Wednesday, September 21, 2016

IRS Chief Requests Not To Be Impeached Despite Admitting He Misled Congress

ORIGINAL LINK

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen expressed "regret" to Congress on Wednesday for his agency’s past mistreatment of tea party groups, but ahead of a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, the top IRS official said he has cooperated with congressional investigators "and does not deserve to be impeached."

koskinen_0.jpg

In his prepared remarks, Koskinen said that impeaching him would be "improper" adding that "it would create disincentives for many good people to serve" not to mention that his impeachment would "slow the pace of reform and progress at the IRS."

Ostensibly he was refering to reform whereby conservative groups are no longer targeted by the IRS under due political pressure.

His request to remain at the IRS took place even as Koskinen acknowledged that the IRS bungled tea party applications, and that he himself gave wrong information to Congress.  As the Washington Examiner reported earlier, at a hearing designed to lay the ground for his possible impeachment, Koskinen pulled the John Stumpf defense, suggesting he was let down by his subordinates, who allowed hundreds of backup tapes to be destroyed, losing tens of thousands of emails from former senior executive Lois Lerner.

It is the loss of those emails, even as they were under a subpoena issued by Congress, that has landed Mr. Koskinen in the hot seat, with conservative Republicans demanding he be ousted from office for his behavior. Koskinen in 2014 testified that all of the information was being preserved, but now says that was faulty information and he, too, was misinformed.

Impeachment proponents say that Koskinen failed to comply with a subpoena for communications to and from former IRS official Lois Lerner, since back-up tapes containing Lerner’s emails were erased. They also allege that Koskinen made false and misleading statements to Congress about the tapes and emails.

Koskinen said that he testified based on his knowledge at the time and asked the IRS to comply fully with Congress. However, he acknowledged on Wednesday that some information was not preserved and that some of his testimony later turned out to be inaccurate, according to The Hill.

“I regret both of those failings,” he said. “I can also tell you that, with the benefit of hindsight, even closer communication with Congress would have been advisable.... I accept that it is up to you to judge my overall record, but I believe impeachment would be improper,” Mr. Koskinen told the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chairman of the panel, however, offered few clues
about whether he might throw his support behind the impeachment effort.

The IRS chief flatly denied that he gave orders for the backup tapes to be deleted, saying he had actually issued orders that everything related to the tea party targeting be preserved. He said that message was received by everybody save for two workers on the graveyard shift at the West Virginia facility where the deletions happened. Explaining that he is essentially irreplacable, he said if he were to go, it would be tougher to hire good talent in the future, and he said it would derail the improvements he’s been able to make at the tax agency.

Wednesday’s hearing came only after GOP leaders, who’d been reluctant to pursue impeachment, had their hand forced by House conservatives. They were unswayed by Mr. Koskinen’s defense.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said the chain of events was suspicious, and said impeachment and removal is the right punishment. “All we’re asking is this guy no longer hold this office,” he said. “In light of this fact pattern, I think that’s the least we can do.”

Koskinen said he hopes the Judiciary Committee decides not to report to the House floor a resolution to authorize formal impeachment proceedings against him. "Should the Committee take that step, however, I am fully prepared to assist the Committee in developing a solid and vetted factual and legal record that Members can rely on to exercise their constitutional responsibility."

* * *

At the hearing, Goodlatte focused his questions on the IRS’s handling of Lerner’s emails. He asked Koskinen about the steps he took to preserve emails after the agency received a subpoena. Koskinen said he met with senior executives and was told that an appropriate document retention order had previously been issued. His counsel sent a follow-up memo to information-technology employees to remind them to preserve the emails.

Conservatives present at the hearing showed no signs of backing down, even as Koskinen aggressively defended his record. GOP leaders and Koskinen would both like to avoid his impeachment; the hearing was intended to put a lid on pressure from conservative lawmakers who had been calling for a floor vote this month.

Yet it is not clear that vote will be avoided.  Freedom Caucus member Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), who lost his primary and will be out of office early next year, has threatened to force a vote before the House adjourns for the election. He told reporters Tuesday he would make a final decision after the hearing.

Later in the hearing, Goodlatte asked Koskinen if he could provide to the Judiciary Committee as well as to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee written communications that he and any other IRS employees made to preserve records subject to subpoenas. Koskinen said he would do that.

Koskinen said that the erasure of the backup tapes has been determined to be an accident caused by two IRS employees working the midnight shift at a facility in Martinsburg, W.Va. But Republicans were unswayed by Koskinen's defense.

“You issue 66,000 summons and subpoenas each year,” said Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who introduced a resolution to impeach Koskinen last year. “You know how to dish it out but you can’t take it. And so we issue a subpoena, we expect you to comply with it.... And when you destroy documents that are under subpoena, somebody’s got to be held accountable for that. And that starts with you,” Chaffetz said.

“You provided false testimony to this committee, you’ve provided false testimony to the Oversight and Government Reform committee, and you should be held accountable for that.”

Meanwhile, Democrats, enraged at the hearing, said impeachment was uncalled for, and tried to hijack the the proceedings into an attack on Donald Trump.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) declared the hearing “an obvious sham” before asking Koskinen about the Republican presidential nominee's tax returns, which he has said he will not release publicly because he is under a federal audit.

“Is there anything that would prohibit someone from releasing their tax returns, if they want to, because they're under audit?” Nadler said, without mentioning Trump by name. “No,” Koskinen responded.

“Can an individual use other people's money run through a charitable foundation to enrich themselves or satisfy his personal debts or obligations?” Nadler asked.

Koskinen answered that tax-exempt organizations cannot use their funds to benefit their own members.

Nadler also made reference to Trump spending $12,000 of his foundation's money to buy a football helmet signed by Tim Tebow, $20,000 for a 6-foot portrait of himself, $100,000 to cover a legal settlement and $158,000 to settle a dispute with a charity golf tournament participant.

After Goodlatte objected to the question, saying it was outside the scope of the hearing, Nadler asked Koskinen for an opinion on whether the IRS should bring a case on the matter. If it did not, Nadler asked if he thought it would be an “impeachable” offense for the commissioner. Koskinen said IRS commissioners don't personally make such decisions but that there is a detailed process to examine such cases.

And so on.

In conclusion, just like yesterday's kangaroo court involving the CEO of Wells Fargo which led to a lot of fingerpointing and angry statements by senators, today's hearing will have a similar result: lot of words, and no actual change.



via IFTTT

U.S. Big Banks: A Culture of Crime

ORIGINAL LINK

 

 

 

U.S. Big Banks: A Culture of Crime



shutterstock_188295419_710.jpg

 

Organized crime. This phrase is now a precise synonym for big-banking in the United States. These Big Banks commit big crimes; they commit small crimes. They cheat their own clients; they swindle outsiders. They break virtually every financial law on the books. What do all these crimes have in common? The Big Banks commit all these crimes again and again and again – with utter impunity.


These fraud factories commit their serial mega-crimes, year after year, because the Big Banks know that they will never, ever be punished. On rare occasions, their crimes have been so egregious that U.S. ‘justice’ officials could no longer pretend to be oblivious to them. In such cases, there was a token prosecution, there was a settlement where the law-breaking banks didn’t even have to acknowledge their own criminality, and there was a microscopic fine – which didn’t even force the felonious financial institutions to disgorge all of their profits from these crimes.


Criminal sanctions, by definition, are supposed to deter criminal conduct. The token prosecutions against U.S. Big Banks didn’t deter Big Bank crime, they encouraged it. But even these wrist-slaps were becoming embarrassing for this crime syndicate, so they dealt with this problem. The Big Bank crime syndicate told its lackeys in the U.S. ‘justice’ department that they were not allowed to prosecute one of its tentacles, ever again.


The lackeys, as always, obeyed their Masters, and issued a new proclamation. The U.S. ‘Justice’ Department would never prosecute a U.S. Big Bank ever again – no matter what crimes it committed, no matter how large the crimes, no matter how many times the same Big Banks committed the same crimes. Complete, legal immunity; totally above the law. A literal culture of crime.


What happens when you create a culture of crime in (big) banking? Not only the banks break laws – with impunity – their bank employees do so as well. Case in point: Warren Buffett’s favorite Big Bank – Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo employees came up with a good idea for boosting their salaries: stealing money directly out of the accounts of the bank’s clients.


Consider how large this crime became, in just one of these tentacles of organized crime.


L.A City Attorney Mike Feuer announced a $185 million settlement reached with Wells Fargo, after thousands of bank employees siphoned funds from their customers to open phony checking and savings accounts raking in millions in fraudulent fees. [emphasis mine]


Thousands of bank employees stealing millions of dollars from bank customers, in tiny, little increments, again and again and again. But the story gets much worse. Why was a lowly city attorney involved with the prosecution of this organized crime?


So where is the FBI? Where is the Department of Justice? How about California Attorney General Kamala Harris? Too busy campaigning for the Senate to notice? How about L.A. District Attorney Jackie Larry?


Only City Attorney Mike Feuer took action, and he only has the authority to prosecute misdemeanors…


There are only two ways in which the non-action of the U.S. pseudo-justice system can be explained:


  1. All of the layers of “justice” above the City Attorney, are completely bought-off, and refuse to prosecute one of the corporate fronts of their (real) Masters.
  2.  All of the layers of “justice” above the City Attorney considered this systemic crime by Wells Fargo’s employees to be nothing more than a misdemeanour.

 

Take your pick. The U.S. pseudo-justice system is used to seeing so many multi-billion dollar mega-crimes being committed by these fraud factories that the systemic crime at Wells Fargo (which was ‘only’ in the $millions) didn’t even attract their attention. Or, the entire U.S. pseudo-justice system is completely bought-off and corrupt – and they refuse to prosecute Big Bank organized crime.


A culture of crime.


It gets still worse. Thousands of Wells Fargo employees stole millions of dollars, from countless clients. They were caught. But not even one banker was sent to jail. In a real justice system, systemic crime of this nature would/could only be prosecuted in one of three ways. Either every Wells Fargo criminal would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (given the egregious nature of the crime), or Wells Fargo management would be prosecuted – because they would have/should have known about this crime-wave. Or else both.


Bankers stealing money, directly and brazenly, right out of customer accounts, but no one goes to jail? A culture of crime.


Understand that endemic, cultural changes of this nature don’t originate at the bottom of the corporate ladder. They originate at the top. In the case of the Wall Street crime syndicate; we already know that their management personnel are criminals, because they have admitted to being criminals.


Many Wall Street executives says [sic] wrongdoing is necessary: survey


If the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes were to go out with his lantern in search of an honest man today, a survey of Wall Street executives on workplace conduct suggests he might have to look elsewhere.


A quarter of Wall Street executives see wrongdoing as a key to success, according to a survey by whistleblower law firm Labaton Sucharow released on Tuesday.


In a survey of 500 senior executives in the United States and the UK [New York and London], 26 percent of respondents said they had observed or had firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace, while 24 percent said they believed financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal conduct to be successful… [emphasis mine]


One-quarter of Big Bank management admitted that they “need” to commit crimes. A culture of crime. More needs to be said about the rampant, disgusting criminality among upper management in the Big Banks of the U.S. (and UK).


A known whistleblower was conducting a public survey, asking known criminals how many of them were engaging in criminal behavior. What percentage of respondents would lie when answering such a survey? Three-quarters sounds about right. One-quarter of Wall Street executives admitted that committing crimes was a way of life. The other three-quarters lied about their criminal acts.


Monkey see; monkey do. The lower level foot soldiers see their Bosses breaking laws, with impunity, on a daily basis. Their reaction, at Wells Fargo? “Me too.”


Most if not all of the Wall Street fraud factories conduct detailed “personality testing” on their bank personnel. Are they looking to weed-out those with criminal (if not psychopathic) inclinations? Of course not. They conduct this personality testing to find which employees have no reservations about engaging in criminal conduct – so they can be fast-tracked for promotion.


There is no other way in which the systemic criminality of senior banking personnel can be reconciled with the detailed personality-testing in which they participated, in order to reach that level of management. The Wall Street fraud factories look for the most amoral criminals which they can find. And with the exorbitant, ludicrous “compensation” they award to these criminals for their systemic crimes, they end up with (literally) the best criminals that money can buy.


A culture of crime.


As a final note; the U.S. system of pretend-justice already has a powerful weapon in its arsenal to fight organized crime: the “RICO” act. This anti-racketeering statute was created for one, precise purpose: to not merely prosecute/punish organized crime, but to literally dismantle the crime infrastructure which supports the organized crime.


Not only does the statute confer strong (almost limitless) powers in gathering evidence of organized crime, it also permits mass seizures of assets – anything/everything connected to the organized crime of the entity(ies) in question. In the case of the Big Bank crime syndicate, where all of its operations are directly/indirectly tied into criminal operations of one form or another, if RICO was turned loose on these fraud factories, by the time the dust had settled there would be nothing left.


Oh yes. If the U.S. ‘Justice’ Department ever went “RICO” on U.S. Big Banks, lots and lots and lots of bankers would go to prison, for a very, long time.

 

 

 


Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

 

 

 

 

U.S. Big Banks: A Culture of Crime




via IFTTT

Could Germany Ever Allow Deutsche Bank To Go Under?

ORIGINAL LINK

Via Golem XIV blog,

Deutsche Bank, one of Europe’s behemoths, is in very deep trouble having lost 90% 0f its share price value since 2007, has been falling sharply all this last year (48% loss this year) and, with its $42 Trillion in Derivatives exposure was singled out by the IMF, as the bank which ,

“appears to be the most important net contributor to systemic risks…”

Of course Deutsche agues the standard ‘derivatives-aren’t-a-problem’ line, that this 42 trillion all nets out and their real exposure is a fraction of that vast figure. Which is fine as long as you think that in the event of Deutsche coming unstuck, 42 trillions-worth of derivatives contracts can be held in abeyance for the time it would take for all those contracts to be netted out.  As I’ve said before netting out is akin to getting a rowing boat full of people to all change places  without the boat overturning.

And now Deutsche has been threatened by the US DoJ with a $14 billion fine for its crimes for selling knowingly over-valued RMBS (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities) in the build up to the financial crash of 2007.

Deutsche cannot pay $14 billion without raising a great deal of cash. Deutsche has put aside $5.5 billion for paying fines. A mere 9 billion short. So could Deutsche go down? Financially yes it could. But politically, I doubt it. And it’s the tension between these two answers, between the parlous financial state and the huge political significance of Deutsche, that I find interesting.

Deutsche is Germany’s only G-SIB (Global Systemically Important Bank).

Deutsche is Germany’s financial flag carrier. It stands at the centre of Germany’s long held desire to have Frankfurt eclipse London as Europe’s financial centre. Although Germany also has Allianz as a G-SII (Global systemically Important Insurer), without Deutsche Bank Germany ceases to be a globally significant financial nation (G-SFN – OK I made that one up). Without Deutsche Germany would not sit at the top table of global finance. France would. France has three G-SIBs. The balance between France and Germany within Europe would shift. Maintaining that balance between France and Germany, at the heart of Europe, has been critical in European affairs since WWI.

Could Germany ever allow Deutsche Bank to go under?

Officially the global framework for G-SIFI resolution in bankruptcy has been laid down by the FSB and agreed by all. And interestingly, though they are touted as the result of new thinking since the financial crisis, they are not. I recently received an EU document marked ‘Secret’, entitled  “Overview of Financial Stability Resolution Issues” and dated Feb 2008 which describes pretty much what the FSB has now settled upon now. I mention this because almost every word in it was completely ignored once the crisis hit and each country viewed the imminent demise of their major, flag-carrying banks. Which leads me to wonder why I should believe it would be any different next time? I think this question is particularly critical to Germany because Deutsche is its only G-SIB. In the next massive implosion of debts, France could afford to let one of its G-SIBs go down and still have two seats at the top table. England could do the same.

How will G-SIBs  be wound down?

The not-so-new rules for how a G-SIB should be wound down begin by stating that,

Resolution should be initiated when a firm is no longer viable or likely to be no longer viable, and has no reasonable prospect of becoming so.

But no one has wanted to state exactly what the trigger is, for deciding that a bank is no longer viable. Except to say the global regulators will leave it to national regulatory authorities to decide. So Germany will decide when Deutsche is no longer viable. Sure, that’ll be grand.

Should an authority take the fatal stop of admitting one of their G-SIBs is no longer viable then things are supposed to move with wonderful efficiency. Resolution of netting out is to be speedily concluded (in as little as two days!) No sniggering please. And then as the gruesome business of sorting the living from the dead parts of the bank gets going  the authorities must definitely NOT rely

…on public solvency support and not create an expectation that such support will be available;

Instead the dead parts will inflict losses first on share holders and then on bond holders in the time honoured order of unsecured first. And then those parts which are not completely dead and might be cut away to live again in a different body, are to be sold off by means of sale or merger.

  1. As a last resort and for the overarching purpose of maintaining financial stability, some countries may decide to have a power to place the firm under temporary public ownership and control in order to continue critical operations, while seeking to arrange a permanent solution such as a sale or merger with a commercial private sector purchaser.

So public bail outs are supposed to be strictly temporary. No holding 80% of RBS for most of a decade. Really? But that’s not the point which is important for Deutsche Bank. The important point is that in any sale of the viable parts of Germany’s only G-SIB, the brutal fact of the matter is that there is no other German financial institution that could afford to buy any of it. Commerzbank? Allianz? Letting an insurer buy a bank? So imagine the situation for Germany. They lose their seat at the top table and then they watch as France, England, American or perhaps China buy the crown of German financial might.

So I don’t think it will ever happen.  Or at least it will only happen when Germany is truly out of any other options.

So if Deutsche is not going to be declared “no longer viable” what are the alternatives?

One option is the UniCredit route. UniCredit was a trillion euro bank. It was Italy’s flag carrier. It had bought Bavaria’s banks and some of Austria’s as well. And yet it’s share price was always   paltry.  Just 7.6 Euros at the market top in May ’07.  And since then it has been a hollow and enfeebled giant. Lumbering and ineffectual. It has been the laughing stock of European banks. But Italy doesn’t seem to mind. They seem content to let UniCredit be the quintessential Zombie bank. Would Germany be as sanguine to leave Deutsche to go the same way?  This would, I suggest, be almost  as injurious to German pride and industrial policy as letting Deutsche go down completely.

But if Germany decided it could not face the financial consequences of obeying the letter of the resolution law nor leave the bank to be a bloated and useless zombie then the alternatives bring in their train even greater political upheavals.  Imagine the German government decides that not bailing out Deutsche just inflicts too much damage on Germany – potentially reducing Germany from the front rank of globally significant nations to  something lesser. It becomes a matter of national pride if not of survival.

So Germany ignores all the FSB rules and regulations and bails Deutsche bringing it into government ownership/protection –  call it what you like. In so doing it demolishes the entirety of European policy regarding bail outs, government debts and austerity. Where then all the German insistence on fiscal discipline it has forced upon Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy? The Bundesbank, Berlin and the ECB would have no authority at all. Every country would have a green light to do the same for their flag carriers.

It would be the end the European experiment. Or the European system would have to try to continue without Germany. And that could only happen if all debts to Germany were repudiated.

I realise all this is speculation. But Deutsche has lost 90% of its value. Only RBS has lost more.  Deutsche has 7000 legal cases against it. Frau Merkel is losing her grip, Brexit rocked the complacent rulers of Euroland and  Madame Marine Le Pen would like to push France to do the same.

And on top of it all NOTHING has been fixed financially at all. There is more debt more leverage, more and more liquidity achieving less and less, interest rates are negative, pensions  are going nowhere, insurers are grasping for risk even as they fear what it will do to them when the next crisis hits and governments are all, every one of them, preparing their armed forces for widespread civil unrest.

 



via IFTTT

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

In Obama’s Attempt to Slam Putin, He Accidentally Incriminated Himself

ORIGINAL LINK
putin

(ANTIMEDIA) Barack Obama recently criticized presidential candidate Donald Trump’s admiration of Vladimir Putin, but his complaint was hypocritically laughable. Though no one in their right mind would pretend the Russian president is any kind of saintly figure, Obama’s choice of words in scrutinizing his Russian counterpart turned into a largely accurate description of himself.

The American president attacked Trump for praising Putin as being a “strong leader” despite the fact that, according to Obama, Putin “invades smaller countries,” jails political opponents, controls his country’s media, and has driven Russia’s economy into recession.

Let’s go through those claims one by one.

Putin Invades Smaller Countries

In 2011, Obama invaded Libya, the country with the highest standard of living in Africa, plunging the rich democracy into a perpetual state of civil war. U.S. media tried to claim the American role in this conflict was secondary in a so-called “leading from behind” capacity. But the truth is the U.S. was the second biggest, if not the biggest contributor to this war (depending on the report). It was an American drone that struck Muammar Gaddafi’s motorcade, effectively sealing the fate of the Libyan leader.

Obama is also actively bombing Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to name a few. None of these are considered large countries, especially when compared to United States’ military spending and the number of bases it has worldwide. If anything, these are all incredibly poor and relatively small countries.

On the other hand, Putin is only bombing Syrian territory at the formal request of the Syrian regime, not as an attempt to invade a sovereign nation. Regarding Ukraine, Russia also annexed Crimea following a peaceful referendum in which the public voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession from Ukraine. Despite regular reports from Western media that Putin invaded Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s challenge to the West to present any evidence of a Russian invasion into Ukraine has gone unanswered. In fact, previously leaked phone calls seemed to indicate it was the Obama administration that first interfered with Ukrainian politics, effectively ousting pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych from power.

Putin jails political opponents

Obama passed the NDAA 2016 (National Defense Authorization Act), which authorizes the U.S. military to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial. Such a law would be the envy of any so-called dictator vying for authoritarian control of their country, yet Obama appears to have passed a law his counterparts could only dream of.

Further, the Obama administration has carried out a full-scale attack on whistleblowers, as evidenced by the plights of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Jeffrey Sterling. Assange might even have been the victim of an assassination attempt in August of this year, though the details of that incident are still unclear.

In 2009, a Yemeni journalist named Abdulelah Haider Shaye reported on a drone strike in Yemen that struck a village, killing women, children and the elderly. Shaye openly published a story showing the remnants of the attack indicated the strike was waged by American weaponry the Yemeni arsenal did not possess.

In a completely unrelated matter — if one is so naïve as to believe that — the reporter was then arrested and placed in Yemeni prison. After the public began to demand his release, the Yemeni leadership at the time agreed to release him. However, before he was freed, Yemeni leader Ali Abdullah Saleh received a phone call from none other than Obama himself, who expressed his concern over the plan to release the journalist. Shaye’s planned release was canceled

Obama’s ability to jail opposition all over the world by merely picking up his phone makes anything Putin has ever done — at least that we know of — pale in comparison.

Putin controls his country’s media

Whether or not Obama can personally control the media, one cannot dispute the fact Western media works in tandem with the establishment, often becoming the mouthpiece of the United States government.

Western media regularly quotes unnamed officials without question; peddles the pro-war agenda the Obama administration has advocated on numerous occasions; refers to unreliable sources without further investigation; and fires writers who question the motives of American allies. Western media has assisted all of the American-led and associated wars to date, helping Obama do his dirty work.

Shaye’s experience in Yemen should be evidence enough that Obama has the ability to control the media throughout the world, as well as at home — something Putin could only dream of.

Further, the president and his administration have ties to influential figures throughout the corporate media.

Putin drove his economy into recession

Obama may have inherited a waning economy under George W. Bush, but he decided to continue a number of corrupt policies that plunged the United States economy — not to mention the world economy — into a recession that most of us have still not recovered from. As acknowledged by Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick in “The Untold History of the United States”:

“The biggest winner under Obama was Wall Street. After wrecking the economy with speculative innovations, including credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, bankers came begging for bailouts. Not surprisingly, Obama’s economic advisors – almost all disciples of Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary Robert Rubin – were more than happy to assist with a $700 billion financial bailout program.” What mirror is Obama looking through?

The hypocrisy speaks volumes

Even if Vladimir Putin were as frighteningly evil as Western media attempts to portray him to be, it could not possibly detract from the fact Obama fully embodies what has come to be known as the “pot calling the kettle black.” This is also known as the “people who live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones” quip.

It is quite telling of how disastrous American political discourse has become that someone as overtly racist, intolerant, unpredictable and unreliable as Donald Trump is the only person talking any diplomatic sense regarding Russia — even when compared to a peace prize-winning president.

How Obama was able to say those words with a straight face gives insight into the delusion the doctrine of “American exceptionalism” has created throughout American politics.


This article (In Obama’s Attempt to Slam Putin, He Accidentally Incriminated Himself) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.



via IFTTT

ACLU: Connecticut State Troopers Caught On Tape Fabricating Charges Against Protester

ORIGINAL LINK

One evening last September, Connecticut resident Michael Picard was doing what he usually does on a Friday night: standing on a strip of grass by an Interstate onramp and protesting the government.

Picard, a local privacy activist, often protests police DUI checkpoints, which he believes are unconstitutional and a waste of money. That night he was holding a sign warning motorists of a DUI checkpoint farther up the road. Picard, like any good protester these days, also had a camera to document his interactions with police.

What he ended capturing on video is now at the center of a civil rights lawsuit filed Monday on Picard's behalf by the Connecticut ACLU against three state troopers, whom Picard claims illegally seized his camera and then conspired to fabricate charges against him. Unbeknownst to the officers, though, the camera was still recording.

Watch the video:

According the lawsuit, Connecticut state trooper John Barone confronted Picard, saying he had received complaints from passing motorists that Picard, who also open-carries a handgun, was waving his gun in the air. (The ACLU says there were never any such complaints and that Picard kept his gun holstered at all times.) After claiming it was illegal for Picard to film him, Barone snatched the camera and put it on the roof of his police cruiser while he and other officers discussed what charges to hit Picard with.

"You want to punch a number on this either way?" Barone asked one of his supervising officers, police slang for opening an investigation and entering a case number. "Gotta cover our ass."

"We could hit him with reckless use of the highway by a pedestrian and creating a public disturbance," Sgt. John Jacobi suggested.

"And then we claim in backup we had multiple people who stopped to complain," Master Sgt. Patrick Torneo added later in the conversation. "They didn't want to stay and offer a statement, so we took our own course of action."

The officers ticketed Picard, returned his camera and gun, and told him to protest in another location. It took Picard more than a year to get the criminal charges against him dismissed.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU says the three state troopers retaliated against Picard, violating his First Amendment rights to protest and film the government, as well as his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

"Community members like me have a right to film government officials doing their jobs in public, and we should be able to protest without fearing political retribution from law enforcement," Picard said in a statement. "As an advocate for free speech, I'm deeply disappointed that these police officers ignored my rights, particularly because two of the troopers involved were supervisors who should be setting an example for others. By seeking to hold these three police officers accountable, I hope that I can prevent the same thing from happening to someone else."

A spokesperson for the Connecticut State Police said the issue was subject to an ongoing investigation and declined to comment.



via IFTTT

Video Shows Terence Crutcher Was Not Reaching Into Car When Shot, Lawyer Says

ORIGINAL LINK

Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man who was shot and killed by a white police officer in Oklahoma last week, was not reaching into his car when the fatal shot was fired, a lawyer for his family said on Tuesday.

Graphic video of the fatal shooting on Friday was recorded from two angles by Tulsa Police Department cameras mounted on a police helicopter and a police car.

Speaking to reporters outside the Tulsa County Courthouse on Tuesday afternoon, Benjamin Crump, who is representing the dead man’s family, said that a streak of Crutcher’s blood on the glass, visible in a still image taken from the helicopter video, proved that the car window was closed when he was shot.

Crump accused a police department spokesperson, Officer Jeanne Mackenzie, of spreading “misinformation that he caused his own death” when she told reporters on Friday night that Crutcher had prompted the shooting by refusing to raise his hands and reaching into his vehicle.

How many times does this officer lie about the shooting of #TerenceCrutcher in less than 45 seconds? pic.twitter.com/SXq1ZdxhLQ

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) September 20, 2016

Finding that initial police account hard to believe, Crutcher’s family had demanded the release of unedited police footage of the incident. The department complied with that request on Monday.

David Riggs, a former state attorney general who chairs the Oklahoma Access to Justice Commission, also addressed a report that the police had found the hallucinogenic drug phencyclidine, or PCP, inside Crutcher’s car after the shooting. Riggs said that the shooting was not justified even if Crutcher was intoxicated. “Not everybody who’s under the influence of something is a threat to other people,” Riggs said.

Crump also noted, as many others did on social networks, that the killing of Crutcher stood in stark contrast to the capture of Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspect in the New York and New Jersey bombings, after a shoot-out with police officers there.

And…a man suspected of a BOMBING can be taken into custody alive…but a man who had CAR trouble has to die? #TerenceCruthcher

— Jay Jones (@jasonrjones) September 20, 2016

I see being black is worse than being a terrorist. #TerenceCruthcher

— NIR Wess (CEO) (@wessnapalm) September 20, 2016

Video of Crutcher’s killing triggered outrage and despair from those viewing it online, and demands from protesters for the arrest of Officer Betty Shelby, who fired the fatal shot and has been placed on paid leave.

It doesn't matter where you live. We are all one bullet away from becoming a hashtag.. #TerenceCruthcher #BlackLivesMatter

— Jasmine (@jaye_michele) September 20, 2016

Black people should sue police departments for PTSD. This can't keep happening. #TerenceCrutcher

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) September 19, 2016

If you're outraged at the protest Kaepernick started, but not outraged about the murder of #TerenceCrutcher, you are part of the problem.

— K'lyssa Moore (@klyssa) September 19, 2016

I will not be watching the #TerenceCrutcher video footage. I am tired of the sensationalization of lynching.

— Broderick Greer (@BroderickGreer) September 20, 2016

Protesting the Tulsa Police shooting of #terencecrutcher in #tulsa. More at https://t.co/990ueGd8EC pic.twitter.com/aauXvnuCQV

— mike simons (@mikesimonsphoto) September 19, 2016

"If we cannot trust the people we are paying to police our streets, we have a problem" – #terencecrutcher protester pic.twitter.com/OuNDzPf6JF

— Kyle Hinchey (@KyleHinchey) September 19, 2016

Can we stop calling it "paid administrative leave"? Betty Shelby's on a murdercation. #TerenceCruthcher

— Adrienne Marie (@STINGRAYdrienne) September 20, 2016

A posthumous hashtag is a horrible way to learn of a human being's existence. #TerenceCrutcher

— Baratunde (@baratunde) September 20, 2016

There was particular anger at a comment made by the pilot of the police helicopter moments before Crutcher was shot by Officer Shelby. The pilot was recorded saying that the 40-year-old, who was walking slowly back to his car with his hands up at that moment, looked like “a bad dude” who “could be on something.”

the fact that #TerenceCruthcher was profiled as a bad "bad dude" by someone hundreds of feet in the air amazes me.

— Ken Walker (@RollPlanes__) September 20, 2016

Cops in video calling #TerenceCrutcher a "big bad dude" = just more proof that the FEAR of black people informs the level of FORCE by police

— Robin Thede (@robinthede) September 19, 2016

If you're scared of an unarmed black man who's not doing anything, then don't be a cop. #TerenceCrutcher

— Jonathan (@JonRichard) September 20, 2016

Crutcher’s sister Tiffany angrily rejected that assessment of her brother based solely on his appearance when the video was made public on Monday.

Many of those who watched the footage were also disturbed by the fact that it showed that the officers did not immediately offer medical assistance to Crutcher as he lay bleeding to death on the pavement.

The @TulsaPolice Execution of #TerenceCrutcher.

Shot fired at 0:17. Then they abandon him.

ARREST THEM RIGHT NOW pic.twitter.com/SHgQb1MVlQ

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) September 19, 2016

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post Video Shows Terence Crutcher Was Not Reaching Into Car When Shot, Lawyer Says appeared first on The Intercept.



via IFTTT

No Evidence for Fluoridated Water to Result in Less Cavities

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

Two-thirds of Americans drink tap water that has added fluoride. Unlike other chemicals added to water, which are intended to treat the water itself, fluoride is intended to treat the people who drink the water, whether they want the treatment or not.

As the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) puts it, “Fluoridating water supplies can thus fairly be described as a form of mass medication, which is why most European countries have rejected the practice.”1

In the U.S., many people assume the fluoride in drinking water is beneficial for their teeth, an assumption that has been widely spread by public health agencies.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has partnered with the American Dental Association (ADA) in saying fluoridation is “nature’s way to prevent tooth decay”2 — a statement that is both misleading and inaccurate.

The Fluoride in Drinking Water Is Not Natural

The CDC and ADA state that “some communities are lucky enough to have naturally occurring optimal levels of fluoride in their water supplies.”3

While it’s true that fluoride is naturally occurring in some areas, leading to high levels in certain water supplies “naturally,” naturally occurring substances are not automatically safe (think of arsenic, for instance).

When people are exposed to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride, severe disease can result. Data from India’s Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry indicate that nearly 49 million people are living in areas where fluoride levels in water are above the permissible levels.

The World Health Organization recommends fluoride levels in drinking water stay between 0.8 and 1.2 milligrams (mg) per liter and do not exceed 1.5 mg per liter.

Exposure to levels above this amount may cause pitting of tooth enamel and fluoride deposits in your bones, while exposure to levels above 10 mg per liter may cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, as well as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, seizures and muscle spasms.

Further, the fluoride added to drinking water is not the naturally occurring variety or even pharmaceutical grade; it’s a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. FAN explained:4

“The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are known as ‘silicofluorides’ (i.e., hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, they can contain elevated levels of arsenic — more so than any other water treatment chemical.

In addition, recent research suggests that the addition of silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, particularly among residents who live in homes with old pipes.”

Evidence Is Lacking That Fluoridated Water Reduces Cavities

The ADA also claims that water fluoridation reduces decay in children’s teeth by anywhere from 18 percent to 60 percent. This, too, is highly questionable however.

The Cochrane Collaboration, which releases comprehensive reviews regarded as the gold standard in assessing public health policies, found water fluoridation may not prevent cavities.5

In a review of every fluoridation study they could find, only three since 1975 looked at the effectiveness of water fluoridation at reducing tooth decay among the general population and had high enough quality to be included.

The studies found fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth.6

Further, in the two studies since 1975 that examined the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing cavities in baby teeth, no significant reduction was noted there either. Study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom, told Newsweek:7

“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries [cavity] levels in adults.”

While they couldn’t prove that water fluoridation is beneficial, they did find that it causes harm. About 12 percent of those living in fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis that was an “aesthetic concern.”

Dental fluorosis is a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled, and it’s one of the first signs of over-exposure to fluoride.

Eventually, it can result in badly damaged teeth and, worse, it can also be an indication the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. It is not only an aesthetic concern.

Tooth Decay Rampant in Low-Income Children Despite Widespread Fluoridation

African American and Mexican American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis, and many low-income urban communities also have severe oral health crises, despite decades of water fluoridation.

The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF) reported that rates of tooth decay among low-income children are on the rise even though record numbers of these children are exposed to fluoridated water (as well as fluoride from other sources, including dental products and medications).

Data set to be presented at an American Public Health Association Meeting in November 2016 revealed 40 percent of 3- to 5-year-olds living 100 percent below the federal poverty level have tooth decay, along with 69 percent of 6- to 9-year-olds and 74 percent of 13- to 15-year-olds.

Rates of dental fluorosis also rose among this population, with 58 percent of low-income children affected by this condition.8 Paul Beeber, NYSCOF president, said in a news release:9

"Claims that poor children need fluoride are without merit or evidence … It's the dental care delivery system that needs fixing. Low-income Americans need dental care not fluoride."

Dentist David Kennedy, past-president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT), also stated:10

“By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one — dental fluorosis.”

Is Water Fluoridation Linked to Cancer?

Fluoride was first linked to bone cancer in the 1980s, prompting the U.S. Congress to have the National Toxicology Program look into the issue. Their study, which was completed in 1990, also found an association, with higher dosages of fluoride leading to bone cancer in rats.11

Although the results were widely downplayed, future studies also found fluoride-cancer connections.

In 2006, a study published in the journal Cancer Causes & Control found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma in boys.12 As Personal Liberty reported:13

A World Health Organization study conducted from 1978 to 1992 showed that Americans living in areas where drinking water was treated with what the Environmental Protection Agency deemed was ‘optimal’ levels [of fluoride] had increased risk of cancer in 23 different areas of the body.

Male children exposed to high levels of fluoride may have a 546 percent increased risk of developing osteosarcoma later in life, according research conducted at Harvard.

This study, combined with the NTP study, combined with the studies that prompted Congress to order the NTP study, all add up to hard evidence that fluoride causes cancer.”

Why Are Illegal Fluoride Supplements Still on the Market?

A FAN investigation also highlighted the risk of fluoride supplements. Marketing these “supplements” as cavity preventatives violates federal law because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved them for this purpose.

In January 2016, the FDA also ordered one fluoride supplement manufacturer to stop production because the drugs were not FDA approved to be safe or effective. Fluoride supplements continue to be sold by many other companies, however, and are sold by the largest pharmacies in the U.S.

They even continue to be prescribed to millions of U.S. children, which is outrageous because not only have studies failed to find meaningful cavity prevention from swallowing fluoride but also because of fluoride’s toxic effects, especially on children. For instance, in 2012, a meta-analysis, also by Harvard researchers, clearly showed that children exposed to fluoride in drinking water had lower IQ, by an average of seven points, in areas with raised concentrations.14

Giving children fluoride supplements and fluoride dental treatments (which children often swallow) in addition to fluoridated water could increase children’s risk of fluoride’s numerous toxic effects, from low thyroid function and bone fragility to learning and behavioral problems.

Natural Cavity Prevention Starts With Your Diet

Cavities are not caused by a lack of fluoride but rather are often associated with dietary and lifestyle factors. Some of the true primary causes of tooth decay cited in the literature include:

  • Consistent use of refined sugar, sugary soft drinks and processed foods in general
  • Children going to bed with a bottle of sweetened drink in their mouth, or sucking at will from such a bottle during the day
  • Poor dental hygiene and poor access to and utilization of dental health services, usually related to socioeconomic status
  • Mineral deficiencies, like magnesium, which can weaken bones and teeth15
  • More than 600 medications promote tooth decay by inhibiting saliva

In order to protect your oral health, the key is your diet and proper dental care: good old brushing and flossing. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, and eating fermented vegetables, you help prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay while promoting protective varieties.

How to Remove Fluoride From Your Drinking Water

If you live in the U.S. and drink water from a public source, there’s a good chance they are fluoridated. If you don't know if your water is fluoridated, you can find out by contacting your local water department. If you live in the U.S., you can also find out by going to FAN's State Fluoride Database. One way of avoiding the fluoride from tap water is to purchase a water filter. Not all water filters, however, remove fluoride.

The three types of filters that can remove fluoride are reverse osmosis, deionizers (which use ion-exchange resins), and activated alumina. Each of these filters should be able to remove about 90 percent of the fluoride. By contrast, "activated carbon" filters do not remove fluoride.

If you’re concerned that you’ve been exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride, the mineral selenium may be helpful. Research suggests it has protective effects against fluoride toxicity and may even serve as an antidote agent against fluorosis.16 Excessive levels of selenium may do more harm than good, however, so use this strategy under the guidance of a holistic health care professional.



Sources:


Related Articles:

 Comments (4)


via IFTTT

Monday, September 19, 2016

WashPost Makes History: First Paper to Call for Prosecution of Its Own Source (After Accepting Pulitzer)

ORIGINAL LINK

Three of the four media outlets which received and published large numbers of secret NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden – The Guardian, The New York Times and The Intercept – have called for the U.S. government to allow the NSA whistleblower to return to the U.S. with no charges. That’s the normal course for a news organization, which owes its sources duties of protection, and which – by virtue of accepting the source’s materials and then publishing them – implicitly declares the source’s information to be in the public interest.

But not The Washington Post. In the face of a growing ACLU-and-Amnesty-led campaign to secure a pardon for Snowden, timed to this weekend’s release of the Oliver Stone biopic “Snowden,” the Post editorial page not only argued today in opposition to a pardon, but explicitly demanded that Snowden — their paper’s own source — stand trial on espionage charges or, as a “second-best solution,” “accept[] a measure of criminal responsibility for his excesses and the U.S. government offers a measure of leniency.”

In doing so, The Washington Post has achieved an ignominious feat in U.S. media history: the first-ever paper to explicitly editorialize for the criminal prosecution of its own paper’s source — one on whose back the paper won and eagerly accepted a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. But even more staggering than this act of journalistic treachery against their paper’s own source are the claims made to justify it.

The Post editors concede that one — and only one — of the programs which Snowden enabled to be revealed was justifiably exposed — namely, the domestic metadata program, because it “was a stretch, if not an outright violation, of federal surveillance law, and posed risks to privacy.” Regarding the “corrective legislation” that followed its exposure, the Post acknowledges: “we owe these necessary reforms to Mr. Snowden.” But that metadata program wasn’t revealed by the Post, but rather by the Guardian.

Other than that initial Snowden revelation, the Post suggests, there was no public interest whatsoever in revealing any of the other programs. In fact, they say, real harm was done by their exposure. That includes PRISM, about which the Post says this:

The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. (It was also not permanent; the law authorizing it expires next year.)

In arguing that no public interest was served by exposing PRISM, what did the Post editors forget to mention? That the newspaper which (simultaneous with The Guardian) made the choice to expose the PRISM program by spreading its operational details and top secret manual all over its front page is called . . . . The Washington Post. Then, once they made the choice to do so, they explicitly heralded their exposure of the PRISM program (along with other revelations) when they asked to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

If the Post Editorial Page editors really believe that PRISM was a totally legitimate program and that no public interest was served by its exposure, shouldn’t they be attacking their own paper’s news editors for having chosen to make it public, apologizing to the public for harming their security, and agitating for a return of the Pulitzer? If the Post Editorial Page editors had any intellectual honesty at all, this is what they would be doing — accepting institutional responsibility for what they apparently regard as a grievous error that endangered the public — rather than pretending that it was all the doing of their source as a means of advocating for his criminal prosecution.

Worse than the intellectual dishonesty of this editorial is its towering cowardice. After denouncing their own paper’s PRISM revelation, they proclaim: “worse — far worse — he also leaked details of basically defensible international intelligence operations.” But what they inexcusably omit is that it was not Edward Snowden, but the top editors of The Washington Post who decided to make these programs public. Again, just look at the stories for which the Post was cited when receiving a Pulitzer Prize:

Almost every one of those stories entailed the exposure of what The Post editors today call “details of international intelligence operations.” I personally think there were very solid justifications for the Post‘s decision to reveal those. As Snowden explained in the first online interview with readers I conducted, in July 2013, he was not only concerned about privacy infringement of Americans but of all human beings, because — in his words — “suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal.'”

So I support the decision of the Post back then to publish documents exposing “international intelligence operations.” That’s because I agree with what Post Executive Editor Marty Baron said in 2014, in an article in The Washington Post where they celebrated their own Pulitzer:

Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said Monday that the reporting exposed a national policy “with profound implications for American citizens’ constitutional rights” and the rights of individuals around the world (emphasis added). “Disclosing the massive expansion of the NSA’s surveillance network absolutely was a public service,” Baron said. “In constructing a surveillance system of breathtaking scope and intrusiveness, our government also sharply eroded individual privacy. All of this was done in secret, without public debate, and with clear weaknesses in oversight.”

The editorial page is separate from the news organization and does not speak for the latter; I seriously doubt the journalists or editors at the Post who worked on these news stories would agree with any of that editorial. But still, if the Post editorial page editors now want to denounce these revelations, and even call for the imprisonment of their paper’s own source on this ground, then they should at least have the courage to acknowledge that it was The Washington Post — not Edward Snowden — who made the editorial and institutional choice to expose those programs to the public. They might want to denounce their own paper and even possibly call for its prosecution for revealing top secret programs that they now are bizarrely claiming should never have been revealed to the public in the first place.

But this highlights a chronic cowardice that often arises when establishment figures want to denounce Snowden. As has been amply documented, and as all newspapers involved in this reporting (including the Post) have made clear, Snowden himself played no role in deciding which of these programs would be exposed (beyond providing the materials to newspapers in the first place). He did not trust himself to make those journalistic determinations, and so he left it to the newspapers to decide which revelations would and would not serve the public interest. If a program ended up being revealed, one can argue that Snowden bears some responsibility (because he provided the documents in the first place), but the ultimate responsibility lies with the editors of the paper that made the choice to reveal it, presumably because they concluded that the public interest was served by doing so.

Yet over and over, Snowden critics — such as Slate‘s Fred Kaplan, and today’s Post editorial — omit this crucial fact, and are thus profoundly misleading. In attacking Snowden this week, for instance, Kaplan again makes the same point he has made over and over: that Snowden’s revelations extended beyond privacy infringements of Americans.

Leave aside the narcissistic and jingoistic view that whistleblowers and media outlets should only care about privacy infringements of American citizens, but not the 95% of the rest of the planet called “non-Americans.” And let’s also set to the side the fact that many of the most celebrated news stories in U.S media history were devoted to revealing secret foreign operations that had nothing to do with infringing the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens (such as the Pentagon Papers, Abu Ghraib, and the Post‘s revelations of CIA black sites).

What’s critical here is that Kaplan’s list of Bad Snowden Revelations (just like the Post‘s) invariably involves stories published not by Snowden (or even by The Intercept or The Guardian), but by The New York Times and The Washington Post. But like the Post editorial page editors, Kaplan is too much of a coward to accuse the nation’s top editors at those two papers of treason, helping terrorists, or endangering national security, so he pretends that it was Snowden, and Snowden alone, who made the choice to reveal these programs to the public. If Kaplan and the Post editors truly believe that all of these stories ought to have remained secret and have endangered people’s safety, why are they not attacking the editors and newspapers that made the ultimate decision to expose them? Snowden himself never publicly disclosed a single document, so any programs that were revealed were the ultimate doing of news organizations.

Whatever else may be true, one’s loyalty to U.S. government officials has to be slavish in the extreme in order to consider oneself a journalist while simultaneously advocating the criminalization of transparency, leaks, sources, and public debates. But that’s not new: there has long been in the U.S. a large group that ought to call itself U.S. Journalists Against Transparency: journalists whose loyalty lies far more with the U.S. government than with the ostensible objectives of their own profession, and thus routinely take the side of those keeping official secrets rather than those who reveal them, even to the point of wanting to see sources imprisoned.

But what makes today’s Washington Post editorial so remarkable, such a tour de force, is that the editors are literally calling for the criminal prosecution of one of the most important sources in their own newspaper’s history. Having basked in the glory of awards and accolades, and benefitted from untold millions of clicks, the editorial page editors of the Post now want to see the source who enabled all of that be put in an American cage and branded a felon. That is warped beyond anything that can be described.

Sign up for The Intercept Newsletter here.

The post WashPost Makes History: First Paper to Call for Prosecution of Its Own Source (After Accepting Pulitzer) appeared first on The Intercept.



via IFTTT

Sunday, September 18, 2016

US Desperately Pumps "Humanitarian" Smokescreen For Failing Syria Ceasefire

ORIGINAL LINK

Submitted by Finian Cunningham via Strategic-Culture.org,

Washington’s lie about seeking a genuine ceasefire in Syria is in danger of being exposed for the world to see. So, hilariously, a charade is being hurriedly orchestrated in order to hide this ignominy. As usual, the Syrian government is being scapegoated for the real cause of violence in the country. That real cause is Washington’s state-sponsored terrorist-fueled war for regime change.

After four days of continuing deadly breaches by US-backed «rebels» since the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal was implemented last Monday, Washington and the dutiful Western mainstream media are preparing the inevitable excuses.

Rather than focusing on ongoing «rebel» violence in contravention of the truce, US Secretary of State John Kerry fingered the Syrian government for preventing humanitarian access to insurgent-held eastern Aleppo as the reason for why the ceasefire is in danger of collapsing.

Kerry accused the Syrian government of causing «unacceptable repeated delays» in delivery of humanitarian aid convoys to the northern city. Some 300,000 people are estimated to be stuck in dire conditions in the eastern side of Aleppo, which has become a key battleground in the five-year war.

Western media reports followed suit with Reuters reporting: «Syria ceasefire deal in balance as Aleppo aid plan stalls». Another publication, USA Today, made the more pointed claim: «The regime has broken its pledges on the distribution of life-saving supplies».

So, in Washington’s artful spin of events, it is the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad which is reneging on the ceasefire arrangement by blocking food and medical supplies to starving civilians. This, of course, plays handily into the broader Western narrative that the Syrian «regime» is the ultimate villain of the piece. The vile Assad is mercilessly denying children food and water, goes the spin.

Based on that premise, Washington is giving notice that it will not follow through on its ceasefire commitment to join with Russian air forces for targeting terror groups like ISIS (Daesh) and al Nusra Front. Those anticipated «joint operations» between US and Russian aircraft were supposed to be the highlight of the ceasefire plan worked out last weekend in Geneva by Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

But that supposed «breakthrough» is now in doubt. McClatchy News reported at the end of the week: «US to Russia – Syria military cooperation not guaranteed».

US State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters four days into the truce: «If, by Monday we have continued to see reduced violence and no humanitarian access, there will be no Joint Implementation Center [with Russian military]».

Washington is mendaciously trying to pretend that there have been no breaches of the ceasefire and that the whole problem revolves around «no humanitarian access» being granted by the Syrian authorities. If the US does indeed backtrack from its stated prior commitment to cooperate with Russian forces for targeting terror groups then it is safe to assume that the entire ceasefire «deal» will be dead, even as a rhetorical concept.

Admittedly, the level of violence in Aleppo and across the country subsided when the US-Russian ceasefire pact came into effect on September 12. Russian and allied Syrian forces halted their campaign of air strikes. Opposition violence appeared to abate too. Nevertheless, the truce was reportedly violated multiple times by anti-government militias, not just in Aleppo, but in other locations, such as Latakia, Hama and Homs.

Furthermore, there was no apparent distinction between so-called US-backed moderate rebels and recognized terror groups in carrying out these violations. All insurgents groups were engaging in sporadic attacks – in contravention of the putative ceasefire.

Credible Russian military reports confirmed that Syrian army units had observed the truce and had begun demilitarizing a major access road into eastern Aleppo. Syrian troops are being replaced by Russian units to safeguard the route. However, it is the militants who are refusing to withdraw from the Castello Road area, which would provide the humanitarian aid convoys access to the city.

Indeed, insurgent factions openly declared that they would continue shelling and sniping in the Castello Road precisely in order to prevent the aid convoys arriving because they opposed the ceasefire accord even being implemented.

Russia has correctly criticized the US as using a «verbal smokescreen» to conceal why the ceasefire is failing. The point is that Washington has negligible control over its declared moderate rebels. In fact, there is no control because in practice there is no distinction between the myriad illegally armed insurgents.

Like the ceasefire called earlier this year in February, this latest one is breaking down because all the militants continue to breach any cessation. As Lt General Vladimir Savchenko, chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation in Syria, points out, the US-backed opposition is using the ceasefire simply as an opportunity to rearm and regroup.

And Washington’s policy is impotent about altering that. The CIA and Washington’s allies in Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey armed the anti-government insurgents, including the known terror groups. The regime-change conspirators created a veritable Frankenstein monster over which they now have little control even to the point of getting it to at least appear to be complying with a ceasefire for tactical reasons. 

The latest ceasefire is floundering like the previous attempt because Washington’s assertions about «moderate rebels» dissociating from «terror» groups is total and utter humbug.

Risibly, as one could have predicted, John Kerry’s bombastic appeal last weekend for US-backed «rebels» to «separate» from the extremists so that American and Russian forces could then get on with the task of eliminating the terrorists has been subsequently shown to be the consummate delusion that it is.

Washington and its allies are being caught out spectacularly in their lies over the Syrian conflict. The stone-cold truth is that they have been sponsoring terrorist proxies for the criminal purpose of regime change.

So conspicuous and damning is Washington’s nefarious role in Syria’s conflict – which has resulted in 400,000 dead and millions turned into desperate refugees – that this crime has to be covered up at all costs. But covering it up is becoming futile because of the increasing glaring reality.

Syria’s ceasefire is flawed because Washington, the supposed co-architect of the truce along with Moscow, is not motivated by finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The conflict is all about regime change and deploying terrorist agents to achieve that. That is why the ceasefire is failing – yet again.

The unbearable truth about Washington and its criminal gang of state-sponsors of terrorism has to be concealed from public view. And that is why Washington and the dutiful Western media lie machine are cranking up the «explanation» for the ceasefire unravelling as being due to the fault of the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally for not delivering on humanitarian commitments.

This American smokescreen has been pumped out for nearly six years in Syria. It is really galling to hear the likes of John Kerry and Barack Obama talk about «human suffering» and the need for humanitarian ceasefires.

The suffering and violence in Syria will stop when Washington is seen for the criminal regime that it is. That day is coming. The American smokescreen is dissipating with each passing day because of its absurd contradictions.

And the terrorists – state sponsors and proxies alike – are finally being exposed.



via IFTTT