Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Fukushima Can Happen in the US

What the Nuclear Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know

Fairewinds Associates

Nuclear engineers Arnie Gundersen and David Lochbaum discuss how the US regulators and regulatory process have left Americans unprotected.

The well-known safety flaws of Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors have gained significant attention in the wake of the four reactor accidents at Fukushima, but a more insidious danger lurks.

They walk, step-by-step, through the events of the Japanese meltdowns and consider how the knowledge gained from Fukushima applies to the nuclear industry worldwide. They discuss “points of vulnerability” in American plants, some of which have been unaddressed by the NRC for three decades.

Finally, they concluded that an accident with the consequences of Fukushima could happen in the US.

With more radioactive Cesium in the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant’s spent fuel pool than was released by Fukushima, Chernobyl, and all nuclear bomb testing combined, Gundersen and Lockbaum ask why there is not a single procedure in place to deal with a crisis in the fuel pool?

These and more safety questions are discussed in this forum presented by the C-10 Foundation at the Boston Public Library. Special thanks to Herb Moyer for the excellent video and Geoff Sutton for the frame-by-frame graphics of the Unit 3 explosion.

July 11, 2011 Posted by | Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Multi-Billion-Dollar Terrorists and the Disappearing Middle Class

By James Petras | July 7, 2011

The US government (White House and Congress) spends $10 billion dollars a month, or $120 billion a year, to fight an estimated “50 -75 ‘Al Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA and quoted in the Financial Times of London (6/25 -26/11, p. 5). During the past 30 months of the Obama presidency, Washington has spent $300 billion dollars in Afghanistan, which adds up to $4 billion dollars for each alleged ‘Al Queda type’. If we multiply this by the two dozen or so sites and countries where the White House claims ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists have been spotted, we begin to understand why the US budget deficit has grown astronomically to over $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year.

During Obama’s Presidency, Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment has been frozen, resulting in a net decrease of over 8 percent, which is exactly the amount spent chasing just 5 dozen ‘Al Qaeda terrorists’ in the mountains bordering Pakistan.

It is absurd to believe that the Pentagon and White House would spend $10 billion a month just to hunt down a handful of terrorists ensconced in the mountains of Afghanistan. So what is the war in Afghanistan about? The answer one most frequently reads and hears is that the war is really against the Taliban, a mass-based Islamic nationalist guerrilla movement with tens of thousands of activists. The Taliban, however, have never engaged in any terrorist act against the territorial United States or its overseas presence. The Taliban have always maintained their fight was for the expulsion of foreign forces occupying Afghanistan. Hence the Taliban is not part of any “international terrorist network”.

If the US war in Afghanistan is not about defeating terrorism, then why the massive expenditure of funds and manpower for over a decade? Several hypotheses come to mind:

The first is the geopolitics of Afghanistan: The US is actively establishing forward military bases, surrounding and bordering on China.

Secondly, US bases in Afghanistan serve as launching pads to foment “dissident separatist” armed ethnic conflicts and apply the tactics of ‘divide and conquer’ against Iran, China, Russia and Central Asian republics.

Thirdly, Washington’s launch of the Afghan war (2001) and the easy initial conquest encouraged the Pentagon to believe that a low cost, easy military victory was at hand, one that could enhance the image of the US as an invincible power, capable of imposing its rule anywhere in the world, unlike the disastrous experience of the USSR.

Fourthly, the early success of the Afghan war was seen as a prelude to the launching of a sequence of successful wars, first against Iraq and to be followed by Iran, Syria and beyond. These would serve the triple purpose of enhancing Israeli regional power, controlling strategic oil resources and enlarging the arc of US military bases from South and Central Asia, through the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.

The strategic policies, formulated by the militarists and Zionists in the Bush and Obama Administrations, assumed that guns, money, force and bribes could build stable satellite states firmly within the orbit of the post-Soviet US empire. Afghanistan was seen as an easy first conquest the initial step to sequential wars. Each victory, it was assumed would undermine domestic and allied (European) opposition. The initial costs of imperial war, the Neo-Cons claimed, would be paid for by wealth extracted from the conquered countries, especially from the oil producing regions.

The rapid US defeat of the Taliban government confirmed the belief of the military strategists that “backward”, lightly armed Islamic peoples were no match up for the US powerhouse and its astute leaders.

Wrong Assumptions, Mistaken Strategies: The Trillion Dollar Disaster

Every assumption, formulated by these civilian strategists and their military counterparts, has been proven wrong. Al Qaeda was and is a marginal adversary; the real force capable of sustaining a prolonged peoples war against an imperial occupier, inflicting heavy casualties, undermining any local puppet regime and accumulating mass support is the Taliban and related nationalist resistance movements. Israeli-influenced US think-tanks, experts and advisers who portrayed the Islamic adversaries as inept, ineffective and cowardly, totally misread the Afghan resistance. Blinded by ideological antipathy, these high-ranking advisers and White House/Pentagon civilian-office holders failed to recognize the tactical and strategic, political and military acumen of the top and middle-level Islamist nationalist leaders and their tremendous reserve of mass support in neighboring Pakistan and beyond.

The Obama White House, heavily dependent on Islamophobic pro-Israel experts, further isolated the US troops and alienated the Afghan population by tripling the number of troops, further establishing the credentials of the Taliban as the authentic alternative to a foreign occupation.

As for the neo-conservative pipe dreams of successful sequential wars, cooked up by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Libby et al, to eliminate Israel’s adversaries and turn the Persian Gulf into a Hebrew lake, the prolonged wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have, in fact, strengthened Iran’s regional influence, turned the entire Pakistani people against the US and strengthened mass movements against US clients throughout the Middle East.

Sequential imperial defeats have resulted in a massive hemorrhage of the US treasury, rather than the promised flood of oil wealth from tributary clients. According to a recent scholarly study, the military cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have exceeded $3.2 trillion dollars (“The Costs of War Since 2001”, Eisenhower Study Group, June 2011) and is growing at over ten billion a month. Meanwhile the Taliban “tightens (its) psychological grip” on Afghanistan (FT 6/30/2011, p. 8). According to the latest reports even the most guarded 5-star hotel in the center of Kabul, the Intercontinental, was vulnerable to a sustained assault and take over by militants, because “high security Afghan forces” are infiltrated and the Taliban operate everywhere, having established “shadow” governments in most cities, towns and villages (FT 6/30/11 p.8).

Imperial Decline, Empty Treasury and the Specter of a Smash-Up

The crumbling empire has depleted the US treasury. As the Congress and White House fight over raising the debt ceiling, the cost of war aggressively erodes any possibility of maintaining stable living standards for the American middle and working classes and heightens growing inequalities between the top 1% and the rest of the American people. Imperial wars are based on the pillage of the US treasury. The imperial state has, via extraordinary tax exemptions, concentrated wealth in the hands of the super-rich while the middle and working classes have been pushed downward, as only low paid jobs are available.

In 1974, the top 1% of US individuals accounted for 8% of total national income but as of 2008 they earned 18% of national income. And most of this 18% is concentrated in the hands of a tiny super-rich 1% of that 1%, or 0.01% of the American population, (FT 6/28/11, p. 4 and 6/30/11, p. 6). While the super-rich plunder the treasury and intensify the exploitation of labor, the number of middle income jobs is plunging: From 1993 to 2006, over 7% of middle income jobs disappeared (FT 6/30/11, p. 4). While inequalities may be rising throughout the world, the US now has the greatest inequalities among all the leading capitalist countries.

The burden of sustaining a declining empire, with its the monstrous growth in military spending, has fallen disproportionately on middle and working class taxpayers and wage earners. The military and financial elites’ pillage of the economy and treasury has set in motion a steep decline in living standards, income and job opportunities. Between 1970 -2009, while gross domestic product more than doubled, US median pay stagnated in real terms (FT 7/28/11, p. 4). If we factor in the added fixed costs of pensions, health and education, real income for wage and salaried workers, especially since the 1990’s, has been declining sharply.

Even greater blows are to come in the second half 2011: As the Obama White House expands its imperial interventions in Pakistan, Libya and Yemen, increasing military and police-state spending, Obama is set to reach budgetary agreements with the far right Republicans, which will savage government health care programs, like MEDICARE and MEDICAID, as well as Social Security, the national retirement program. Prolonged wars have pushed the budget to the breaking point, while the deficit undermines any capacity to revive the economy as it heads toward a ‘repeat recession’.

The entire political establishment is bizarrely oblivious to the fact that their multi-hundred- billion-dollar pursuit of an estimated 50-75 phantom Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan has hastened the disappearance of middle income jobs in the US. The entire political spectrum has turned decisively to the Right and the Far-Right. The debate between Democrats and Republicans is over whether to slash four trillion or more from the last remnants of our country’s social programs. The Democrats and the Far-Right are united as they pursue multiple wars while currying favor and funds from upper 0.01% super-rich, financial and real estate moguls whose wealth has grown so dramatically during the crisis!

Conclusion

But there is a deep and quiet discomfort within the leading circles of the Obama regime: The “best and brightest” among his top officials are scampering to jump ship before the coming deluge: the Economic Guru Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel, Stuart Levey, Peter Orzag, Bob Gates, Tim Geithner and others, responsible for the disastrous wars, economic catastrophes, the gross concentration of wealth and the savaging of our living standards, have walked out or have announced their ‘retirement’, leaving it to the smiling con-men – President Obama and Vice-President ‘Joe’ Biden – and their ‘last and clueless loyalists’ to take the blame when the economy tanks and our social programs are wiped out. How else can we explain their less-than-courageous departures (to ‘spend more time with the family’) in the face of such a deepening crisis?

The hasty retreat of these top officials is motivated by their desire to avoid political responsibility and to escape history’s indictment for their role in the impending economic debacle. They are eager to hide from a future judgment over which policy makers and leaders and what policies led to the destruction of the American middle and working classes with their good jobs, stable pensions, Social Security, decent health care and respected place in the world.

July 10, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Egypt: Gulf ‘gifts’ fill budget gap but raise suspicions

By Maggie Hyde | AlMasryAlYoum |July 10, 2011

After turning down loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Egypt is now turning to oil-rich Arab Gulf States to finance its budget deficit.

Some of the money is supposedly being given freely, as “gifts” rather than loans, but some fear that accepting the money will come with political baggage and behind-the-scenes deals. The grants come as Egypt is testing its foreign policy in the region.

The irony of a newly-democratic Egypt turning to the traditional monarchies stifling dissent within their own borders has not been lost on many commentators.

“Why, how, what did we do to get their satisfaction?” said Reda Issa, an independent economic researcher who objects to Egypt taking money from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. “Why are they offering to give this money? Why now? Nobody knows.”

Just months ago, Gulf states did not express support for the revolution, said Issa,
Because their interests do not align with the forces that overthrew Hosni Mubarak, he said Egypt should be wary of their money.

Throughout the weeks of protest against the former president, the Gulf countries suppressed democratic movements in their own monarchies. Saudi Arabia offered to financially support Mubarak ‘s government if the United States decided to withdraw its US$1.5 in annual aid. Following his ouster, various Saudi government figures called for pardoning Mubarak.

In the most recent offer on 7 July, the United Arab Emirates promised that it would give Egypt $3 billion in financial assistance. The money would be in addition to Qatar’s pledge of $10 billion and the $4 billion Saudi Arabia has already promised.

Most of these offers are a mixture of funds, loans, and grants. The amounts will probably be paid at intervals.

The UAE money includes a $1.5 billion fund for small to medium businesses, $750 million in loans, and a $750 million grant, with no expectations of repayment. The Saudi money includes a $500 million grant to help finance the budget deficit, $500 million in loans, and $500 million in Egyptian bond purchases.

The $10 billion from Qatar will probably be mostly investments, but the country has also given some grants.

In the weeks that Egypt was revising its budget so not to take on IMF and World Bank loans, Qatar provided $500 million to help the budget immediately. Finance Minister Samir Radwan, when asked about any conditions to the money, said “That is a gift.”

Earlier this week Egypt’s new foreign minister announced that there is no pressure from Gulf countries to prevent the criminal trial of Mubarak, a theory that has been widely circulated. The foreign minister also denied that the Gulf states are pressuring Egypt not to resume regular ties with Iran.

The interim government has said it requires between $10 and 12 billion in international funding in the next year to keep running. It was initially thought that the IMF and World Bank would help Egypt close the fiscal gap.

But after announcing a budget that was conditioned upon acceptance of a $3 billion IMF loan and World Bank money in June, Egypt’s finance ministry retracted the proposed budget last week.

In taking the money from the Gulf, analysts say, Egypt’s interim government is avoiding taking on debt from the World Bank and IMF, perhaps at the expense of making political concessions to Arab neighbors. The decision came as a surprise to some, including those involved in the talks.

Radwan said in an interview with the Financial Times that the decision was made in response to public disapproval of the IMF and World Bank. Other reports said the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) had taken issue with conditions of the loans and did not approve them.

Two days after Radwan’s announcement, a World Bank spokesperson said that discussions were still ongoing and that they had heard nothing from the government to suggest the contrary. Ratna Sahay, IMF deputy director of the Middle East, maintained that Egypt had not decided against the fund’s offer because of IMF stipulations.
“Nothing was hidden or kept quiet,” she said.

And so a new budget was formulated and ratified on 4 July, with Gulf, not IMF, money picking up the slack. The new budget cut back on government spending and reduced the projected deficit from 11 percent to 8.6 percent. A copy of that budget has yet to be made public.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television, Radwan said that the decision to reject IMF and World Bank money was because neither the government nor the SCAF wanted to leave behind “a legacy of debt.”

When asked whether money from the Arabian Peninsula came with any conditions, he said, “None whatsoever.”

But the disarray and opaqueness of it all, including how the Gulf money will be given and used, is what concerns Issa. Who knows, he said, what conditions could be attached to the money, because the government is not conducting talks in a transparent way.

“There has to be a political reason,” he said. “We are not foolish enough to believe that money is given for nothing.”

The UAE announcement comes just after Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Orabi assured Gulf leaders that Egypt will not pursue relations with Iran if it means risking stability in the region. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar consider neighboring Iran a threat to their security. During Orabi’s visit to the region, Orabi mostly assuaged the fears of Gulf leaders. Sharaf’s trip to the UAE struck the same tone.

Alanoud Al-Sharekh, a senior fellow for regional politics at the UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and former analyst at the Kuwait National Security Bureau, said Gulf countries simply see their grants as an investment in the region’s stability that will help restore Gulf investors to Egypt.

“The GCC countries have all been crucial in supporting Arab states financially, they have a history of giving money to Egypt,” she said. “This is not a new phenomenon.”

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are also home to hundreds of thousands of Egyptian workers, whose remittances feed money into Egypt’s economy. In addition to government support, Gulf businessmen are some of Egypt’s biggest investors.

It is a crucial period for the Gulf and the rest of the region, Sharekh said, a time when relationships can be strengthened or broken.

Saudi Arabia in particular, formerly a strong ally with Mubarak, does not currently enjoy a good reputation among most Egyptians.

In the days following the uprising, many speculated that Saudi royalty and businesses were funding a counterrevolutionary movement, perhaps even providing money to extremists that would incite sectarian violence.

In February, a government official said that Saudi Arabia had offered to host Mubarak in the country, but the former president turned it down, determined to die on Egyptian soil. Former Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, also an unpopular figure, found sanctuary in the kingdom after being deposed by a Tunisia’s popular rebellion.

In May, Saudi princes offered to pay Mubarak’s hospital expenses, upon hearing that the Egyptian government was unwilling to foot the bill.

Not all Gulf States were on great terms with Mubarak; the Qatari ruling family and Mubarak were far from close, and their investments could be seen as a way to rewrite the relationship with Egypt.

In that light, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia might be making clever plays to bolster their image and gain influence in Egypt’s new government.

The moves “also cement [the GCC countries’] position in foreign policy,” she said, “[irrespective of] whether they are popular on the street.”

July 10, 2011 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Extending the House of Freedom — From the Middle East to the former Soviet Union

By Maidhc Ó Cathail – The Passionate Attachment – July 10, 2011

Not content with having helped in no small way in bringing “freedom” to much of the Arab world during the “revolutionary” spring of 2011, Freedom House is now setting its sights on what it sees as another “Outpost of Tyranny” — the former Soviet Union. In a Foreign Policy op-ed piece, its president David J. Kramer and director of studies Christopher Walker argue:

While the collapse of the authoritarian regimes of the former Soviet Union may not be imminent, it is clear that they suffer from many of the same grave flaws that led to this year’s Arab revolts. Lacking established succession mechanisms and leaning heavily on informal, personality-based patronage networks, they are inherently unstable. Ultimately, the former Soviet states that are currently languishing under autocratic rule must confront, or be confronted by, the myriad problems they have left unresolved.

The transatlantic democracies, therefore, have a clear strategic interest in helping reforms occur sooner rather than later and under more orderly circumstances. A more peaceful, sustainable transition is more likely when it can be negotiated between the regime, the opposition and civil society than when it takes place under crisis conditions, when crowds are already massing on the streets.

David J. Kramer, who preceded Michael Posner as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, was a senior fellow at the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. He is currently on the advisory council of the “Iran Strategy Task Force” — a joint initiative of Freedom House and the Progressive Policy Institute. “The dominant issues in the Middle East are democracy and freedom. The Iran regime thinks that it can escape demands for change,” says one of its co-chairs. “The United States, and its allies, therefore need a strategy that will help Iranians attain the human rights they so richly deserve.”

One would hope that few human rights activists in the targeted countries would be taken in by such rhetoric. However, Freedom House’s successful wooing of the future “Arab Spring” protestors doesn’t bode well for the regimes in Iran and the former Soviet Union.

According to a New York Times report titled “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” some Egyptian activists baulked at taking money and training from a U.S. government-funded organization whose freedom-loving board of trustees includes such pro-Israel stalwarts as Thomas Dine, Max Kampelman, Kenneth Adelman, Paula Dobriansky and Joshua Muravchik:

Affiliating themselves with the American organizations may have tainted leaders within their own groups. According to one diplomatic cable, leaders of the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt told the American Embassy in 2009 that some members of the group had accused Ahmed Maher, a leader of the January uprising, and other leaders of “treason” in a mock trial related to their association with Freedom House, which more militant members of the movement described as a “Zionist organization.”

A prominent blogger, according to a cable, threatened to post the information about the movement leaders’ links to Freedom House on his blog.

There is no evidence that this ever happened, and a later cable shows that the group ousted the members who were complaining about Mr. Maher and other leaders.

Interesting also that Foreign Policy, which has Steve Walt as one of its bloggers, is now giving the staunchly pro-Israel Freedom House a platform to advocate for regime change in countries such as Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Talk about skewing foreign policy “while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.”

July 10, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Kenneth O’Keefe Under Assault: In Defense Of A Hero

By Jonathan Azaziah | Mask of Zion | January 26, 2011

“The problem facing our people… is bigger than all other personal or organizational differences. Therefore as leaders, we must stop worrying about the threat we seem to think we pose to each other’s personal prestige (1)…” ~ Malcolm X ~

The words of martyred revolutionary giant El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz reflect the nature of the particular instance about to be discussed undoubtedly.

It is an undeniable fact that the Zionist entity remains extraordinarily steadfast in its daily routine of illegality and criminality.

It commits crimes against humanity, like shooting a 66-year old Palestinian man 13 times to death in his bed (2), keeping the people of Gaza under siege and starving them of basic living essentials like cooking gas (3), and ethnically cleansing Palestine of indigenous Palestinians, including issuing demolition notices to families who are already humiliatingly living in tents (4).

The Israeli regime of usurpation violates international law, like sending its warplanes into Lebanese airspace and breaching Lebanese sovereignty on a daily basis (5), stealing the natural gas in Lebanon’s territorial waters between occupied Palestine and Cyprus (6), terrorizing Palestinian fishermen in illegally besieged Gaza, by firing at their boats and disrupting their only way to provide for their families (7), and quintessentially expanding Zionist settlements in occupied Jerusalem, zionizing the holy city a little bit more with each passing day (8).

Israel carries out environmental terrorism, like leaking uranium from its illegal Dimona nuclear facility in occupied al-Naqab, subjecting Palestinians in the West Bank to cancer, sterility and abnormal births (9), and inflicting Palestinian surfers in Gaza with harsh skin disorders due to the Zionist entity dumping toxic waste into the Strip’s coastal waters (10).

Tel Aviv also spreads division throughout the region, like its financing of military helicopters for secessionist rebels in southern Sudan (11), part of the greater Zionist plot to divide the African nation into ‘sectarian’ states to keep the Sudanese people fractured and weakened (12), or Mossad’s false flag terrorism, like the brazen bombing of al-Qiddisin Church in Alexandria, Egypt (13) and the Zionist-admitted destruction across occupied Iraq, from Nineveh in the north, to the Karada neighborhood of Baghdad in the central region, to Najaf, Karbala and Basra in the south (14).

Instead of dedicating each waking moment of their time to documenting and exposing these crimes in every detail that they can find, some personalities in the ‘activist community’ have unfortunately, pathetically and disgustingly directed their efforts towards attacking a man who has done just that, as well as put his life on the line in defense of his fellow activists and the Palestinian people themselves. A man who has dedicated the better half of his life to fighting for truth, justice and peace: Kenneth O’Keefe.

This abominable group masquerading as activists has slandered a man who has shown no fear in standing up to the powers that be, whether they are residing in Zionist-occupied territory in Washington or Palestine. These abhorrent persons posing as members of the solidarity movement have attempted to discredit a man who has never acted in any other way other than honorably in regards to his activism. These detestable excuses for truth-seekers have assaulted a man who stands with the oppressed in the homeland of the oppressed, while they sit behind the fortress of their computer screen in disdainful envy of another’s heroism, which they are too cowardly to duplicate. Shameful doesn’t begin to provide the proper description of such deplorable behavior.

An ex-Marine and veteran of the genocidal Gulf War which bred the criminal sanctions afflicting Iraq to this very day, Mr. O’Keefe began his fight for freedom in 1994 when he was arrested for protesting against the Zionist-occupied American government’s nuclear testing. His activism would extend to animals in a massive way when he moved to the occupied kingdom of Hawaii years later, and started a mission out of his dive shop to rescue turtles and clean up toxic pollution terribly affecting the oceans.

While living in Hawaii, Mr. O’Keefe also became acutely aware of the United States government’s ‘blood quantum’ conspiracy against the Hawaiian people; a little-known and scarcely talked about genocide that eclipses the highest peaks of racism and ethnic cleansing. He stood in solidarity with his Hawaiian brothers and sisters to his detriment, resulting in perpetual harassment from traffic police and the exceedingly corrupt traffic courts. He cemented his solidarity with the indigenous Hawaiian people when he swore allegiance to the kingdom of Hawaii, which America considered an enemy nation (15).

In 1999, Mr. O’Keefe announced his intention to renounce his United States citizenship, and did so in March 2001, infuriating his government tormentors to an even greater degree, but remaining steadfast in his activist efforts (16). Ken, who was subjected to contaminated immunizations and pills during the Gulf War and who has relentlessly campaigned against the usage of depleted uranium (17), returned to Iraq and founded the Human Shield program in late 2002, where civilians from Western countries would place themselves in front of non-military targets to show solidarity with the Iraqi people in the face of an illegal occupation. Mr. O’Keefe was ultimately deported, as well as many other volunteers, and the humanitarian project had to be disbanded (18). To drive the point deeper into the US-Zionist trachea, that he wasn’t going to stop fighting for humanity, Ken O’Keefe burned his American passport on January 8, 2004 (19).

These noble actions alone cast doubt on the intentions of anyone attempting to fire shots of falsehood at Mr. O’Keefe. But the intentions of these aforesaid attention gluttons are exposed in an even more extensive manner, after examining Mr. O’Keefe’s actions on May 31st, 2010 and the subsequent events in the blood-drenched aftermath.

On that fateful morning at the end of May, nearly 43 years to the day of Israel’s napalming and massacring of the USS Liberty which left 34 American sailors dead and 171 others wounded, Israeli commandoes stormed the humanitarian aid project known as the Freedom Flotilla, and murdered 9 activists including a 19-year old Turkish-American named Furkan Dogan aboard the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships part of the flotilla. It was an act of war, an act of mass murder, an act of terrorism and an act of piracy.

The Zionist entity’s typical, shameless and maniacal act of brutality was broadcasted by the Zionist media with spin provided by agents from Zionist lobby organizations and pathetically defended by the Obama regime, which is no more than an extension of the Knesset. The reason for the attack? To defuse the historic Iran-Turkey-Brazil diplomatic agreement for nuclear fuel and to show the international community that it remains under the control of the illegitimate Israeli state, powerless in the face of Zionist terror (20). Former IOF terrorist and son of one of the bombers of the King David Hotel, Zionist warmonger Rahm Emanuel, made a trip to the Zionist state just days before the murderous assault to issue ‘American’ approval to Tel Aviv for the attack (21).

Kenneth O’Keefe was aboard the Mavi Marmara. He saw 9 of his brothers murdered in cold blood by Zion’s brigade of killers and dozens of others critically injured within an hour of the IOF assault. Mr. O’Keefe displayed an unprecedented form of valor, confronting the armed commandoes and disarming two of them. Once the murderers were disarmed by Mr. O’Keefe and another activist, they were taken below deck by other Flotilla activists and treated for injuries.

Kenneth, along with numerous other activists aboard the Mavi Marmara and other ships of the Flotilla, was punched and kicked while he was restrained. He witnessed as his fellow activists and friends were abused by IOF. Eldery people were physically abused, women were sexually abused during IOF’s body searches, O’Keefe and his brothers and sisters were denied food, water and access to a toilet as well as access to a lawyer. The activists had their cash, credit cards, laptops, cameras and other personal possessions stolen by Israel. Mr. O’Keefe was one of the last activists to be deported from Port Ashdod where the Flotilla was held illegally by the Zionist entity (22).

Beaten and choked to the point of blacking out in an Israeli prison cell, this by no means deterred Mr. O’Keefe. He called out any and all who would defend the Zionist regime’s actions on May 31st, including the leaders of Tel Aviv themselves (23). Israel responded by labeling Mr. O’Keefe a ‘terrorist,’ ridiculously stating that he was attempting to reach Gaza to train and establish Hamas commando units (24). Kenneth O’Keefe was invited onto the Zionist-owned BBC program Hard Talk several weeks after the attack, as a means for Israel and its allies to desecrate his image to an even greater extent and finish him once and for all. The attempt failed horribly, as O’Keefe stood his ground in defiance, relentlessly defending the Palestinians, the Freedom Flotilla and speaking unadulterated truth to the BBC propagandist portraying herself as a talk show host (25).

Mr. O’Keefe’s name spread across news headlines again not too long thereafter when he made an appearance on the Press TV program, The Agenda, where he not only fearlessly defended 9/11 truth, but went on the record to state it was an inside job carried out by elements within the American government and Israel’s mass murder organization, the Mossad (26), proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that O’Keefe’s only concern is the truth, and his only dedication is to the truth.

Kenneth O’Keefe’s most recent mission took him back to illegally besieged Gaza aboard the Road To Hope aid convoy. The convoy arrived at Egypt’s El-Arish port, carrying 30 vehicles and 101 humanitarian workers, including 8 survivors from the Freedom Flotilla massacre. Though the Road To Hope accomplished its goal of breaking the Zionist siege and delivering its aid to the suffering people of Gaza, its journey wasn’t without tumult and turmoil. The Road To Hope was stranded on the Egyptian-Libyan border for 9 days over a technicality and moreover, the captain of the ship brought Ken O’Keefe and the other courageous activists to the Piraeus port in Greece against their will, where the ship was boarded by Greek commandos and the activists were ‘treated like terrorists (27).’

Due to meddling from war criminal Hosni Mubarak’s Zionist dictatorship, only 35 members of the original 101-man crew were allowed to enter occupied Gaza, including Kenneth O’Keefe, who has remained there to conduct daily video reporting which focuses on the Palestinian children of the besieged coastal enclave (28).

Mr. O’Keefe’s activism, heroism and clear genuineness regarding the Palestinian struggle and other struggles of oppressed against oppressor have been covered by Press TV, Russia Today and countless pages of social networking websites and blogs of activists, journalists and average folk alike. His heroic actions are undeniable. The evidence supporting these actions is irrefutable. So how has Mr. O’Keefe been labeled by the previously discussed persons of abhorrence?

As a Zionist. Yes, a man who has fought against Zionism from America to occupied Iraq to occupied Palestine and who has exposed the prominent Israeli role in the 9/11 false flag attack is a Zionist.

As a fraud who uses his activism as a front to make money. Yes, a man who doesn’t have any money whatsoever and who spends time getting shot at by the Israeli terrorists of IOF in Beit Hanoun (29) uses his activism as a fraud to make money.

And as a liar, who faked his injures at the hands of the Zionist entity’s thugs on the Mavi Marmara, who didn’t renounce his US citizenship and who lied about being kidnaped aboard the Road To Hope, despite all accurate media reports of the Road To Hope being abducted and the activists being kidnaped. Yes, a man who can’t seem to do anything except tell the truth, which is verified by physical evidence and documentation, and who is respected across the ‘truth movement’ and activist community is a liar.

What egregious, disgusting and slanderous accusations against a decent, honest individual from personalities who exemplify the twisted and darkened opposite end of the spectrum.

A hero is classically defined in two parts. A) a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength. B) champion: someone who fights for a cause.

An enemy is also classically defined in two parts. A) an armed adversary. B) any hostile group of people.

Kenneth O’Keefe is the personification of the former, and his detractors, armed with falsehood as their chief form of ammunition, flamboyantly personify the latter. While Mr. O’Keefe marches forward with ‘ambitious projects’ to break the criminal and savage Zionist siege against the people of Gaza (30), his atttackers continue to smear him with baseless insults of ‘agent provocateur’ and ‘plant (31).’ Insulting someone and lying about someone says more about the type of person that you are than the person that you are insulting and slandering. It is the lowest form of intellectual expression and a tactic that resembles the intelligence wings of Zionism like the ADL, the ZOA and the AJC.

In this struggle for truth, justice and peace for all oppressed people, the slandering of activists like Kenneth O’Keefe must not be confronted with cowardice and silence, but firm defense and steadfast Resistance. Mr. O’Keefe campaigns for the people of Palestine with passion and dignity, and his efforts must be upheld by those who support the struggle for one Palestinian state, free of Zionism, and Mr. O’Keefe’s efforts to make this dream a reality, with the same passion and dignity.

Those who have besieged Mr. O’Keefe like rabid dogs are fully aware of who they are. Their names remain far away from this piece as a common courtesy and as an extension of brotherhood and sisterhood; so they recognize the error in their ways and return to the fold in the fight to free the planet of Zionist gangsterdom. This extension of mercy is a fleeting one however, and if the barrage of falsehoods continues to be slung Mr. O’Keefe’s way, the slingers will be dealt with accordingly. Additionally, this declaration of Resistance and defense pertains to all other righteous activists under siege from fakers, actors and agents.

Mr. O’Keefe has gone on record, as a matter of humbleness, to state that he isn’t a hero and he would appreciate it if people would stop referring to him as such. Unfortunately Mr. O’Keefe, I regretfully have to inform you that everything that you do, and everything that you are, fits the description of ‘hero’ down to the most minute detail. And I, Jonathan Azaziah, for one, salute you, and thank you.

Sources:

(1) Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches And Statements by Malcolm X and George Breitman

(2) No Discharge For Soldier Who Initiated Hebron Slaying by Ma’an News Agency

(3) Gas Shortage In Gaza by Middle East Monitor

(4) IOA Serves Demolition Notifications To Owners Of Five Tents by The Palestinian Information Center

(5) Israeli Jets Violate Lebanese Airspace by Press TV

(6) Another Episode In The Conflict: Israel Set To Steal Lebanese Gas! by Al-Manar

(7) Israeli Navy Fire Damages Dozens Of Palestinian Fishing Boats by The Palestinian Information Center

(8) Israel Plans 1,400 New Units In Al-Quds by Press TV

(9) ‘Israeli Reactor Linked To WB Deaths’ by Press TV

(10) Palestinians Find Freedom In The Surf Of Gaza by Adel Zaanoun, Ma’an News Agency

(11) Israel Fiances Military Helicopter Deal For South Sudan by Middle East Monitor

(12) Israelis Can Tell The Whole Story Of Sudan’s Division – They Wrote The Script And Trained The Actors by Fahmi Howeidi, Al-Khaleej Times

(13) The Alexandria Church Bombing: Mossad, Who Else? by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(14) Occupied Iraq: New Year, Same Zionism by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion

(15) Auto-Biography (Short Version) by Ken O’Keefe, P10K

(16) Back To Iraq As A Human Shield by Ken O’Keefe, The Guardian

(17) Gulf War Human Guinea Pig by Ken O’Keefe, P10K

(18) Body Blow As Human Shields Ordered Out by Paul McGeough, The Age

(19) Burning Passport Baghdad by Ken O’Keefe, P10K

(20) Israeli War Crimes: From The USS Liberty To The Humanitarian Flotilla by James Petras, Veteran Today

(21) The Reality Of Zionism by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask Of Zion

(22) Kenneth O’Keefe Speaks by Kourosh Ziabari, Opinion Maker

(23) Ken O’Keefe: ‘We The Defenders Of The Mavi Marmara, Are The Modern Example Of Gandhi’s Essence’ by Pulse Media

(24) IDF: Five Gaza Flotilla Activists Linked To Hamas, Al-Qaida by Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz

(25) Kenneth O’Keefe On BBC’s Hard Talk by Aletho News

(26) VIDEO: Ken O’Keefe On Press TV’s ‘The Agenda’ – Aug. 2010 by World News

(27) ‘Road To Hope’ Aid Convoy Enters Gaza by Press TV

(28) PRESS RELEASE – Road To Hope Convoy Reaches Gaza by The Weblog Of Ken O’Keefe

(29) Getting Shot At In Beit Hanoun by Ken O’Keefe, Pacific Free Press/VIDEO: Israelis Shoot At Demonstrators In Gaza – Ken O’Keefe, Beit Hanoun, Gaza 29-11-10 by 1worldcitizen, Youtube

(30) Road To Hope Aid Convoy: ‘Ambitious’ Projects Are Under Way by The Palestinian Information Center

(31) Can O’Keefe Lick The Palestinian Campaign Into Shape? by Stuart Littlewood, Veterans Today

July 9, 2011 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

American Jew brutalized by Israeli police

The true face of the supposed “only democracy in the Middle East”. A young American Jew quietly and calmly voices his opposition to Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and in Israel itself, and is attacked by the Israeli police, who drag him along the road face down and throw him into a police van.

July 9, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Widely ignored facts on Chomsky’s criminal “victims of authoritarianism”

A Few Facts about the Case of Judge Afiuni

By Fernando Vegas Torrealba | Correo del Orinoco International | July 8th 2011

Some of my friends in the US and internationally have had some concerns about recent events in Venezuela. From here in Venezuela, however, it seems there may be some misinformation, something common, of course, in mass media. One of these issues is the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, who was indicted for corruption and placed in detention for her illegal actions and abuse of her judicial power. Despite the fact that the US government and other international “human rights defenders” claim Venezuela has a terrible problem with judicial corruption, when authorities act against such malaise, then the government is accused of “cracking down on dissent” or being “authoritarian”.

Ironically, Judge Afiuni has claimed to be innocent and a political prisoner of President Chavez.

Afiuni was judging a financier named Eligio Cedeño who was involved in several corruption cases. He was initially charged with embezzlement of millions of dollars from banking institutions, essentially stealing the money from customers. Another charge against him was that he and an accomplice deceived CADIVI, our office of currency control, by ostensibly buying computers for almost US $30 million but bringing only empty containers to the country. The financier’s accomplice was arrested in Panama more than a year and half ago, and after being turned over to the authorities of Venezuela confessed the whole scheme. His lawyers delayed the trial with legal maneuvers, until about six months ago, when Judge Afiuni herself walked Mr. Cedeño out of the courtroom and escorted him with two other employees of her court to the internal parking lot for judges, where Cedeño boarded a motorcycle that was let into the lot by Afiuni’s instruction.

Then Afiuni returned to the courtroom to write the ruling with the decision to liberate Cedeño and afterwards she sat down and said loud and clear that she would sit where she was to wait for the suspension letter to arrive from her superiors.

The usual legal practice is that whenever an inmate is freed by ruling of a judge, he is taken back to prison where he waits for the arrival of the release order signed by the judge, something that usually happens in a matter of one or two hours. This was violated by Afiuni to be sure Cedeño would get away.

The judge, suspected of a felony, was suspended pending further investigation, and usually, in the corrupt system, nobody ever got sanctioned because in cases of bribery people released simply flee to another country to enjoy the money they’ve stolen stashed in some bank account of a family member, like to Miami, USA, for example, where Cedeño went. This explains the approach of Afiuni, but this time things worked out differently because she was arrested and held to trial for bribery.

MY REFLECTION

I have to say that I find it strange for people abroad concerned with justice and Venezuelan progress, to defend people like Judge Afiuni. I think she deserves to have the same treatment as any other citizen who is judged for similar reasons and is under custody because a serious and probable flight risk exists. Afiuni already has privileges, including originally being in a fairly comfortable cell with TV and a laptop (and Twitter), and enjoying visits at times no other inmate is allowed. Now she is in house arrest, where she enjoys all the comforts of home.

Since Afiuni knows the judicial position she is in, she keeps on playing the card of being a political prisoner, which of course she is not. We have no news of Afiuni being a political partisan of any group or defender of any ideology. Simply, Afiuni was a judge who received a payoff for the release of Cedeño and now is eager to part the country and enjoy the money.

If we had had a violent Revolution we could fight corruption with violent means, but since our Revolution follows a democratic and peaceful path, we can only put the felons in jail. To forego that option would be to forego law, on the one hand, and open the door to further violations on the other.

Fernando Vegas Torrealba is a Venezuelan Supreme Court Justice.

July 8, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

LAOS – The victims of unexploded ordnance have decreased, but the danger is still high

Agenzia Fides – July 7, 2011

Vientiane – The number of people involved in accidents caused by unexploded ordnance (UXO) in Laos, the country with the largest number of cluster bombs around the world, has fallen from an average of 300 a year to 117 in the last two, according to statistics reported by the government. However, the National Regulatory Authority for UXO / Mine Action (NRA) estimates that there are over 200 thousand hectares of agricultural land still to be cleaned. From 1964 to 1973, U.S. planes dropped more than two million tons of bombs on the country, including 277 million cluster munitions, 30% of which remain unexploded, according to the NRA. Currently, all 17 provinces of the country and about 25% of villages still suffer from various types of UXO contamination. Despite the decline in the number of victims, people are still very shaken.

A new ten-year program of the government was presented on June 27 at a meeting in Geneva for the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which prohibits the use, stockpiling and production of cluster munitions. The program focuses on cleaning the territory of the poorest 42 districts affected, mainly along the old Ho Chi Minh trail that runs from north to south along the Vietnamese border. The government has given priority to the cleaning of about 22 000 hectares of land to be cleaned within the next 16 years. Since the start of the operations in 1996, the UXO Lao, the national operator cleaning staff, supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), has cleaned up about 24 thousand hectares.

In Xieng Khouang Province in just two weeks about 108 unexploded weapons were found. The CCM 2008 came into force in August 2010. The government of Laos hosted the First Meeting of States Parties in November 2010, concluded with the adoption of the Vientiane Declaration and Action Plan. According to Article 6 of the Convention, all states in the position to do so, are obliged to provide assistance to those affected. Everyone’s cooperation is essential for Laos in order to cope with this emergency.

July 7, 2011 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Leave a comment

Chomsky is dishonest and deceptive in denying assault on Chavez

By Stephen Gowans on July 6, 2011

An article by reporter Rory Carroll in last Sunday’s Observer titled “Noam Chomsky criticises old friend Hugo Chavez for ‘assault’ on democracy” has set off a storm of controversy among Chomsky and Chavez supporters.

Some, angry at the leftist intellectual for criticizing the Venezuelan president, demanded an explanation. Chomsky replied that Carroll’s article was “dishonest” and “deceptive.”

But a transcript of the interview—which Chomsky told one blogger did not exist—suggests it is Chomsky, not Carroll, who is dishonest and deceptive.

“Let’s begin with the headline: complete deception,” Chomsky replies to one blogger.

Really?

Here’s what Chomsky told the Observer reporter.

Carroll: Finally, professor, the concerns about the concentration of executive power in Venezuela: to what extent might that be undermining democracy in Venezuela?

Chomsky: Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary, and for specific circumstances, let’s say fighting world war two, it’s an assault on democracy (my emphasis).

Carroll: And so in the case of Venezuela is that what’s happening or at risk of happening?

Chomsky: As I said you can debate whether circumstances require it—both internal circumstances and the external threat of attack and so on, so that’s a legitimate debate—but my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.

Earlier in the interview Chomsky told Carroll that, “Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo and it has to be guarded against. Whether it’s over too far in that direction in Venezuela I’m not sure but I think perhaps it is” (my emphasis).

So, Chomsky tells Carroll that concentration of executive power is an assault on democracy, that there’s a tendency toward concentration in Venezuela, and that in his judgment the circumstances don’t require it.

So how is it that the headline “Noam Chomsky criticises old friend Hugo Chavez for ‘assault’ on democracy” is deceptive and dishonest? Granted, Chavez might not be an old friend, at least not in the literal sense, but the Observer headline hardly seems to misrepresent Chomsky’s words.

Now, we can go around in circles about whether Carroll fairly or dishonestly recounted his conversation with Chomsky (though it looks like the dishonesty here isn’t Carroll’s), but anyone who insists that Chomsky didn’t criticize Chavez is going to have to do a fair amount of straw clutching. Yes, the leftist intellectual did criticize Washington in his interview with Carroll, and he did point out all the good that has happened in Venezuela (which Carroll acknowledges in his article.) But so what? That doesn’t negate Chomsky’s open criticism of Chavez — which is what a number of Chavez partisans are agitated about.

The occasion for the interview was Chomsky’s open letter criticizing the detention of Judge Maria Lourdes Affiuni. Affiuni had freed banker Eligio Cedeno in 2009. Cedeno, who had faced corruption charges, immediately fled the country. Chavez denounced the judge as a criminal and demanded that she be jailed for 30 years.

We can debate whether Chavez’s treatment of Affiuni is heavy-handed, but it doesn’t take a high-profile intellectual of Chomsky’s caliber to figure out that the establishment press will use all the ammunition it can lay its hands on to vilify Chavez, and the best ammunition of all is that which comes from the Left. It’s one thing for a US state official to raise concerns about Chavez. You expect it. It’s quite another for a leftist intellectual to do the same.

It might be said that Chomsky didn’t know the Observer would use his criticism to blacken Chavez’s reputation, but that would be dishonest and deceptive.  It’s hard to swallow the canard that poor old Noam–whose understanding of the media is second to none–blindly stumbled into an ambush. “I should know by now that I should insist on a transcript with the Guardian, unless it’s a writer I know and trust,” Chomsky lamented.

Yeah, right.

Media Lens, springing to Chomsky’s defense, noted perspicaciously that ‘the Guardian (the Observer’s sister newspaper) is normally happy to ignore (Chomsky) and his views. But when Chomsky expresses criticism of an official enemy of the West, he suddenly does exist and matter for the Guardian.”

But hadn’t the co-author of Manufacturing Consent figured this out long ago?

I think it would be fair to suppose he has. That he went ahead anyway, and allowed the press to add his criticisms of Chavez to what he himself calls the “vicious, unremitting attack by the United States and the west generally” on Venezuela, could mean one of two things.

Either Chomsky is a press-hound.

Or he’s not as much of a friend of Chavez as Carroll–and a good number of leftists-think.

Or both.

~

See also:

CHOMSKY ATTACKS CHAVEZ FOR NEOCON CARR CENTRE?

July 6, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

‘US, UK war vultures installed a cuckoo zionist identity’

RussiaToday | July 4, 2011

British anti-war activist Dr. David Halpin in an interview with RT.

“Israeli-America-British axis sowing chaos in the Middle East“

July 6, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Scalpel and the Damage Done

By CEIDREN VOE | CounterPunch | July 5, 2011

In Christopher Brauchli’s recent CounterPunch piece ‘Once Upon A Foreskin’, he holds up the recent WHO studies positing that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV as sacrosanct despite voluminous evidence positing the contrary.  Specifically, studies conducted by the American Medical Association found that for American males, circumcision did not affect the rate of HIV infection, and in fact circumcised American males were found to have a higher rate of bacterial infections such as Chlamydia and gonorrhea.  The short-term studies conducted in three African countries ravaged by an AIDS epidemic should not, whatever the veracity of their conclusions, be extrapolated to the rest of the world.  We must ask if practicing safe sex does not in fact provide a higher and more consistent rate of protection for adults, and whether the use of limited resources spent on circumcising infant males really pays off.

Contrary to Brachuli’s claims, performing cosmetic surgery on the male reproductive organ in the first, fragile days of life has documented consequences. In his book Circumcision; The Hidden Trauma, Ronald Goldman describes the horrific screams, confusion, and subsequent psychological withdrawal by infant boys taken away from their mothers and forced to undergo a highly painful surgery with minimal anesthetic.  Afterwards, they show signs of fear, rejection of their mothers, and a reflex to nervously protect their genitals from a repeat of a very traumatic event in their short life.  The foreskin is not a vestigial organ; it is the most sensitive part of the penis, containing vital nerve endings and providing protection of the head of the penis from drying, physical damage, and bacterial infection.  This brings us to an important point; infant children do not have sex, and do not need any special protection from STDS so far before reaching sexual maturity.   In places such as Sub-Saharan Africa with high infant mortality, this makes even less sense.    But it must be known that in America, circumcision is big business; in lieu of a single-payer healthcare system aimed at controlling costs, many doctors whole-heartedly recommend the procedure, which generously pads their bank accounts while offering few real benefits to the random infant.

But Christopher Brauchli makes a curious comparison when he links the proposed San Francisco ballot measure against attempts to ban abortion.  The popular phrase “Her Body, Her Choice” is used by many women calling for the absolute right of a woman to decide whether or not she carries a fetus to birth.  While banning abortion takes away a women’s choice, banning infant circumcision gives a man his; if he should so choose to have a circumcision done when he reaches the age of consent and sexual maturity, he can get one, unlike the millions of men who think with regret on the loss of sensitization in their penis due to lack of foreskin as an adult but find there is little they can do about it because others made the choice for them.  Pro-choice legislation regarding abortion is not framed around the rights of parents to decide for their daughters whether or not they will have an abortion based on their personal beliefs, and neither should legislation regarding male circumcision.   But if we are talking about women’s rights, we must make note that whether the male has a foreskin or not does nothing to protect women they may have unsafe sex with from being infected with HIV or other STDs.

Secular circumcision in the US did not begin with health concerns or religious traditions, and it doesn’t continue to this day on account of them.  In a case of real bigotry, it was championed in the 19th century by people of influence in order to prevent young boys from committing the sin of masturbation by reducing sexual pleasure via foreskin removal.  Even as this original reason has fallen into collective amnesia, the practice has continued to be passed down by parents and doctors uninterested in progress, self-examination, or reducing medical bills.  Brauchli notes that many Jews are upset by the proposed San Francisco ban; he makes no note of the movement within the Jewish community to question, discontinue, and examine the real origins of their practice of circumcision. Just like all Jews don’t support Zionist violence, they are not here a homogenous group which can be confidently lumped together. But of course, Matthew Hess, only one of the many people behind the ballot measure, has had accusations of anti-Semitism thrown at him.  The original author of the bill, Lloyd Shoefeild, has been given similar treatment.

But beyond the haze of derision and accusations of bigotry, we must be able to see that those advancing the expansion of human rights for the most vulnerable people—children—would more certainly be motivated by compassion, humanity and scientific research appropriate to the context in which the policy will be enacted.

Ceidren Voe can be reached at ceidrenvoyance@gmail.com

July 5, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Open letter to Gov. Rick Perry on the flotilla from a survivor of the USS Liberty attack

By Joe Meadors | Mondoweiss | July 3, 2011

Governor Perry,

I am one of the Americans waiting in Athens for the Freedom Flotilla to get underway in our effort to deliver humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza. I was also on the Flotilla last year and was aboard the USS Liberty when the ship was attacked by Israel on June 8, 1967.

A few years ago at my request you issued a proclamation honoring the crew of the USS Liberty.

When I submitted the request I ensured you were aware of the atrocities that were committed against us. I made sure you were aware that we were attacked by unmarked aircraft; that our radios were jammed on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies; that our life rafts were deliberately machine gunned in the water by the attacking Israeli torpedo boats; that when they ceased their attack the Israeli torpedo boats departed the scene for over an hour leaving the crew of a torpedoed and sinking ship with no chance of survival had our ship gone down.

I also ensured you were aware that two flights of rescue aircraft that had been launched from nearby Sixth Fleet aircraft carriers were recalled while we were still under attack and calling for help which allowed the Israelis to continue their attack unhampered by the threat of Sixth Fleet intervention.

I understand that you have urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to take legal steps to stop the Americans from taking part in the Freedom Flotilla or to prosecute us if we make the attempt.

When you issued the USS Liberty proclamation you expressed absolutely no concern that we were attacked by unmarked aircraft; that our radios were jammed on both US Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies; that our life rafts were deliberately machine gunned in the water; and, that we were ordered to be abandoned by the US Sixth Fleet while we were still under attack and calling for help.

When you issued the USS Liberty proclamation you didn’t follow it with any press release condemning the barbaric acts that were committed against us.

Governor Perry, why are you recommending prosecution of the Americans trying to deliver humanitarian supplies but not of those who machine gunned our life rafts in the water or ordered us to be abandoned while we were under fire?

Governor Perry, why does the attempted delivery of humanitarian supplies to Gaza elicit your condemnation but the deliberate machine gunning of American life rafts in the water doesn’t elicit even a modicum of concern?

Joe Meadors is a veteran and survivor of the USS Liberty attack in 1967.  He plans to participate in Free Palestine Movement’s delegation of US citizens as part of the Freedom Flotilla II, set to depart to Gaza in coming days. 

July 3, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »