ahmed's parents planned to lodge a complaint about the school's behavior.


According to Le Figaro, the French education ministry confirmed that the school principal had also made a report about Ahmed to child protective services.


Government crackdown


While Ahmed's case may seem extreme, the complaint against him is enabled by an atmosphere of intolerance and authoritarianism fostered by the French government.


Since the attacks in Paris, the government has launched an unprecedented crackdown, condemned by Amnesty International as well as French civil rights groups, in which it has jailed dozens of people for things they have said, under the vague charge of "defending terrorism."


Previously, as The Electronic Intifada reported, one of those arrested was a sixteen-year-old high schooler, for allegedly posting a caricature mocking .


Yesterday, French President François Hollande used an International Holocaust Memorial Day speech to confirm that his government plans to tighten its control over what people are allowed to say online and stiffen penalties for illegal speech .


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


NYC asks new parents if 'mother giving birth' is male or female


A peculiar part of paperwork that's presented to new parents in New York City is raising eyebrows around the Big Apple. The new form, according to recent reports, asks parents to specify if a newborn's mother is male or female.

The New York Post first reported on Friday that an updated Department of Health (DOH) form handed to parents requesting a birth certificate removes the risk of misgendering new mommies.


The form [PDF], provided by the New York City DOH's Bureau of Vital Statistics, requires parents to answer if the "woman giving birth" is male or female, along with more run of the mill questions concerning legal names and Social Security Numbers.


the form asks in the section labeled


Susan Sommer, an attorney who practices on behalf of an advocacy group that represents lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and trans persons, told the Post that the updated paperwork eliminates any issues that may arise if the parent giving birth is in any stage of a gender transition.


Sommer, of Lambda Legal, said to the newspaper.


According to the Lambda Legal website, thousands of children across the United States have parents who are transgender or, rather, identify with a gender that differs from the sex assigned at birth.


Sommer told the Post.


" Colage, an organization that aims to assist the children of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans parents, said in a 2010 document.


Thomas Beatie, a trans man who gave birth to a daughter in 2008, told 20/20 that year.


At the time, Beatie and others in similar standing were encountering legal issues stemming from how their parental role is defined in official paperwork, especially when a state becomes involved in officiating the custody of a child.


Suzanne Goldberg of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic at Columbia University in New York City said at the time.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


New NYPD Counter terrorism unit, armed with machine guns, will 'help with crowd control'


© Jen Chung/Gothamist

Police Commissioner Bratton at yesterday's press conference



Murders reached a historic low in NYC for 2014; overall crime was down across the board by nearly 5%; hell, even the holiday slowdown didn't really lead to any additional crime. So clearly, now is the time when NYC really needs to implement a new anti-terrorism program which would empower a team of NYPD officers to roam around the city carrying machine guns. What could go wrong?

Police Commissioner Bratton made the announcement earlier today at an event hosted by the Police Foundation at the Mandarin Oriental. He said that the new 350 cop unit, called The Strategic Response Group, will be dedicated to "disorder control and counterterrorism protection capabilities" against attacks like the hostage situation in Sydney, which the NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence John Miller said was an inevitability in NYC.


This new squad will be used to investigate and combat terrorist plots, lone wolf terrorists, and... protests. "It is designed for dealing with events like our recent protests, or incidents like Mumbai or what just happened in Paris," Bratton said, according to CBS.


"They'll be equipped and trained in ways that our normal patrol officers are not," Bratton explained. "They'll be equipped with all the extra heavy protective gear, with the long rifles and machine guns - unfortunately sometimes necessary in these instances." Capital NY adds that these officers will also be used "to assist on crime scenes, and help with crowd control and other large-scale events."


The pilot program will start in two precincts in Manhattan and two in Queens, though it's unclear when they want to launch it. Bratton said Mayor de Blasio was on board, and he expected the City Council to be as well. He also said he thinks this will help improve relationships between cops and local residents. "Cops will know their sectors and the citizens will know them," Bratton said. "They'll know the problem areas and the problem people. I truly believe when cops embrace their neighborhoods, their neighborhoods will embrace them back."


Already, local advocacy groups have spoken out against the plan; Priscilla Gonzalez, Organizing Director of Communities United for Police Reform, gave this statement.



Initial reports of Commissioner Bratton's plans suggest the opposite of progress. His demands for less oversight of the NYPD and a more militarized police force that would use counter-terrorism tactics against protestors are deeply misguided and frankly offensive. We need an NYPD that is more accountable to New Yorkers and that stops criminalizing our communities, especially when people are taking to the streets to voice legitimate concerns about discriminatory and abusive policing. Despite growing evidence that discriminatory broken windows is a failed and harmful policing strategy, Commissioner Bratton stubbornly continues to defend and expand it.



Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Cop facing life in prison for forcing teenage girl to have sex with multiple boys at his home over several years


© Cache County Sheriff's office

Cody C. Smith



A former Utah police officer, who changed his plea to no contest mid-trial, is facing life in prison for forcing a teenage girl to have sex with multiple teen boys over several years, starting when she was thirteen, the Deseret News is reporting.

Cody C. Smith, 40, of Logan, pleaded no contest Monday to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, each charge carrying a sentences of 6 years to life in prison. Prosecutors have indicated they will seek consecutive sentences for Smith, who will ask the judge to have the sentences run concurrently, according to court records.


Following his plea, Smith requested release "to get his affairs in order," however District Judge Brian Cannell ordered Smith to be taken into custody immediately "due to the nature of the offenses."


According to the original arrest warrant, Smith took the 13-year-old girl to his home and forced her to "go upstairs and start to undress, kiss and have sex" with a 13-year-old boy. The boy reportedly told Smith he was "LDS and naive" but Smith kept entering the room to provide instructions, forcing them to have sex.


Court documents state this scenario was repeated about six times through 2012.


Between January 2013 and February 2014, Smith forced the girl to have sexual relations with three other boys. In each case, Smith would "consistently" tell the boys to "go upstairs and have sex" with the girl, according to the charges. Police state that, in most cases, Smith would yell instructions to the couple through the door.


One boy told investigators he complied because he "felt like that was the only way he was going to get out of there, because it was late and it was a school night," according to court documents.


On another occasion, Smith told the teen couple to have sex while he left to get food. When he returned they told him they had complied, but he didn't believe them and made them have sex before he would feed them.


Prosecutors asked for a special setting for his March 11 sentencing, noting that there are a lot of victims and family members who have indicated they would like to address the court that day.


Smith also previously served as a deputy in the Cache County Sheriff's Office.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


More blaming the victim: Fox News contributor calls campus sex assault victims "bad girls" who like to be "naughty"




Fox News contributor Stacey Dash



During a discussion on reports that national sorority organizations are advising University of Virginia sorority members to avoid all fraternity events during "bid week" out of sexual assault concerns, a Fox News contributor suggested that some female students who have been assaulted were "bad girls" who like to be "naughty."

The University of Virginia has been the subject of investigations for on-campus sexual assaults prior to, and in the wake of a mostly discredited Rolling Stone story that appeared in the music magazine last year.


Appearing on Fox's , former actress Stacey Dash shook her head while saying she found the ban "ridiculous," referring to the college women as "girls," in video captured by Media Matters of America.


"It's ridiculous, "she said before reversing direction. "And I think - the girls, I think it's a good thing for the good girls, okay - women - to be told 'stay home, be safe.' The other bad girls - bad women - are the ones who like to be naughty, might go out and play and get hurt, and then, y'know..."


After trailing off, she added, "But the other thing about this, is that it then blames the alcohol and not the person, who over-drinks. So, you know, it's like the same thing with guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Alcohol doesn't get you drunk, you get yourself drunk."




Co-host Andrea Tantaros jumped in to say that the people she feels sorry for are the University of Virginia fraternity members, saying, "None of them have been convicted."

Watch the video below from Media Matters Of America:


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


French government 'invites you to be wary of those who do not eat baguettes'




A French government infographic titled: "jihadist radicalisation: the first signs that could alert you."



A French government infographic designed to help fight jihadist ideology gets widely shared online - but with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

On Wednesday the French government launched a website to counter terrorism in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Its message of national unity, aimed at young people who could be radicalised as well as the general public, quickly made a splash on the internet. The site was liked 17,000 times on Facebook; its official Twitter hashtag (#StopDJihadisme) was used 12,000 times; and a slick video meant to counter jihadist recruiters got over half a million hits.


But it didn't take long for sarcasm to emerge. And it was the government's infographic about radicalisation that seemed to catch the internet's attention most of all. It spells out eight "tell-tale signs" of radicalization for people to watch out for in others, such as withdrawing from friends and family, quitting sporting activity, terminating old friendships and changing the way you dress. "In fact, the campaign to #StopDjihadism isn't about identifying potential jihadists, it's about describing unemployed people," was one of the most widely retweeted quips.


The most cutting remarks were about the warning that those who change their eating habits - indicated in the infographic by a cross over a baguette-shaped object - are likely to become extremists. "The government invites you to be wary of those who do not eat baguettes," said one user , in a theme that was echoed by many others.


Jonathan Russell, Political Liaison Officer at the London-based counter-extremism Quilliam Foundation, told BBC Trending that sarcasm is to be expected when it comes to government-run campaigns. "The general response is that people don't like to be told how to think," he said. "This doesn't mean that those doing the mocking are supportive of extremism. It's more that because it is a centrally run campaign it lacks an element of credibility".





The caption reads: "They suddenly change their eating habits"



However he said he felt the campaign was a good and useful response to violent extremism in France. "It does look a bit ridiculous having a big cross through a baguette, but if you take the infographic holistically what it is saying is that radicalization is a complex process and it's all-pervasive: it affects lots of elements of life and all corners of society. What this campaign says is that every French citizen has a role to report things and stop it."

What about the Muslim response online? At around the same time as the government campaign was gaining popularity, another tag, #Ahmed8ans ("Ahmed aged 8"). It refers to the "arrest" of an eight-year old boy who, according to press reports , was summoned before police in Nice on Wednesday. BBC Trending has contacted his lawyer who spelled out his version of events. He said the child was asked by his teacher if he "was Charlie." He is of Muslim background and 8 years old. He said he was against Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet and told his teachers that he was with the terrorists. He was sent to the school director, who according to the lawyer's account asked the child three times in front of the class, "are you Charlie?" A police complaint was filed against the child, according to the lawyer. There was criticism and outcry online by those using the #Ahmed8ans tag, and it ended up with slightly more tweets than the #StopDJihadisme tag.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Zakharchenko: "Ukraine understands only the language of force"

Zakharchenko

© REUTERS/ Sergei Karpukhin

Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" Alexander Zakharchenko attends a news conference in Donetsk August 11, 2014.



"Ukraine understands only the language of force"--Zakharchenko interview given shortly after the destruction of a streetcar in Donetsk and his denunciation of the ceasefire.

Q: Aleksandr Vladimirovich, the meeting with the mother, it seems you are still under the influence of that meeting.


Zakharchenko: Yes, of course, it influenced me greatly. It's not the first nor the last time, and it's very difficult to talk to people like that. You know, they start to understand where they are once they arrive. I want them to come here as parents. One mother took her son back and told her relatives this is something like a radio station, Ukraine will be able to learn the truth through him, because when I talk to them I understand that Ukrainian media is not showing what is happening here, they show only what is convenient for them to show. Victorious "cyborgs", armed only with one grenade held in their teeth are defending the airport for 241 days, which we practically did not attack. But once we started our attack, it turned out that the victorious cyborgs could not stand against us for even two days, but only because we were wrong in our estimate of the number of units defending the airport.


[embedded content]




Q: You spoke to one mother face to face for 15 minutes. What are your impressions? Do you think they believed you? Or did they want to leave your office as soon as possible?

Zakharchenko: I think they understood something, I think I was able to plant a kernel or two of truth in them. The most important thing was that I was able to look into the soul of the son who came here. I think it's worth doing even at the cost of your nerves and time. Every meeting has an influence on their consciousness, slowly but surely. I think that it is possible to do bad things in life, but when you open someone's eyes to the truth, they'll do the same for a thousand people. It is worth the effort.


Q: Can you tell us about the difference between our and their soldiers?


Zakharchenko: Their spirit.


Q: Why?


Zakharchenko: You know, the people who are fighting on the Ukrainian side usually don't understand what they are fighting for. They have an ideology: defending Ukraine from Russian invaders. But when they come here they understand there are no Russian forces here, only people just like themselves who are defending their land, weapon in hand. That's what makes us much stronger. Secondly, we are fighting for a just cause. You may know a saying, "whoever has the truth on their side is the strongest". It doesn't matter how much artillery, tanks, aircraft, BMPs, mortars they have. I'll tell you this much, if you remember the movie and the attack of the border guards armed not with rifles but with chairs, engaging in hand-to-hand combat. They faced death against a more numerous enemy and won that battle. The moral force, the willingness to sacrifice oneself to save others, those are our main advantages. We have glorious ancestors and many examples in history. You know, I'm very glad. Many of our liberals and intellectuals cry about lost generations.


Q: That turned out to be untrue?


Zakharchenko: The call of the ancestors, the blood, all of that has been hidden within us on genetic level, and the moment those qualities are needed, they make themselves known. One can be an egotist, a villain, an alcoholic, living a worthless life, but then you realize that you did something good, that your children and grandchildren will be proud of you, because their grandfather fought at Ilovaysk or captured the New Terminal, or fought in Karlovka, Slavyansk, Dokuchaevsk, and Snezhnoye. We grow our heroes with time. Our soldiers will visit schools and tell about their battles, but especially about the purpose of this war. They will have something to say to our children.


Q: We invited to our studio a 16-year-old boy who went to fight at the age of 15. We also invited an 18-year-old who was wounded twice, and who has a Cross of St. George, and they are not the last ones. Don't you think we are repeating the events of the Great Patriotic War?


Zakharchenko: You know, this is the most terrible aspect of the war. We are not only repeating the war, but also an entire period of our country's history. In the space of six short months since the beginning of combat operations, we have seen the awakening among our people of a spirit that has been forming since ancient times, since the time of Kievan Rus, of Igor, of Oleg, of Svyatoslav, these noble warriors who defended Kiev against various foreign conquerors. Remember the Battle of Kulikovo Polye, the people who defended Sevastopol, those who defeated the Swedes at Poltava, those who fought for the Brest Fortress, who captured Berlin. The blood of all these people boiled up within us. I have a 17-year-old kid in my security detail who fought in Slavyansk, Starobeshevo, but he is no longer a child, for all intents and purposes. It is terrible to watch how our children become adults. We still consider them to be little. But when you look into the eyes of a 5-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy who starts telling you about terrible things with the look of a wise old man, and says "not I, but we, we must win." He perceives himself through the prism of the society, as its part. On the one hand I am proud of such children, they are more like my battle comrades than children. But on the other hand they lost their childhood, it was a rapid journey into adulthood. Many thanks to Poroshenko for that, he who won the election under pro-peace slogans. "I will stop the war". That's why people voted for him. They voted for him because he promised to end the war. But instead of fulfilling his promise, he only intensified the confrontation.


Q: Right now it's quiet in the city. There is unusual silence after yesterday's terrible tragedy. Is there something I don't know? What is the situation at the front line?


Zakharchenko: It's not quiet at the front, today's quiet is the result of earlier victories. I will say this plainly, yesterday's tragedy motivated the troops to such a degree that they are angered. Our intelligence is searching for the attackers, destroying everything in its path. Our faith in victory, in a just cause, the desire to avenge the civilian casualties, those are the main emotions which are motivating our soldiers. Thank God, our soldiers are precise and the shells are striking where they need to.


Q: You made two announcements today. One was the end of the ceasefire.


Zakharchenko: Honestly, it wasn't much of a ceasefire. I know many people are taking me to task because of the Minsk Agreements, friends are asking me many questions, why? What for? But once I start to explain, they agree. Now we understand that Ukraine understands only the language of force. When we speak the language of force, they understand us. When we try to resolve our problems through peaceful means, like civilized people, when we try to meet them half-way, they view it as a sign of our weakness. I am not a prophet, but I am certain that in the near future the Ukrainian president will be howling and demanding a ceasefire. I'll tell you why. He understands his army is worn down, equipment is destroyed, ammunition stocks are running low, they need time to replenish and restore themselves, regroup and receive reinforcements, or rotate units. This is the policy of a liar, not of a soldier. I fully understand who he is and what is is planning to do.




Q: And secondly, you said that you will return the bodies only to parents. What is the sense in that?

Zakharchenko: You saw my exchange with the Ukrainian officer, he did not even want to look at his dead soldiers. Believe me, I am the head of state, I came and I said that I am returning....I went there to return the flag and see that colonel because we had a certain disagreement concerning life in Donetsk. And I did that. But the attitude of Ukrainian officers toward their charges completely shocked me. I don't know how that's possible. Let's take Givi, for example, he is a battalion commander, he took a tank and freed his two prisoners, he stopped a breakthrough, this is a feat worthy of a man. He deserves respect, he takes care of his people. Concerning Motorola, for every one he loses he takes three. He never leaves his troops on the battlefield, which is as it should be. I can't figure out where the officer's honor and bravery, which existed for so long in the Ukrainian army, vanished. Givi and Motorola are not officers, they have no special education. They are simply of the people. But they are unquestionably talented. They have sufficient leadership qualities, they have charisma, they are commanders because of their conduct. I feel pity for such Ukrainian officers. The only thing I felt when transferring the flag was squeamishness. Mothers and fathers never abandon their children to their fate. They will take them back and bury them. I don't know the fate of these dead, but I am sure that their parents will bury them with dignity. I promised help with the transport and identification of the bodies. We will help in any way we can, it's the humanitarian way, it's God's way. We kill our enemies, but never dishonor their bodies. That is the main indicator of our treatment of people in this war. That's why we are stronger than our enemies, we don't beat those who have been defeated. It's our honor code.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.