IRAN MOVES TO END PETRODOLLAR,
ANNOUNCES WILL ACCEPT PAYMENT IN GOLD INSTEAD OF US DOLLARS
Tyler Durden | Wednesday, February 29, 2012
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/iran-moves-further-end-petrodollar-announces-will-accept-payment-gold-instead-dollarsFirefoxHTML%5CShell%5COpen%5CCommand
INTRODUCTION:
Is this the right answer to the embargo imposed by the US on Iran?
By Hugo Adan
February 29, 2012
If China and India will continue buying oil to Iran, means that they won’t be affected by the US-EU embargo, then what is the purpose of this message?. Why not no wait until July, when the embargo on them comes through?
Possible answers: a) dismantle the European support to the US and Nato by offering oil underground to those countries who has reserves of gold, including Grecia. If Grecia gets out of the EU, bye, bye European union. b) de-dollarize your national reserves, I will accept other currencies, said Iran. C) message to all citizens of the world: convert your money deposited in Banks, into gold. The taking out of money from US-EU banks and buying gold coins will creates a financial catastrophe in the West and decree the end of the dollar worldwide.
The war has to be won first at the economic level, said Clausewitz.
If Iranian tactic goes through, the US will be in trouble: we have not enough oil to run our economy in the short-mid term but we still have the currency supremacy of the dollar worldwide by forcing others to trade its oil and other major goods in the world market in dollars. The rest is easy (they control central Banks in client countries, and all those who borrowed money & major FDIs from the US). We can lose such supremacy.
When Iran propose either gold trade for oil or accept the national currency of those who do not have gold, is just responding kick by kick to those who sponsored the embargo.
This is a hard ball game that needs to be stooped in both sides. The media play a key roll in preventing the escalation of this war monguerism.
The stupid annunciation of the embargo is already creating big trouble in the West right now. Commodity prices and transportation fares are soaring and in the US this will create political problems. The recent Bill 347 against freedom on Speech and freedom of Assembly will not deter the uprising of the population.
So, maybe Iran is ready to respond the nuclear attack planned on them and the US do not want to receive the first impact of this clash and prefer the Jews of Israel be sacrifices since their stupid zionist rulers agreed on. But, what about us? Are Americans ready to go to this type of war?. Maybe if Israel (the US behind it) bombs Iran, and China-Russia, behind Iran, bombs Israel, then the collision between the big powers will be eminent. This is the time when Americans will realize that is terrible to play this game (unfortunately we are kidnapped by the GOP war monguerists in their race to elections, they took control of the big mass media) and when we realize that real war could come on our heads, then we will try to get our money from banks, converted into gold coins and run out of big cities.
===============
IRAN .. TO END THE PETRODOLLARS
Tyler Durden | Wednesday, February 29, 2012
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/02/29/iran-moves-further-to-end-petrodollar-announces-will-accept-payment-in-gold-instead-of-dollars/
Much has been spun in recent weeks to indicate that as a result of collapsing trade, Iran’s economy is in shambles and that the financial embargo hoisted upon the country by the insolvent, pardon, developed world is working.
We had a totally different perspective on things “A Very Different Take On The “Iran Barters Gold For Food” Story” in which we essentially said that Iran, with the complicity of major trading partners like China, India and Russia is preparing to phase out the petrodollar: a move which would be impossible if key bilateral trade partners would not agree to it.
Gradually it appears this is increasingly the case following a just released Reuters report that “Iran will take payment from its trading partners in gold instead of dollars, the Iranian state news agency IRNA quoted the central bank governor as saying on Tuesday.”
Via Reuters:
“Iranian financial institutions have been hit by sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union in an effort to force Tehran to halt its nuclear programme.
Significant difficulties in making dollar payments to Iranian banks have forced Iran’s trading partners to look for alternative ways to settle transactions, including direct barter deals.
“In its trade transactions with other countries, Iran does not limit itself to the U.S. dollar, and the country can pay using its own currency,” central bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani was quoted as saying. “If a country should so choose, it can pay in gold and we would accept that without any reservation.”
The sanctions include a phased ban on importing oil from Iran, which EU member states are to implement by July.
China and India, two of the largest consumers of Iranian oil, have said they will continue imports, but Japan and Korea have announced cuts to quotas following pressure from the United States. As a result the value of Iran’s rial has plummeted, pushing the price of goods sharply higher across the country.
And from the source:
“Governor of the Central Bank of Iran Mahmoud Bahmani says the country can trade in currencies other than the American dollar in its foreign transactions.
“Iran does not just work with the dollar in trade transactions and every country can pay in its own currency,” said Mahmoud Bahmani on Tuesday.
Bahmani added that Tehran could receive gold in its transactions instead of currency transfers. In case a country is willing to pay for the price of its imports from Iran in gold, there is no problem in this respect, he noted.
According to Bahmani, Iran imports commodities from China and India in exchange for the countries’ currencies. Tehran’s move is aimed at bypassing the upcoming freeze on CBI’s assets and the oil embargo, which the European Union’s foreign ministers agreed to impose on the Islamic Republic.
Now this would be great news for Greece which as previously reported had at times relied for more than 50% of its crude imports on Iran. There is just one problem: very soon the country will no longer have said gold in its possession, as part of the pre-approved Greek bailout of Europe, the country’s constitution would be changed to reflect that even its gold now is part of the bailout conditions, and European banks have a lien on it. Especially if said gold is located in the basement of the NY Fed where it most likely resides.
As for other countries, such as China which we are confident has been quietly stock-piling gold in the last few years, and will make a surprise announcement any day now, as it did back in 2009… that’s a different matter entirely.
Tyler Durden, ”Zero Hedge“
==============
miércoles, 29 de febrero de 2012
GOODBYE FIRST AMENDMENT? THE TRESPASS BILL HR 347
GOODBYE FIRST AMENDMENT? THE TRESPASS BILL HR 347
THE LATEST VIOLATION to the FIRST AMENDMENT
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo Adan, Feb 29, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
The Trespass Bill HR347 deals with three vital parts of the First Amendment: 1 Freedom of Speech; 2, Freedom of Assembly ; and, 3. Freedom of Petition. Now the question is: which one has been infringed by the current Bill?. Remember that the First Amendment also includes two more parts: Freedom of Religion and Freedom of The Press.
Then the question above should be more precise: Is really the whole First Amendment that is at risk with the bill HR347?. The answer depends on what is the importance you assign to the five freedoms contained in it. To some people the core of the First Amendment is freedom of Speech, Assembly and Petition and the other two fredoms are mere complement or instrumental device to make real the core content.
From a historical perspective we can say that in the past the freedom of religion was the central part and main motivation of the First amendment, but today the most important parts are three freedoms: speech assembly and press, and the instrumental one for the first two is freedom of petition. Then. If the Bill HR 347 only put at risk the freedom of speech and assembly, we can conclude that it is nor the whole First Amendment that is at risk.
Some people can argue that not even the freedom of speech and assembly are at really risk since the instrument to restore them and penalize its potential infringers , that is the right to petition, has not been suppressed. More even, these attempts to infringe freedoms can be contested at State level (just pushing the decentralization suggested by Ron Paul).
If we go further on the rejection of the Federal system, this will help to dissolve the uses and misuses of power by the central Federal Government . It is just the Federal that is providing to States the arguments to consolidate total autonomy from the Federal: their factual abandonment of the US Constitution.
So, their mistake and weakness can be converted into our strength, if and only if we organizer the right people to do so.
The freedom s of Speech and Assembly are now the core and vital parts of the First Amendment , we should defended at whatever cost. The attempt to wipe them out won’t pass.
The freedom of religion and Press are not at risk at all nowadays, they have what they wanted, though there are abuses and misused (islamofobic, for instance) against the freedom of religion and mostly against dominant secularity of this nation. If someone really infringes this freedoms is the advance of capitalism. Take the case of a beautiful temple in the corner of Craft and Forbes in Pittsburgh that has been wiped out by the advance of capitalism and replace by a Tech Center of the Carlow University. Or take the case of another temple in Bates street, also in Pittsburgh where a businessman bought the temple to run a Bar-liquor instead. Who cares about it?. That happens with the consent of the troglodyte Mr Santorum. Only during election time similar troglodytes with middle age mentality makes religion freedom an issue. In the same vein, the freedom of press has been wiped out by advance of monopolies and it is the corporate-press, that has been infringed the First Amendment.
I invite you to open a nice web on the First amendment:
http://www.billofrightsday.com/read-the-bill-of-rights/first-amendment/
and then read with a critical mind the following articles & comments on the Trespass Bill HR 347 and the right to Petition.
===================
GOODBYE, FIRST AMENDMENT: ‘TRESPASS BILL’ WILL MAKE PROTEST ILLEGAL
Published: 29 February, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.
================
DEBATES
In http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1796020/pg1) we found thes comments:
This bill basically, has to do with what the government deems as "restricted building or grounds".
Now, when I look at "Restricted buildings or Grounds" this is super vague. The government could detain me simply because I was outside a courthouse protesting.
In Houston there is people protesting in front of the court house downtown on a daily basis, now they can be removed because they will be so called "interrupting" the flow.
Whoever enters these buildings or grounds without lawful authority, or with the so called "intent" (this is debatable) to disrupt the orderly conduct of government businesses, can be detained and sentenced:
The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is— ‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if— ‘‘(A) any person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or ‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and ‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
The second part of the bill: Stay off the White House grounds and fences, or you are screwed.
Stay away from any building or ground protected by the secret service, or you’re screwed. (this includes being away from presidential candidates). Or anywhere that these people MIGHT be visiting.
--------------------------------
THE FREEDOM of PETITION CLAUSE
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO
It seems this trespass bill is a means to impede the Freedom of Petition Clause, that is the part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that reads:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Freedom of Petition Clause guarantees that Americans can petition the government to redress their grievances without fear of retribution or punishment. This was an important principle valued by the Founding Fathers because of their experience of trying to get King George III and Parliament to redress their grievances. (http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO)
The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to petition the government includes the right to do such things as picket, mail letters, sign petitions, publish materials or use other types of communication to get a message across to the government. It is also generally combined with the right to free speech and the right of assembly to ensure that people can form groups or associations to get their messages across.
The Freedom of Petition Clause applies equally to state and local governments, as well as to the federal government. The Courts have also established that citizens can petition all branches of government, including the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This does not mean however, that citizens have a right to personally meet with the official they wish to petition, but they can submit petitions to their offices or designated person according to established procedures.
The Freedom of Petition Clause played an important role in the Civil Rights fight for African Americans. The Court ruled in many cases that African Americans had the right to do such things as picket, protest and conduct peaceful sitins and boycotts.
The Freedom to Petition may be restricted by the government with reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner. For example, someone does not have the right to expect their petition to be heard at 3:00 in the morning. Someone petitioning the government for redress of grievances must prove that they have legal standing in the matter, meaning that they must show that they are personally affected in the matter addressed.
Why is the Freedom of Petition Clause important?
If you remember reading the Declaration of Independence, Congress included a list of grievances against the British government. The grievances included such things as the king not obeying his own laws, preventing the people from establishing their own elected rulers, keeping standing armies in their land without their consent, imposing taxes without their consent, denying the right to trial by jury in some cases, encouraging the slave population to rebel against them and many others.
The very last grievance mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is this:
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
The people of the American colonies had sent repeated requests to the King and to Parliament asking for relief from their long list of grievances. Instead of addressing these concerns, King George and Parliament had responded by adding more and more restrictions, regulations, taxes and hardships upon them.
The First Congress of the United States wanted to ensure that if the people had a grievance with the government, they could petition the government without the fear of being punished in return. Consequently, the Freedom of Petition Clause was included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. You can read more about the Purpose of the Bill of Rights here.
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/bill-of-rights-purpose.html
Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO
==============================
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
What I want to know is what the frak does it say in English?
DasDoomAss. It essentially says, fuck you American citizens, we are your supreme rulers and will fuck you up the ass any way we damn please....
Anonymous 1: When I look at our current governments agenda and see this bill, it really says:
Stay out of our business, and if you get involved we will simply make you disappear. Combine this with the National Defense Authorization Act it means we really have no rights folks.
Anonymous 2: Laws are one thing, if people refuse them it's another. Will you obey a law that says you must only buy and breath gov't approved air through a gov't approved mask? . It doesn't matter what the law is, people obey or not is another.
Anonymous 3: "bend over and take it in the ass slave".
==============
THE LATEST VIOLATION to the FIRST AMENDMENT
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo Adan, Feb 29, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
The Trespass Bill HR347 deals with three vital parts of the First Amendment: 1 Freedom of Speech; 2, Freedom of Assembly ; and, 3. Freedom of Petition. Now the question is: which one has been infringed by the current Bill?. Remember that the First Amendment also includes two more parts: Freedom of Religion and Freedom of The Press.
Then the question above should be more precise: Is really the whole First Amendment that is at risk with the bill HR347?. The answer depends on what is the importance you assign to the five freedoms contained in it. To some people the core of the First Amendment is freedom of Speech, Assembly and Petition and the other two fredoms are mere complement or instrumental device to make real the core content.
From a historical perspective we can say that in the past the freedom of religion was the central part and main motivation of the First amendment, but today the most important parts are three freedoms: speech assembly and press, and the instrumental one for the first two is freedom of petition. Then. If the Bill HR 347 only put at risk the freedom of speech and assembly, we can conclude that it is nor the whole First Amendment that is at risk.
Some people can argue that not even the freedom of speech and assembly are at really risk since the instrument to restore them and penalize its potential infringers , that is the right to petition, has not been suppressed. More even, these attempts to infringe freedoms can be contested at State level (just pushing the decentralization suggested by Ron Paul).
If we go further on the rejection of the Federal system, this will help to dissolve the uses and misuses of power by the central Federal Government . It is just the Federal that is providing to States the arguments to consolidate total autonomy from the Federal: their factual abandonment of the US Constitution.
So, their mistake and weakness can be converted into our strength, if and only if we organizer the right people to do so.
The freedom s of Speech and Assembly are now the core and vital parts of the First Amendment , we should defended at whatever cost. The attempt to wipe them out won’t pass.
The freedom of religion and Press are not at risk at all nowadays, they have what they wanted, though there are abuses and misused (islamofobic, for instance) against the freedom of religion and mostly against dominant secularity of this nation. If someone really infringes this freedoms is the advance of capitalism. Take the case of a beautiful temple in the corner of Craft and Forbes in Pittsburgh that has been wiped out by the advance of capitalism and replace by a Tech Center of the Carlow University. Or take the case of another temple in Bates street, also in Pittsburgh where a businessman bought the temple to run a Bar-liquor instead. Who cares about it?. That happens with the consent of the troglodyte Mr Santorum. Only during election time similar troglodytes with middle age mentality makes religion freedom an issue. In the same vein, the freedom of press has been wiped out by advance of monopolies and it is the corporate-press, that has been infringed the First Amendment.
I invite you to open a nice web on the First amendment:
http://www.billofrightsday.com/read-the-bill-of-rights/first-amendment/
and then read with a critical mind the following articles & comments on the Trespass Bill HR 347 and the right to Petition.
===================
GOODBYE, FIRST AMENDMENT: ‘TRESPASS BILL’ WILL MAKE PROTEST ILLEGAL
Published: 29 February, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.
================
DEBATES
In http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1796020/pg1) we found thes comments:
This bill basically, has to do with what the government deems as "restricted building or grounds".
Now, when I look at "Restricted buildings or Grounds" this is super vague. The government could detain me simply because I was outside a courthouse protesting.
In Houston there is people protesting in front of the court house downtown on a daily basis, now they can be removed because they will be so called "interrupting" the flow.
Whoever enters these buildings or grounds without lawful authority, or with the so called "intent" (this is debatable) to disrupt the orderly conduct of government businesses, can be detained and sentenced:
The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is— ‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if— ‘‘(A) any person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or ‘‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and ‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
The second part of the bill: Stay off the White House grounds and fences, or you are screwed.
Stay away from any building or ground protected by the secret service, or you’re screwed. (this includes being away from presidential candidates). Or anywhere that these people MIGHT be visiting.
--------------------------------
THE FREEDOM of PETITION CLAUSE
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO
It seems this trespass bill is a means to impede the Freedom of Petition Clause, that is the part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that reads:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Freedom of Petition Clause guarantees that Americans can petition the government to redress their grievances without fear of retribution or punishment. This was an important principle valued by the Founding Fathers because of their experience of trying to get King George III and Parliament to redress their grievances. (http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO)
The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to petition the government includes the right to do such things as picket, mail letters, sign petitions, publish materials or use other types of communication to get a message across to the government. It is also generally combined with the right to free speech and the right of assembly to ensure that people can form groups or associations to get their messages across.
The Freedom of Petition Clause applies equally to state and local governments, as well as to the federal government. The Courts have also established that citizens can petition all branches of government, including the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This does not mean however, that citizens have a right to personally meet with the official they wish to petition, but they can submit petitions to their offices or designated person according to established procedures.
The Freedom of Petition Clause played an important role in the Civil Rights fight for African Americans. The Court ruled in many cases that African Americans had the right to do such things as picket, protest and conduct peaceful sitins and boycotts.
The Freedom to Petition may be restricted by the government with reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner. For example, someone does not have the right to expect their petition to be heard at 3:00 in the morning. Someone petitioning the government for redress of grievances must prove that they have legal standing in the matter, meaning that they must show that they are personally affected in the matter addressed.
Why is the Freedom of Petition Clause important?
If you remember reading the Declaration of Independence, Congress included a list of grievances against the British government. The grievances included such things as the king not obeying his own laws, preventing the people from establishing their own elected rulers, keeping standing armies in their land without their consent, imposing taxes without their consent, denying the right to trial by jury in some cases, encouraging the slave population to rebel against them and many others.
The very last grievance mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is this:
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
The people of the American colonies had sent repeated requests to the King and to Parliament asking for relief from their long list of grievances. Instead of addressing these concerns, King George and Parliament had responded by adding more and more restrictions, regulations, taxes and hardships upon them.
The First Congress of the United States wanted to ensure that if the people had a grievance with the government, they could petition the government without the fear of being punished in return. Consequently, the Freedom of Petition Clause was included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. You can read more about the Purpose of the Bill of Rights here.
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/bill-of-rights-purpose.html
Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-petition-clause.html#ixzz1nl76g5KO
==============================
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
What I want to know is what the frak does it say in English?
DasDoomAss. It essentially says, fuck you American citizens, we are your supreme rulers and will fuck you up the ass any way we damn please....
Anonymous 1: When I look at our current governments agenda and see this bill, it really says:
Stay out of our business, and if you get involved we will simply make you disappear. Combine this with the National Defense Authorization Act it means we really have no rights folks.
Anonymous 2: Laws are one thing, if people refuse them it's another. Will you obey a law that says you must only buy and breath gov't approved air through a gov't approved mask? . It doesn't matter what the law is, people obey or not is another.
Anonymous 3: "bend over and take it in the ass slave".
==============
martes, 28 de febrero de 2012
THE BURNING OF KORAN and TIMES WHEN KILLING AFGHANS IS NOT FUN
THE BURNING OF KORAN and TIMES WHEN KILLING AFGHANS IS NOT FUN
Hugo Adan. February 28, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, then a lieutenant general, told a crowd in San Diego that it was "fun to shoot some people" and said that some Afghans deserved to die.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25916.htm
---------------
EEUU investiga a soldados que mataban civiles afganos para divertirse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks
INTRODUCTION
This seems to be the end of two decades of mixing feelings regarding western occupiers in Afghanistan, including Britts and Russians. The key question is: Does the US invasion prove to be much more lethal than the previous invaders’s to Afghans and Muslims in general?. Let’s explore some answers for this question in BBC articles, but first I want to layout my preliminary opinion as observer of this riddles.
1. Sequence of events: The day 20 the protest start in Kabul and Jalalabad against the burning of Koran in an incinerator at Bagram airbase. The day 22, 6 Afghans were killed because of throwing stone to soldiers. Then, immediately came the apology. The Americans claimed that copies of the Koran were being used to smuggle messages. If so, soldiers were obeying orders. Meaning: the US troops must have done it deliberately, some say, to create instability - so they can stay longer.
2. My 1st point is that not either the Britts or Russians burned the Koran. Do they did it?
3. My 2nd point, most people knows that the ideology that binds all the rivalries among lords of war and different ethnicities in Afghanistan is just one single religion and their faith in Koran as a holy book.
4. My 3rd point, It seems to me than more than the flag is the Koran that unite Afghans. Their existence as united single nation-state goes in that order: nation first and state second. So, without the Koran Afghanistan does not exist in the mind-set of them.
Let’s work with these premises:
5. The Obama apology to the head of the nation has not meaning to the whole nation; it only helps to separate the head (as accomplice of the invaders) from the body (the nation). I’m not saying that Obama should’ve not done such apology, he had to calm the environment for the coming Conference with 60 State representatives in Tunisia the day 25.
6. The order of his words in the apology were wrong and incomplete. He first should apologize to the nation and then to the head of the State. To be consistent with the nation, Obama should have addressed the people’s feeling and explain why the soldiers did so and how they will be punished by a Tribunal of Afghan-US Court and then, he should announced the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
7. How Obama think about the Muslims feelings when a General said that it is fun the kills Afghans, or when soldiers urinate on afghans corpses or when photos cross the globe showing the brutal & nasty torture of Muslims in Abu Graib and other US prisons? I guess he was very disturbed too.
8. Of course Obama was not ready and nor willing to do the right apology for several reasons: first, because this does not depend on him to decide it, but on military industrial team who run these wars abroad. Second , because the US public opinion has been kidnapped by conservative troglodytes that instead of apology were suggesting that Afghanistan should been carpet-bombed up to the stone age. In fact, this was done by Bush did and it didn’t work. Third, because the mind-set of the US nation has been framed with nonsense xenophobic attitudes against Muslims, so even when he did the right thing in apologizing, some conservatives took it bad. Fourth, because Obama himself was an active actor or accomplice in the previous political behavior. This was aggravated by the fact of showing up open sympathy with the foreign policies of the Zionists from Israel.
9. Considering such factors I would say that the Koran-up raising is just the pretext to unite all Muslims in a holy war against Western invaders. It might be at the beginning an anarchist disorganized expression of hate, but if the war in Syria and Iran comes through it could became easily an organized movement worldwide. So. the lest to expect from this mistake is the radicalization of the uprising in Arab Countries, and the start of rebellions in those manipulated countries by the Arab League , plus the start of the uprising in Saudi Arabia and in Muslim African nations.
10. The worst scenario is the escalation of the holly Muslim war inside western countries. Is not such rush that united the resistance of Algerians against the French invaders ? Those fighters bombed Paris’ shopping centers for several months until the French withdraw Algeria. That happened almost 50 years ago, during the previous rebellions against colonialism. Today neo-colonialism is worse than the previous one and we should be prepare for the worse too.
---------------------------
Sources for this article are mainly the Andrew North reports to BBC and some Videos like: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17123817
==================
WILL AFGHAN KORAN ROW PROVE NATO'S TIPPING POINT?
By Andrew North. BBC News, Kabul
23 February 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17140569
“With anti-American demonstrations spreading across the country, what may just have been soldiers obeying a simple order could turn into a tipping point”
There is an end of an era feeling in Kabul these days - for what Afghans see as the latest foreign venture in their country. The revelation that US troops had dumped copies of the Koran into an incineration pit may hasten that end.
They have seen off the Russians and the British before and now it is America's time that is drawing to a close, with the British and other Nato allies eager to depart with them.
At the very least, [the burning of Koran] has provided an open goal for the Taliban and anyone else who wants to provoke anti-American and anti-foreigner sentiments.
There are few more emotive issues in Afghanistan than allegations of the Islamic holy book being desecrated. It has triggered violent disturbances as far back as 2005 - even when the claims of the Koran being mishandled have not been substantiated.
'SAME MISTAKES'
Last year, at least 10 people were killed in Mazar-e Sharif after news reached Afghanistan of an extremist American pastor burning a Koran in faraway Florida.
US troop have been accused of deliberately burning Korans. There is quiet fury within the Afghan government towards the Americans at what one official calls their "brainless" behavior.
They are making the "same mistakes as the Russians", say Afghan analyst Omar Safi - failing to respect the Muslim religion. "No-one should die because of a few books being set on fire," one Afghan official told me on condition of anonymity. But "that is no excuse" he said, for American actions.
Even people still well-disposed towards them cannot believe how they could have allowed this to happen, after more than a decade here and many previous mistakes.
Never before have the Americans apologized so quickly and so profusely as this time - but it sounds hollow to many Afghans.
BATTLE FOR PERCEPTIONS
Returning to Afghanistan after several years away, it is striking how much the mood has changed against the US and its allies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16851949
From recent episodes of troops urinating on Taliban bodies to the many instances of civilians being killed over the past 11 years, attitudes towards the Americans have progressively hardened.
There is also widespread frustration at how little has changed, despite the huge quantities of money that have poured in here.
In the main battleground areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan, there are fewer outdoor wedding parties these days - because they have been bombed so many times by US pilots who think they are seeing Taliban gatherings from thousands of feet up.
The US and its Nato allies rightly argue the Taliban kill far more civilians with their suicide and other attacks. But the Americans are the ones who claim to uphold the highest standards.
What is more, the US doctrine is supposed to be "to protect the population". So this is how they are judged.
And as has been said so many times in the past, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. It is ultimately a battle for perceptions.
More conspiratorially-minded Afghans find it hard to believe these Korans were burnt by mistake. US troops must have done it deliberately, some say, to create instability - so they can stay longer.
For the moment though, it is the Americans who are on the defensive - giving the much-criticized government of President Hamid Karzai some relief.
With US-Afghan negotiations over a strategic partnership still bogged down over issues like night-time raids and control of prisoners, Mr Karzai has been quick to seize the advantage - saying THE KORAN BURNING DISASTER WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THE AFGHANS HAD BEEN IN CHARGE.
The Korans were originally taken from prisoners in US detention, because the Americans apparently believed detainees were using the books to pass messages.
With anti-American demonstrations spreading across the country, what may just have been soldiers obeying a simple order could turn into a tipping point.
===============
Related Stories
• New Afghan Koran protests erupt 23 FEBRUARY 2012, ASIA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17137338
VIDEO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17125586
• US apologises 21 FEBRUARY 2012, ASIA
• Koran protests spreading 03 APRIL 2011, SOUTH ASIA
• Anti-US sentiment 'rife' 07 APRIL 2011, SOUTH ASIA
• Petraeus warns over Koran burning 07 SEPTEMBER 2010, SOUTH ASIA
Hugo Adan. February 28, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, then a lieutenant general, told a crowd in San Diego that it was "fun to shoot some people" and said that some Afghans deserved to die.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25916.htm
---------------
EEUU investiga a soldados que mataban civiles afganos para divertirse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks
INTRODUCTION
This seems to be the end of two decades of mixing feelings regarding western occupiers in Afghanistan, including Britts and Russians. The key question is: Does the US invasion prove to be much more lethal than the previous invaders’s to Afghans and Muslims in general?. Let’s explore some answers for this question in BBC articles, but first I want to layout my preliminary opinion as observer of this riddles.
1. Sequence of events: The day 20 the protest start in Kabul and Jalalabad against the burning of Koran in an incinerator at Bagram airbase. The day 22, 6 Afghans were killed because of throwing stone to soldiers. Then, immediately came the apology. The Americans claimed that copies of the Koran were being used to smuggle messages. If so, soldiers were obeying orders. Meaning: the US troops must have done it deliberately, some say, to create instability - so they can stay longer.
2. My 1st point is that not either the Britts or Russians burned the Koran. Do they did it?
3. My 2nd point, most people knows that the ideology that binds all the rivalries among lords of war and different ethnicities in Afghanistan is just one single religion and their faith in Koran as a holy book.
4. My 3rd point, It seems to me than more than the flag is the Koran that unite Afghans. Their existence as united single nation-state goes in that order: nation first and state second. So, without the Koran Afghanistan does not exist in the mind-set of them.
Let’s work with these premises:
5. The Obama apology to the head of the nation has not meaning to the whole nation; it only helps to separate the head (as accomplice of the invaders) from the body (the nation). I’m not saying that Obama should’ve not done such apology, he had to calm the environment for the coming Conference with 60 State representatives in Tunisia the day 25.
6. The order of his words in the apology were wrong and incomplete. He first should apologize to the nation and then to the head of the State. To be consistent with the nation, Obama should have addressed the people’s feeling and explain why the soldiers did so and how they will be punished by a Tribunal of Afghan-US Court and then, he should announced the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
7. How Obama think about the Muslims feelings when a General said that it is fun the kills Afghans, or when soldiers urinate on afghans corpses or when photos cross the globe showing the brutal & nasty torture of Muslims in Abu Graib and other US prisons? I guess he was very disturbed too.
8. Of course Obama was not ready and nor willing to do the right apology for several reasons: first, because this does not depend on him to decide it, but on military industrial team who run these wars abroad. Second , because the US public opinion has been kidnapped by conservative troglodytes that instead of apology were suggesting that Afghanistan should been carpet-bombed up to the stone age. In fact, this was done by Bush did and it didn’t work. Third, because the mind-set of the US nation has been framed with nonsense xenophobic attitudes against Muslims, so even when he did the right thing in apologizing, some conservatives took it bad. Fourth, because Obama himself was an active actor or accomplice in the previous political behavior. This was aggravated by the fact of showing up open sympathy with the foreign policies of the Zionists from Israel.
9. Considering such factors I would say that the Koran-up raising is just the pretext to unite all Muslims in a holy war against Western invaders. It might be at the beginning an anarchist disorganized expression of hate, but if the war in Syria and Iran comes through it could became easily an organized movement worldwide. So. the lest to expect from this mistake is the radicalization of the uprising in Arab Countries, and the start of rebellions in those manipulated countries by the Arab League , plus the start of the uprising in Saudi Arabia and in Muslim African nations.
10. The worst scenario is the escalation of the holly Muslim war inside western countries. Is not such rush that united the resistance of Algerians against the French invaders ? Those fighters bombed Paris’ shopping centers for several months until the French withdraw Algeria. That happened almost 50 years ago, during the previous rebellions against colonialism. Today neo-colonialism is worse than the previous one and we should be prepare for the worse too.
---------------------------
Sources for this article are mainly the Andrew North reports to BBC and some Videos like: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17123817
==================
WILL AFGHAN KORAN ROW PROVE NATO'S TIPPING POINT?
By Andrew North. BBC News, Kabul
23 February 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17140569
“With anti-American demonstrations spreading across the country, what may just have been soldiers obeying a simple order could turn into a tipping point”
There is an end of an era feeling in Kabul these days - for what Afghans see as the latest foreign venture in their country. The revelation that US troops had dumped copies of the Koran into an incineration pit may hasten that end.
They have seen off the Russians and the British before and now it is America's time that is drawing to a close, with the British and other Nato allies eager to depart with them.
At the very least, [the burning of Koran] has provided an open goal for the Taliban and anyone else who wants to provoke anti-American and anti-foreigner sentiments.
There are few more emotive issues in Afghanistan than allegations of the Islamic holy book being desecrated. It has triggered violent disturbances as far back as 2005 - even when the claims of the Koran being mishandled have not been substantiated.
'SAME MISTAKES'
Last year, at least 10 people were killed in Mazar-e Sharif after news reached Afghanistan of an extremist American pastor burning a Koran in faraway Florida.
US troop have been accused of deliberately burning Korans. There is quiet fury within the Afghan government towards the Americans at what one official calls their "brainless" behavior.
They are making the "same mistakes as the Russians", say Afghan analyst Omar Safi - failing to respect the Muslim religion. "No-one should die because of a few books being set on fire," one Afghan official told me on condition of anonymity. But "that is no excuse" he said, for American actions.
Even people still well-disposed towards them cannot believe how they could have allowed this to happen, after more than a decade here and many previous mistakes.
Never before have the Americans apologized so quickly and so profusely as this time - but it sounds hollow to many Afghans.
BATTLE FOR PERCEPTIONS
Returning to Afghanistan after several years away, it is striking how much the mood has changed against the US and its allies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16851949
From recent episodes of troops urinating on Taliban bodies to the many instances of civilians being killed over the past 11 years, attitudes towards the Americans have progressively hardened.
There is also widespread frustration at how little has changed, despite the huge quantities of money that have poured in here.
In the main battleground areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan, there are fewer outdoor wedding parties these days - because they have been bombed so many times by US pilots who think they are seeing Taliban gatherings from thousands of feet up.
The US and its Nato allies rightly argue the Taliban kill far more civilians with their suicide and other attacks. But the Americans are the ones who claim to uphold the highest standards.
What is more, the US doctrine is supposed to be "to protect the population". So this is how they are judged.
And as has been said so many times in the past, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. It is ultimately a battle for perceptions.
More conspiratorially-minded Afghans find it hard to believe these Korans were burnt by mistake. US troops must have done it deliberately, some say, to create instability - so they can stay longer.
For the moment though, it is the Americans who are on the defensive - giving the much-criticized government of President Hamid Karzai some relief.
With US-Afghan negotiations over a strategic partnership still bogged down over issues like night-time raids and control of prisoners, Mr Karzai has been quick to seize the advantage - saying THE KORAN BURNING DISASTER WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THE AFGHANS HAD BEEN IN CHARGE.
The Korans were originally taken from prisoners in US detention, because the Americans apparently believed detainees were using the books to pass messages.
With anti-American demonstrations spreading across the country, what may just have been soldiers obeying a simple order could turn into a tipping point.
===============
Related Stories
• New Afghan Koran protests erupt 23 FEBRUARY 2012, ASIA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17137338
VIDEO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17125586
• US apologises 21 FEBRUARY 2012, ASIA
• Koran protests spreading 03 APRIL 2011, SOUTH ASIA
• Anti-US sentiment 'rife' 07 APRIL 2011, SOUTH ASIA
• Petraeus warns over Koran burning 07 SEPTEMBER 2010, SOUTH ASIA
lunes, 27 de febrero de 2012
INVADERS FAILED IN SYRIA. PEOPLE WANT PEACEFUL CHANGE
INVADERS FAILED IN SYRIA. PEOPLE WANT PEACEFUL CHANGE
89% VOTE IN FAVOR OF NEW SYRIAN CONSTITUTION
http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-constitution-results-307/
Published: 27 February, 2012
Syria’s Interior Minister has announced that 89 per cent of those who took part in the referendum have voted in favor of a new constitution. The new law puts an end to five decades of one-party rule among other reforms put forward by President Assad.
Interior Minister Ibrahim al-Shaar announced the results of the referendum at a press conference on Monday.¬ According to the minister, out of 14,580,000 Syrians eligible to vote some 8,376,000, or about 57 per cent, actually came to the polling stations and voted, RT’s Maria Finoshina reports from Damascus.
Al-Shaar said that the opposition groups tried to hamper the vote in some troubled areas like Homs and Idlib. Armed rebels did not allow some people to get to the polling stations he said.The minister has not provided the figures on turnout in these cities.
“In Homs we are going to fight till the very end, till there are no armed groups,” he said, as cited by Finoshina.
Those who live in such troubled regions had a chance to vote at polling stations which had been set up out of areas where clashes with the armed opposition still continue. Syrians who live in neighboring countries voted at stations set up near the borders.
“We are satisfied with the results,” al-Shaar said. “The Syrian people have made their choice.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry considers the results of the referendum in Syria to be evidence of the wide public support for the government's course of reforms.
"The referendum has confirmed that the course for changes is supported by the people,” the ministry’s statement said. “The influence of those opposition groups that called for boycotting the referendum is restricted and gives them no exclusive right to speak on behalf of the Syrian people."
The adopted constitution includes 14 new and 47 amended articles. The reforms put forward by President Assad are designed to stop the bloody uprising and pave the way for free elections in the country.
SYRIANS TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN THE CRUCIAL VOTE AND THE OFFICIALS SAID TURNOUT WAS VERY HIGH.
Despite the fact that the opposition boycotted the referendum, calling it an empty gesture, and called for mass protests, there were no public order violations in Damascus during the vote.
Western politicians considered the referendum to be a farce, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it "a cynical ploy" and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle describing it as a "sham vote." Meanwhile, on Monday the European Union has slapped the Syrian government with its toughest set of sanctions yet. http://rt.com/news/eu-recognizes-syrian-national-council-321/. They include an asset freeze on officials, and a ban on importing precious metals and minerals from the country.
----------------------------------------
PREVIOUS RELATED NEWS
“SYRIA HOLDS REFERENDUM AMID BLOODSHED” .
http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-vote-constitution-211/.
Published: 26 February, 2012
The draft of the newly proposed constitution has been made public days before the referendum takes place. It includes 14 new and 47 amended articles. One of the main changes is Article 8, which actually ends over 50 years of single-party rule in Syria. It proclaims that political system in Syria is based on pluralism and multiparty system is permitted.
Also very important is Article 88, as it says that president of the country could only be elected for two seven-year terms. This change however will come into power only after the next presidential elections, which is scheduled for 2014.
There is controversy over some provisions of the draft document. For instance, the new constitution would allow only a Muslim to become president, which the non-Muslim minority is naturally not pleased with.
“What about the 10 per cent of others? We are not here temporary; we’ve been living together for ages, we want to be counted. Why [do] they keep it?” one of such disgruntled people told RT.
The people behind the draft say it was necessary, especially with the tension so high in Syria’s society. “Ten per cent unhappy is better than 90 per cent angry,” said Ahmad Kuzbari, member of constitutional committee.
Still the draft constitution meets the majority of democratic demands of the Syrians. But the big question is whether the government wins public support of the reform. Political analyst Nabil Saman told RT that many people do not trust it. “They're simply not used to it,” he explained.
According to the Interior Ministry 14,000 polling stations were set up for the referendum. About 15 million Syrians have the right to vote.
However, as Maria Finoshina reports, the referendum may come too late as violence is continuing in the country between the opposition and the authorities.
The opposition called to boycott the vote and go on strike. RT’s correspondent says warnings were circling in Damascus that there could have been attacks and explosions at the polling stations during the vote.
Meanwhile, a group of countries, led by the US, calling themselves the Friends of Syria have called for tougher sanctions on Damascus. They include an asset freeze on officials, and a ban on importing precious metals and minerals from the country. http://rt.com/news/eu-recognizes-syrian-national-council-321/
Political activist Shabbir Razvi believes that the Friends of Syria should be really dubbed “the Foes of Syria," because they are really not working "for the interest of Syrian people.”.
=========================
89% VOTE IN FAVOR OF NEW SYRIAN CONSTITUTION
http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-constitution-results-307/
Published: 27 February, 2012
Syria’s Interior Minister has announced that 89 per cent of those who took part in the referendum have voted in favor of a new constitution. The new law puts an end to five decades of one-party rule among other reforms put forward by President Assad.
Interior Minister Ibrahim al-Shaar announced the results of the referendum at a press conference on Monday.¬ According to the minister, out of 14,580,000 Syrians eligible to vote some 8,376,000, or about 57 per cent, actually came to the polling stations and voted, RT’s Maria Finoshina reports from Damascus.
Al-Shaar said that the opposition groups tried to hamper the vote in some troubled areas like Homs and Idlib. Armed rebels did not allow some people to get to the polling stations he said.The minister has not provided the figures on turnout in these cities.
“In Homs we are going to fight till the very end, till there are no armed groups,” he said, as cited by Finoshina.
Those who live in such troubled regions had a chance to vote at polling stations which had been set up out of areas where clashes with the armed opposition still continue. Syrians who live in neighboring countries voted at stations set up near the borders.
“We are satisfied with the results,” al-Shaar said. “The Syrian people have made their choice.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry considers the results of the referendum in Syria to be evidence of the wide public support for the government's course of reforms.
"The referendum has confirmed that the course for changes is supported by the people,” the ministry’s statement said. “The influence of those opposition groups that called for boycotting the referendum is restricted and gives them no exclusive right to speak on behalf of the Syrian people."
The adopted constitution includes 14 new and 47 amended articles. The reforms put forward by President Assad are designed to stop the bloody uprising and pave the way for free elections in the country.
SYRIANS TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN THE CRUCIAL VOTE AND THE OFFICIALS SAID TURNOUT WAS VERY HIGH.
Despite the fact that the opposition boycotted the referendum, calling it an empty gesture, and called for mass protests, there were no public order violations in Damascus during the vote.
Western politicians considered the referendum to be a farce, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it "a cynical ploy" and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle describing it as a "sham vote." Meanwhile, on Monday the European Union has slapped the Syrian government with its toughest set of sanctions yet. http://rt.com/news/eu-recognizes-syrian-national-council-321/. They include an asset freeze on officials, and a ban on importing precious metals and minerals from the country.
----------------------------------------
PREVIOUS RELATED NEWS
“SYRIA HOLDS REFERENDUM AMID BLOODSHED” .
http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-vote-constitution-211/.
Published: 26 February, 2012
The draft of the newly proposed constitution has been made public days before the referendum takes place. It includes 14 new and 47 amended articles. One of the main changes is Article 8, which actually ends over 50 years of single-party rule in Syria. It proclaims that political system in Syria is based on pluralism and multiparty system is permitted.
Also very important is Article 88, as it says that president of the country could only be elected for two seven-year terms. This change however will come into power only after the next presidential elections, which is scheduled for 2014.
There is controversy over some provisions of the draft document. For instance, the new constitution would allow only a Muslim to become president, which the non-Muslim minority is naturally not pleased with.
“What about the 10 per cent of others? We are not here temporary; we’ve been living together for ages, we want to be counted. Why [do] they keep it?” one of such disgruntled people told RT.
The people behind the draft say it was necessary, especially with the tension so high in Syria’s society. “Ten per cent unhappy is better than 90 per cent angry,” said Ahmad Kuzbari, member of constitutional committee.
Still the draft constitution meets the majority of democratic demands of the Syrians. But the big question is whether the government wins public support of the reform. Political analyst Nabil Saman told RT that many people do not trust it. “They're simply not used to it,” he explained.
According to the Interior Ministry 14,000 polling stations were set up for the referendum. About 15 million Syrians have the right to vote.
However, as Maria Finoshina reports, the referendum may come too late as violence is continuing in the country between the opposition and the authorities.
The opposition called to boycott the vote and go on strike. RT’s correspondent says warnings were circling in Damascus that there could have been attacks and explosions at the polling stations during the vote.
Meanwhile, a group of countries, led by the US, calling themselves the Friends of Syria have called for tougher sanctions on Damascus. They include an asset freeze on officials, and a ban on importing precious metals and minerals from the country. http://rt.com/news/eu-recognizes-syrian-national-council-321/
Political activist Shabbir Razvi believes that the Friends of Syria should be really dubbed “the Foes of Syria," because they are really not working "for the interest of Syrian people.”.
=========================
THE ROAD TO DEVASTATION: WHAT IS BEING COOK in THE OTHER OVEN
CHINA: US HAS NO MORAL RIGHT TO ‘PROTECT’ ARABS [1]
http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-china-putin-275/
Published: 27 February, 2012
China says the US has no right to “protect” Arab peoples, questioning “the sincerity and efficacy of US policy.” The country’s top newspaper replied to Hillary Clinton after she called China’s and Russia’s veto of a UN Syrian resolution "despicable".
The People’s Daily commentary says, "The United States' motive in parading as a 'protector' of the Arab peoples is not difficult to imagine. The problem is what moral basis does it have for this patronizing and egotistical super-arrogance and self-confidence?"
The newspaper recalls the US-led invasion of Iraq. "Even now, violence continues unabated in Iraq, and ordinary people enjoy no security. This alone is enough for us to draw a huge question mark over the sincerity and efficacy of US policy."
The commentary repeated China's argument that its unwillingness to take sides in the conflict best reflects the interests of the Syrian people.
Russia, which also voted against what it called a “Syria regime change resolution” in the UN, has also criticized the US stance on Syria. In his latest article [2] on foreign policy, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has warned the West against the temptation to resort to a “simple, previously-used tactic: If the UN Security Council approves of a given action – fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.”
Russian and Chinese criticism over US policies comes after Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying there is no enthusiasm in Washington for war. However, while on a visit to Morocco she urged those who still support Syria’s President Assad, especially members of the Syrian military and business community, to turn against him.
“The longer you support the regime's campaign of violence against your brothers and sisters, the more it will stain your honor,” Clinton said.
On Sunday Syrian authorities held national referendum on a new constitution amid [TO STOP] continuing violence. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that at least 31 people died including civilians, soldiers and opposition fighters.
Ballot counting is currently underway, with official results expected later on Monday. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says if approved the referendum will lead to a multi-party parliamentary election in three months’ time.
Most Syrian opposition groups boycotted the vote, demanding Assad abandon power altogether, while they say the referendum could keep him in power until 2028. The US and its allies dismissed the vote as a "farce" meant to justify the bloody crackdown on dissent.
¬
The United States is beginning to realize the complexity of the situation in Syria and is showing signs of slightly backing off from their previous energetic push for regime change in the country, Jeremy Salt, a professor at Bilkent University, told RT.
“While we hear a lot of rhetoric from Hillary Clinton, she herself is showing signs of being more aware of complexities inside Syria,” Salt said. “She was talking about the complex factors, saying ‘Well we want to do something, but we do not know what to do,’ and she was talking about the fact that while there are problem areas in Syria, there are large areas in the country unaffected.”
“You can see there is certain change of the discourse here which indicates the Americans are not certain what step to take next,” the professor added.
-------------------------
NOTE 1. With these articles I’m initiating the series WHAT IS BEING COOK IN THE OTHER OVEN
NOTE 2. Russia latest article : “NATO hijacking UN powers' – Putin”, IN http://rt.com/politics/putin-nato-us-elections-2012-265/
==================
RUSSIA: NATO HIJACKING UN POWERS' – PUTIN
http://rt.com/politics/putin-nato-us-elections-2012-265/
By Robert Bridge, RT
In the latest installment of his pre-election manifesto, Vladimir Putin issues a blunt assessment of US and NATO behavior, while stressing the need for Russia’s active participation in the international security architecture.
With global leaders attempting a precarious balancing act along dangerous fault lines, Putin offered wisdom that has been proven correct many times in the past: “The only way to ensure global security is by doing it together with Russia, not by trying to ‘demote’ it, weaken it geopolitically or undermine its defensive potential.”
Admitting to the emergence of a “new world order” based upon the “new geopolitical reality,” the leading contender in next month’s presidential election quickly criticized the US and NATO for following what he called a “bloc mentality” that threatens to destabilize the global situation.
Presently, US and NATO are busy building a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, just miles from the Russian border. Despite warnings that the far-reaching project could trigger another arms race unless Russia is brought on board, Washington continues to ignore Moscow’s requests to be allowed to cooperate.
This type of conduct, Putin warns, “definitely does not promote trust,” and only serves to prevent Russia and its allies “from developing a positive agenda in international relations…in a constructive vein.”
¬
HIJACKING THE UNITED NATIONS
The Russian prime minister went on to mention a “string of armed conflicts” occurring in the world that is undermining the principles of national sovereignty under the pretext of “humanitarian concerns.”
While agreeing that “crimes against humanity should be punished by an international court,” Putin called it “mere demagoguery” when foreign powers express to the United Nations their concern for human rights, when in reality they are looking for “an excuse for a presumptuous violation of national sovereignty.”
“Nobody has the right to hijack the prerogatives and powers of the UN,” Putin said. “I am referring primarily to NATO, which seeks to assume a new role that goes beyond its status of a defensive alliance.”
A large part of the problem, Putin believes, is that NATO countries, and especially the United States, “are obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability for themselves.”
“Absolute invulnerability for one nation would mean absolute vulnerability for everybody else,” Putin said. “We cannot agree to this.”
¬
ARAB SPRING – WITHOUT THE THAW
Calling attention to the ongoing Arab Spring, which has attracted foreign military intervention, Putin notes that the “striving to introduce democracy by the use of power can produce… contradictory results.”
Putin pointed to the deteriorating situation in Syria, where various anti-government factions are attempting to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Western leaders are focused on a one-sided approach to the situation, demanding that the pro-government forces lay down their arms, while not making similar demands on the opposition forces.
Putin reminded of the West’s “hysterical reaction” to Russia and China’s UN veto, which prevented “the adoption of an ambiguous resolution that would have encouraged one side of this domestic conflict to resort to violence.”
Putin warned that a coalition of states, ignoring the outcome of the UN Security Council vote, may go ahead and “strike anyway.”
“The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous,” Putin said. “Even worse, it further undermines the entire system of international security as well as the authority and key role of the UN."
¬
ADDRESSING THE WORLD'S HOT SPOTS
Unfortunately, Syria is not the only tinderbox smoking on the international stage. Putin warned about the threat of a military strike against Iran, which is suspected of developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a nuclear energy program.
“If [a military attack] happens, the consequences will be disastrous,” Putin predicted. “It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.”
The Russian prime minister said he is convinced that the issue must be settled “exclusively by peaceful means.”
Meanwhile, the situation in North Korea, which just saw the torch of power transfer to Kim Jong-un, the son of longtime leader, Kim Jong-il, shows no sign of abating.
Reminding his readers that Russia and the communist state “share a common border,” Putin said that Russia “cannot accept North Korea’s nuclear status,” and will continue to address the situation through diplomatic channels.
In the context of nations seeking to preserve their national sovereignty, Putin suggested that increasingly frequent cases of military interference in the domestic affairs of countries may prompt authoritarian (and other) regimes to “possess nuclear weapons,” otherwise, they will be vulnerable to some sort of future “humanitarian intervention.”
Whether we like it or not, foreign intervention in other countries’ affairs suggests this train of thought, the premier warned.
Putin devoted much ink to the subject of Afghanistan, where NATO has been battling Taliban forces for over 10 years with wildly varying levels of success.
Since the NATO-led military contingent “has not met its objectives,” Russia is increasingly threatened by “the threats of terrorism and drug-trafficking.” At the same time, the protracted war in Central Asia has allowed the US to build military bases “without a clear mandate, objectives or duration of operation.”
Understandably, this does not suit us, he said, adding that foreign military presence “has never brought peace to Afghanistan.”
¬
THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF RELATIONS WITH EUROPE, ASIA AND US
Speaking on the subject of China’s dramatic rise on the global stage, Putin said this presented Russia with a “colossal” opportunity to “catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy.”
Putin believes a strong China to the south is no threat.
“China's conduct on the world stage gives no grounds to talk about its aspirations to dominance,” he assured. “The Chinese voice in the world is indeed growing ever more confident, and we welcome that, because Beijing shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order.”
Mentioning organizations where the two countries have membership, including BRICS, the SCO, and the G20, Putin stressed that Russia and China “will continue to support each other in the international arena…to solve acute regional and global problems.”
On the question of relations with Europe, of which Russia is “an inalienable and organic part,” Putin seems to have an infinite sense of optimism.
“Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean – a community referred by Russian experts to as "the Union of Europe," which will strengthen Russia's potential and position in its economic pivot toward the "new Asia," he writes.
Putin envisions the creation of “a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”
While the discussion on relations with Europe predominantly focused on economics, the subject became more complex when the issue of relations with the US came up.
Putin said Russia’s relationship with the United States continues to “ebb and flow,” largely due to “the perception…on Capitol Hill,” which cannot shake “well-known stereotypes and phobias” about Russia. Interestingly, the prime minister thinks that a little economic fine-tuning could set things straight between Moscow and Washington.
“The main problem is that bilateral political dialogue and cooperation do not rest on a solid economic foundation,” he noted. “The current level of bilateral trade falls far short of the potential of our economies.”
But it seems that an economic band-aid will not be enough to restore trust between the two former Cold War enemies.
Putin said that “mutual understanding” between the two countries is regularly hampered by Washington’s attempts at “political engineering” both in countries that are “important to us,” as well as in Russia.
With Russia preparing for much-anticipated presidential elections this week, Putin seems to be sending a signal that Washington should refrain from interfering in the process.
======================
RELATED ARTICLES:
1. “Putin assassination plan foiled (VIDEO)” . Russian and Ukrainian intelligence services have foiled terrorist plans to assassinate Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Russia’s most-wanted terrorist Doku Umarov is thought to be behind the plot.
http://rt.com/news/putin-assassination-attempt-thwarted-271/
2. “Attempt on Putin could fan anti-Americanism” . The planned attempt on Vladimir Putin’s life would bring anti-American sentiments in the world to a new low, Russian political commentator and a member of the Public Chamber Nikolay Svanidze told RT.
http://rt.com/politics/attempt-flame-anti-americanism-expert-305/
3. “Rogozin launches ‘Iron Fist in velvet glove’ front”. A new Russian public movement in support of the military and the defense industry has set its primary objective the creation of a new man resistant to information
http://rt.com/politics/rogozin-velvet-new-defense-277/
4. “Expert: Russia needs to know new rules of energy business”. Russian PM Vladimir Putin says the new European Union energy policy aimed at separating energy production from distribution increases energy security risks for EU. Experts say re-writing the rules of energy market may damage not only Russian, but European
http://rt.com/business/news/eu-russia-energy-policy-317/
======================
http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-china-putin-275/
Published: 27 February, 2012
China says the US has no right to “protect” Arab peoples, questioning “the sincerity and efficacy of US policy.” The country’s top newspaper replied to Hillary Clinton after she called China’s and Russia’s veto of a UN Syrian resolution "despicable".
The People’s Daily commentary says, "The United States' motive in parading as a 'protector' of the Arab peoples is not difficult to imagine. The problem is what moral basis does it have for this patronizing and egotistical super-arrogance and self-confidence?"
The newspaper recalls the US-led invasion of Iraq. "Even now, violence continues unabated in Iraq, and ordinary people enjoy no security. This alone is enough for us to draw a huge question mark over the sincerity and efficacy of US policy."
The commentary repeated China's argument that its unwillingness to take sides in the conflict best reflects the interests of the Syrian people.
Russia, which also voted against what it called a “Syria regime change resolution” in the UN, has also criticized the US stance on Syria. In his latest article [2] on foreign policy, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has warned the West against the temptation to resort to a “simple, previously-used tactic: If the UN Security Council approves of a given action – fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.”
Russian and Chinese criticism over US policies comes after Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying there is no enthusiasm in Washington for war. However, while on a visit to Morocco she urged those who still support Syria’s President Assad, especially members of the Syrian military and business community, to turn against him.
“The longer you support the regime's campaign of violence against your brothers and sisters, the more it will stain your honor,” Clinton said.
On Sunday Syrian authorities held national referendum on a new constitution amid [TO STOP] continuing violence. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that at least 31 people died including civilians, soldiers and opposition fighters.
Ballot counting is currently underway, with official results expected later on Monday. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says if approved the referendum will lead to a multi-party parliamentary election in three months’ time.
Most Syrian opposition groups boycotted the vote, demanding Assad abandon power altogether, while they say the referendum could keep him in power until 2028. The US and its allies dismissed the vote as a "farce" meant to justify the bloody crackdown on dissent.
¬
The United States is beginning to realize the complexity of the situation in Syria and is showing signs of slightly backing off from their previous energetic push for regime change in the country, Jeremy Salt, a professor at Bilkent University, told RT.
“While we hear a lot of rhetoric from Hillary Clinton, she herself is showing signs of being more aware of complexities inside Syria,” Salt said. “She was talking about the complex factors, saying ‘Well we want to do something, but we do not know what to do,’ and she was talking about the fact that while there are problem areas in Syria, there are large areas in the country unaffected.”
“You can see there is certain change of the discourse here which indicates the Americans are not certain what step to take next,” the professor added.
-------------------------
NOTE 1. With these articles I’m initiating the series WHAT IS BEING COOK IN THE OTHER OVEN
NOTE 2. Russia latest article : “NATO hijacking UN powers' – Putin”, IN http://rt.com/politics/putin-nato-us-elections-2012-265/
==================
RUSSIA: NATO HIJACKING UN POWERS' – PUTIN
http://rt.com/politics/putin-nato-us-elections-2012-265/
By Robert Bridge, RT
In the latest installment of his pre-election manifesto, Vladimir Putin issues a blunt assessment of US and NATO behavior, while stressing the need for Russia’s active participation in the international security architecture.
With global leaders attempting a precarious balancing act along dangerous fault lines, Putin offered wisdom that has been proven correct many times in the past: “The only way to ensure global security is by doing it together with Russia, not by trying to ‘demote’ it, weaken it geopolitically or undermine its defensive potential.”
Admitting to the emergence of a “new world order” based upon the “new geopolitical reality,” the leading contender in next month’s presidential election quickly criticized the US and NATO for following what he called a “bloc mentality” that threatens to destabilize the global situation.
Presently, US and NATO are busy building a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, just miles from the Russian border. Despite warnings that the far-reaching project could trigger another arms race unless Russia is brought on board, Washington continues to ignore Moscow’s requests to be allowed to cooperate.
This type of conduct, Putin warns, “definitely does not promote trust,” and only serves to prevent Russia and its allies “from developing a positive agenda in international relations…in a constructive vein.”
¬
HIJACKING THE UNITED NATIONS
The Russian prime minister went on to mention a “string of armed conflicts” occurring in the world that is undermining the principles of national sovereignty under the pretext of “humanitarian concerns.”
While agreeing that “crimes against humanity should be punished by an international court,” Putin called it “mere demagoguery” when foreign powers express to the United Nations their concern for human rights, when in reality they are looking for “an excuse for a presumptuous violation of national sovereignty.”
“Nobody has the right to hijack the prerogatives and powers of the UN,” Putin said. “I am referring primarily to NATO, which seeks to assume a new role that goes beyond its status of a defensive alliance.”
A large part of the problem, Putin believes, is that NATO countries, and especially the United States, “are obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability for themselves.”
“Absolute invulnerability for one nation would mean absolute vulnerability for everybody else,” Putin said. “We cannot agree to this.”
¬
ARAB SPRING – WITHOUT THE THAW
Calling attention to the ongoing Arab Spring, which has attracted foreign military intervention, Putin notes that the “striving to introduce democracy by the use of power can produce… contradictory results.”
Putin pointed to the deteriorating situation in Syria, where various anti-government factions are attempting to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Western leaders are focused on a one-sided approach to the situation, demanding that the pro-government forces lay down their arms, while not making similar demands on the opposition forces.
Putin reminded of the West’s “hysterical reaction” to Russia and China’s UN veto, which prevented “the adoption of an ambiguous resolution that would have encouraged one side of this domestic conflict to resort to violence.”
Putin warned that a coalition of states, ignoring the outcome of the UN Security Council vote, may go ahead and “strike anyway.”
“The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous,” Putin said. “Even worse, it further undermines the entire system of international security as well as the authority and key role of the UN."
¬
ADDRESSING THE WORLD'S HOT SPOTS
Unfortunately, Syria is not the only tinderbox smoking on the international stage. Putin warned about the threat of a military strike against Iran, which is suspected of developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a nuclear energy program.
“If [a military attack] happens, the consequences will be disastrous,” Putin predicted. “It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.”
The Russian prime minister said he is convinced that the issue must be settled “exclusively by peaceful means.”
Meanwhile, the situation in North Korea, which just saw the torch of power transfer to Kim Jong-un, the son of longtime leader, Kim Jong-il, shows no sign of abating.
Reminding his readers that Russia and the communist state “share a common border,” Putin said that Russia “cannot accept North Korea’s nuclear status,” and will continue to address the situation through diplomatic channels.
In the context of nations seeking to preserve their national sovereignty, Putin suggested that increasingly frequent cases of military interference in the domestic affairs of countries may prompt authoritarian (and other) regimes to “possess nuclear weapons,” otherwise, they will be vulnerable to some sort of future “humanitarian intervention.”
Whether we like it or not, foreign intervention in other countries’ affairs suggests this train of thought, the premier warned.
Putin devoted much ink to the subject of Afghanistan, where NATO has been battling Taliban forces for over 10 years with wildly varying levels of success.
Since the NATO-led military contingent “has not met its objectives,” Russia is increasingly threatened by “the threats of terrorism and drug-trafficking.” At the same time, the protracted war in Central Asia has allowed the US to build military bases “without a clear mandate, objectives or duration of operation.”
Understandably, this does not suit us, he said, adding that foreign military presence “has never brought peace to Afghanistan.”
¬
THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF RELATIONS WITH EUROPE, ASIA AND US
Speaking on the subject of China’s dramatic rise on the global stage, Putin said this presented Russia with a “colossal” opportunity to “catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy.”
Putin believes a strong China to the south is no threat.
“China's conduct on the world stage gives no grounds to talk about its aspirations to dominance,” he assured. “The Chinese voice in the world is indeed growing ever more confident, and we welcome that, because Beijing shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order.”
Mentioning organizations where the two countries have membership, including BRICS, the SCO, and the G20, Putin stressed that Russia and China “will continue to support each other in the international arena…to solve acute regional and global problems.”
On the question of relations with Europe, of which Russia is “an inalienable and organic part,” Putin seems to have an infinite sense of optimism.
“Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean – a community referred by Russian experts to as "the Union of Europe," which will strengthen Russia's potential and position in its economic pivot toward the "new Asia," he writes.
Putin envisions the creation of “a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”
While the discussion on relations with Europe predominantly focused on economics, the subject became more complex when the issue of relations with the US came up.
Putin said Russia’s relationship with the United States continues to “ebb and flow,” largely due to “the perception…on Capitol Hill,” which cannot shake “well-known stereotypes and phobias” about Russia. Interestingly, the prime minister thinks that a little economic fine-tuning could set things straight between Moscow and Washington.
“The main problem is that bilateral political dialogue and cooperation do not rest on a solid economic foundation,” he noted. “The current level of bilateral trade falls far short of the potential of our economies.”
But it seems that an economic band-aid will not be enough to restore trust between the two former Cold War enemies.
Putin said that “mutual understanding” between the two countries is regularly hampered by Washington’s attempts at “political engineering” both in countries that are “important to us,” as well as in Russia.
With Russia preparing for much-anticipated presidential elections this week, Putin seems to be sending a signal that Washington should refrain from interfering in the process.
======================
RELATED ARTICLES:
1. “Putin assassination plan foiled (VIDEO)” . Russian and Ukrainian intelligence services have foiled terrorist plans to assassinate Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Russia’s most-wanted terrorist Doku Umarov is thought to be behind the plot.
http://rt.com/news/putin-assassination-attempt-thwarted-271/
2. “Attempt on Putin could fan anti-Americanism” . The planned attempt on Vladimir Putin’s life would bring anti-American sentiments in the world to a new low, Russian political commentator and a member of the Public Chamber Nikolay Svanidze told RT.
http://rt.com/politics/attempt-flame-anti-americanism-expert-305/
3. “Rogozin launches ‘Iron Fist in velvet glove’ front”. A new Russian public movement in support of the military and the defense industry has set its primary objective the creation of a new man resistant to information
http://rt.com/politics/rogozin-velvet-new-defense-277/
4. “Expert: Russia needs to know new rules of energy business”. Russian PM Vladimir Putin says the new European Union energy policy aimed at separating energy production from distribution increases energy security risks for EU. Experts say re-writing the rules of energy market may damage not only Russian, but European
http://rt.com/business/news/eu-russia-energy-policy-317/
======================
domingo, 26 de febrero de 2012
THE TRANSITION TO MONETARY FREEDOM
THE TRANSITION TO MONETARY FREEDOM
In case you miss it !!
Mises Daily: Wednesday, February 22, 2012
By RON PAUL
http://mises.org/daily/5926/The-Transition-to-Monetary-Freedom
This article is excerpted from THE CASE FOR GOLD (1982), chapter 6, "The Transition to Monetary Freedom."
Comments on this article. See below
SPECIFIC REFORMS REQUIRED
The growth of the American government in the late 19th and 20th centuries is reflected in its increasing presence and finally monopolization of the monetary system. Any attempt at restoring monetary freedom must be part of a comprehensive plan to roll back government and once again confine it within the limits of the Constitution. That comprehensive plan may be divided into four sections: monetary legislation, the budget, taxation, and regulation. We shall begin with monetary reforms, and conclude with a word about international cooperation and agreement.
MONETARY LEGISLATION
LEGAL-TENDER LAWS
As we have seen, the Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender. One of the most important pieces of legislation that could be enacted would be the repeal of all federal legal-tender laws. Such laws, which have the effect of forcing creditors to accept something in payment for the debts due them that they do not wish to accept, are one of the most tyrannical devices of the present monetary authorities.
Not only does the Federal Reserve have a coercive monopoly in issuing "money," but every American is forced to accept it. Each Federal Reserve note bears the words, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." The freedom to conduct business in something else — such as gold and silver coin — cannot exist so long as the government forces everyone to accept its paper notes. Monetary freedom ends where legal-tender laws begin.
The United States had no such laws until 1862, when the Congress — in violation of the Constitution — enacted them in order to ensure the acceptance of the Lincoln greenbacks, the paper notes printed by the US Treasury during the wartime emergency. That "emergency" has now lasted for 120 years; it is time that this unconstitutional action by the Congress be repealed. Freedom of contract — and the right to have such contracts enforced, not abrogated, by the government — is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society.
DEFINING THE DOLLAR
A second major reform needed is a legal definition of the term "dollar." The Constitution uses the word "dollar" at least twice, and it is quite clear that by it the framers meant the Spanish-milled dollar of 371 ¼ grains of silver. Since 1968, however, there has been no domestic definition of "dollar," for in that year redemption of silver certificates and delivery of silver in exchange for the notes ended, and silver coins were removed from circulation.
In 1971, the international definition of the "dollar" as 1/42 of an ounce of gold was also dropped. The Treasury and Federal Reserve still value gold at $42.22 per ounce, but that is a mere accounting device. In addition, IMF rules now prohibit any member country from externally defining its currency in terms of gold. The word "dollar," quite literally, is legally meaningless, and it has been meaningless for the past decade. Federal Reserve notes are not "dollars"; they are notes denominated in "dollars." But what a "dollar" is, no one knows.
This absurdity at the basis of our monetary system must be corrected. It is of secondary importance whether we define a "dollar" as a weight of gold or as a weight of silver. What is important is that it be defined. The current situation permits the Federal Reserve — and the Internal Revenue Service for that matter — to use the word any way they please, just like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
No rational economic activity can be conducted when the unit of account is undefined. The use of the meaningless term "dollar" has all but wrecked the capital markets of this country. If the "dollar" changes in meaning from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, long-term contracts denominated in "dollars" become traps that all wish to avoid. The breakdown of long-term financing and planning in the past decade is a result of the absurd nature of the "dollar." There is very little long-term planning occurring at the present. The only way to restore rationality to the system is to restore a definition for the term "dollar." We suggest defining a "dollar" as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine. Such a fixed definition is the only way to restore confidence in the markets and in the "dollar." Capitalism cannot survive the type of irrationality that lies at the basis of our present monetary arrangements.
A NEW COINAGE
We are extremely pleased that the Gold Commission has recommended to the Congress a new gold coinage. It has been almost 50 years since the last United States gold coins were struck, and renewing this constitutional function would indeed be a cause for celebration and jubilee.
We believe that the coins should be struck in one-ounce, one-half-ounce, one-quarter-ounce, and one-tenth-ounce weights, using the most beautiful of coin designs, that designed by Augustus Saint Gaudens in 1907. A coinage in such weights would allow Americans to exchange their greenbacks for genuine American coins; there would no longer be any need for purchasing Canadian, Mexican, South African, or other foreign coins. Combined with the removal of capital-gains taxation on the coins and the elimination of all transaction taxes, such as excise and sales taxes, the new American coinage could quickly become an alternative monetary system to our present paper monopoly.
In addition to the new official coinage, private mints should also be permitted to issue their own coins under their own trademarks. Such trademarks should be protected by law, just as other trademarks are. Furthermore, private citizens should once again enjoy the right to bring gold bullion to the Treasury and exchange it for coins of the United States for a nominal minting fee.
In the last six years, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek has called attention once again to the economic advantages of a system of competing currencies. In two books, Choice in Currency and Denationalization of Money, Professor Hayek proposes that all legal obstacles be removed and that the people be allowed to choose freely what they wish to use in transactions. Those competing monies might be foreign currencies, private coins, government coins, private bank notes, and so on. Such unrestricted freedom of choice would result in the most reliable currencies or coins winning public acceptance and displacing less reliable competitors. Good money — in the absence of government coercion — drives out bad. The new coinage that the Gold Commission has recommended and which we strongly endorse is a first step in the direction of allowing currencies to compete freely.
THE FAILURE OF CENTRAL BANKING
By a strict interpretation of the Constitution, one of the most unconstitutional (if there are degrees of unconstitutionality) of federal agencies is the Federal Reserve. The Constitution grants no power to the Congress to set up such an institution, and the Fed is the major cause of our present monetary problems. The alleged constitutional authority stems from a loose and imaginative interpretation of the implied powers clause.
Functioning as the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve is an anachronism. It was created at a time when faith in control of the economy by Washington was growing, but since it started operations in 1914, it has caused the greatest depressions (1929-1939), recessions (too numerous to mention), inflations, and unemployment levels in our nation's history. The only useful function it performs, the clearing of checks between banks, could be much better handled through private clearinghouses or eliminated entirely by electronic funds transfer. Given its record, there simply is no good reason for allowing the Federal Reserve a monopoly over the nation's money and banking system. Eliminating the power to conduct market operations must be achieved if we expect to stop inflation and restore monetary freedom.
Such a step may alarm some, however. They might be concerned about what will happen to all the Federal Reserve notes now in circulation and what they will be replaced with. First, the present Federal Reserve notes would be retired and replaced by notes redeemable in gold or silver or some other commodity. Such notes would be similar to traveler's checks now in use which are, at the present time, redeemable only in paper notes. Like traveler's checks, such notes would not be legal tender and no one would be forced to accept them in payment. And since they would be promises to pay, any institution that issued them and then failed to redeem them as promised would be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution, unlike the Federal Reserve, which is subject to neither.
As for the present circulating Federal Reserve notes, they could be made redeemable for gold once a "dollar" is defined as a weight of gold. Anyone who wishes to redeem them could simply do so by exchanging them for gold coins at his bank.
It is important to note that should we institute a gold standard before the Federal Reserve System is ended, that system must function along classical gold standard lines. As Friedman and Schwartz pointed out, it was the failure of the Federal Reserve to abide by the classical gold standard rules that caused the panic of 1929 and the subsequent depression.
In chapters 2 and 3, we demonstrated the disruptive effects fractional-reserve banking has caused in the United States. Since we still suffer with that system, it is imperative that a fundamental reform of it be made. That reform is simply that all promises to pay on demand, whether made in the form of notes or deposits, be backed 100 percent by whatever is promised, be it silver, gold, or watermelons. If there is any failure to carry 100 percent reserves or to make delivery when demanded, such persons or institutions would be subject to severe penalties. The fractional-reserve system has created the business cycle, and if that is to be eliminated, its cause must be also.
AUDIT, INVENTORY, ASSAY, AND CONFISCATION
One of the areas in which we believe a majority of the Gold Commission erred is in not requiring a thorough and complete assay, inventory, and audit of the gold reserves of the United States on a regular basis. Perhaps there is less of an argument for such a procedure when the gold reserves are essentially stable, but when there is any significant change in them — as will happen when a new coinage is issued — careful scrutiny of the government's gold supplies is necessary.
There have been cases of employee thefts at government bullion depositories, unrecorded shipments of gold from one depository to another, and numerous press reports about millions of dollars worth of gold missing. It seems elementary that the government ought to ascertain accurately its reserves of this precious metal, and that the present ten-year "audit" of the gold inventory is totally inadequate for this purpose. We are quite sure that the Federal Reserve has a much better idea of how many Federal Reserve notes are printed and circulating than the Treasury does of the weight and fineness of its gold assets. This irrational treatment of paper and gold must be corrected immediately.
Finally, there are laws on the books empowering the president to compel delivery, that is, to confiscate privately owned gold bullion, gold coins, and gold certificates in time of war. There can be no monetary freedom when the possibility of such a confiscation exists.
THE BUDGET
One of the standard objections raised against a gold standard is that while it may have worked in the 19th century, it would not work today, for government has grown much larger in the past 100 years.
There is an element of truth in such an argument, for the gold standard is not compatible with a government that continually incurs deficits and lives beyond its means. Growing governments have always sought to be rid of the discipline of gold; historically they have abandoned gold during wars in order to finance them with paper dollars, and during other periods of massive government growth — the New Deal, for example.
Because gold is honest money, it is disliked by dishonest men. Politicians, prevented from buying votes with their own money, have learned how to buy votes with the people's money. They promise to vote for all sorts of programs, if elected, and they expect to pay for those programs through deficits and through the creation of money out of thin air, not higher taxes. Under a gold standard, such irresponsibility would immediately result in high interest rates (as the government borrowed money) and subsequent unemployment. But through the magic of the Federal Reserve, these effects can be postponed for awhile, allowing the politicians sufficient time to blame everyone else for the economic problems they have caused. The result is, as John Maynard Keynes said many years ago, that not one man in a million understands who is to blame for inflation.
Because the gold standard would be incompatible with deficit financing, a major reform needed would be a balanced budget. Such a balance could easily be achieved by cutting spending — surprising as it may be, no cuts have been made yet — to the level of revenue received by the government.
But beyond that, there should be massive cuts in both spending and taxes, something on the order of what President Truman did following World War II, when 75 percent of the federal budget was eliminated over a period of three years. Honest money and limited government are equally necessary in order to end our present economic crisis.
As part of this budget reform, the government should eventually be required to make all its payments in gold or in gold-denominated accounts. No longer would it be able to spend "money" created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
TAXATION
In order to make such gold payments, the government should begin accepting gold as payment for all taxes, duties, and dues. As a tax collector, the government must specify in what form taxes may be paid (or must be paid), and it should specify that taxes must be paid in either gold or silver coins or certificates. Such an action should occur, of course, as one of the last actions in moving toward a sound monetary system. All of the other reforms discussed here should be accomplished first. Such a requirement to pay taxes in gold or silver would yield the necessary flow to put the government on the gold standard and allow it to make all payments in gold.
But long before this is achieved, since gold is money, there should be no taxation of any sort on either gold coins or bullion. The commission has judged rightly in recommending that capital-gains and sales taxes be eliminated from the new American coinage. We would go further, in the interest of monetary freedom, and urge that all taxation of whatever sort be eliminated on all gold and silver coins and bullion. That would mean the elimination of not only capital-gains and sales taxes, but also the discriminatory treatment of gold coins in Individual Retirement Accounts, for example. Persons saving for their retirement should be free to keep their savings in gold coins without incurring a penalty. One reform that might be accomplished immediately would be to direct the Internal Revenue Service to accept all US money at face value for both the assessment and collection of taxes. At the present time, the IRS accepts pre-1965 silver coins at face value in the collection of taxes, but at market value in the assessment of taxes. This policy is grossly unfair, has no basis in law, and should be corrected immediately.
REGULATIONS
Together with monetary, tax, and budget reforms, a comprehensive plan for a gold standard and monetary freedom requires several improvements in our present regulatory structure.
For example, mining regulations, which make it difficult and expensive to open or operate gold and silver mines, would have to be eliminated. All regulations on the export, import, melting, minting, and hoarding of gold coins would also have to be repealed.
But the major reforms needed are in our banking laws. Under present law, there is no free entry into the banking industry; it is largely cartelized by the Federal Reserve and other federal and state regulatory agencies. Deregulation of banking, including free entry by simply filing the legal documents with the proper government clerk, is a must for monetary freedom. All discretion on the part of the regulators must be ended.
At the same time, there would need to be stricter enforcement of the constitutional prohibition against states "emitting bills of credit." It must be clearly recognized that the states, neither directly nor indirectly through their creatures, state chartered banks, may get into the paper money business.
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Although we believe that there is actually nothing in the Constitution that legitimizes our present banking and monetary arrangements, the present system has been with us for so long that a constitutional amendment is probably needed to reaffirm what the Constitution says.
We propose that the following language become the 27th Ammendment to the Constitution:
“Neither Congress nor any state shall make anything a tender in payment of private debts, nor shall they charter any bank or note-issuing institution, and states shall make only gold and silver coins as tender in payment of public taxes, duties, and dues.”
------------------------
RELATED ARTICLES:
“Bailing Out Banks Is Inflationary”
by Thorsten Polleit
It seems that investors have been increasingly losing confidence in banks’ ability to live up to their payment obligations under “normal” market conditions and to generate sufficient profits going forward. Eurozone bank stocks have lost 71 percent of their value since the start of 2007.
http://blog.mises.org/21148/mises-daily-wednesday-february-22-2012/
-------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE.
Doug Stewart • 4 days ago
"The only way to restore rationality to the system is to restore a definition for the term "dollar." We suggest defining a "dollar" as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine" And then the article goes on to propose coining gold coins of certain WEIGHTS, not certain dollar values.
WHO would define the weight of gold equaling one dollar? How would they decide? Seems the market presently "defines" it as about one 1,750th of an ounce of gold.
----
Abram Larson • 4 days ago
I'm not sure why Senator Paul is so concerned with having to have gold have some definition in terms of precious metals. First of all, that definition is just as arbitrary as any other and who would need to set those terms.
Secondly, gold is a (somewhat) finite resource and there is only so much of it in the world. This basically restricts the money supply to however much gold exists. What happens when we need more "dollars" than there is gold? You get stuck with devaluing the money eventually anyway. On this same note, since the amount of dollars is defined by how much gold there is why would we want relax mining restrictions? This would only increase the amount of gold and by simple math would increase the supply of "dollars." Mining more gold is exactly the same thing under a gold standard as the government printing more money is currently.
Thirdly, our current monetary system is operated based on supply and demand. We get inflation if the supply increases, but demand does not increase along with it. Similarly, we get deflation if demand outpaces supply.
Fourthly, having multiple competing currencies would be a nightmare for corporations. This is one of those ideas that sounds nice in principle, but could never work in reality. Does he know how many more accountants we'd have to hire to keep all the different currencies straight? Or how many cash registers there would have to be in a store to hold all the different coins?
Fifthly, we can already conduct transactions however we want. A few weeks ago, I had a friend help me do some home repairs and instead of wanting dollars he wanted some video games. I went to the game store and traded my dollars for games and traded the games to him for his labor. The dollar is convenient because everyone accepts it, but you can legally conduct business in whatever exchange you see fit. The reason you can't pay your phone bill with video games is not because the government won't let you, it's because the phone company prefers to have dollars.
---------
Abram Larson • 4 days ago
I'm not sure why Senator Paul is so concerned with having to have gold have some definition in terms of precious metals. First of all, that definition is just as arbitrary as any other and who would need to set those terms.
Secondly, gold is a (somewhat) finite resource and there is only so much of it in the world. This basically restricts the money supply to however much gold exists. What happens when we need more "dollars" than there is gold? You get stuck with devaluing the money eventually anyway. On this same note, since the amount of dollars is defined by how much gold there is why would we want relax mining restrictions? This would only increase the amount of gold and by simple math would increase the supply of "dollars." Mining more gold is exactly the same thing under a gold standard as the government printing more money is currently.
Thirdly, our current monetary system is operated based on supply and demand. We get inflation if the supply increases, but demand does not increase along with it. Similarly, we get deflation if demand outpaces supply.
Fourthly, having multiple competing currencies would be a nightmare for corporations. This is one of those ideas that sounds nice in principle, but could never work in reality. Does he know how many more accountants we'd have to hire to keep all the different currencies straight? Or how many cash registers there would have to be in a store to hold all the different coins?
Fifthly, we can already conduct transactions however we want. A few weeks ago, I had a friend help me do some home repairs and instead of wanting dollars he wanted some video games. I went to the game store and traded my dollars for games and traded the games to him for his labor. The dollar is convenient because everyone accepts it, but you can legally conduct business in whatever exchange you see fit. The reason you can't pay your phone bill with video games is not because the government won't let you, it's because the phone company prefers to have dollars.
------------------
American Patriot • 3 days ago
"The gov uses the power of law to prevent any other money from being competitive" This is true, however they do have competing currencies today. Our coinage is issued by the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve, and so it is not part of the debt based Federal Reserve money. When the Fed goes down, and Federal Reserve notes reach their intrinsic value (0) existing coinage will continue to circulate although probably at close to the value of the metal those coins contain. Any bill or proposal to reduce the base metal value of our circulating coinage should be opposed by those wishing to abolish the Fed. Debasement of Fed currency has created sound money out of treasury issued pennies and nickels we use today. 400% more inflation will create sound money out of existing clad dimes quarters and halfs
---------------
Gabriel • 3 days ago
"That comprehensive plan may be divided into four sections: monetary legislation, the budget, taxation, and regulation." I think he is 100% right and if each individual does his part by focusing his individual energies on correcting one these accounts we will have peace, prosperity and good art!
----------------------
tik • 2 days ago
it is largely cartelized by the Federal Reserve and other federal and state regulatory agencies. Deregulation of banking, including free entry by simply filing the legal documents with the proper government clerk, is a must for monetary freedom. All discretion on the part of the regulators must be ended.
======================
In case you miss it !!
Mises Daily: Wednesday, February 22, 2012
By RON PAUL
http://mises.org/daily/5926/The-Transition-to-Monetary-Freedom
This article is excerpted from THE CASE FOR GOLD (1982), chapter 6, "The Transition to Monetary Freedom."
Comments on this article. See below
SPECIFIC REFORMS REQUIRED
The growth of the American government in the late 19th and 20th centuries is reflected in its increasing presence and finally monopolization of the monetary system. Any attempt at restoring monetary freedom must be part of a comprehensive plan to roll back government and once again confine it within the limits of the Constitution. That comprehensive plan may be divided into four sections: monetary legislation, the budget, taxation, and regulation. We shall begin with monetary reforms, and conclude with a word about international cooperation and agreement.
MONETARY LEGISLATION
LEGAL-TENDER LAWS
As we have seen, the Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender. One of the most important pieces of legislation that could be enacted would be the repeal of all federal legal-tender laws. Such laws, which have the effect of forcing creditors to accept something in payment for the debts due them that they do not wish to accept, are one of the most tyrannical devices of the present monetary authorities.
Not only does the Federal Reserve have a coercive monopoly in issuing "money," but every American is forced to accept it. Each Federal Reserve note bears the words, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." The freedom to conduct business in something else — such as gold and silver coin — cannot exist so long as the government forces everyone to accept its paper notes. Monetary freedom ends where legal-tender laws begin.
The United States had no such laws until 1862, when the Congress — in violation of the Constitution — enacted them in order to ensure the acceptance of the Lincoln greenbacks, the paper notes printed by the US Treasury during the wartime emergency. That "emergency" has now lasted for 120 years; it is time that this unconstitutional action by the Congress be repealed. Freedom of contract — and the right to have such contracts enforced, not abrogated, by the government — is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society.
DEFINING THE DOLLAR
A second major reform needed is a legal definition of the term "dollar." The Constitution uses the word "dollar" at least twice, and it is quite clear that by it the framers meant the Spanish-milled dollar of 371 ¼ grains of silver. Since 1968, however, there has been no domestic definition of "dollar," for in that year redemption of silver certificates and delivery of silver in exchange for the notes ended, and silver coins were removed from circulation.
In 1971, the international definition of the "dollar" as 1/42 of an ounce of gold was also dropped. The Treasury and Federal Reserve still value gold at $42.22 per ounce, but that is a mere accounting device. In addition, IMF rules now prohibit any member country from externally defining its currency in terms of gold. The word "dollar," quite literally, is legally meaningless, and it has been meaningless for the past decade. Federal Reserve notes are not "dollars"; they are notes denominated in "dollars." But what a "dollar" is, no one knows.
This absurdity at the basis of our monetary system must be corrected. It is of secondary importance whether we define a "dollar" as a weight of gold or as a weight of silver. What is important is that it be defined. The current situation permits the Federal Reserve — and the Internal Revenue Service for that matter — to use the word any way they please, just like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
No rational economic activity can be conducted when the unit of account is undefined. The use of the meaningless term "dollar" has all but wrecked the capital markets of this country. If the "dollar" changes in meaning from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, long-term contracts denominated in "dollars" become traps that all wish to avoid. The breakdown of long-term financing and planning in the past decade is a result of the absurd nature of the "dollar." There is very little long-term planning occurring at the present. The only way to restore rationality to the system is to restore a definition for the term "dollar." We suggest defining a "dollar" as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine. Such a fixed definition is the only way to restore confidence in the markets and in the "dollar." Capitalism cannot survive the type of irrationality that lies at the basis of our present monetary arrangements.
A NEW COINAGE
We are extremely pleased that the Gold Commission has recommended to the Congress a new gold coinage. It has been almost 50 years since the last United States gold coins were struck, and renewing this constitutional function would indeed be a cause for celebration and jubilee.
We believe that the coins should be struck in one-ounce, one-half-ounce, one-quarter-ounce, and one-tenth-ounce weights, using the most beautiful of coin designs, that designed by Augustus Saint Gaudens in 1907. A coinage in such weights would allow Americans to exchange their greenbacks for genuine American coins; there would no longer be any need for purchasing Canadian, Mexican, South African, or other foreign coins. Combined with the removal of capital-gains taxation on the coins and the elimination of all transaction taxes, such as excise and sales taxes, the new American coinage could quickly become an alternative monetary system to our present paper monopoly.
In addition to the new official coinage, private mints should also be permitted to issue their own coins under their own trademarks. Such trademarks should be protected by law, just as other trademarks are. Furthermore, private citizens should once again enjoy the right to bring gold bullion to the Treasury and exchange it for coins of the United States for a nominal minting fee.
In the last six years, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek has called attention once again to the economic advantages of a system of competing currencies. In two books, Choice in Currency and Denationalization of Money, Professor Hayek proposes that all legal obstacles be removed and that the people be allowed to choose freely what they wish to use in transactions. Those competing monies might be foreign currencies, private coins, government coins, private bank notes, and so on. Such unrestricted freedom of choice would result in the most reliable currencies or coins winning public acceptance and displacing less reliable competitors. Good money — in the absence of government coercion — drives out bad. The new coinage that the Gold Commission has recommended and which we strongly endorse is a first step in the direction of allowing currencies to compete freely.
THE FAILURE OF CENTRAL BANKING
By a strict interpretation of the Constitution, one of the most unconstitutional (if there are degrees of unconstitutionality) of federal agencies is the Federal Reserve. The Constitution grants no power to the Congress to set up such an institution, and the Fed is the major cause of our present monetary problems. The alleged constitutional authority stems from a loose and imaginative interpretation of the implied powers clause.
Functioning as the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve is an anachronism. It was created at a time when faith in control of the economy by Washington was growing, but since it started operations in 1914, it has caused the greatest depressions (1929-1939), recessions (too numerous to mention), inflations, and unemployment levels in our nation's history. The only useful function it performs, the clearing of checks between banks, could be much better handled through private clearinghouses or eliminated entirely by electronic funds transfer. Given its record, there simply is no good reason for allowing the Federal Reserve a monopoly over the nation's money and banking system. Eliminating the power to conduct market operations must be achieved if we expect to stop inflation and restore monetary freedom.
Such a step may alarm some, however. They might be concerned about what will happen to all the Federal Reserve notes now in circulation and what they will be replaced with. First, the present Federal Reserve notes would be retired and replaced by notes redeemable in gold or silver or some other commodity. Such notes would be similar to traveler's checks now in use which are, at the present time, redeemable only in paper notes. Like traveler's checks, such notes would not be legal tender and no one would be forced to accept them in payment. And since they would be promises to pay, any institution that issued them and then failed to redeem them as promised would be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution, unlike the Federal Reserve, which is subject to neither.
As for the present circulating Federal Reserve notes, they could be made redeemable for gold once a "dollar" is defined as a weight of gold. Anyone who wishes to redeem them could simply do so by exchanging them for gold coins at his bank.
It is important to note that should we institute a gold standard before the Federal Reserve System is ended, that system must function along classical gold standard lines. As Friedman and Schwartz pointed out, it was the failure of the Federal Reserve to abide by the classical gold standard rules that caused the panic of 1929 and the subsequent depression.
In chapters 2 and 3, we demonstrated the disruptive effects fractional-reserve banking has caused in the United States. Since we still suffer with that system, it is imperative that a fundamental reform of it be made. That reform is simply that all promises to pay on demand, whether made in the form of notes or deposits, be backed 100 percent by whatever is promised, be it silver, gold, or watermelons. If there is any failure to carry 100 percent reserves or to make delivery when demanded, such persons or institutions would be subject to severe penalties. The fractional-reserve system has created the business cycle, and if that is to be eliminated, its cause must be also.
AUDIT, INVENTORY, ASSAY, AND CONFISCATION
One of the areas in which we believe a majority of the Gold Commission erred is in not requiring a thorough and complete assay, inventory, and audit of the gold reserves of the United States on a regular basis. Perhaps there is less of an argument for such a procedure when the gold reserves are essentially stable, but when there is any significant change in them — as will happen when a new coinage is issued — careful scrutiny of the government's gold supplies is necessary.
There have been cases of employee thefts at government bullion depositories, unrecorded shipments of gold from one depository to another, and numerous press reports about millions of dollars worth of gold missing. It seems elementary that the government ought to ascertain accurately its reserves of this precious metal, and that the present ten-year "audit" of the gold inventory is totally inadequate for this purpose. We are quite sure that the Federal Reserve has a much better idea of how many Federal Reserve notes are printed and circulating than the Treasury does of the weight and fineness of its gold assets. This irrational treatment of paper and gold must be corrected immediately.
Finally, there are laws on the books empowering the president to compel delivery, that is, to confiscate privately owned gold bullion, gold coins, and gold certificates in time of war. There can be no monetary freedom when the possibility of such a confiscation exists.
THE BUDGET
One of the standard objections raised against a gold standard is that while it may have worked in the 19th century, it would not work today, for government has grown much larger in the past 100 years.
There is an element of truth in such an argument, for the gold standard is not compatible with a government that continually incurs deficits and lives beyond its means. Growing governments have always sought to be rid of the discipline of gold; historically they have abandoned gold during wars in order to finance them with paper dollars, and during other periods of massive government growth — the New Deal, for example.
Because gold is honest money, it is disliked by dishonest men. Politicians, prevented from buying votes with their own money, have learned how to buy votes with the people's money. They promise to vote for all sorts of programs, if elected, and they expect to pay for those programs through deficits and through the creation of money out of thin air, not higher taxes. Under a gold standard, such irresponsibility would immediately result in high interest rates (as the government borrowed money) and subsequent unemployment. But through the magic of the Federal Reserve, these effects can be postponed for awhile, allowing the politicians sufficient time to blame everyone else for the economic problems they have caused. The result is, as John Maynard Keynes said many years ago, that not one man in a million understands who is to blame for inflation.
Because the gold standard would be incompatible with deficit financing, a major reform needed would be a balanced budget. Such a balance could easily be achieved by cutting spending — surprising as it may be, no cuts have been made yet — to the level of revenue received by the government.
But beyond that, there should be massive cuts in both spending and taxes, something on the order of what President Truman did following World War II, when 75 percent of the federal budget was eliminated over a period of three years. Honest money and limited government are equally necessary in order to end our present economic crisis.
As part of this budget reform, the government should eventually be required to make all its payments in gold or in gold-denominated accounts. No longer would it be able to spend "money" created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
TAXATION
In order to make such gold payments, the government should begin accepting gold as payment for all taxes, duties, and dues. As a tax collector, the government must specify in what form taxes may be paid (or must be paid), and it should specify that taxes must be paid in either gold or silver coins or certificates. Such an action should occur, of course, as one of the last actions in moving toward a sound monetary system. All of the other reforms discussed here should be accomplished first. Such a requirement to pay taxes in gold or silver would yield the necessary flow to put the government on the gold standard and allow it to make all payments in gold.
But long before this is achieved, since gold is money, there should be no taxation of any sort on either gold coins or bullion. The commission has judged rightly in recommending that capital-gains and sales taxes be eliminated from the new American coinage. We would go further, in the interest of monetary freedom, and urge that all taxation of whatever sort be eliminated on all gold and silver coins and bullion. That would mean the elimination of not only capital-gains and sales taxes, but also the discriminatory treatment of gold coins in Individual Retirement Accounts, for example. Persons saving for their retirement should be free to keep their savings in gold coins without incurring a penalty. One reform that might be accomplished immediately would be to direct the Internal Revenue Service to accept all US money at face value for both the assessment and collection of taxes. At the present time, the IRS accepts pre-1965 silver coins at face value in the collection of taxes, but at market value in the assessment of taxes. This policy is grossly unfair, has no basis in law, and should be corrected immediately.
REGULATIONS
Together with monetary, tax, and budget reforms, a comprehensive plan for a gold standard and monetary freedom requires several improvements in our present regulatory structure.
For example, mining regulations, which make it difficult and expensive to open or operate gold and silver mines, would have to be eliminated. All regulations on the export, import, melting, minting, and hoarding of gold coins would also have to be repealed.
But the major reforms needed are in our banking laws. Under present law, there is no free entry into the banking industry; it is largely cartelized by the Federal Reserve and other federal and state regulatory agencies. Deregulation of banking, including free entry by simply filing the legal documents with the proper government clerk, is a must for monetary freedom. All discretion on the part of the regulators must be ended.
At the same time, there would need to be stricter enforcement of the constitutional prohibition against states "emitting bills of credit." It must be clearly recognized that the states, neither directly nor indirectly through their creatures, state chartered banks, may get into the paper money business.
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Although we believe that there is actually nothing in the Constitution that legitimizes our present banking and monetary arrangements, the present system has been with us for so long that a constitutional amendment is probably needed to reaffirm what the Constitution says.
We propose that the following language become the 27th Ammendment to the Constitution:
“Neither Congress nor any state shall make anything a tender in payment of private debts, nor shall they charter any bank or note-issuing institution, and states shall make only gold and silver coins as tender in payment of public taxes, duties, and dues.”
------------------------
RELATED ARTICLES:
“Bailing Out Banks Is Inflationary”
by Thorsten Polleit
It seems that investors have been increasingly losing confidence in banks’ ability to live up to their payment obligations under “normal” market conditions and to generate sufficient profits going forward. Eurozone bank stocks have lost 71 percent of their value since the start of 2007.
http://blog.mises.org/21148/mises-daily-wednesday-february-22-2012/
-------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE.
Doug Stewart • 4 days ago
"The only way to restore rationality to the system is to restore a definition for the term "dollar." We suggest defining a "dollar" as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine" And then the article goes on to propose coining gold coins of certain WEIGHTS, not certain dollar values.
WHO would define the weight of gold equaling one dollar? How would they decide? Seems the market presently "defines" it as about one 1,750th of an ounce of gold.
----
Abram Larson • 4 days ago
I'm not sure why Senator Paul is so concerned with having to have gold have some definition in terms of precious metals. First of all, that definition is just as arbitrary as any other and who would need to set those terms.
Secondly, gold is a (somewhat) finite resource and there is only so much of it in the world. This basically restricts the money supply to however much gold exists. What happens when we need more "dollars" than there is gold? You get stuck with devaluing the money eventually anyway. On this same note, since the amount of dollars is defined by how much gold there is why would we want relax mining restrictions? This would only increase the amount of gold and by simple math would increase the supply of "dollars." Mining more gold is exactly the same thing under a gold standard as the government printing more money is currently.
Thirdly, our current monetary system is operated based on supply and demand. We get inflation if the supply increases, but demand does not increase along with it. Similarly, we get deflation if demand outpaces supply.
Fourthly, having multiple competing currencies would be a nightmare for corporations. This is one of those ideas that sounds nice in principle, but could never work in reality. Does he know how many more accountants we'd have to hire to keep all the different currencies straight? Or how many cash registers there would have to be in a store to hold all the different coins?
Fifthly, we can already conduct transactions however we want. A few weeks ago, I had a friend help me do some home repairs and instead of wanting dollars he wanted some video games. I went to the game store and traded my dollars for games and traded the games to him for his labor. The dollar is convenient because everyone accepts it, but you can legally conduct business in whatever exchange you see fit. The reason you can't pay your phone bill with video games is not because the government won't let you, it's because the phone company prefers to have dollars.
---------
Abram Larson • 4 days ago
I'm not sure why Senator Paul is so concerned with having to have gold have some definition in terms of precious metals. First of all, that definition is just as arbitrary as any other and who would need to set those terms.
Secondly, gold is a (somewhat) finite resource and there is only so much of it in the world. This basically restricts the money supply to however much gold exists. What happens when we need more "dollars" than there is gold? You get stuck with devaluing the money eventually anyway. On this same note, since the amount of dollars is defined by how much gold there is why would we want relax mining restrictions? This would only increase the amount of gold and by simple math would increase the supply of "dollars." Mining more gold is exactly the same thing under a gold standard as the government printing more money is currently.
Thirdly, our current monetary system is operated based on supply and demand. We get inflation if the supply increases, but demand does not increase along with it. Similarly, we get deflation if demand outpaces supply.
Fourthly, having multiple competing currencies would be a nightmare for corporations. This is one of those ideas that sounds nice in principle, but could never work in reality. Does he know how many more accountants we'd have to hire to keep all the different currencies straight? Or how many cash registers there would have to be in a store to hold all the different coins?
Fifthly, we can already conduct transactions however we want. A few weeks ago, I had a friend help me do some home repairs and instead of wanting dollars he wanted some video games. I went to the game store and traded my dollars for games and traded the games to him for his labor. The dollar is convenient because everyone accepts it, but you can legally conduct business in whatever exchange you see fit. The reason you can't pay your phone bill with video games is not because the government won't let you, it's because the phone company prefers to have dollars.
------------------
American Patriot • 3 days ago
"The gov uses the power of law to prevent any other money from being competitive" This is true, however they do have competing currencies today. Our coinage is issued by the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve, and so it is not part of the debt based Federal Reserve money. When the Fed goes down, and Federal Reserve notes reach their intrinsic value (0) existing coinage will continue to circulate although probably at close to the value of the metal those coins contain. Any bill or proposal to reduce the base metal value of our circulating coinage should be opposed by those wishing to abolish the Fed. Debasement of Fed currency has created sound money out of treasury issued pennies and nickels we use today. 400% more inflation will create sound money out of existing clad dimes quarters and halfs
---------------
Gabriel • 3 days ago
"That comprehensive plan may be divided into four sections: monetary legislation, the budget, taxation, and regulation." I think he is 100% right and if each individual does his part by focusing his individual energies on correcting one these accounts we will have peace, prosperity and good art!
----------------------
tik • 2 days ago
it is largely cartelized by the Federal Reserve and other federal and state regulatory agencies. Deregulation of banking, including free entry by simply filing the legal documents with the proper government clerk, is a must for monetary freedom. All discretion on the part of the regulators must be ended.
======================
sábado, 25 de febrero de 2012
IN CASE YOU MISS THESE VIDEOS WITH RON PAUL
VIDEO 1:
RON PAUL’S ANTI-WAR STANCE RESONATES WITH US TROOPS: TROOPS MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE FOR RON PAUL For those who miss it.
The 4th Media News | Tuesday, February 21, 2012
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/02/21/video-ron-pauls-anti-war-stance-resonates-with-us-troops-troops-march-on-the-white-house-for-ron-paul/
Ron Paul’s consistently strong anti-war message is one that resonates with many US troops today.
Hundreds of active duty troops, veterans and Paul supporters gathered at the Washington monument this afternoon. After a series of speeches, the group marched to the White house to show their solidarity and support for the Republican Presidential candidate.
“I don’t believe that we should be over in these other countries messing around,” said one protester.
“He wants to close the 900 overseas bases that we are funding at a very expensive rate that is bankrupting this country,” said another.
Paul, often considered a fringe candidate, is seldom taken seriously by the mainstream media.
Despite vowing to cut the military budget, Federal Election Commission records show Paul gets more campaign donations from members of the military than any other presidential candidate, including President Obama.
“The danger is really us overreacting, and we need a strong national defense and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war and not carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often,” Paul said at a GOP Presidential Debate.
Sick of fighting seemingly never-ending wars overseas, soldiers that took part in the march say they are ready for radical change. The only hope for that, they say, is getting Paul into the White House.
“Ron Paul seems to be the only person who is representing us instead of the Defense contractors and bankers,” said a war veteran.
=================
VIDEO2:
RON PAUL, ‘THE ONLY CANDIDATE SPEAKING OF LOST CIVIL LIBERTIES AND PENDING ILLEGAL WARS’
Stephen Lendman | Monday, February 20, 2012
United States presidential contender Ron Paul has warned that his country is slipping into a twenty-first century fascist system with a broke government ruled by big business. RT asked some experts whether they agree.
Speaking to supporters in Kansas City, the Republican candidate said Americans’ individual liberties were being stripped away. http://rt.com/news/america-fascism-ron-paul-705/
And, as Houston-based author Anis Shivani says, Paul is “the only candidate on the Republican side who is talking about the loss of civil liberties, pending illegal wars, making the connection between imperialism and the loss of rights at home.”
It now looks like Ron Paul could have won the Maine caucus, and Shivani believes he could have more support with the American public but it seems that the media won’t allow it to happen:
“I think he does have hardcore support – maybe it could be 15 to 20 per cent of people on the conservative side. His support could be wider, but the media will never treat a candidate like him with seriousness, they will just dismiss him as a fringe candidate because of, for example, his very firm stance on Iran, he is saying ‘Let’s not get into another war on Iran, we just can’t afford it, and every time we do this, it makes governance at home more difficult.’ So the media will say he is just not interested in national security and dismiss him.”
And radio host and author Stephen Lendman also agrees that current US policies are evidence that the country has indeed developed a fascist system, going on to disagree slightly: “The only thing I disagree with Ron Paul it is that is not slipping into it – it’s deep into it.”
Noting that while he is not a Ron Paul supporter, Lendman supports his opposition to imperial wars, echoing Paul in his criticism of the Federal Reserve Bank:
“He has gone after the Federal Reserve for years – it’s a repressive group, privately owned and operated, it isn’t federal and it does not have reserves, as Ron Paul explains. It’s owned by the major bankers, maybe the Wall Street ones, and they use money power to create more of it at the public’s expense.”
----------------------------------
VIDEO 3
CORPORATOCRACY: RON PAUL SAYS US ‘SLIPPING INTO FASCISM’
http://rt.com/news/america-fascism-ron-paul-705/
Published: 19 February, 2012.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul slammed America's system of governance at a rally in Kansas City, saying businesses and government are pushing the country into twenty-first century fascism.
¬
But before you start picturing fair-skinned, blue-eyed CEOs and bureaucrats running amok and with their right arms held high, calm down. What the outspoken Texas Republican meant was fascist corporatism – an economic model most prominently seen in Mussolini’s Italy of the 1920s to the 1940s. Fascist economic corporatism involved government and private management of full sectors of the economy – which Paul says is par for the course in today's America.
“We’ve slipped away from a true republic,” Paul told thousands of his supporters at the rally. “Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government, big business and authoritarian rule, and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”
His words, which a few years ago might have been dismissed by most, rang loud and clear in Kansas. Paul’s rally coincided with long-established Missouri and Kansas GOP events – from which many attendees actually slipped away to hear Paul deliver his speech. Drawn out and bled dry by ongoing and expensive overseas military campaigns, Americans are more and more receptive to a foreign policy of peace, which is what Paul promises to deliver.
The presidential hopeful echoed words already once delivered to the American people – by their president. Dwight Eisenhower said, in his farewell address to the nation, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
The disastrous rise, it seems, has happened. In 2009 alone, the United States was responsible for almost half of the world’s total military spending – 46 per cent, or 712 billion US dollars. Since then, the figures have only grown, to the point that American military spending now exceeds that of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined. The US has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.
But, one might ask, can’t the American government – which oversees the world's highest gross domestic product – afford some extra military spending?
The simple answer is: no.
The wealthiest nation also happens to have the biggest national debt in world history. With the dollar acting as a global reserve currency, the Federal Reserve leaving the printing press running around the clock, and manufacturing and production being outsourced to cheap foreign labor markets, the US economy looks more like a Ponzi scheme. And as former president George W. Bush told his Argentine counterpart Nestor Kirchner, "The best way to revitalize the economy is war, and the US has grown stronger with war."
But Americans are tired of war – and are tired of waiting for the magical day when war will magically revive the economy. Which is why Ron Paul may have found the perfect note to strike with voters as he continues to fight in the Republican primaries.
¬
Katerina Azarova, RT
RON PAUL’S ANTI-WAR STANCE RESONATES WITH US TROOPS: TROOPS MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE FOR RON PAUL For those who miss it.
The 4th Media News | Tuesday, February 21, 2012
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/02/21/video-ron-pauls-anti-war-stance-resonates-with-us-troops-troops-march-on-the-white-house-for-ron-paul/
Ron Paul’s consistently strong anti-war message is one that resonates with many US troops today.
Hundreds of active duty troops, veterans and Paul supporters gathered at the Washington monument this afternoon. After a series of speeches, the group marched to the White house to show their solidarity and support for the Republican Presidential candidate.
“I don’t believe that we should be over in these other countries messing around,” said one protester.
“He wants to close the 900 overseas bases that we are funding at a very expensive rate that is bankrupting this country,” said another.
Paul, often considered a fringe candidate, is seldom taken seriously by the mainstream media.
Despite vowing to cut the military budget, Federal Election Commission records show Paul gets more campaign donations from members of the military than any other presidential candidate, including President Obama.
“The danger is really us overreacting, and we need a strong national defense and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war and not carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often,” Paul said at a GOP Presidential Debate.
Sick of fighting seemingly never-ending wars overseas, soldiers that took part in the march say they are ready for radical change. The only hope for that, they say, is getting Paul into the White House.
“Ron Paul seems to be the only person who is representing us instead of the Defense contractors and bankers,” said a war veteran.
=================
VIDEO2:
RON PAUL, ‘THE ONLY CANDIDATE SPEAKING OF LOST CIVIL LIBERTIES AND PENDING ILLEGAL WARS’
Stephen Lendman | Monday, February 20, 2012
United States presidential contender Ron Paul has warned that his country is slipping into a twenty-first century fascist system with a broke government ruled by big business. RT asked some experts whether they agree.
Speaking to supporters in Kansas City, the Republican candidate said Americans’ individual liberties were being stripped away. http://rt.com/news/america-fascism-ron-paul-705/
And, as Houston-based author Anis Shivani says, Paul is “the only candidate on the Republican side who is talking about the loss of civil liberties, pending illegal wars, making the connection between imperialism and the loss of rights at home.”
It now looks like Ron Paul could have won the Maine caucus, and Shivani believes he could have more support with the American public but it seems that the media won’t allow it to happen:
“I think he does have hardcore support – maybe it could be 15 to 20 per cent of people on the conservative side. His support could be wider, but the media will never treat a candidate like him with seriousness, they will just dismiss him as a fringe candidate because of, for example, his very firm stance on Iran, he is saying ‘Let’s not get into another war on Iran, we just can’t afford it, and every time we do this, it makes governance at home more difficult.’ So the media will say he is just not interested in national security and dismiss him.”
And radio host and author Stephen Lendman also agrees that current US policies are evidence that the country has indeed developed a fascist system, going on to disagree slightly: “The only thing I disagree with Ron Paul it is that is not slipping into it – it’s deep into it.”
Noting that while he is not a Ron Paul supporter, Lendman supports his opposition to imperial wars, echoing Paul in his criticism of the Federal Reserve Bank:
“He has gone after the Federal Reserve for years – it’s a repressive group, privately owned and operated, it isn’t federal and it does not have reserves, as Ron Paul explains. It’s owned by the major bankers, maybe the Wall Street ones, and they use money power to create more of it at the public’s expense.”
----------------------------------
VIDEO 3
CORPORATOCRACY: RON PAUL SAYS US ‘SLIPPING INTO FASCISM’
http://rt.com/news/america-fascism-ron-paul-705/
Published: 19 February, 2012.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul slammed America's system of governance at a rally in Kansas City, saying businesses and government are pushing the country into twenty-first century fascism.
¬
But before you start picturing fair-skinned, blue-eyed CEOs and bureaucrats running amok and with their right arms held high, calm down. What the outspoken Texas Republican meant was fascist corporatism – an economic model most prominently seen in Mussolini’s Italy of the 1920s to the 1940s. Fascist economic corporatism involved government and private management of full sectors of the economy – which Paul says is par for the course in today's America.
“We’ve slipped away from a true republic,” Paul told thousands of his supporters at the rally. “Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government, big business and authoritarian rule, and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”
His words, which a few years ago might have been dismissed by most, rang loud and clear in Kansas. Paul’s rally coincided with long-established Missouri and Kansas GOP events – from which many attendees actually slipped away to hear Paul deliver his speech. Drawn out and bled dry by ongoing and expensive overseas military campaigns, Americans are more and more receptive to a foreign policy of peace, which is what Paul promises to deliver.
The presidential hopeful echoed words already once delivered to the American people – by their president. Dwight Eisenhower said, in his farewell address to the nation, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
The disastrous rise, it seems, has happened. In 2009 alone, the United States was responsible for almost half of the world’s total military spending – 46 per cent, or 712 billion US dollars. Since then, the figures have only grown, to the point that American military spending now exceeds that of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined. The US has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.
But, one might ask, can’t the American government – which oversees the world's highest gross domestic product – afford some extra military spending?
The simple answer is: no.
The wealthiest nation also happens to have the biggest national debt in world history. With the dollar acting as a global reserve currency, the Federal Reserve leaving the printing press running around the clock, and manufacturing and production being outsourced to cheap foreign labor markets, the US economy looks more like a Ponzi scheme. And as former president George W. Bush told his Argentine counterpart Nestor Kirchner, "The best way to revitalize the economy is war, and the US has grown stronger with war."
But Americans are tired of war – and are tired of waiting for the magical day when war will magically revive the economy. Which is why Ron Paul may have found the perfect note to strike with voters as he continues to fight in the Republican primaries.
¬
Katerina Azarova, RT
THE CONFERENCE OF ENEMIES OF SYRIA
THE CONFERENCE OF ENEMIES OF SYRIA
PART 1
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
PART 1
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
The "Friends of Syria" Conference concluded with a consensus on avoiding a further militarization of the conflict in Syria, as more and more Arab countries have recognized that foreign intervention only results in more riots, violence and poverty.” That is the interpretation written by the Web editor Fuyu, an associate of Xinhua, the most prestigious Chinese News web. (http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2941s683151.htm). However , the statement “avoiding a further militarization of the conflict in Syria” and other good phrases only reflect that has been said in the 1st part –out of three- during the Conference. In the other two parts such good intention was wiped out. To explain the why of this change in few hours, we offer here some hypothesis.
By Hugo Adan. February 26, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Many people is wondering how to match the (a) “consensus on avoiding a militarization of the conflict in Syria” and (b) “avoiding foreign intervention” that only results in more riots, violence and poverty, with (c) the idea that “Arab countries have begun to realize that the United States and Europe are hiding a dagger behind a smile -- in other words, while they appear to be acting out of humanitarian concern, they are actually harboring hegemonistic ambitions” The (c) statmt is definitely the believe at the grass root level in all Muslim countries a kind od sinergycal believe that make them ready to up-rise when evidences confirmed their objectivism. Totally different thing happens at the top level, this is the case of the Prest de Tunisia and the Prest of the Arab League. The web Editor Fuyu didn’t make such difference, this is why he couldn’t match (a) & (b) with (c), suggesting the idea that there was good intentions inside the mind of those Presidents.
Real facts contradict such wishful thinking. Here the facts:
1. The fact that there are anti-Muslim behavior on all NATO allies who sponsored and finance this conference, a meeting in which the representation of the Syria’s regimen was excluded. Can the rulers of NATO and the Arab League will recognize that they themselves are co-responsible for the militarization of the conflict in Syria?
Yes or Not?
If yes, they have to assume responsibility and recognize that they are part of problem. Since the solution of the violence in Syria implies de-militarize the conflict, NATO & the AL should agree to take out all the mercenaries they placed inside Syria. That is the only wae to be honest with their statement on peaceful solution for the Syrian riddle. If they do not recognize the factual evidence of their complicity in the violence, we are dealing with liars and dishonest people. There are evidences that the US, UK and Saudis and Qatar are openly involved in the military affairs inside Syria, and evidences that NATO at global scale are involved in this violence, starting with the distortions in their mass media, their war monguerism & xenophobia.
Were they afraid of being uncovered by the Syria delegation that shows up in Tunisia? Why they did not invite them nor accepted them inside the Conference?
2. The fact that some countries member of the Arab League (AL) helped to implement before (in Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and Pakistan, to mention some of them) several of the NATO strategies designed to control and plunder the oil and riches of Muslim countries at the cost of genocide still unpunished; and the fact that the Saudi regimen and Qatar are openly providing mercenaries to disrupt peace in Syria, facts that depict the AL as instrument of NATO, as internal enemies of Muslims. Why not to think that AL is one of the agencies of the US-NATO, the real enemies of Muslims?. Why not to think that AL is the other actor who hide a dagger behind a smile and nice words, to act then after , out of real humanitarian concern for Muslims brothers?. Why not to think that AL members are being paid to implement the hegemonistic ambitions of Western powers?. One sector of the rebels, think that way, that is why they refuse to come to the Conference.
3. If the AL is really committed to respect Syria's sovereignty, and refuse any form of foreign intervention, why they recognize the “Syrian National Council” SNC. Who elected them as the "legitimate representative" for the Syrian people? and why they don’t recognize –with conditions- the government that was elected in Syria? The non recognition of the elected government is is in fact a way of covering up the foreign intervention of Western Powers inside Syria.
These facts make us to believe that AL is still being used as toilet paper by NATO.
To be credited as sincere in their statements for peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria the AL should start demanding the immediate withdrawal of all foreign military forces inside Syria and endorse or request voice and vote inside the committee that is organizing the Referendum called by Al-Assad in Syria and join efforts –with autonomy from the government- to further democratize Syria. That would be the right way of getting credit as sincere mediators in the dialogues between the Syrian government and the opposition. If they cannot do these simple politics they are reaffirming themselves as mere puppets of NATO and one of their instrument in their current diplomacy of war.
-------------------------
THE CONFERENCE OF ENEMIES OF SYRIA
PART 2. Hugo Adan, Feb 26, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
The “Friends of Syria” were unanimous in their conclusions, a real victory of the usual diplomacy of war for the US & NATO against Syria, now the targeted country that could obstruct the implementation of their total hegemony. How they got such consensus is the question?. The next in the list of manufactured consensus is Iran of course; and their final objective is to stop and destroy the emergency of China and Russia as new rulers of the world. US-NATO allies have the military power to do it, but they do not have the economic base to support current wars and its aftermaths and they don’t have the real international community with them.
The top hierarchy in NATO knows that if they make a wrong move, they lose everything. This could happen with the initiation of an exchange of nuclear weapons, as the Zionist and Saudis were demanding. It seems that Mossad agreed to postpone and keep down their stupid intention to bomb Iran now. The only ones that doesn’t know anything on the art war are the Saudis and they exposed their naiveness in the Conference. They almost ruin the party by abandoning the meeting. Fortunately, nobody follows them. The question is why they did it and how the owners of the circus tackled the problem.
But the main question is what is being cook in the other kitchen by Russia and China. This seems to be the best context for them to respond strongly against the US n NATO allies and wipe out them from power. The answer to this Qt we will explore it in the next article. Now let’s check the preparation, dynamic and achievement of this diplomacy of war (stage: Conference) and see later how it affects the possible unfolding of this conflict in the near future.
IGNORANCE + ARROGANCE IS DANGEROUS:
Regarding the Saudis abandoning the Conference
The alliance between US-NATO and Muslim countries is based on corrupted money. If the top bosses and their mercenaries are no being paid well, they go to the team that can do it or just create chaos all over the war. This could happens also with the US-NATO military that is being brought back home from war. If there is not money to re-incorpore them back to the normal civilian life and not job market ready to assimilate them, they will learn how to survive by using their ability. Many of them have only one single ability: shooting other people and that is dangerous. That happens in the center of the system is worse in the periphery. It means that the mercenaries that we train among the Muslim now, could later sell their ability to our enemies.
We can pay representatives from 60 countries for this conference now but we cannot hire them forever. Who is going to give me the job, China & Russia or the US & NATO, they may question themselves sooner than later. Religion could be a good binding cultural tool, but if beduins don’t have a job and only machine guns, they can look at the riches of their Saudi monarchs. A hungry belly dissolves what the religion & patriotism binds. So the Saudis and Qatars are the most vulnerable ally of the US-NATO.
Abandoning the Conference could have divided the Arab League. The Saudis may have not understood the introductory speeches full of anti-imperialism from the President of Tunisia and the President of the Arab League AL. They maybe ignore the scripts for this show and they may question themselves why we are financing these wrong parrots?.
When the ignorance and the arrogance of money meet each they create huge troubles. The organizers of the Conference should have paid another Muslim to make strong statements against the Saudis, suggesting them to call elections, start democracy and pay taxes in Saudi Arabia or demand to open an independent investigation to trial the Saudi royalty for the atrocities they committed in Bahrain recently. It didn’t happen but someone has to stop the arrogance and stupidity of those who has money. What happens with Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries is a nice example of how to domesticate such dangerous attitudes.
THE HIRED PRESIDENTS and their SPEECHES
The statement of the Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki and his warning that “either arming groups of Syrians to fight against their compatriots or introducing foreign military intervention to solve the crisis in Syria would be a big mistake”. This type of speech belong to the 1st part of the Conference: the opening meeting in which both, the Tunisian President and the President of the Arab League appears to be radical anti-imperialists.
How this happens? How to explain it?. There could be three motives for such speeches:
1. They made it themselves and its content represent what they really feel.
2. They made it but with the intention of selling themselves at a higher price. They know how to get more money from stupid Saudis and from the US-NATO sponsors of the Conference (this assumes some previous coordination between both Presidents, the Tunisia & AL presidents).
3. That speech was in the libretto given to them for the CIA agents to create a smoke screen to dissuade the uprising of Muslims against Americans who burned the Koran.There was a crow outside the compound of the conference against Western foreigner, especially agains the US.
The 2nd & 3er options were intended to protect the public image of the Presidents of Tunisia and AL to further use them to implement the NATO strategy. Do they -the US-NATO leaders- apologized in the meeting or inside doors for their recent crimes in Afghanistan. How they plan to repair such fault?.
In the case of the 1st option, if they really feel a genuine ant imperialist sentiment (perhaps the Tunisian President), how they were dissuade? How to explain that after the inside-door meeting they showed up with a totally different position?. Does one of these Presidentes or any Muslim member of the Conference asked the US-NATO leaders to quit from the Conference?. I don’t think so. The only ones who quit from the Conference were the Saudis, but for the opposite reason, for not adopting a clear position of foreign interventionism on Syria.
The inside-doors meeting (2nd part of the Conference) was used by the US, NATO allies including Saudis and Israelis to manipulate and impose their pre-defined agenda and objectives for this Conference.
In the 3rd part of the Conference, when the general meeting resumes, they read the agreements and those made it clear to the “international audience” the “Consensus of the Conference” built inside doors among the inner top-circle of puppets. The rest has to obey, not debate. That is being called a success of the Conference for the US-NATO allies. This was in fact the success of the enemies of Syria.
THE CONCLUSIONS of the CONFERENCE OF THE ENEMIES OF SYRIA
Their conclusions explain better why they are called enemies of Syria:
1. The agreed to recognize the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the "legitimate representative" of the Syrian people. This one wiped out the sovereignty of Syria and trashed the opening statements of false antimperialism.
2. They agreed to set up an Arab peacekeeping force to ensure stability during Syria's democratic transition, and credited the AL as capable and responsible for maintaining stability and peace in the region. Does the AL have really such capability. Of course not, it is their masters who have it. So, is NATO disguised as AL –just those who create the problem- the ones that will be in charge of solving the problem in Syria. What a charade!!.
3. They concluded in blaming the bloodshed entirely on the Syrian government and that the only way of solving the problem is forcing a regime change in Syria starting by demanding peacefully the Assad relinquish of power. What comes after this? the invasion of course, they did not say it, but that is common sense. So, the US & NATO allies send 1st the paramilitaries, they destabilize the country and create a big mess, just the pretext for the current diplomacy of war. The faked diplomats were a bunch of clowns representing 60 nations (nobody knows who are they) inside a phony Conference.
4. The meeting also agreed on applying tougher sanctions on President Bashir al-Assad's regime and reduce diplomatic interactions with Damascus. If this is so, Why to send Koffi Anan in the name of UN plus members of the AL to Syria?, why don’t send them to London where the Syrian National Council (SNC) -the so called "legitimate representative" of the Syrian people- is being set?. What a clowns!!.
The only thing that is serious in this Conference are the sanctions against Syrian people, starting with the USUAL PIRACY of freezing Syrian money by the US and EU banks. The France delegation said the freezing of Syrian assets in EU bank will start on Monday. They are fast & furious. Question? Do we want to “freeze” -then after- the Syrian riches in museums as it happens in Iraq when invade it? Nobody knows.
What we know for sure is the terrible threat already stated by Mrs Hillary Clinton against Assad. That is scary!. She said to the Assad regime that they would pay “A HEAVY COST" for "ignoring the will of the international community and violating the human rights of innocent people." You know what she means by “international community” and HR?. They are champions in exporting such delicacies. You remember what happens in Libya when she said “I came and he dies”? Hillary was laughing on the assassination of Gadaffi? . So, Assad is warned, unless he put first a price on her head and call the mercenaries to bid up.
Is she really planning to visit Syria? Perhaps, if she is not afraid of the Al Qaeda mercenaries hired by her and the Saudis to operate inside Syria. She said that the US already invested 10 million U.S. dollars on such “humanitarian efforts, including the support for refugees”. These mercenaries like very much the US money, of course, but they sometimes make wrong killings. I guess she is not afraid of those mercenaries!. It means, “this is a lady of cojones”. She should have been the President of the US because the one we have it, lacks such quality.
--------------------
RECENT SOURCES:
"FRIENDS" CONFERENCE REJECTS FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
2012-02-25 15:44:12 Xinhua Web Editor: Fuyu
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2941s683151.htm
-------------------------
'FRIENDS OF SYRIA' RECOGNIZE OPPOSITION
2012-02-25 Xinhua Web Editor: Yihang
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2724s683100.htm
----------------------------
PREVIUOS RELATED SOURCES: open
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com
Obama Vows to Stop Killings in Syria
Syrian President "Can Still Save His Country": Hillary Clinton
======================
PART 1
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
PART 1
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
The "Friends of Syria" Conference concluded with a consensus on avoiding a further militarization of the conflict in Syria, as more and more Arab countries have recognized that foreign intervention only results in more riots, violence and poverty.” That is the interpretation written by the Web editor Fuyu, an associate of Xinhua, the most prestigious Chinese News web. (http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2941s683151.htm). However , the statement “avoiding a further militarization of the conflict in Syria” and other good phrases only reflect that has been said in the 1st part –out of three- during the Conference. In the other two parts such good intention was wiped out. To explain the why of this change in few hours, we offer here some hypothesis.
By Hugo Adan. February 26, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Many people is wondering how to match the (a) “consensus on avoiding a militarization of the conflict in Syria” and (b) “avoiding foreign intervention” that only results in more riots, violence and poverty, with (c) the idea that “Arab countries have begun to realize that the United States and Europe are hiding a dagger behind a smile -- in other words, while they appear to be acting out of humanitarian concern, they are actually harboring hegemonistic ambitions” The (c) statmt is definitely the believe at the grass root level in all Muslim countries a kind od sinergycal believe that make them ready to up-rise when evidences confirmed their objectivism. Totally different thing happens at the top level, this is the case of the Prest de Tunisia and the Prest of the Arab League. The web Editor Fuyu didn’t make such difference, this is why he couldn’t match (a) & (b) with (c), suggesting the idea that there was good intentions inside the mind of those Presidents.
Real facts contradict such wishful thinking. Here the facts:
1. The fact that there are anti-Muslim behavior on all NATO allies who sponsored and finance this conference, a meeting in which the representation of the Syria’s regimen was excluded. Can the rulers of NATO and the Arab League will recognize that they themselves are co-responsible for the militarization of the conflict in Syria?
Yes or Not?
If yes, they have to assume responsibility and recognize that they are part of problem. Since the solution of the violence in Syria implies de-militarize the conflict, NATO & the AL should agree to take out all the mercenaries they placed inside Syria. That is the only wae to be honest with their statement on peaceful solution for the Syrian riddle. If they do not recognize the factual evidence of their complicity in the violence, we are dealing with liars and dishonest people. There are evidences that the US, UK and Saudis and Qatar are openly involved in the military affairs inside Syria, and evidences that NATO at global scale are involved in this violence, starting with the distortions in their mass media, their war monguerism & xenophobia.
Were they afraid of being uncovered by the Syria delegation that shows up in Tunisia? Why they did not invite them nor accepted them inside the Conference?
2. The fact that some countries member of the Arab League (AL) helped to implement before (in Irak, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and Pakistan, to mention some of them) several of the NATO strategies designed to control and plunder the oil and riches of Muslim countries at the cost of genocide still unpunished; and the fact that the Saudi regimen and Qatar are openly providing mercenaries to disrupt peace in Syria, facts that depict the AL as instrument of NATO, as internal enemies of Muslims. Why not to think that AL is one of the agencies of the US-NATO, the real enemies of Muslims?. Why not to think that AL is the other actor who hide a dagger behind a smile and nice words, to act then after , out of real humanitarian concern for Muslims brothers?. Why not to think that AL members are being paid to implement the hegemonistic ambitions of Western powers?. One sector of the rebels, think that way, that is why they refuse to come to the Conference.
3. If the AL is really committed to respect Syria's sovereignty, and refuse any form of foreign intervention, why they recognize the “Syrian National Council” SNC. Who elected them as the "legitimate representative" for the Syrian people? and why they don’t recognize –with conditions- the government that was elected in Syria? The non recognition of the elected government is is in fact a way of covering up the foreign intervention of Western Powers inside Syria.
These facts make us to believe that AL is still being used as toilet paper by NATO.
To be credited as sincere in their statements for peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria the AL should start demanding the immediate withdrawal of all foreign military forces inside Syria and endorse or request voice and vote inside the committee that is organizing the Referendum called by Al-Assad in Syria and join efforts –with autonomy from the government- to further democratize Syria. That would be the right way of getting credit as sincere mediators in the dialogues between the Syrian government and the opposition. If they cannot do these simple politics they are reaffirming themselves as mere puppets of NATO and one of their instrument in their current diplomacy of war.
-------------------------
THE CONFERENCE OF ENEMIES OF SYRIA
PART 2. Hugo Adan, Feb 26, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
The “Friends of Syria” were unanimous in their conclusions, a real victory of the usual diplomacy of war for the US & NATO against Syria, now the targeted country that could obstruct the implementation of their total hegemony. How they got such consensus is the question?. The next in the list of manufactured consensus is Iran of course; and their final objective is to stop and destroy the emergency of China and Russia as new rulers of the world. US-NATO allies have the military power to do it, but they do not have the economic base to support current wars and its aftermaths and they don’t have the real international community with them.
The top hierarchy in NATO knows that if they make a wrong move, they lose everything. This could happen with the initiation of an exchange of nuclear weapons, as the Zionist and Saudis were demanding. It seems that Mossad agreed to postpone and keep down their stupid intention to bomb Iran now. The only ones that doesn’t know anything on the art war are the Saudis and they exposed their naiveness in the Conference. They almost ruin the party by abandoning the meeting. Fortunately, nobody follows them. The question is why they did it and how the owners of the circus tackled the problem.
But the main question is what is being cook in the other kitchen by Russia and China. This seems to be the best context for them to respond strongly against the US n NATO allies and wipe out them from power. The answer to this Qt we will explore it in the next article. Now let’s check the preparation, dynamic and achievement of this diplomacy of war (stage: Conference) and see later how it affects the possible unfolding of this conflict in the near future.
IGNORANCE + ARROGANCE IS DANGEROUS:
Regarding the Saudis abandoning the Conference
The alliance between US-NATO and Muslim countries is based on corrupted money. If the top bosses and their mercenaries are no being paid well, they go to the team that can do it or just create chaos all over the war. This could happens also with the US-NATO military that is being brought back home from war. If there is not money to re-incorpore them back to the normal civilian life and not job market ready to assimilate them, they will learn how to survive by using their ability. Many of them have only one single ability: shooting other people and that is dangerous. That happens in the center of the system is worse in the periphery. It means that the mercenaries that we train among the Muslim now, could later sell their ability to our enemies.
We can pay representatives from 60 countries for this conference now but we cannot hire them forever. Who is going to give me the job, China & Russia or the US & NATO, they may question themselves sooner than later. Religion could be a good binding cultural tool, but if beduins don’t have a job and only machine guns, they can look at the riches of their Saudi monarchs. A hungry belly dissolves what the religion & patriotism binds. So the Saudis and Qatars are the most vulnerable ally of the US-NATO.
Abandoning the Conference could have divided the Arab League. The Saudis may have not understood the introductory speeches full of anti-imperialism from the President of Tunisia and the President of the Arab League AL. They maybe ignore the scripts for this show and they may question themselves why we are financing these wrong parrots?.
When the ignorance and the arrogance of money meet each they create huge troubles. The organizers of the Conference should have paid another Muslim to make strong statements against the Saudis, suggesting them to call elections, start democracy and pay taxes in Saudi Arabia or demand to open an independent investigation to trial the Saudi royalty for the atrocities they committed in Bahrain recently. It didn’t happen but someone has to stop the arrogance and stupidity of those who has money. What happens with Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries is a nice example of how to domesticate such dangerous attitudes.
THE HIRED PRESIDENTS and their SPEECHES
The statement of the Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki and his warning that “either arming groups of Syrians to fight against their compatriots or introducing foreign military intervention to solve the crisis in Syria would be a big mistake”. This type of speech belong to the 1st part of the Conference: the opening meeting in which both, the Tunisian President and the President of the Arab League appears to be radical anti-imperialists.
How this happens? How to explain it?. There could be three motives for such speeches:
1. They made it themselves and its content represent what they really feel.
2. They made it but with the intention of selling themselves at a higher price. They know how to get more money from stupid Saudis and from the US-NATO sponsors of the Conference (this assumes some previous coordination between both Presidents, the Tunisia & AL presidents).
3. That speech was in the libretto given to them for the CIA agents to create a smoke screen to dissuade the uprising of Muslims against Americans who burned the Koran.There was a crow outside the compound of the conference against Western foreigner, especially agains the US.
The 2nd & 3er options were intended to protect the public image of the Presidents of Tunisia and AL to further use them to implement the NATO strategy. Do they -the US-NATO leaders- apologized in the meeting or inside doors for their recent crimes in Afghanistan. How they plan to repair such fault?.
In the case of the 1st option, if they really feel a genuine ant imperialist sentiment (perhaps the Tunisian President), how they were dissuade? How to explain that after the inside-door meeting they showed up with a totally different position?. Does one of these Presidentes or any Muslim member of the Conference asked the US-NATO leaders to quit from the Conference?. I don’t think so. The only ones who quit from the Conference were the Saudis, but for the opposite reason, for not adopting a clear position of foreign interventionism on Syria.
The inside-doors meeting (2nd part of the Conference) was used by the US, NATO allies including Saudis and Israelis to manipulate and impose their pre-defined agenda and objectives for this Conference.
In the 3rd part of the Conference, when the general meeting resumes, they read the agreements and those made it clear to the “international audience” the “Consensus of the Conference” built inside doors among the inner top-circle of puppets. The rest has to obey, not debate. That is being called a success of the Conference for the US-NATO allies. This was in fact the success of the enemies of Syria.
THE CONCLUSIONS of the CONFERENCE OF THE ENEMIES OF SYRIA
Their conclusions explain better why they are called enemies of Syria:
1. The agreed to recognize the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the "legitimate representative" of the Syrian people. This one wiped out the sovereignty of Syria and trashed the opening statements of false antimperialism.
2. They agreed to set up an Arab peacekeeping force to ensure stability during Syria's democratic transition, and credited the AL as capable and responsible for maintaining stability and peace in the region. Does the AL have really such capability. Of course not, it is their masters who have it. So, is NATO disguised as AL –just those who create the problem- the ones that will be in charge of solving the problem in Syria. What a charade!!.
3. They concluded in blaming the bloodshed entirely on the Syrian government and that the only way of solving the problem is forcing a regime change in Syria starting by demanding peacefully the Assad relinquish of power. What comes after this? the invasion of course, they did not say it, but that is common sense. So, the US & NATO allies send 1st the paramilitaries, they destabilize the country and create a big mess, just the pretext for the current diplomacy of war. The faked diplomats were a bunch of clowns representing 60 nations (nobody knows who are they) inside a phony Conference.
4. The meeting also agreed on applying tougher sanctions on President Bashir al-Assad's regime and reduce diplomatic interactions with Damascus. If this is so, Why to send Koffi Anan in the name of UN plus members of the AL to Syria?, why don’t send them to London where the Syrian National Council (SNC) -the so called "legitimate representative" of the Syrian people- is being set?. What a clowns!!.
The only thing that is serious in this Conference are the sanctions against Syrian people, starting with the USUAL PIRACY of freezing Syrian money by the US and EU banks. The France delegation said the freezing of Syrian assets in EU bank will start on Monday. They are fast & furious. Question? Do we want to “freeze” -then after- the Syrian riches in museums as it happens in Iraq when invade it? Nobody knows.
What we know for sure is the terrible threat already stated by Mrs Hillary Clinton against Assad. That is scary!. She said to the Assad regime that they would pay “A HEAVY COST" for "ignoring the will of the international community and violating the human rights of innocent people." You know what she means by “international community” and HR?. They are champions in exporting such delicacies. You remember what happens in Libya when she said “I came and he dies”? Hillary was laughing on the assassination of Gadaffi? . So, Assad is warned, unless he put first a price on her head and call the mercenaries to bid up.
Is she really planning to visit Syria? Perhaps, if she is not afraid of the Al Qaeda mercenaries hired by her and the Saudis to operate inside Syria. She said that the US already invested 10 million U.S. dollars on such “humanitarian efforts, including the support for refugees”. These mercenaries like very much the US money, of course, but they sometimes make wrong killings. I guess she is not afraid of those mercenaries!. It means, “this is a lady of cojones”. She should have been the President of the US because the one we have it, lacks such quality.
--------------------
RECENT SOURCES:
"FRIENDS" CONFERENCE REJECTS FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
2012-02-25 15:44:12 Xinhua Web Editor: Fuyu
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2941s683151.htm
-------------------------
'FRIENDS OF SYRIA' RECOGNIZE OPPOSITION
2012-02-25 Xinhua Web Editor: Yihang
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/02/25/2724s683100.htm
----------------------------
PREVIUOS RELATED SOURCES: open
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com
Obama Vows to Stop Killings in Syria
Syrian President "Can Still Save His Country": Hillary Clinton
======================
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)