Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

British councils used covert surveillance to monitor petty crimes such as ‘dog fouling’ – report

RT | December 26, 2016

British councils were given permission to gather surveillance using covert methods over the course of five years for crimes ranging from dog fouling to pigeon feeding. Spying was conducted with secret listening devices, cameras and private detectives.

A huge freedom of information request from the Liberal Democrats cited by the Guardian showed that 186 of the 283 councils that responded to the request had used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to gather evidence in covert ways over the course of five years.

A total of 2,800 separate surveillance operations took place during that time, lasting up to 90 days each.

The reasons for conducting the surveillance ranged from Midlothian council monitoring dog barking, to Allerdale borough investigating who was guilty of feeding pigeons.

In Wolverhampton, authorities used secret surveillance to check on the sale of dangerous toys and ‘car clocking’ – adjusting the mileage on a car’s odometer.

Westminster council used Ripa to monitor the sales of fireworks to children, while Slough used it during an investigation into an illegal puppy farm.

Lancaster city council monitored its residents for “targeted dog fouling enforcement” in 2012.

Ripa was also used to monitor people receiving benefits, including those claiming to be single parents.

Critics say that Ripa was purportedly intended only to be used when absolutely necessary to protect British citizens from extreme threats such as terrorism – not dog fouling or other petty crimes.

“It is absurd that local authorities are using measures primarily intended for combating terrorism for issues as trivial as a dog barking or the sale of theatre tickets. Spying on the public should be a last resort not an everyday tool,” said Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrats peer who represents the party on home affairs, as quoted by the Guardian.

However, a Home Office spokesman said Ripa was an “important tool that local authorities can use to address the issues that affect many people’s lives, like consumer protection, environmental crime, and benefit fraud,” while noting that local authorities should only use it when it is “both necessary and proportionate to do so.” 

“Any local authority use of these powers must be independently authorized by a magistrate, who is an independent judicial figure,” the spokesman said.

Meanwhile, a British government spokeswoman told the Guardian that the law has since changed, and Ripa can now only be used if criminal activity is suspected.

Nevertheless, Paddick isn’t certain that anything will change with the new Investigatory Powers Act, which is supposed to ensure that such powers will be overseen by an Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the future. He said that, although it will restrict local authorities from monitoring people’s communications, it will also give “mass surveillance powers to a huge number of government bodies.”

“As with any legislation, there is a significant risk that authorities will use powers in a way that parliament never intended,” Paddick said, calling for oversight of any future surveillance.

Paddick isn’t the only one to criticize the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act, which will authorize the sweeping collection and storage of people’s emails, text messages, and internet data. The European Court of Justice ruled last week that only targeted interception of traffic and location data is justified, and only to combat serious crime, leaving many to wonder whether the ruling may prompt challenges to the new UK legislation, which critics have dubbed the ‘snooper charter.’

Read more:

GCHQ spied on former colonies & African leaders, including UK allies – Snowden leaks

Nowhere to hide: NSA, GCHQ wiretapped in-flight phone calls, Snowden leaks show

December 26, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

‘US mercenaries stumbling block to peace in Syria’

Press TV – December 25, 2016

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Russian President Vladimir Putin have held their third telephone conversation over the past month. They exchanged views about the latest developments in Syria, particularly since the full liberation of the strategic city of Aleppo from the grip of militants. The two presidents also stressed the importance of boosting cooperation to help resume dialogue among all Syrian factions to find a political solution to the nearly six-year-long crisis.

In an interview with Press TV, Max Igan, radio host and political commentator, cast doubt on the likelihood of a successful peace negotiation between Syrian opposition groups and the government, asserting that many of these groups are not genuine opposition groups.

“It would be really good if this would happen but getting all groups to attend is going to be a problem. Also the problem is what these groups are and where they’re coming from, [and] who’s funding them,” the analyst said.

“It is all very well to have groups with some sort of political ideology attend, but when you have groups such as many of these terrorist forces [which] are in fact a mercenary army, they are going to go where the money leads them. They’re just going to do what they [are] paid to do. That is the unfortunate reality of what is happening in Syria,” Igan underscored.

There are rogue elements within the US establishment who have been funding these groups since the beginning of the war in Syria but the government is not in a position to expose them because it’s going to be the source of massive embarrassment for the whole country, Igan argued.

“I don’t think much will come out of this because you’re going to continue to have this underlying force which is funneling money and weapons in there with one clear goal which is to bring about regime change and to get what they want in Syria. The danger is that this could turn into a global conflict. If the United States is not prepared to address this corruption within its own government and root wrap these criminals,” it could end up in a major conflict between the East and the West, he warned.

Since March 2011, Syria has been gripped by militancy it blames on some Western states and their regional allies.

The Takfiri terrorists operating in the Arab country have suffered major setbacks over the past few months as the army has managed to liberate a number of areas from their grip.

December 25, 2016 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Halloween Scare: Temperamentally Unfit President Threatened War with Russia

By Wayne MADSEN | Strategic Culture Foundation | 25.12.2016

If one wishes to believe NBC News’s «exclusive» report, President Barack Obama almost delivered the Halloween scare of all time on October 31, 2016, just a week before he accused Donald Trump of being «temperamentally unfit» to be commander-in-chief.

On Halloween, Obama activated the White House’s «Red Phone» – which is not a phone but a Washington to Moscow «hot line» communications link that was originally a teletype connection, then a fax, and, finally, email – that provides a direct line to the Russian President in the Kremlin – and informed the Russian president that if alleged Russian hacking of computers tied to the U.S. election did not stop, the United States would respond with «armed conflict» against Russia.

Not since another fateful October, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, had the United States come so close to an all-out war with Russia. However, in the case of President John F. Kennedy, the presence of Soviet offensive nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba were cited in U-2 photographic intelligence presented publicly by U.S. ambassador Adlai Stevenson before the United Nations Security Council. In the case of Obama, the only intelligence he possessed that alleged Russia was behind hacking Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers was a Secret report, not released to the public, ginned up by Obama’s Sunni Wahhabi-crazed Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan.

Obama, according to NBC News, warned Putin personally against hacking Democratic Party computers during the G-20 meeting in China in September. When Obama, obviously urged on by Brennan, felt the Russian hacking was continuing, he sent a stark message over the Red Phone to the Kremlin, in part stating, «International law, including the law for armed conflict, applies to actions in cyberspace». While Obama and Brennan continue to refuse to present to the public the contents of the CIA’s Secret report alleging Russian hacking of the DNC, they had no problem revealing that Obama almost pushed the nuclear trigger on Russia. Only a madman would resort to such action based on the flimsiest of intelligence from the Cold War-era troglodyte Brennan.

The only proof that the CIA and its contractors could offer up was that a group of hackers, known as «Fancy Bear», used an Android smart phone application developed by a Ukrainian artillery officer to target Soviet-era D-30 Howitzers that was purloined and re-purposed by the Russian military intelligence directorate against DNC computers. Even Hollywood movie producers would reject such a script as too silly for film audiences to take seriously.

The Fancy Bear operation was concocted by a company called CrowdStrike, co-founded by a Russian-American named David Alperovitch, who just also happens to be a senior fellow at the CIA-linked Atlantic Council. News articles about CrowdStrike strongly suggest it exists to ratchet up cyber-war tensions with Russia, China, and North Korea based on hyped-up network security «vaporware» products being sold at top dollar prices to tech-ignorant government customers.

Obama sent his war message to Russia based on his «Fancy Bear» intelligence over a special email channel to reduce the risk of nuclear war resulting from cyber-security threats. The cyber-security email link was installed in 2013 as part of the hot line network linking by satellite the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers in Washington, DC and Moscow. Little did the architects of the nuclear hot line realize that it would one day be used to proffer a «Fancy Bear» scenario that could have led to nuclear war.

Obama was acting upon the policies crafted by the neo-conservative Cold Warriors who continued to dominate his administration’s diplomatic and intelligence infrastructures as they had those of George W. Bush. These same neocon circles saw hope in the presence on the Trump team of the arch-neocon war hawk John Bolton, Bush’s Senate-rejected ambassador to the United Nations.

Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, a fierce neocon critic of Trump during and after the presidential campaign, wrote of her wish for Trump to follow the advice of Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a member of the infamously-neocon Kagan family and brother-in-law of Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, the architect of Obama’s «color revolutions» in Ukraine and Macedonia. Kagan believes that Russia’s worst «sin» has been to «redraft the global order» laid down by the United States and NATO following the fall of the Soviet Union.

Kagan, Rubin, Nuland, and others in their neocon circle of war mongers hope that Trump will confront Russia militarily, as Napoleon Bonaparte had done in the 19th century. The neocons are not very good students of history, as the fate of Napoleon’s foray into Russia is well-known to even the most basic reader of European history. At the very least, Kagan has called on Trump to set the clock back to the Cold War era of Washington challenging Russia militarily in all the world’s hotspots: The Middle East, Asia, and Africa. In another tip of the hat to the Cold War, Kagan recommends that Trump refuse to recognize the retrocession of Crimea, the result of an overwhelming popular referendum favoring such retrocession, «no matter how permanent it seems to have become».

That same line of thinking could be adopted by Russia, which could announce that it recognizes the independent Kingdom of Hawaii, regardless of its forced annexation to the United States in 1898. If the neocons want to return to 19th century big power politics, so can Russia. If the United States wants to continue to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine, Russia can recognize Hawaii as an independent state and permit the «Hawaiian Kingdom Government» to establish an embassy in Moscow and accredit a Hawaiian government ambassador-in-exile. While such a dramatic measure might have been considered necessary had Hillary Clinton and her neocon war hawks won the U.S. presidential election, Trump’s oft-stated desire for much improved relations with Russia should render moot such extreme diplomatic countermeasures.

So far, Trump does not seem inclined to listen to the parasitical neocons who have infested every recent U.S. administration since Ronald Reagan’s. Trump would be wise to seek the counsel of those of his advisers who are not even remotely supportive of neocon dogma.

Trump will face the problem of cleaning house of the neocons currently embedded in the CIA and State Department. The neocon newspaper-of-record, The Wall Street Journal, has let it be known that the U.S. intelligence and foreign policy establishments should encourage anti-Russian protests by Islamic groups at Russian diplomatic missions in the Middle East and elsewhere. The paper appeared heartened by the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey and the outbreak of protests by Islamist groups at Russian missions in Istanbul, Beirut, and Kuwait. The Journal wrote the killing of the Russian ambassador «was glorified throughout the region».

The neocons would relish in the United States encouraging jihadist groups to target Russian interests in the Middle East and elsewhere as they did during the Cold War when they nurtured jihadist groups to fight the Soviet armed forces in Afghanistan. That gambit led directly to the creation of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. This would represent a turning back of U.S. policy to the late 1970s and 1980s, an era that represents the halcyon days for the war-mongering neocons.

The White House continues to insist that Obama’s Halloween war message to Putin sunk in, since the alleged hacking is claimed to have ceased on November 8, Election Day. However, DNC acting chair Donna Brazile claims the hacking continued on and past Election Day. If Brennan and his fellow war-mongers had actual evidence that Russia had been behind the hacks, then why do they continue to insist that the hacking stopped on November 8, when Brazile clearly claims they had not? The easiest explanation is that the Russian government was not the source of the computer hacking events and they were being carried out by some other party or were invented by the «Fancy Bear» fabulists at CrowdStrike. Perhaps some interests wanted an Election Day war to begin with Russia, which would mean a declaration by Obama of a national state of emergency and a postponement of the election, as had occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001, the previous time the Red Phone was used by the White House.

Had Obama authorized a military strike on Russia on Election Day, the civilian U.S. government would have morphed into the secret government where the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense’s Northern Command would have replaced the U.S. Congress and the courts as the government of the United States. It is likely that there would have never been an election, let alone a president-elect Trump.

See also:

December 25, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moscow weighs in on Obamaspeak, finally

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | December 25, 2016

Full eight weeks ago when I wrote that Russian President Vladimir Putin must have had a game plan by honouring Henry Kissinger as a member of the hallowed Russian Academy of Sciences, it was a mere hunch. (See my blog Russia honours American icon on US election eve.) Isn’t that what Kremlinology is all about – taking a blind shot and undeservedly hitting bull’s eye? Politico has a riveting story this weekend with the tell-all title Kissinger, a longtime Putin confidant, sidles up to Trump: America’s pre-eminent ex-diplomat gets back in the mix. Could he help broker a deal with Russia?

On a serious note, though, the stunning thing is Putin’s sensational admission – characteristically enough, in parenthesis – at his annual marathon press conference in Moscow on Friday, that he knew it in his bones that Donald Trump would win. This is what Putin said at the press conference:

  • It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President (Trump) so adept at catching the public mood and who took precisely this direction and pressed onward to the very end, even when no one except us (Kremlin) believed he could win.

The press conference on Friday was payback time for all the fusillade fired at Russia and Putin personally through the past 5 -6 months from Washington, culminating in President Barack Obama’s unprecedented, finger-pointing at the Kremlin leader just a week ago, alleging he’d plotted Trump’s victory.

Putin fired back that Obama and his party men are shifting the blame for their own failures to Russia. He said the Democratic Party lost not only the presidential elections but also the Congressional elections and the Obama administration is responsible for the systemic reasons for it. Putin referred to the disconnect between the American political elites and the “broad popular masses”. He drew satisfaction that a substantial section of Americans shared Russian views on “the world’s organization”.

Putin said acerbically that a great Democratic president like FDR (“who knew how to unite the nation even during the Great Depression’s bleakest years”) would be turning in his grave. For, Putin added:

  • Today’s (US) administration… is very clearly dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four for Clinton, and here too they (Obama administration) lost. They are losing on all fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I think this is an affront to their own dignity. It is important to know how to lose gracefully.
  • But it is very clear that the party which calls itself Democratic and will remain in power until January 20, I think, has forgotten the original meaning of its name. This is particularly so if you look at the absolutely shameless way they used administrative resources in their favour, and the calls to not accept the voters’ decision and appeals to the electors.

Putin defiantly challenged Obama to produce a shred of evidence regarding Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee website. He then weighed in heavily:

  • I think the most important thing is the information that the hackers revealed to the public. Did they compile or manipulate the data? No, they did not. What is the best proof that the hackers uncovered truthful information? The proof is that after the hackers demonstrated how public opinion had been manipulated within the Democratic Party, against one candidate rather than the other, against candidate Sanders, the Democratic National Committee Chairperson resigned. This means she admitted that the hackers revealed the truth. Instead of apologising to the voters and saying, ‘Forgive us, we will never do this again,’ they started yelling about who was behind the attacks. Is that important?

It is truly exceptional for a Kremlin leader to hold the torch light at the dysfunctional American system and to deliberate publicly in front of the western mediapersons on the deep-rooted rot in the US electoral politics. Arguably, Putin crossed the limits of diplomatic propriety. But then, Obama asked for a Christmas gift from the Kremlin before leaving the Oval Office by his own intemperate remarks about Putin ten days ago.

The Kremlin took a lot of nonsense from Obama over the years – much of it deliberately intended to humiliate the Russian elites, often personally mocking at Putin and lecturing at him and even commenting on his personal traits, and generally putting down Russia on the world stage as a failing state.

But, ironically, Obama ended up only contributing to Russia’s resurgence. History shows that Russia mobilises best under duress. But for such baptism under fire during Obama’s second term – US strategy to ‘isolate’ Russia, ‘regime change’ in Ukraine, western sanctions, deployment of ABM system in Central Europe, NATO forward deployments within 100 kilometers from St. Petersburg, et al – Russia might not have got its act together so comprehensively, as today. Putin’s extraordinary performance on Friday shows it. Read the transcript here.

December 25, 2016 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

UN General Assembly approves historic resolution prohibiting nuclear weapons

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons | December 23, 2016

The United Nations General Assembly today approved a historic resolution to launch negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. The vote follows a decision on 27 October by the General Assembly’s First Committee – which deals with disarmament and international security matters – to begin work on the new treaty despite fervent opposition from some nuclear-armed nations.

The resolution was adopted by a large majority, with 113 UN member states voting in favour, 35 voting against and 13 abstaining. Support was strongest among the nations of Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. A cross-regional group comprising Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa initiated the resolution and are likely to lead next year’s negotiations.

At a UN budget committee meeting earlier this week, the United States attracted the ire of other nations when it objected to a funding request for the planned four weeks of negotiations on the treaty, to be held at UN headquarters in New York. But under intense pressure from supporters of nuclear disarmament, it eventually withdrew its objection, and the committee authorized the request.

In a leaked document distributed to all NATO members in October ahead of the First Committee decision, the United States – which possesses some 7,000 nuclear weapons – urged its allies to oppose the resolution and to boycott the negotiations, fearing that the treaty would erode the perception that nuclear weapons are legitimate for certain nations and make it more difficult for NATO to engage in nuclear war planning.

A number of close US allies that voted against the resolution or abstained have indicated their intention to participate in the negotiations anyway, in order to help shape the treaty. For example, the Netherlands, which hosts US nuclear weapons on its territory and abstained from voting, has confirmed that it will take part, and Japan’s foreign minister, despite opposing the resolution, wants his country to attend.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is urging all nations to take part. “Every nation has an interest in ensuring that nuclear weapons are never used again, which can only be guaranteed through their complete elimination. We are calling on all governments to join next year’s negotiations and work to achieve a strong and effective treaty,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN.

ICAN stressed that the negotiations should proceed whether or not nuclear-armed nations agree to participate. “As a matter of principle, weapons that are indiscriminate in nature and are intended to cause catastrophic humanitarian harm should be prohibited under international law. This new treaty will place nuclear weapons on the same legal footing as other weapons of mass destruction,” said Fihn.

“We believe that, through its normative force, the nuclear weapon ban treaty will affect the behaviour of nuclear-armed nations even if they refuse to join it. It will also affect the behaviour of many of their allies that currently claim protection from nuclear weapons, including those in Europe that host nuclear weapons on their territory. It will contribute significantly towards achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world.”

The negotiations will be divided into two sessions, from 27 to 31 March and from 15 June to 7 July. ICAN plans to send a large delegation of campaigners to both sessions. The campaign is urging governments to make every effort to conclude the treaty by the end of the four weeks of negotiations, noting that much preparatory work has already been done, including by a UN working group that met in Geneva this year.

The treaty is likely to include provisions similar to those found in existing treaties banning biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. These include prohibitions on use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer, as well as assistance, encouragement or inducement of anyone to engage in any of these prohibited activities.

Multilateral negotiations for nuclear disarmament have been deadlocked for two decades, as all nine nuclear-armed nations have invested heavily in upgrades to their nuclear forces. Alternative proposals for advancing a nuclear-weapon-free world have failed to gain traction or produce results. A majority of UN member states view the ban treaty approach as the most viable and promising pathway forward.

Text of the resolution →

December 25, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

NATO Ramps Up Ukraine War After Defeat in Syria

By Finian Cunningham – Sputnik – December 21, 2016

A surge in military attacks this week by NATO-backed Kiev regime forces on the breakaway eastern Ukraine regions is no mere coincidence.

Hundreds of ceasefire breaches by troops belonging to the Ukraine Armed Forces (UAF) are being reported in the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Over the past few days, several towns and villages have come under intense shelling from artillery, rockets and mortars in stark violation of the Minsk agreement.

That agreement was brokered by Russia, Germany and France during 2014 and 2015 and was meant to facilitate a political settlement between the Western-backed Kiev regime, which came to power in a coup d’état in February 2014, and the breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, which refused to recognize the legitimacy of the usurper Kiev cabal.

Houses, schools and water treatment plants have been hit as the UAF and associated neo-Nazi militias move heavy weaponry close to the so-called contact lines. All indications suggest that the NATO-backed Kiev regime is mobilizing for a renewed offensive on the mainly ethnic Russian Donbas region comprising the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

So far, the militia of the DPR and LPR have repelled the offensive, with dozens of casualties reportedly suffered by the Kiev regime’s military.

The timing of the large-scale attacks on Donbas comes just as the US and its NATO allies incur a strategic setback in their covert war for regime change in Syria. The liberation of the battleground city of Aleppo last week by the Syrian army, supported by Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies, portends the end of the nearly six-year conflict in Syria. The routing of jihadist militants from Aleppo, who had been backed covertly by the US and certain NATO powers, including Britain and France, has signaled the end of the regime-change project in Syria to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

NATO member Turkey had played a key role in the US-led dirty war on Syria, serving as a conduit for fighters and arms to the proxy jihadist militants trying to overthrow Assad – a longtime ally of both Russia and Iran.

But now Turkey seems to be aligning with Russia and Iran to bring an end to the war in neighboring Syria. This week, foreign and defense ministers from Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow to declare their commitment to end the Syrian conflict. The New York Times reported: “Russia, Iran and Turkey meet for Syria talks, excluding the US”.

Pointedly, the Times added: “The new alignment and absence of any Western powers at the table all but guarantee that President Bashar al-Assad will continue to rule Syria under any resulting agreement.” In other words, it’s “game over” for Washington and its criminal enterprise to subvert Syria.

The setback for American imperialist scheming in the Middle East cannot be overstated. For decades, US rulers have seen it as their God-given exceptional right to roll over any foreign government deemed unfit for their geopolitical interests. Syria was among target countries on the American hit-list, which came into action back in March 2011 when the US and its NATO partners and regional client regime unleashed hell with terror proxies.

US ambitions of conquest in the oil-rich region have now been dealt a stunning blow after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered military operation at the end of 2015 to support the Syrian state, along with Iran and the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah. Despite a massive propaganda campaign orchestrated by the Western media and Washington puppets at the United Nations, the Syrian army and its allies have won a historic victory in retaking Aleppo from NATO-backed jihadists.

Not only is this a bitter military defeat for Washington. It is a political and moral triumph over Western lies as told through major media corporations. The latter were saturated with claims of atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by Syrian and Russian forces. Those reckless claims have now been exposed as blatant fabrications, as the people of Aleppo openly celebrate liberation from Western-backed jihadists who had imposed a reign of terror on large parts of the city for nearly four years.

It seems significant that only days after the liberation of Aleppo, Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov was brutally assassinated in Turkey’s capital Ankara, when a gunman shot him in the back as he addressed a cultural event. The murder was evidently aimed at derailing the political talks underway between Turkey, Russia and Iran.

Who would benefit from such an atrocity? Obviously, the US-led NATO powers. If NATO military intelligence did not specifically order the assassination of Karlov, we can at least say that Washington and its Western allies certainly created the climate of hatred and demonization that made the Russian diplomat a “legitimate target”.

A further significant development is the renewed offensive by the NATO-backed Kiev regime against the ethnic Russian people of east Ukraine. Again, this provocative move comes only days after the spectacular military victory by Russia and its allies against NATO’s jihadist proxies in Aleppo, and possibly now for the whole of Syria.

Make no mistake, the reactionary junta that seized power in Kiev is a surrogate for NATO’s long-held offensive designs on Russia. Citing unsubstantiated “fears” of Russian aggression, NATO has given itself a license to escalate troops and missiles on Russia’s border. Washington and its European lackeys have financed, armed and trained the Kiev regime.

This week, British defense minister Michael Fallon announced more British army training for Kiev’s forces, claiming that it was to counter Russian aggression. Fallon had the cheek to spout this nonsense in the same week that the assaults on eastern Ukraine have surged.

At a NATO-Russia summit in Brussels earlier this week, the US-led military alliance had the gall to call on Moscow to influence “Russian separatists” in Donbas to “honor the Minsk ceasefire”.

Russian delegate to NATO Alexander Grushko reportedly introduced some reality to the meeting by pointing out the hundreds of violations being committed in recent days by the Kiev regime. Such violations are par for the course, since the NATO-backed junta first launched its offensive on the region back in 2014, and which has resulted in up to 10,000 deaths.

As with the Syrian war, Washington and its NATO allies, aided and abetted by the Western news (sic) media, play with semantics and illusions, and insult common intelligence. In Ukraine, NATO is waging a covert war every bit as it was in Syria where as many as 400,000 people have been killed and from which Europe is struggling with its greatest refugee crisis since the Second World War, including the threat of terror attacks as seen in France and Germany this week.

Shamelessly, Washington and its Western subordinates accuse Russia of hybrid warfare and aggression. The reaction to defeat in Syria through ramping up conflict in Ukraine shows that it is the US-led NATO alliance that is the real culprit of hybrid war and aggression.

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Hanukkah wish: May Obama die from ‘mad cow disease’!

Rehmat’s World | December 24, 2016

Obama-Israel-holocaustl[1]On December 23, 2016, pro-Israel New York Daily News reported that New York politician Carl Pasquale Paladino, 70, wished president Barack Obama die from ‘mad cow’ disease, and US First Lady Michelle Obama return to pro-Iran Zimbabwe as a male.

Paladino said his 2017 year wish is that the outgoing president have sex with a cow and die from mad cow disease. He also said that he wish Obama to be buried next to his Jewish adviser Valerie Boman Jerrett, who he likes to be convicted of treason and decapitated in prison for negotiating with Iranian leaders by ISIS cell mate who mistook her being a nice person.

As far Michelle, Paladino said: “I would like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she live comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.”

In case some readers don’t know who the hell is Carl Paladino? He is a White Christian Zionist, real-state millionaire, and former GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2010. He was co-chair of Donald Trump campaign fundraising. He recently met president-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower.

Paladino is an opportunist like Donald Trump. In the past, in order to seek support from conservative Christians, he touted his anti-Muslim, anti-gay and anti-abortion stances. For example, on April 6, 2010, the Daily News called Paladimo a clown.

Paladino’s wish reminds me Passover prayer by several Jewish groups in New York and Israel cursing former Iranian president Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past. On February 26, 2007, the Jerusalem Post reported that Jewish extremists organized a mass prayer attended by 10,000 Jewish children to pray for the death of former President of Iran, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Neiman Marcus selling West Bank imports as products of Israel’

Ma’an – December 24, 2016

BETHLEHEM – A major American department store chain has been selling products imported from Bethlehem as products of Israel, despite Bethlehem being located in the occupied Palestinian territory, according to a report from a public radio station in Texas, US.

KETR reported last week that Bethlehem mayor Vera Baboun was “astonished” after she discovered that Neiman Marcus, which is based in the Texas city of Dallas, was selling nativity scenes that were crafted from olive wood in the occupied West Bank town, but labelled as products of Israel.

“This is illegal,” Baboun told KETR. “It’s not Israel. Bethlehem is Palestine.”

“It’s unacceptable … From our side, from the olive wood store and from their side,” she added. “God knows how much we are working in order to keep this a traditional and a national Bethlehemite product. And this is very important.”

PLO official Xavier Abu Eid viewed the case as an attempt to “normalize” Israel’s illegal annexation of Palestinian territory.

“To say that Bethlehem is part of Israel is not only an attempt to normalize the annexation of occupied territory. But it’s also an attempt at fooling the consumers. The consumers have the right to know from where the product is coming. And this product in particular is coming from Bethlehem, Palestine,” KETR quoted Abu Eid as saying.

A Neiman Marcus spokesperson did not directly respond to KETR’s request for comment, and only informed the radio station that their import division was “in charge of making sure all of our imported products, fashion, fur, home goods, etc. are properly labeled in accordance with all applicable laws.”

However, Katrina Skinner, a spokeswoman for the US Customs and Border Protection, told KETR that origin labels bearing the name “Bethlehem, Israel” would not in fact be in compliance with federal regulations.

“With respect to the specific inquiry concerning the use of the marking ‘Made in Bethlehem, Israel,’ the language would be considered not legally marked in accordance with the policy stated in T.D. 97-16 because Bethlehem is within the West Bank,” she said.

According to KETR’s report, Neiman Marcus could face fines for not complying with the regulations, which increase “for egregious violations like undermining foreign sanctions, or for mislabeling products to indicate they were from areas subject to less taxes.”

US policy mandates that products made in in the occupied West Bank cannot bear the label “Made in Israel” — guidelines established mainly to prevent Israeli settlers from using the label, as the US views Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegitimate.

However, the guidelines also apply to products made in the West Bank by Palestinians.

Regulations distinguishing Israel from the Palestinian territories date back to the 1990s. The Clinton administration issued the rules in 1995 and 1997 requiring unique origin labels for imports manufactured in Israel, as opposed to those produced in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

According to the Palestinian Postal Services, demand from online shoppers for Palestinian products — specifically olive wood handicrafts — have noticeably increased during 2016.

Meanwhile, Palestinian policy network Al-Shabaka reported earlier this year that the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine has stifled Palestinian economic growth while producing billions of dollars in Israeli revenue.

 

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Obama Administration Ready to Help Any ‘Destructive Forces’ in Syria – Moscow

Sputnik – 24.12.2016

In its pursuit to change the Syrian government, Obama administration is ready to help any ‘destructive forces’, including Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

Commenting on the issue of expansion of the US sanctions against Russia, the Foreign Ministry said that Moscow sees this act as a way to punish Russia for helping Syria battle terrorism which is a threat to the whole world.

“It has long been noticed that, under the current administration, Washington in its pursuit to shift power in Syria is ready to help any destructive forces. [It is] protecting and covering Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group that is none other but a subdivision of al-Qaeda, which has commited the most horrible terrorist acts in the history of the US,” the statement said.

“It seems that the White House has forgotten that, under the US law, aiding terrorism is a criminal offense,” the Ministry pointed out in the statement.

On Friday, the US Department of Commerce added 23 Russian entities to its Ukraine-related sanctions list. On December 20, Washington sanctioned seven Russian citizens, eight entities and two vessels due to activities related to the conflict in Ukraine.

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Impeachment: the new plan to stop Trump’s Presidency

By Alexander Mercouris | The Duran | December 23, 2016

As predicted, the campaign against Donald Trump’s coming Presidency continues unabated, notwithstanding the failure of the attempt to persuade Republican electors in the Electoral College to switch their votes away from him.

The objective now is his impeachment, with the most cited reason being the so-called Emoluments Clause in Article 1 of the US Constitution. This reads as follows

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

As is now becoming traditional, advocates of impeaching Trump under this clause also cite in their support The Federalist Papers, a series of articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting ratification of the US Constitution. The article cited in this case is Federalist No.22, in which Alexander Hamilton wrote the following

One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. An hereditary monarch, though often disposed to sacrifice his subjects to his ambition, has so great a personal interest in the government and in the external glory of the nation, that it is not easy for a foreign power to give him an equivalent for what he would sacrifice by treachery to the state. The world has accordingly been witness to few examples of this species of royal prostitution, though there have been abundant specimens of every other kind.

In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty.

This is supposed to the explain the reason for the Emoluments Clause, though it is nowhere referred to in Federalist No. 22, and though the Federalist Papers are anyway no more than journalistic essays, and are not part of the US Constitution.

That Donald Trump’s opponents are already talking about his impeachment even before he is inaugurated is completely unsurprising.  As a matter of fact I predicted it would happen before the election

If [the next President] is Donald Trump, then he will have to contend with the fact that he is the candidate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, most of the political establishment, nearly all the media, and the US intelligence community, have publicly claimed Russia is helping to win. 

How  in that case, if Trump does win, would he as President be able to command the respect and loyalty of the foreign policy bureaucracy, of the intelligence community, of the military, of the media, and of Congress, when they have all been told that he is the preferred candidate and quite possibly the agent of a foreign power?  Would they not see it as their duty to obstruct and disobey him at every turn, so as to stop him selling out the country to his foreign puppet-masters?

How does Trump contend with the insinuation, which will be hanging over his Presidency from the first day if he is elected, that it was only because of Russian help (right down to the hacking of voting machines) that he won, and that he is not therefore the true choice of the American people? Would not Trump have to fear possible impeachment proceedings in the event that he made the smallest mistake, with many Americans feeling that any steps were justified to remove a President who they had been told was the agent of a hostile power?

(bold italics added)

Nor is it surprising that they have latched on to the Emoluments Clause.  Donald Trump is a very wealthy businessman with international connections. Almost by definition that has involved him in commercial dealings in foreign states. There continues to be a quiet drumbeat of allegations that his business was bailed out by Russian banks and that he has some mysterious business connection to Russia, which he is trying to conceal by withholding his tax returns. The fact the FBI investigated this allegation before the election, and found it groundless, needless to say in no way prevents it being repeated.

For the record, though I am not a US constitutional lawyer, I don’t think the Emoluments Clause has any bearing on Donald Trump’s previous business activities or his connections, real or alleged, with foreign states or foreign businessmen or with Russia.

Its wording seems to me clearly intended to defeat bribery, in which a foreign state buys the services of a US official in return for a title or a fee.  This is incidentally the point made by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22 in the following words, which directly follow his words which I have quoted above, but which advocates of using the Emolument Clause to impeach Donald Trump who cite Federalist No. 22 seem to overlook

Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments. How much this contributed to the ruin of the ancient commonwealths has been already delineated. It is well known that the deputies of the United Provinces have, in various instances, been purchased by the emissaries of the neighboring kingdoms. The Earl of Chesterfield (if my memory serves me right), in a letter to his court, intimates that his success in an important negotiation must depend on his obtaining a major’s commission for one of those deputies. And in Sweden the parties were alternately bought by France and England in so barefaced and notorious a manner that it excited universal disgust in the nation, and was a principal cause that the most limited monarch in Europe, in a single day, without tumult, violence, or opposition, became one of the most absolute and uncontrolled.

There is a fundamental difference between money transferred as a result of bona fide business transactions – which is all that Donald Trump seems to have been engaged in – and money paid as a bribe in return for a favour from a present or prospective office holder. If anything the payments made to the Clinton Foundation by various foreign citizens and governments look far more like bribes than any of the payments Donald Trump is known to have received.

None of this of course is what the talk of impeachment in really about.  Wealthy men with international connections have been Presidents of the United States before without anyone suggesting that the Emoluments Clause applied to them. The true reason there is already talk of impeaching Trump before he is even inaugurated is because a dangerously large proportion of the US political elite refuses to admit his legitimacy despite the fact he was lawfully and constitutionally elected, and the Emoluments Clause is simply the most convenient tool to hand.

In the short term attempts to impeach Donald Trump face a probably insurmountable obstacle in the form of House of Representatives, in which the Republicans have a majority. It beggars belief that an impeachment bill will pass the House of Representatives against a Republican President who has just been elected.

However not all Republicans support or are sympathetic to Trump.  On the contrary, there is a solid block of Republicans who dislike him intensely. Though Trump seems to have more support amongst Republicans in the House of Representatives than he does in the Senate, should things turn difficult there is no certain guarantee that all the Republicans in the House of Representatives will stand by him.

There is to my knowledge no precedent for talk of impeaching a newly elected President before he is inaugurated. Many Democrats point rightly to the implacable hostility shown to Democratic Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama by the Republican Party. However in neither case did the Republicans dispute the legitimacy of their election, attempt to lobby Democratic electors in the Electoral College to get them to change their votes, or talk of bringing impeachment proceedings before Bill Clinton or Barack Obama had even been inaugurated.

Donald Trump is going to require exceptional political skill if the four years are not going to be crisis ridden and extremely rocky.

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment

Trump & Kremlin united by common cause to ‘trash’ Americans – ex-US envoy to Russia

RT | December 24, 2016

Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has accused US President-elect Donald Trump of teaming up with the Kremlin in an effort to “trash” Americans. McFaul has called on Republicans to “speak up.”

“Why is Trump so militantly against an investigation into Putin’s meddling in our elections?” McFaul wrote on Twitter on Friday. “What does he have to hide? This love fest is odd.”

Earlier this month, the former US ambassador to Russia even suggested registering RT and Sputnik news agency as “foreign agents,” claiming that they supported Donald Trump during the presidential elections.

“We know that Russian-government-controlled ‘media’ outlets such as RT and Sputnik campaigned openly for one candidate, Donald Trump,” McFaul wrote in his article for the Washington Post. While he accused the Russian news outlets of meddling in the US election, he offered no proof to support his claims.

Last month, McFaul was prohibited by the Russian Foreign Ministry from entering Russia for what it described as purposeful damage to relations between Moscow and Washington. In a Facebook post, he said that he was told he is “on the Kremlin’s sanctions list because of close affiliation with Obama” and “will take that as a compliment.”

Trump set off an avalanche of criticism after agreeing with the Russian leader’s assessment of the Democrats’ attempts to blame the 2016 election on external factors, instead of accepting it with dignity.

Brushing aside evidence-free claims that Russia interfered with the US election process, Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists during his annual news conference in Moscow on Friday that the Democrats are exclusively responsible for their political failures.

“There are attempts by the Democrats and the current administration to blame their failures on external factors. The Democrats didn’t just lose the presidential election, but the House and the Senate as well. Did I do that as well? They need to learn to lose with dignity,” Putin said.

Reacting to Putin’s statement, Trump tweeted “So true!” triggering a cascade of criticism on Twitter in response, with social media users calling the next US president a traitor, embarrassment, Kremlin puppet, and in Vladimir Putin’s “back pocket.”

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

City Passes Ordinance Mandating CCTV Surveillance By Businesses, Including Doctors And Lawyers Offices

By Tim Cushing | TechDirt | December 23, 2016

Another government has decided to “protect” local businesses by forcing them to install surveillance cameras.

All commercial businesses located here will now be required to install and maintain security cameras or face a fine or jail following passage of a new citywide ordinance by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen Tuesday night.

“A matter that has been of increasing concern to the board lately is keeping the citizens of Madison safe, as well as the people who come here to visit our stores, through the use of security cameras,” City Attorney John Hedglin said. “It’s very important to have a record of what happens in as many places as possible.”

The ordinance has 30 days before it takes effect.

“Here” is Madison, Mississippi, a city with some very low crime rates — one frequently named to “safest cities” and “best towns for families” lists. Why it’s suddenly concerned about business-focused criminal activity is unclear, but the city’s government has decided it should be able to force businesses to install CCTV systems, whether or not they need them… or can even pay for them.

Renee Burns, manager of Hop and Habanas, voiced concerns about the cost of surveillance equipment in an interview with WAPT News.

“Surveillance cameras are very expensive, to get everything set up and it could have people close their stores because they can’t afford it,” Burns said.

And if they can’t afford them, the new statute will make sure they can’t afford to stay in business.

Existing businesses will have one year after the ordinance goes into effect to comply. Those that fail to comply may be subject to a $500 fine and/or up to 90 days in jail. Each day of noncompliance is a different violation.

While there have been similar statutes enacted in other cities, these have generally been targeted at businesses already subject to extra regulation, like pawn shops, gun stores, and pharmacies. There has been some mission creep in recent years, leading to other businesses being ordered to install surveillance systems, like cellphone resellers and scrap metal dealers.

On top of that, many of these ordinances also allow for on-demand law enforcement access, allowing the government to extend its surveillance reach without having to pay for the equipment. The specifics of Madison’s new statute haven’t been made available yet, so it’s unclear whether the collection of footage from businesses will be voluntary and tied only to investigations requested by business owners, or whether law enforcement will just be able to show up and demand to see recordings.

Then there are other privacy concerns to address. The city’s attorney has stated that the ordinance covers businesses like doctor’s offices and law offices — places where patient/client confidentiality has long been assumed. Forcing businesses like these to record interactions with their customers would perhaps prevent more-privacy conscious individuals from seeking help. And this new collection of footage could be abused/misused to identify people who thought their requests for legal/medical assistance wouldn’t be turned over to law enforcement.

December 24, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »