Focused on providing independent journalism.

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

No tornadoes reported anywhere in the U.S. in March


© Justin Hobson

An F5 tornado.



With only about two-dozen twisters recorded so far this year during a period when 100 or more are typical, the U.S. appears to be in a tornado drought as cool, stable air prevents the ingredients of the violent storms from coming together, meteorologists said Friday.

No tornadoes have been reported so far in March, when tornado season often begins ramping up for parts of the country. The last time the U.S. had no twisters in March was nearly 50 years ago, according to figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Storm Prediction Center in Norman.


Forecasters at the prediction center reported earlier this week that since the beginning of the year, it has issued only four tornado watches and no severe thunderstorm watches — less than 10 percent of the average 52 tornado watches issued by mid-March. The center hasn't issued a watch in March, something that's never happened in its record of watches dating to 1970, said Greg Carbin, warning coordination meteorologist for NOAA's Storm Prediction Center.


"Every day that goes by is quite remarkable (because) we're normally seeing very active day-to-day weather somewhere in the country," Carbin said. "Four watches is also unprecedented.


Even in tornado-prone Oklahoma, the dominant weather pattern of cold, stable air that prevents a tornado's ingredients from coming together means the state is again starting storm season in sluggish fashion, a repeat of the year before, said state climatologist Gary McManus.


"We haven't had the prime conditions here in Tornado Alley because the predominant weather pattern doesn't lend itself to severe weather," McManus said. "Not only are we not seeing the tornadoes, we're not seeing the supercell storm systems that spawn these tornadoes."


Adam Houston, associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, cautioned that with spring just starting, so too is the peak time for tornadoes, and conditions are likely to change. For example, it was May when twisters raked the Oklahoma City suburbs of Moore and El Reno during a two-week period in 2013, killing dozens of people and injuring hundreds more.


"January and February are not active months, so (the tornado drought) hasn't been particularly surprising," he said. "If we're having this conversation in June, then there would be something substantial here."


The Saker interviews Paul Craig Roberts on the state of U.S. Empire and its plans for global control


I had been wanting to interview Paul Craig Roberts for a long time already. For many years I have been following his writings and interviews and every time I read what he had to say I was hoping that one day I would have the privilege do interview him about the nature of the US deep state and the Empire. Recently, I emailed him and asked for such an interview, and he very kindly agreed. I am very grateful to him for this opportunity.

The Saker


——-


The Saker: It has become rather obvious to many, if not most, people that the USA is not a democracy or a republic, but rather a plutocracy run by a small elite which some call "the 1%". Others speak of the "deep state". So my first question to you is the following. Could you please take the time to assess the influence and power of each of the following entities one by one. In particular, can you specify for each of the following whether it has a decision-making "top" position, or a decision-implementing "middle" position in the real structure of power (listed in no specific order)



  • Federal Reserve

  • Big Banking

  • Bilderberg

  • Council on Foreign Relations

  • Skull & Bones

  • CIA

  • Goldman Sachs and top banks

  • "Top 100 families" (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Dutch Royal Family, British Royal Family, etc.)

  • Israel Lobby

  • Freemasons and their lodges

  • Big Business: Big Oil, Military Industrial Complex, etc.

  • Other people or organizations not listed above?


Who, which group, what entity would you consider is really at the apex of power in the current US polity?

Paul Craig Roberts: The US is ruled by private interest groups and by the neoconservative ideology that History has chosen the US as the "exceptional and indispensable" country with the right and responsibility to impose its will on the world.


In my opinion the most powerful of the private interest groups are:

The Military/security Complex

The 4 or 5 mega-sized "banks too big to fail" and Wall Street

The Israel Lobby

Agribusiness

The Extractive industries (oil, mining, timber).


The interests of these interest groups coincide with those of the neoconservatives. The neoconservative ideology supports American financial and military-political imperialism or hegemony.


There is no independent American print or TV media. In the last years of the Clinton regime, 90% of the print and TV media was concentrated in 6 mega-companies. During the Bush regime, National Public Radio lost its independence. So the media functions as a Ministry of Propaganda.


Both political parties, Republicans and Democrats, are dependent on the same private interest groups for campaign funds, so both parties dance to the same masters. Jobs offshoring destroyed the manufacturing and industrial unions and deprived the Democrats of Labor Union political contributions. In those days, Democrats represented the working people and Republicans represented business.


The Federal Reserve is there for the banks, mainly the large ones.The Federal Reserve was created as lender of last resort to prevent banks from failing because of runs on the bank or withdrawal of deposits. The New York Fed, which conducts the financial interventions, has a board that consists of the executives of the big banks. The last three Federal Reserve chairmen have been Jews, and the current vice chairman is the former head of the Israeli central bank. Jews are prominent in the financial sector, for example, Goldman Sachs. In recent years, the US Treasury Secretaries and heads of the financial regulatory agencies have mainly been the bank executives responsible for the fraud and excessive debt leverage that set off the last financial crisis.


In the 21st century, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have served only the interests of the large banks. This has been at the expense of the economy and the population. For example, retired people have had no interest income for eight years in order that the financial institutions can borrow at zero costs and make money.


No matter how rich some families are, they cannot compete with powerful interest groups such as the military/security complex or Wall Street and the banks. Long established wealth can look after its interests, and some, such as the Rockefellers, have activist foundations that most likely work hand in hand with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund and encourage various pro-American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in countries that the US wants to influence or overthrow, such as occurred in Ukraine. The NGOs are essentially US Fifth Columns and operate under such names as "human rights," "democracy," etc. A Chinese professor told me that the Rockefeller Foundation had created an American University in China and is used to organize various anti-regime Chinese. At one time, and perhaps still, there were hundreds of US and German financed NGOs in Russia, possibly as many as 1,000.


I don't know if the Bilderbergs do the same. Possibly they are just very rich people and have their proteges in governments who try to protect their interests. I have never seen any signs of Bilderbergs or Masons or Rothchilds affecting congressional or executive branch decisions.


On the other hand, the Council for Foreign Relations is influential. The council consists of former government policy officials and academics involved in foreign policy and international relations. The council's publication, Foreign Affairs, is the premier foreign policy forum. Some journalists are also members. When I was proposed for membership in the 1980s, I was blackballed.


Skull & Bones is a Yale University secret fraternity. A number of universities have such secret fraternities. For example, the University of Virginia has one, and the University of Georgia. These fraternities do not have secret governmental plots or ruling powers. Their influence would be limited to the personal influence of the members, who tend to be sons of elite families. In my opinion, these fraternities exist to convey elite status to members. They have no operational functions.


The Saker: What about individuals? Who are, in your opinion, the most powerful people in the USA today? Who takes the final, top level, strategic decision?


Paul Craig Roberts: There really are no people powerful in themselves. Powerful people are ones that powerful interest groups are behind. Ever since Secretary of Defense William Perry privatized so much of the military in 1991, the military/security complex has been extremely powerful, and its power is further amplified by its ability to finance political campaigns and by the fact that it is a source of employment in many states. Essentially Pentagon expenditures are controlled by defense contractors.


The Saker: I have always believed that in international terms, organizations such as NATO, the EU or all the others are only a front, and that the real alliance which controls the planet are the ECHELON countries: US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand aka "AUSCANNZUKUS" (they are also referred to as the "Anglosphere" or the "Five Eyes") with the US and the UK are the senior partners while Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the junior partners here. Is this model correct?


Paul Craig Roberts: NATO was a US creation allegedly to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. Its purpose expired in 1991. Today NATO provides cover for US aggression and provides mercenary forces for the American Empire. Britain, Canada, Australia, are simply US vassal states just as are Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the rest. There are no partners; just vassals. It is Washington's empire, no one else's.


The US favors the EU, because it is easier to control than the individual countries.


The Saker: It is often said that Israel controls the USA. Chomsky, and others, say that it is the USA which controls Israel. How would you characterize the relationship between Israel and the USA - does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog? Would you say that the Israel Lobby is in total control of the USA or are there still other forces capable of saying "no" to the Israel Lobby and impose their own agenda?


Paul Craig Roberts: I have never seen any evidence that the US controls Israel. All the evidence is that Israel controls the US, but only its MidEast policy. In recent years, Israel or the Israel Lobby, has been able to control or block academic appointments in the US and tenure for professors considered to be critics of Israel. Israel has successfully reached into both Catholic and State universities to block tenure and appointments. Israel can also block some presidential appointments and has vast influence over the print and TV media. The Israel Lobby also has plenty of money for political campaign funds and never fails to unseat US Representatives and Senators considered critical of Israel. The Israel lobby was able to reach into the black congressional district of Cynthia McKinney, a black woman, and defeat her reelection. As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "No American President can stand up to Israel." Adm. Moorer could not even get an official investigation of Israel's deadly attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.


Anyone who criticizes Israeli policies even in a helpful way is labeled an "anti-Semite."


In American politics, media, and universities, this is a death-dealing blow. You might as well get hit with a hellfire missile.


The Saker: Which of the 12 entities of power which I listed above have, in your opinion, played a key role in the planning and execution of the 9/11 "false flag" operation? After all, it is hard to imagine that this was planned and prepared between the inauguration of GW Bush and September 11th - it must have been prepared during the years of the Clinton Administration. Is it not true the the Oklahoma City bombing was a rehearsal for 9/11?


Paul Craig Roberts: In my opinion 9/11 was the product of the neoconservatives, many of whom are Jewish allied with Israel, Dick Cheney, and Israel. Its purpose was to provide "the new Pearl Harbor" that the neoconservatives said was necessary to launch their wars of conquest in the Middle East. I don't know how far back it was planned, but Silverstein was obviously part of it and he had not had the WTC for very long before 9/11.


As for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, US Air Force General Partin, the Air Force's munitions expert, prepared an expert report proving beyond all doubt that the building blew up from the inside out and that the truck bomb was cover. Congress and the media ignored his report. The patsy, McVeigh, was already set up, and that was the only story allowed.


The Saker: Do you think that the people who run the USA today realize that they are on a collision course with Russia which could lead to thermonuclear war? If yes, why would they take such a risk? Do they really believe that at the last moment Russian will "blink" and back down, or do they actually believe that they can win a nuclear war? Are they not afraid that in a nuclear conflagration with Russia they will lose everything they have, including their power and even their lives?


Paul Craig Roberts: I am as puzzled as much as you. I think Washington is lost in hubris and arrogance and

is more or less insane. Also, there is belief that the US can win a nuclear war with Russia. There was an article in Foreign Affairs around 2005 or 2006 in which this conclusion was reached. The belief in the winnability of nuclear war has been boosted by faith in ABM defenses. The argument is that the US can hit Russia so hard in a preemptive first strike that Russia would not retaliate in fear of a second blow.


The Saker: How do you assess the current health of the Empire? For many years we have seen clear signs of decline, but there is still not visible collapse. Do you believe that such a collapse is inevitable and, if not, how could it be prevented? Will we see the day when the US Dollar suddenly become worthless or will another mechanism precipitate the collapse of this Empire?


Paul Craig Roberts: The US economy is hollowed out. There has been no real median family income growth for decades. Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman used an expansion of consumer credit to take the place of the missing growth in consumer income, but the population is now too indebted to take on more. So there is nothing to drive the economy. So many manufacturing and tradable professional service jobs such as software engineering have been moved offshore that the middle class has shrunk. University graduates cannot get jobs that support an independent existence. So they can't form households, buy houses, appliances and home furnishings. The government produces low inflation measures by not measuring inflation and low unemployment rates by not measuring unemployment. The financial markets are rigged, and gold is driven down despite rising demand by selling uncovered shorts in the futures market. It is a house of cards that has stood longer than I thought possible. Apparently, the house of cards can stand until the rest of the world ceases to hold the US dollar as reserves.


Possibly the empire has put too much stress on Europe by involving Europe in a conflict with Russia. If Germany, for example, were to pull out of NATO, the empire would collapse, or if Russia can find the wits to finance Greece, Italy, and Spain in exchange for them leaving the Euro and EU, the empire would suffer a fatal blow.


Alternatively, Russia might tell Europe that Russia has no alternative but to target European capitals with nuclear weapons now that Europe has joined the US in conducting war against Russia.


The Saker: Russia and China have done something unique in history and they have gone beyond the traditional model of forming an alliance: they have agreed to become interdependent - one could say that they have agreed to a symbiotic relationship. Do you believe that those in charge of the Empire have understood the tectonic change which has just happen or are they simply going into deep denial because reality scares them too much?


Paul Craig Roberts: Stephen Cohen says that there is simply no foreign policy discussion. There is no debate. I think the empire thinks that it can destabilize Russia and China and that is one reason Washington has color revolutions working in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. As Washington is determined to prevent the rise of other powers and is lost in hubris and arrogance, Washington probably believes that it will succeed. After all, History chose Washington.


The Saker: In your opinion, do presidential elections still matter and, if yes, what is your best hope for 2016? I am personally very afraid of Hillary Clinton whom I see as an exceptionally dangerous and outright evil person, but with the current Neocon influence inside the Republican, can we really hope for a non-Neocon candidate to win the GOP nomination?


Paul Craig Roberts: The only way a presidential election could matter would be if the elected president had behind him a strong movement. Without a movement, the president has no independent power and no one to appoint who will do his bidding. Presidents are captives. Reagan had something of a movement, just enough that we were able to cure stagflation despite Wall Street's opposition and we were able to end the cold war despite the opposition of the CIA and the military/security complex. Plus Reagan was very old and came from a long time ago. He assumed the office of the president was powerful and acted that way.


The Saker: What about the armed forces? Can you imagine a Chairman of the JCS saying "no, Mr President, that is crazy, we will not do this" or do you expect the generals to obey any order, including one starting a nuclear war against Russia? Do you have any hope that the US military could step in and stop the "crazies" currently in power in the White House and Congress?


Paul Craig Roberts: The US military is a creature of the armaments industries. The whole purpose of making general is to be qualified to be a consultant to the "defense" industry, or to become an executive or on the board of a "defense" contractor. The military serves as the source of retirement careers when the generals make the big money. The US military is totally corrupt. Read Andrew Cockburn's book, Kill Chain.


The Saker: If the USA is really deliberately going down the path towards war with Russia - what should Russia do? Should Russia back down and accept to be subjugated as a preferable option to a thermonuclear war, or should Russia resist and thereby accept the possibility of a thermonuclear war? Do you believe that a very deliberate and strong show of strength on the part of Russia could deter a US attack?


Paul Craig Roberts: I have often wondered about this. I can't say that I know. I think Putin is humane enough to surrender rather than to be part of the destruction of the world, but Putin has to answer to others inside Russia and I doubt the nationalists would stand for surrender.


In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response. Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.


Putin should also make sure China understands that China represents the same perceived threat to the US as Russia and that the two countries need to stand together. Perhaps if Russia and China were to maintain their forces on a nuclear alert, not the top one, but an elevated one that conveyed recognition of the American threat and conveyed this threat to the world, the US could be isolated.


Perhaps if the Indian press, the Japanese Press, the French and German press, the UK press, the Chinese and Russian press began reporting that Russia and China wonder if they will receive a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington the result would be to prevent the attack.


As far as I can tell from my many media interviews with the Russian media, there is no Russian awareness of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Russians think that there is some kind of misunderstanding about Russian intentions. The Russian media does not understand that Russia is unacceptable, because Russia is not a US vassal. Russians believe all the Western bullshit about "freedom and democracy" and believe that they are short on both but making progress. In other words, Russians have no idea that they are targeted for destruction.


The Saker: What are, in your opinion, the roots of the hatred of so many members of the US elites for Russia? Is that just a leftover from the Cold War, or is there another reason for the almost universal russophobia amongst US elites? Even during the Cold War, it was unclear whether the US was anti-Communist or anti-Russian? Is there something in the Russian culture, nation or civilization which triggers that hostility and, if yes, what is it?


Paul Craig Roberts: The hostility toward Russia goes back to the Wolfowttz Doctrine:



"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."



While the US was focused on its MidEast wars, Putin restored Russia and blocked Washington's planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran. The "first objective" of the neocon doctrine was breached. Russia had to be brought into line. That is the origin of Washington's attack on Russia. The dependent and captive US and European media simply repeats "the Russian Threat" to the public, which is insouciant and otherwise uninformed.

The offense of Russian culture is also there - Christian morals, respect for law and humanity, diplomacy in place of coercion, traditional social mores - but these are in the background. Russia is hated because Russia (and China) is a check on Washington's unilateral uni-power. This check is what will lead to war.


If the Russians and Chinese do not expect a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington, they will be destroyed.


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.


Update: No distress call from pilots of downed German passenger jet, which 'disintegrated' in French Alps after suddenly plunging at 'catastrophic speed'


© Unknown

An aerial photo shows what appears to be wreckage from the crash of a Germanwings plane in the French Alps, between Barcelonnette and Digne.



A rescue helicopter has landed at the site of the Germanwings air disaster in the French Alps to find the plane "" and no survivors.

The Airbus A320 with 150 people on board came down in a mountainous region, at an altitude of around 6,500ft, between Barcelonnette and Digne.


After taking off at 9.55am (8.55am UK time), a distress signal was issued for flight 4U 9525 at 10.47am (9.47am UK time) after it found itself in an "" on its route from Barcelona to Dusseldorf.


France's Prime Minister Manuel Valls said a helicopter had managed to land near the crash site but found no survivors.


Gilbert Sauvan, of the local council, told newspaper: "."


France's President Francois Hollande said: "It's a tragedy on our soil."


Spain's Deputy Prime Minister, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, said 45 of those on board are thought to be Spanish. Germanwings said there were 67 Germans on board.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel was "deeply shaken" by news of the crash, her spokesman said.


French Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet said debris from the crash had been found at an altitude of 2,000 metres.


He added that he expected "" search and rescue operation because of the area's remoteness.


Emergency workers were not expected to reach the scene for several hours.


Eric Ciotti, the head of the regional council, said search-and-rescue teams were on the way to the crash site at Meolans-Revels.


Flight-tracking data indicated the aircraft plummeted from 40,000ft to 6,200ft in less than eight minutes before it crashed.


French aviation authorities said that the plane, operated by Lufthansa's budget airline, did not issue a distress call and that air traffic controllers had raised the alarm.


Aviation journalist Anthony Davis said: "The log suggests it went straight down at a significant rate, up to 5,000 feet per minute at one point, which suggests it happened in a matter of seconds.



© AFP

A helicopter of the French civil security services flies near Seyne, south-eastern France, on March 24, 2015, near the site where a Germanwings Airbus A320 crashed in the French Alps.



"the pilots did not send a typical distress call, a squawk of 770.

""


A total of 144 passengers, two pilots and four cabin crew were on board the 24-year-old plane. A spokeswoman for the German town of Haltern said there was reason to believe the passengers included 16 pupils and two teachers from one school .


Two babies were also among the passengers.


Germanwings chief executive Thomas Winkelmann told a news conference the pilot had more than 10 years experience, including more than 6,000 flight hours on A320s.


He said the firm would do everything possible to establish the cause of the crash.


The owner of a campground near the crash site, Pierre Polizzi, said he heard the aircraft making strange noises just before it crashed.


"I heard a series of loud noises in the air," he said.


".


"The noise I heard was long - like eight seconds - as if the plane was going more slowly than a military plane speed. There was another long noise after about 30 seconds."


Weather conditions were calm at the time the plane came down and Mr Valls said the causes of the crash were not yet known.


He said he had activated the ministerial crisis cell to help coordinate the aftermath of the crash. He added that he had sent Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve to the site.


Reports suggest debris at the crash site is not scattered, indicating there had been no mid-air explosion, and US officials say they do not believe terrorism was involved.


Lufthansa wrote on its Twitter page: "


"."



© ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/Getty Images

A recovery operation is mounted near Seyne, south-eastern France, near the Germanwings crash site.



German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in a tweet: "."

Captain Mike Vivian, former Head of Flight Operations at the Civil Aviation Authority, told Sky News the A320 had a relatively good safety record.


"," he said.


"


"nobody goes low in the Alps unless you are landing at Zurich or Geneva.


"."


'Comply or die' in the American Police State



"Do exactly what I say, and we'll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It's your choice: Comply, or die."— "'Comply or Die' policing must stop," Daily KOS



Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough.

Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough.


And Americans of every age and skin color are being taught the painful lesson that the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.


It doesn't matter where you live—big city or small town—it's the same scenario being played out over and over again in which government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry. In turn, Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question.


Franklin Graham, the heir to Billy Graham's evangelical empire, offered up this "simple" piece of advice for "Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and everybody else" hoping to survive an encounter with the police:



Most police shootings can be avoided. It comes down to respect for authority and obedience. If a police officer tells you to stop, you stop. If a police officer tells you to put your hands in the air, you put your hands in the air. If a police officer tells you to lay down face first with your hands behind your back, you lay down face first with your hands behind your back. It's as simple as that. Even if you think the police officer is wrong—YOU OBEY.



Clearly, Graham's message resonated with a core group of Americans: almost 200,000 individuals "liked" the message on Facebook, with an astounding 83,000 fans sharing his words of advice with their own friends, none of whom seem to recall that Jesus Christ, whom they claim to follow and model their lives after, not only stood up to the police state of his day but was put to death for it.

It's not just mainstream evangelicals who have been brainwashed into believing that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state. In the wake of a grand jury's decision not to indict the police officer responsible for the choking death of Eric Garner, Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, declared:

"We have to teach our children, our sons and our daughters, no matter what they look like, to respect New York City police officers, teach them to comply with New York City police officers even if they think it's unjust ."



Similarly, Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:

"If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you . Don't argue with me, don't call me names, don't tell me that I can't stop you, don't say I'm a racist pig, don't threaten that you'll sue me and take away my badge. Don't scream at me that you pay my salary, and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me."



In other words, it doesn't matter if you're in the right, it doesn't matter if a cop is in the wrong, it doesn't matter if you're being treated with less than the respect you deserve. If you want to emerge from a police encounter with your life and body intact, then you'd better comply, submit, obey orders, respect authority and generally do whatever a cop tells you to do.

In this way, the old police motto to "protect and serve" has become "comply or die." As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and in my forthcoming book Battlefield America: The War on the American People , this is the unfortunate, misguided, perverse message being beaten, shot, tasered and slammed into our collective consciousness, and it is regrettably starting to take root.


Despite the growing number of criminal charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers that be, the problems we're experiencing in terms of police shootings have little to do with rebellion or belligerence or resistance.


Rather, the problem arises when compliance doesn't happen fast enough to suit the police.


For instance, 15-year-old Jamar Nicholson was shot in the back by police after they spotted him standing next to a friend holding a toy gun. "Officers ordered the boy to drop the weapon multiple times," reports the Los Angeles Times. "When he didn't comply, one of the officers opened fire."


Martese Johnson, a 20-year-old college student, unarmed and in the process of walking away from a bar where he'd just been denied entry for being underage, was tackled by police and had his head slammed to the ground and bloodied, allegedly for being intoxicated, belligerent and using a fake ID. Johnson, who it turns out was polite, had a legal ID and was not drunk, survived the encounter after 10 stitches to his head.


And then there was Christopher Lollie, who was tasered, arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction of the legal process for refusing to identify himself to police while waiting to pick his children up from their daycare. Footage of the encounter shows Lollie asking, "Why do I have to let you know who I am? I don't have to let you know who I am if I haven't broken any laws." The charges against Lollie were eventually dropped.


Nicholson, Johnson and Lollie aren't the only Americans being taught a hard lesson about compliance at the end of a government-issued gun.


World War II veteran John Wrana, 95 years old, dependent on a walker to get around, and a resident of an assisted living center, was rushed by five police officers—one with a Taser and riot shield, others with handguns and a 12-gauge Mossberg pump shotgun—after refusing treatment for a urinary tract infection and brandishing a shoehorn . One of the officers, allegedly fearing for his safety, fired multiple beanbag rounds at Wrana at close range, who bled to death from internal injuries.


James Howard Allen, 74 years old and recovering at home from a surgery, was shot and killed by police who were asked by family members to do a welfare check on him. When police crashed through the man's back door, they found Allen, perhaps having just awoken and fearing a burglary, armed with a gun.


These shootings and deaths, and many more like them, constitute a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to police killing unarmed American citizens, and yet you'd be hard-pressed to find exact numbers for how many unarmed citizens are killed by police every year. Indeed, while police go to great lengths to document how many police are killed in the line of duty, police agencies aren't actually required to report the number of times police officers engage in homicide. Suffice it to say, however, that the numbers are significantly underreported.


One website estimates that police kill on average three citizens a day in the United States. In 2014, 1100 individuals were killed by police in the U.S. That's 70 times more than other first-world nations, and almost 20 times more than the number of U.S. troops killed in the same year in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Rarely are these officers given more than a slap on the wrist. More often than not, they operate with impunity, are shielded from justice by the governmental bureaucracy, and are granted qualified immunity by the courts.


A recent report by the Justice Department on police shootings in Philadelphia, which boasts the fourth largest police department in the country, found that half of the unarmed people shot by police over a seven-year span were "shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat."


Now it's one thing for those who back the police—no matter what the circumstance—to insist that if you just obey a police officer, you'll be safe. But what happens when compliance isn't enough?


What happens if you play it safe, comply and do whatever a police officer tells you to do, don't talk back, don't threaten, and don't walk away—in other words, don't do anything that even hints at resistance—and still, you find yourself staring down the wrong end of a government agent's gun? After all, the news is riddled with reports of individuals who didn't resist when confronted by police and still got tasered, tackled or shot simply because they looked at police in a threatening manner or moved in a way that made an officer "fear" for his safety.


For instance, Levar Jones, pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, was shot after complying with a police officer's order to retrieve his license. The trooper justified his shooting of the unarmed man by insisting that Jones reached for his license "aggressively."


What more could Jones or anyone have done to protect himself in that situation? How does a citizen protect himself against a police officer's tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective "feeling" of being threatened?


The short answer is you can't.


The assurance of safety in exchange for compliance is a false, misguided doctrine that has us headed towards a totalitarian regime the likes of which the world has seen before.


Rest assured, if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we'll find ourselves repeating history. However, history also shows us a different path, one that involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.


Indeed, had Christ merely complied with the Roman police state, there would have been no crucifixion and no Christian religion. Had Gandhi meekly fallen in line with the British Empire's dictates, the Indian people would never have won their independence. Had Martin Luther King Jr. obeyed the laws of his day, there would have been no civil rights movement. And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.




The long answer, therefore, is that we must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.

No matter what path you follow, it will be fraught with peril. America is in the midst of a nervous breakdown, brought about by prolonged exposure to the American police state, and there are few places that are safe anymore.


A good test is this: if you live in a community that has welcomed the trappings of the police state with open arms (surveillance cameras, forced DNA extractions, Stingray devices, red light cameras, private prisons, etc.), all the while allowing its police forces to militarize, weaponize and operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, then you don't live in a democratic republic—you live in a microcosm of the American police state.


If you have no real say in how your local law enforcement operates, if the only oversight of police actions is carried out by fellow officers, if any attempt to criticize the police is edited out or not covered by your local newspaper or TV station, drowned out by your fellow citizens, or intimidated into silence by your local police, then you have no recourse when it comes to police abuses.


Finally, if, despite having done nothing wrong, you feel nervous during a police encounter, you fear doing or saying the wrong thing in front of an officer will get you shot, and your local police dress and act like extensions of the military and treat you like a suspect, then it's safe to say that you are not the one holding the upper hand in the master-servant relationship anymore.


This is the death rattle of the American dream, which was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.


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.


US Supreme Court refuses challenge to voter ID law, dubbed 'Recipe for Disaster'

Gov Walker

© crooksandliars.com

Governor Scott Walker gets his way with the blessing of the Supreme Court.



In a move that will impact hundreds of thousands of voters and may carry national implications, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's restrictive voter identification law.

Immediately after the high court rejected, without comment, to hear the case of , the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emergency motion with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the court stop the law from taking immediate effect. In Wisconsin, voting is currently underway in the April 7 general election as absentee ballots have already been sent to voters and early voting began Monday morning. ACLU warned that if the law is immediately enacted, some 300,000 Wisconsin voters will be impacted.


"Imposing a new restriction in the midst of an election will disenfranchise voters who have already cast their ballots," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "It is a recipe for disaster."



Voting rights advocates warn that Walker's voter ID law, which requires voters to produce one of a few specified forms of photo identification in order to vote, is among the most restrictive in the nation and disproportionately impacts Black and Latino voters, who are more likely to lack the required identifications.





"The values enshrined in our Constitution, and protected in the Voting Rights Act, are undermined when burdensome laws like photo ID requirements make the ballot box inaccessible to any eligible voters," said Penda D. Hair, co-director of the national civil rights organization the Advancement Project. "Our elections should always be free, fair and accessible to all citizens."

According to the ACLU, which along with the ACLU of Wisconsin, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, and Dechert LLP, are co-counsel in this case, the Wisconsin law stands in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the 24th and 14th amendments because it effectively imposes an unconstitutional poll tax on eligible voters. Further, it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans the use of voting practices that have a disparate negative impact on racial and language minorities.



In a press statement on Monday, Rev. Michelle Yvette Townsend de López, lead pastor of Milwaukee's Cross Lutheran Church, said the announcement was "disheartening to all who believe in the values of a just democracy. After earlier generations fought for voting rights, the Supreme Court's failure to intervene to hear and possibly halt this discriminatory law—the modern-day version of Jim Crow—is discouraging. We will not stop our fight, however, to ensure that all people can participate in our democracy. Regardless of age, race, gender or economic status, every eligible voter deserves to have their voices heard."

The Supreme Court's action is seen as a big win for the Republican governor, whose policies frequently mirror those advocated for by the powerful conservative-backers, the Koch brothers.


More broadly, there is concern that the Supreme Court's refusal to challenge the Wisconsin law now paves the way for similar legislation, such as in Texas and North Carolina, where new voter ID laws are currently being challenged in local courts.


"Permitting these laws to go into effect and disenfranchising thousands of voters casts a cloud on the integrity of our democracy, especially as we head into the 2016 presidential election," Ho added. "It's a disgrace." And Katherine Culliton-González, senior attorney with the Advancement Project, agreed that combating such laws is critical, "not only in Wisconsin but on a national scale."


Culliton-González continues: "The rise of photo ID requirements burden or disenfranchise millions of registered voters who lack the limited forms of identification required, who are disproportionately women, voters of color, youth, the elderly and persons with disabilities. The Supreme Court passed up a critical opportunity to intervene and protect American voters from losing our say in our democracy."


More optimistically, Rick Hasen at the notes that the Court's refusal may end up being a "blessing in disguise." The liberal justices, Hasen speculates, may be hoping that pending legislation in North Carolina and Texas "will be better vehicles for getting voter ID laws struck down."




Hasen continues: "As I've long argued, the best way for liberals to cut their losses is to stay out of the Supreme Court when possible. Things could have been worse if the Court took Wisconsin than if they didn't. And if you trust Justice Ginsburg, trust her her in not voting to grant cert in this case."

Until today, the law had been placed on hold by the Supreme Court while it considered whether to hear the case.


Sinkhole devours part of street in Cleveland, Ohio

Sinkhole

© WOIO

Part of Eddy Road collapsing into a sinkhole



While drivers across the city look out for potholes, residents who live along Eddy Road, south of the Shoreway worry about a much bigger problem. Part of their street was swallowed up by a big sinkhole.

"It's scary, it's scary. That's literally at the corner of my street," said Unique Patterson, a resident who has to drive past it on her way home.


Several neighbors say they noticed part of the asphalt collapsing yesterday. Within a matter of minutes there was a car crater in the middle of the street.




While many potholes have the potential to do some costly damage to vehicles, this hole can swallow up an entire car and everyone in it. That's why the people who live on this street are worried.

"We might be running down the street and another part of the street be messed up," said Antonio Adams.


Like Adams, many here are wondering if there are other sinkholes nearby and whether they should be driving so close to this one.


19 Action News reporter Bill Safos made sure the soil in and around it was stable before stepping into it to find several feet of hallow ground extending under the roadway that cars were still driving on.


"We might get injured," said Adams.


According to the Mayor's Media Relations Director, the City of Cleveland was told about the sinkhole Friday night.


It couldn't be fixed then but city workers put up yellow tape and orange barrels to keep cars away. Until it's fixed, neighbors say they're watching drivers dodge a disaster.


SOTT FOCUS: Crimea: The Way Home - EN Subtitles - Full Documentary (VIDEO)

crimea way back home

This is Andrey Kondrashov's documentary on the return of Crimea to Russia, aired in Russia on March 15, and now available with English subtitles. It has been a year since Crimeans took to the polls to vote for returning to their Motherland and leaving wretched Ukraine behind. The Western powers - led, as ever, by the US and UK - are determined to portray this momentous historic event as an imperial land-grab by Russia, and that it caused the subsequent civil war between Kiev and the breakaway provinces in the country's East.

However, as this excellent documentary shows, the Russian government could see that the violent manner in which the elected Ukrainian leader Yanukovich had been ousted from power - with American fingerprints all over it - meant chaos would soon spread throughout Ukraine, and that the majority ethnic Russian population in Crimea would be among the worst hit by neo-Nazi militias terrorizing anyone whom they considered 'insufficiently loyal' to the US-selected regime. When President Yanukovich fled the capital on February 22nd 2013, President Putin set in motion a series of responses that would present the first real (and successful) challenge to American imperial hegemony.


‌ [embedded content]


A Rossiya One production, EN subtitles by Vox Populi Evo (VPE). Uploaded to LiveLeak by VPE, in 14 parts, on 22 March 2015


In this must-watch documentary, you'll learn:



  • how Russia saved President Yanukovich of Ukraine

  • how Crimeans returning from revolution in Kiev tasted the the rage of the Right Sektor 'Maidan orcs'

  • how members of the Berkut police force escaped to Crimea and helped set up people's militias to defend the peninsula, not least by preventing Kiev military jets from landing at Sevastopol's airport

  • how these civilian militias defended against an organized takeover of the Crimean Parliament in Sevastopol

  • that most Crimean Tatars sided with the ethnic Russian population, despite efforts by the coup organizers to generate an ethnic split between them

  • how the militias came together to blockade repeated efforts by the 'Maidan orcs' (Right Sektor fascists) to enter the peninsula - by road, train and air

  • how the Crimean Referendum was enacted following near unanimous support from the people's representatives in the Crimean Parliament

  • how Berkut forces were joined by Kuban Cossacks from across the Black Sea region, including veterans of Russia's Afghan War, to defend Crimea from efforts by the new regime to send in weapons and explosives

  • how, having prevented Kiev from deploying 'Maidan orcs' via air, rail and road, Russia's Black Sea Fleet blockaded the Ukrainian navy from leaving its home port

  • how the Russian military placed the brand new Coastal Defence System 'Bastion-P' at locations along Crimea's southern coast. Once activated, the approaching USS Destroyer turned around at full-speed before Russian military jets chased the American warship south

  • how the 'Night Wolves' biker gang joined in the defence of Crimea in Yalta by kidnapping Ukrainian General Mikhail Koval and uncovering weapons caches left by the Ukies prior to the coup

  • how the Crimean citizen militias and Russian soldiers stationed in Sevastopol peacefully neutralized 20,000 Ukrainian forces stationed on the peninsula, many of whom then defected to Russia


See the following news coverage for more on the documentary and conditions in Crimea one year later: