33 Trillion More Reasons Why The New York Times Gets it Wrong on Russia-gate

Further research shows The New York Times was even further off the mark in blaming Russian social media for Trump’s win.

By Gareth Porter

November 05, 2018 Information Clearing House   Even more damning evidence has come to light undermining The New York Times‘ assertion in September that Russia used social media to steal the 2016 election for Donald Trump.

The Timesclaim last month that Russian Facebook posts reached nearly as many Americans as actually voted in the 2016 election exaggerated the significance of those numbers by a factor of hundreds of millions, as revealed by further evidence from Facebook’s own Congressional testimony. Read the full story…   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50563.htm

Posted in propaganda, Text that lies, The Media, The shame page, Uncategorized, United States, USA, You can't help laughing | Tagged , , , , ,

Syrians laugh and cry when rescued by Syrian army

Grandparents cry, children laugh, mothers look for their offspring as the Syrian Army helps them leave Ghouta where they have been held captive and enslaved for 7 years by Salafist and Wahabbi rebels.

Posted in Syria, Uncategorized, War | Tagged , , , , ,

The propaganda war on Syria continues.

Each time the Syrian government has reached agreement on a cease fire, the rebels in Ghouta have lobbed another bomb into Damascus. But western media doesn’t connect the two.


Each time the Syrian government sends in aid trucks or takes out urgent medical cases, they are ignored by western media. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/elusive-aid-reaches-syria-besieged-eastern-ghouta-180214165149026.html

And the rebels keep shelling Damascus as the aid trucks arrive. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Terrorist-Attacks-Against-Damascus-Syria-Cause-Four-Deaths-20180205-0019.html

Each time we see the same video or image of children covered in blood, we can’t be sure it is not a fake. Not a drama set up by the white helmets in their immaculate jackets, not from another part of the Syrian war or Yemen, not outright lies.

Here is what is obvious. Where are the mothers, grandmothers and big sisters of the babies allegedly being rescued? I can’t imagine them not accompanying their babies. In fact, where are the women?

Some images are obviously faked. https://cdn-02.independent.ie/incoming/article36626843.ece/c67d6/BINARY/2018-02-%20195.jpg

And sometimes they get caught out. Note that most of the images and video footage used in this current propaganda campaign allegedly in Ghouta are also from CNN. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48806.htm

Some accuse the Syrian government of making cruel weapons such as barrel bombs. The images of supposed barrel bombs are actually the gas canister bombs the rebels have proudly made since the start of the war.


And here is what those bombs do. Note non-rebel videos include women.

Let’s not be fooled by propaganda.

Posted in Images that lie, Media, propaganda, Syria, The Media, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , ,

Syria – New ‘Chemical Weapons’ Fake Planned

By Moon Of Alabama

“On the evening of February 12, a resident from the Serakab settlement located in the Idlib province called the Russian Center for Reconciliaition to notify (the center) about a chemical weapons attack that could be staged to provide footage for a foreign TV channel,” the statement reads. “The caller said that earlier on February 12, Jabhat al-Nusra members travelling in three cars had brought more than 20 chlorine gas cylinders and personal protective equipment to Serakab,” the Center added.

“According to the caller, members of the local While Helmets branch wore personal protective equipment while rehearsing first aid provision to civilians suffering from chemical poisoning,” the Russian Center said.

“The caller pointed out that all the proceedings had been filmed by professional reporters who used a mic with the CNN logo, while commenting on the actions being taken by the White Helmets,” the statement said, adding that in between takes, the reporters had consulted with some people over a satellite telephone in English….Read the whole story on Information Clearing House  


Posted in Britain, chemical weapons, Finding humanity, Highly suspicious, Images that lie, propaganda, Syria, The shame page, Uncategorized, War crimes, Weapons of mass destruction | Tagged , ,

The best argument for gun control ever.

Warning: Jim Jeffries speaks Australian. Do not be offended.

Posted in Australia, gun control, Uncategorized, United States, USA | Tagged , ,

Empire Files: Abby Martin Meets Ahed Tamimi—Message From A Freedom Fighter

Watch one of the most important videos this year – and pass it on

This is the clearest explanation life under Israeli occupation, why the Palestinians want their freedom and the treatment of Palestinian children. We can only wonder at the bravery of children like Ahed Tamimi and her brother.

In the past, videos like this have disappeared from the web. If all of us that could, shared this video or made a copy of it, this important historical record can never be lost or buried.


See more like this: http://theempirefiles.tv

Posted in Finding humanity, Freedom, Israel, Palestinians, Uncategorized, United States, USA | Tagged , , , ,

State of Fear: How History’s Deadliest Bombing Campaign Created Today’s Crisis in Korea by TED NACE

As the world watches with mounting concern the growing tensions and bellicose rhetoric between the United States and North Korea, one of the most remarkable aspects of the situation is the absence of any public acknowledgement of the underlying reason for North Korean fears—or, as termed by United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, “state of paranoia”—namely, the horrific firebombing campaign waged by the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War and the unprecedented death toll that resulted from that bombing.

Although the full facts will never be known, the available evidence points toward the conclusion that the firebombing of North Korea’s cities, towns, and villages produced more civilian deaths than any other bombing campaign in history…

Read the full article here.  https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/08/state-of-fear-how-historys-deadliest-bombing-campaign-created-todays-crisis-in-korea/


Napalm bombing of thatched roofed village near Hanchon, North Korea, 10 May 1951



Posted in Nuclear, United States, USA, War, War crimes | Tagged , , , ,

America’s Renegade Warfare

Claiming the right to launch preemptive wars and fighting an ill-defined “global war on terror,” the U.S. government has slaughtered vast numbers of civilians in defiance of international law…

By Nicolas J S Davies

Seventy-seven million people in North and South Korea find themselves directly in the line of fire from the threat of a Second Korean War. The rest of the world is recoiling in horror from the scale of civilian casualties such a war would cause and the unthinkable prospect that either side might actually use nuclear weapons.

Since the first Korean War killed at least 20 percent of North Korea’s population and left the country in ruins, the U.S. has repeatedly failed to follow through on diplomacy to establish a lasting peace in Korea and has instead kept reverting to illegal and terrifying threats of war. Most significantly, the U.S. has waged a relentless propaganda campaign to discount North Korea’s legitimate defense concerns as it confronts the threat of a U.S. war machine that has only grown more dangerous since the last time it destroyed North Korea.

The North has lived under this threat for 65 years and has watched Iraq and Libya destroyed after they gave up their nuclear weapons programs.

Read the full article.

Posted in Nuclear, propaganda, Uncategorized, United States, USA, War, War crimes | Tagged , ,

Bob Marley – ‘War’

Posted in Uncategorized, War | Tagged , , , ,

Non Violent Resistance – the way forward

Posted in Freedom, propaganda, Uncategorized, United States, USA | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Naomi Klein – the best political speech ever

Posted in Economy, politics, The environment, The world, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Investigation: White Helmets Committing Acts Of Terror Across Syria

white helmets

Image created from screenshot of White Helmets’ UN video report (Vanessa Beeley)




Posted in debunk, Finding humanity, Images that lie, propaganda, Syria, The shame page, United States, USA, War, War crimes | Tagged

The Korean War – killing hope

William Blum on the Korea War

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II – Chapter 5

By William Blum

To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true.H L Mencken, 1919

Sourced September 16, 2017 from “Information Clearing House” –  How is it that the Korean War escaped the protests which surrounded the war in Vietnam? Everything we’ve come to love and cherish about Vietnam had its forerunner in Korea; the support of a corrupt tyranny, the atrocities, the napalm, the mass slaughter of civilians, the cities and villages laid to waste, the calculated management of the news, the sabotaging of peace talks. But the American people were convinced that the war in Korea was an unambiguous case of one country invading another without provocation. A case of the bad guys attacking the good guys who were being saved by the even better guys; none of the historical, political and moral uncertainty that was the dilemma of Vietnam. The Korean War was seen to have begun in a specific manner: North Korea attacked South Korea in the early morning of 25 June 1950; while Vietnam … no one seemed to know how it all began, or when, or why.

And there was little in the way of accusations about American “imperialism” in Korea. The United States, after all, was fighting as part of a United Nations Army. What was there to protest about? And of course there was McCarthyism, so prevalent in the early 1950s, which further served to inhibit protest.

There were, in fact, rather different interpretations to be made of what the war was all about, how it was being conducted, even how it began, but these quickly succumbed to the heat of war fever.

Shortly after the close of the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States occupied Korea in order to expel the defeated Japanese. A demarcation line between the Russian and American forces was set up along the 38th Parallel. The creation of this line in no way had the explicit or implicit intention of establishing two separate countries, but the cold war was soon to intrude.

Both powers insisted that unification of North and South was the principal and desired goal. However, they also desired to see this carried out in their own ideological image, and settled thereby into a routine of proposal and counter-proposal, accusation and counter-accusation, generously intermixed with deviousness, and produced nothing in the way of an agreement during the ensuing years. Although both Moscow and Washington and their hand-picked Korean leaders were not always displeased about the division of the country (on the grounds that half a country was better than none), officials and citizens of both sides continued to genuinely call for unification on a regular basis.

That Korea was still one country, with unification still the goal, at the time the war began, was underscored by the chief US delegate to the UN, Warren Austin, in a statement he made shortly afterwards:

“The artificial barrier which, has divided North and South Korea has no basis for existence either in law or in reason. Neither the United Nations, its Commission on Korea, nor the Republic of Korea [South Korea] recognize such a line. Now the North Koreans, by armed attack upon the Republic of Korea, have denied the reality of any such line.” {1}

The two sides had been clashing across the Parallel far several years. What happened on that fateful day in June could thus be regarded as no more than the escalation of an ongoing civil war. The North Korean Government has claimed that in 1949 alone, the South Korean army or police perpetrated 2,617 armed incursions into the North to carry out murder, kidnapping, pillage and arson for the purpose of causing social disorder and unrest, as well as to increase the combat capabilities of the invaders. At times, stated the Pyongyang government, thousands of soldiers were involved in a single battle with many casualties resulting. {2}

A State Department official, Ambassador-at-large Philip C Jessup, speaking in April 1950, put it this way;

“There is constant fighting between the South Korean Army and bands that infiltrate the country from the North. There are very real battles, involving perhaps one or two thousand men. When you go to this boundary, as I did … you see troop movements, fortifications, and prisoners of war.” {3}

Seen in this context, the question of who fired the first shot on 25 June 1950 takes on a much reduced air of significance. As it is, the North Korean version of events is that their invasion was provoked by two days of bombardment by the South Koreans, on the 23rd and 24th, followed by a surprise South Korean attack across the border on the 25th against the western town of Haeju and other places. Announcement of the Southern attack was broadcast over the North’s radio later in the morning of the 25th.

Contrary to general belief at the time, no United Nations group – neither the UN Military Observer Group in the field nor the UN Commission on Korea in Seoul-witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, the outbreak of hostilities. The Observer Group’s field trip along the Parallel ended on 23 June. Its statements about what took place afterward are either speculation or based on information received from the South Korean government or the US military.

Moreover, early in the morning of the 26th, the South Korean Office of Public Information announced that Southern forces had indeed captured the North Korean town of Haeju, The announcement stated that the attack had occurred that same morning, but an American military status report as of nightfall on the 25th notes that all Southern territory west of the Imjin River had been lost to a depth of at least three miles inside the border except in the area of the Haeju “counter attack”.

In either case, such a military victory on the part of the Southern forces is extremely difficult to reconcile with the official Western account, maintained to this day, that has the North Korean army sweeping south in a devastating surprise attack, taking control of everything that lay before it, and forcing South Korean troops to evacuate further south.

Subsequently, the South Korean government denied that its capture of Haeju had actually taken place, blaming the original announcement, apparently, on an exaggerating military officer. One historian has ascribed the allegedly incorrect announcement to “an error due to poor communications, plus an attempt to stiffen South Korean resistance by claiming a victory”. Whatever actually lay behind the announcement, it is evident that very little reliance, if any, can be placed upon statements made by the South Korean government concerning the start of the war {4}.

There were, in fact, reports in the Western press of the attack on Haeju which made no mention of the South Korean government’s announcement, and which appear to be independent confirmations of the event. The London Daily Herald, in its issue of 26 June, stated that “American military observers said the Southern forces had made a successful relieving counter-attack near the west coast, penetrated five miles into Northern territory and seized the town of Haeju”. This was echoed in The Guardian of London the same day: “American officials confirmed that the Southern troops had captured Haeju”.

Similarly, the New York Herald Tribune reported, also on the 26th, that “South Korean troops drove across the 38th Parallel, which forms the frontier, to capture the manufacturing town of Haeju, just north of the line. The Republican troops captured quantities of equipment”. None of the accounts specified just when the attack took place.

On the 25th, American writer John Gunther was in Japan preparing his biography of General Douglas MacArthur. As he recounts in the book, he was playing tourist in the town of Nikko with “two important members” of the American occupation, when “one of these was called unexpectedly to the telephone. He came back and whispered, ‘A big story has just broken. The South Koreans have attacked North Korea!'” That evening, Gunther and his parry returned to Tokyo where “Several officers met us at the station to tell us correctly and with much amplification what had happened … there was no doubt whatever that North Korea was the aggressor”.

And the telephone call? Gunther explains: “The message may have been garbled in transmission. Nobody knew anything much at headquarters the first few hours, and probably people were taken in by the blatant, corrosive lies of the North Korean radio”. {5}

There is something a little incongruous about the picture of American military and diplomatic personnel, practicing anti-communists each one, being taken in on so important a matter by communist lies-blatant ones no less.

The head of South Korea, Syngman Rhee, had often expressed his desire and readiness to compel the unification of Korea by force. On 26 June the New York Times reminded its readers that “on a number of occasions, Dr Rhee has indicated that his army would have taken the offensive if Washington had given the consent”. The newspaper noted also that before the war began: “The warlike talk strangely [had] almost all come from South Korean leaders”.

Rhee may have had good reason for provoking a full-scale war apart from the issue of unification. On 30 May, elections for the National Assembly were held in the South in which Rhee’s party suffered a heavy setback and lost control of the assembly. Like countless statesmen before and after him, Rhee may have decided to play the war card to rally support for his shaky rule. A labor adviser attached to the American aid mission in South Korea, Stanley Earl, resigned in July, expressing the opinion that the South Korean government was “an oppressive regime” which “did very little to help the people” and that “an internal South Korean rebellion against the Rhee Government would have occurred if the forces of North Korea had nor invaded”. {6}

Soviet Jeader Nikita Khrushchev, in his reminiscences, makes it plain that the North Koreans had contemplated an invasion of the South for some time and he reports their actual invasion without any mention of provocation on that day. This would seem to put that particular question to rest. However, Khrushchev’s chapter on Korea is a wholly superficial account. It is not a serious work of history, nor was it intended to be. As he himself states:

‘My memories of the Korean War are unavoidably sketchy”. (He did not become Soviet leader until after the war was over.) His chapter contains no discussion of any of the previous fighting across the border, nothing of Rhee’s belligerent statements, nothing at all even of the Soviet Union’s crucial absence from the UN which, as we shall see, allowed the so-called United Nations Army to be formed and intervene in the conflict. Moreover, his reminiscences, as published, are an edited and condensed version of the tapes he made. A study based on a comparison between the Russian-language transcription of the tapes and the published English-language book reveals that some of Khrushchev’s memories about Korea were indeed sketchy, but that the book fails to bring this out. For example, North Korean leader Kim Il-sung met with Stalin to discuss Kim’s desire “to prod South Korea with the point of a bayonet”. The book then states unambiguously: “Kim went home and then returned to Moscow when he had worked everything out”. In the transcript, however, Khrushchev says: “In my opinion, either the date of his return was set, or he was to inform us as soon as he finished preparing all of his ideas. Then, I don’t remember in which month or year, Kim Il-sung came and related his plan to Stalin” (emphasis added). {7}

On 26 June, the United States presented a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning North Korea for its “unprovoked aggression”. The resolution was approved, although there were arguments that “this was a fight between Koreans” and should be treated as a civil war, and a suggestion from the Egyptian delegate that the word “unprovoked” should be dropped in view of the longstanding hostilities between the two Koreas. {8} Yugoslavia insisted as well that “there seemed to be lack of precise information that could enable the Council to pin responsibility”, and proposed that North Korea be invited to present its side of the story. {9} This was not done. (Three months later, the Soviet foreign minister put forward a motion that the UN hear representatives from both sides. This, too, was voted down, by a margin of 46 to 6, because of North Korea’s “aggression”, and it was decided to extend an invitation to South Korea alone.) {10}

On the 27th, the Security Council recommended that members of the United Nations furnish assistance to South Korea “as may be necessary to repel the armed attack”. President Truman had already ordered the US Navy and Air Force into combat by this time, thus presenting the Council with a fait accompli, {11} a tactic the US was to repeat several times before the war came to an end. The Council made its historic decision with the barest of information available to it, and all of it derived from and selected by only one side of the conflict. This was, as journalist I F Stone put it, “neither honorable nor wise”.

It should be kept in mind that in 1950 the United Nations was in no way a neutral or balanced organization. The great majority of members were nations very dependent upon the United States for economic recovery or development. There was no Third World bloc which years later pursued a UN policy much more independent of the United States. And only four countries of the Soviet bloc were members at the time, none on the Security Council. {12}

Neither could UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie, of Norway, be regarded as neutral in the midst of cold war controversy. In his memoirs, he makes it remarkably clear that he was no objective outsider. His chapters on the Korean War are pure knee-reflex anti-communism and reveal his maneuvering on the issue. {13} In 1949, it was later disclosed, Lie had entered into a secret agreement with the US State Department to dismiss from UN employment individuals whom Washington regarded as having questionable political leanings. {14}

The adoption of these resolutions by the Security Council was possible only because the Soviet Union was absent from the proceedings due to its boycott of the United Nations over the refusal to seat Communist China in place of Taiwan. If the Russians had been present, they undoubtedly would have vetoed the resolutions. Their absence has always posed an awkward problem for those who insist that the Russians were behind the North Korean invasion. One of the most common explanations offered is that the Russians, as a CIA memorandum stated, wanted “to challenge the US specifically and test the firmness of US resistance to Communist expansion”. {15} Inasmuch as, during the existence of the Soviet Union, the same analysis was put forth by American political pundits for virtually every encounter between the United States and leftists anywhere in the world, before and after Korea, it would appear that the test was going on for an inordinately long period and one can only wonder why the Soviets never came to a conclusion.

“The finishing touch”, wrote I F Stone, “was to make the ‘United Nations’ forces subject to MacArthur without making MacArthur subject to the United Nations. This came on July 7 in a resolution introduced jointly by Britain and France. This is commonly supposed to have established a United Nations Command. Actually it did nothing of the sort.” {16} The resolution recommended “that all members providing military forces and other assistance … make such forces and other assistance available to a unified command under the United States” (emphasis added). It further requested “the United States to designate the commander of such forces”. {17} This would be the redoubtable MacArthur.

It was to be an American show. Military personnel of some sixteen other countries took part in one way or another but, with the exception of the South Koreans, there could be little doubt as to their true status or function. Eisenhower later wrote in his memoirs that when he was considering US military intervention in Vietnam in 1954, also as part of a “coalition”, he recognized that the burden of the operation would fall on the United States, but “the token forces supplied by these other nations, as in Korea, would lend real moral standing to a venture that otherwise could be made to appear as a brutal example of imperialism” (emphasis added). {18}

The war, and a brutal one it was indeed, was fought ostensibly in defense of the Syngman Rhee regime. Outside of books published by various South Korean governments, it is rather difficult to find a kind word for the man the United States brought back to Korea in 1945 after decades of exile in America during the Japanese occupation of his country. Flown into Korea in one of MacArthur’s airplanes, Rhee was soon maneuvered into a position of prominence and authority by the US Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK). In the process, American officials had to suppress a provisional government, the Korean People’s Republic, that was the outgrowth of a number of regional governing committees set up by prominent Koreans and which had already begun to carry out administrative tasks, such as food distribution and keeping order. The KPR’s offer of its services to the arriving Americans was dismissed out of hand.

Despite its communist-sounding name, the KPR included a number of conservatives; indeed, Rhee himself had been given the leading position of chairman. Rhee and the other conservatives, most of whom were still abroad when chosen, perhaps did not welcome the honor because the KPR, on balance, was probably too leftist for their tastes, as it was for the higher echelons of the USAMGIK. But after 35 years under the Japanese, any group or government set up to undo the effects of colonialism had to have a revolutionary tinge to it. It was the conservatives in Korea who had collaborated with the Japanese; leftists and other nationalists who had struggled against them; the make-up of the KPR necessarily reflected this, and it was reportedly more popular than any other political grouping. {19}

Whatever the political leanings or intentions of the KPR, by denying it any “authority, status or form”, {20} the USAMGIK was regulating Korean political life as if the country were a defeated enemy and not a friendly state liberated from a common foe and with a right to independence and self-determination.

The significance of shunting aside the KPR went beyond this. John Gunther, hardly a radical, summed up the situation this way: “So the first-and best-chance for building a united Korea was tossed away”. {21} And Alfred Crofts, a member of the American military government at the time, has written that “A potential unifying agency became thus one of the fifty-four splinter groups in South Korean political life”. {22}

Syngman Rhee would be Washington’s man: eminently pro-American, strongly anti-Communist, sufficiently controllable. His regime was one in which landlords, collaborators, the wealthy, and other conservative elements readily found a home. Crofts has pointed out that “Before the American landings, a political Right, associated in popular thought with colonial rule, could not exist; but shortly afterward we were to foster at least three conservative factions”. {23}

Committed to establishing free enterprise, the USAMGIK sold off vast amounts of confiscated Japanese property, homes, businesses, industrial raw materials and other valuables. Those who could most afford to purchase these assets were collaborators who had grown rich under the Japanese, and other profiteers. “With half the wealth of the nation ‘up for grabs’, demoralization was rapid”. {24}

While the Russians did a thorough house-cleaning of Koreans in the North who had collaborated with the Japanese, the American military government in the South allowed many collaborators, and at first even the Japanese themselves, to retain positions of administration and authority, much to the consternation of those Koreans who had fought against the Japanese occupation of their country. To some extent, these people may have been retained in office because they were the most experienced at keeping the country running. Another reason has been suggested: to prevent the Korean People’s Republic from assuming a measure of power. {25}

And while the North soon implemented widespread and effective land reform and at least formal equality for women, the Rhee regime remained hostile to these ideals. Two years later, it enacted a land reform measure, but this applied only to former Japanese property. A 1949 law to cover other holdings was not enforced at all, and the abuse of land tenants continued in both old and new forms. {26}

Public resentment against the US/Rhee administration was aroused because of these policies as well as because of the suppression of the KPR and some very questionable elections. So reluctant was Rhee to allow an honest election, that by early 1950 he had become enough of an embarrassment to the United States for Washington officials to threaten to cut off aid if he failed to do so and also improve the state of civil liberties. Apparently because of this pressure, the elections held on May 30 were fair enough to allow “moderate” elements to participate, and, as mentioned earlier, the Rhee government was decisively repudiated. {27}

The resentment was manifested in the form of frequent rebellions, including some guerrilla warfare in the hills, from 1946 to the beginning of the war, and even during the war. The rebellions were dismissed by the government as “communist-inspired” and repressed accordingly, but, as John Gunther observed, “It can be safely said that in the eyes of Hodge [the commander of US forces in Korea] and Rhee, particularly at the beginning, almost any Korean not an extreme rightist was a communist and potential traitor”. {28}

General Hodge evidently permitted US troops to take part in the repression. Mark Gayn, a correspondent in Korea for the Chicago Sun, wrote that American soldiers “fired on crowds, conducted mass arrests, combed the hills for suspects, and organized posses of Korean rightists, constabulary and police for mass raids”. {29} Gayn related that one of Hodge’s political advisers assured him (Gayn) that Rhee was not a fascist: “He is two centuries before fascism – a pure Bourbon”. {30}

Describing the government’s anti-guerrilla campaign in 1948, pro-Western political scientist John Kie-Chiang Oh of Marquette University has written: “In these campaigns, the civil liberties of countless persons were often ignored. Frequently, hapless villagers, suspected of aiding the guerrillas, were summarily executed.” {31} A year later, when a committee of the National Assembly launched an investigation of collaborators, Rhee had his police raid the Assembly: 22 people were arrested, of whom sixteen were later found to have suffered either broken ribs, skull injuries or broken eardrums. {32}

At the time of the outbreak of war in June 1950, there were an estimated 14,000 political prisoners in South Korean jails. {33}

Even during the height of the war, in February 1951, reported Professor Oh, there was the “Koch’ang Incident”, again involving suspicion of aiding guerrillas, “in which about six hundred men and women, young and old, were herded into a narrow valley and mowed down with machine guns by a South Korean army unit”. {34}

Throughout the war, a continuous barrage of accusations was leveled by each side at the other, charging the enemy with engaging in all manner of barbarity and atrocity, against troops, prisoners of war, and civilians alike, in every part of the country (each side occupied the other’s territory at times), trying to outdo each other in a verbal war of superlatives almost as heated as the combat. In the United States this produced a body of popular myths, not unlike those emerging from other wars which are widely supported at home. (By contrast, during the Vietnam War the inclination of myths to flourish was regularly countered by numerous educated protestors who carefully researched the origins of the war, monitored its conduct, and publicized studies sharply at variance with the official version(s), eventually influencing the mass media to do the same.)

There was, for example, the consensus that the brutality of the war in Korea must be laid overwhelmingly on the doorstep of the North Koreans. The Koch’ang Incident mentioned above may be relevant to providing some counterbalance to this belief. Referring to theincident, the British Korea scholar Jon Halliday observed:

“This account not only serves to indicate the level of political violence employed by the UN side, but also confers inherent plausibility on DPRK [North Korea] and Southern opposition accusations of atrocities and mass executions by the UN forces and Rhee officials during the occupation of the DPRK in late 1950. After all, if civilians could be mowed down in the South on suspicion of aiding (not even being) guerrillas – what about the North, where millions could reasonably be assumed to be Communists, or political militants? {35} (Emphasis in original.)

Oh’s account is but one of a number of reports of slaughter carried out by the South Koreans against their own people during the war. The New York Times reported a “wave of [South Korean] Government executions in Seoul” in December 1950. {36} Rene Cut forth, a ncorrespondent for the BBC in Korea, later wrote of “the shooting without trial of civilians, designated by the police as ‘communist’. These executions were done, usually at dawn, on any patch of waste ground where you could dig a trench and line up a row of prisoners in front of it”. {37} And Gregory Henderson, a US diplomat who served seven years in Korea in the 1940s and 1950s, has stated that “probably over 100,000 were killed without any trial whatsoever” by Rhee’s forces in the South during the war. {38} Following some of the massacres of civilians in the South, the Rhee government turned around and attributed them to Northern troops.

One way in which the United States contributed directly to the war’s brutality was by introducing a weapon which, although used in the last stage of World War II, and in Greece, was new to almost all observers and participants in Korea. It was called napalm. Here is one description of its effect from the New York Times.

“A napalm raid hit the village three or four days ago when the Chinese were holding up the advance, and nowhere in the village have they buried the dead because there is nobody left to do so … The inhabitants throughout the village and in the fields were caught and killed and kept the exact postures they had held when the napalm struck – a man about to get on his bicycle, fifty boys and girls playing in an orphanage, a housewife strangely unmarked, holding in her hand a page torn from a Sears-Roebuck catalogue crayoned at Mail Order No 3,811,294 for a $2.98 “bewitching bed jacket – coral”. There must be almost two hundred dead in the tiny hamlet.” {39}

The United States may also have waged germ warfare against North Korea and China, as was discussed earlier in the chapter on China.

At the same time, the CIA reportedly was targeting a single individual for termination – North Korean leader Kim II Sung. Washington sent a Cherokee Indian, code-named Buffalo, to Hans V Tofte, a CIA officer stationed in Japan, after Buffalo had agreed to serve as Kim II Sung’s assassin. Buffalo was to receive a considerable amount of money if his mission succeeded. It obviously did not, and nothing further has been revealed about the incident. {40}

Another widely-held belief in the United States during the war was that American prisoners in North Korean camps were dying off like flies because of Communist neglect and cruelty. The flames of this very emotional issue were fanned by the tendency of US officials to exaggerate the numbers involved. During November 1951, for example – long before the end of the war – American military announcements put the count of POW deaths at between 5,000 and 8,000. {41} However, an extensive study completed by the US Army two years after the war revealed that the POW death toll for the entire war was 2,730 (out of 7,190 held in camps; an unknown number of other prisoners never made it to the camps, being shot in the field because of the inconvenience of dealing with them in the midst of combat, a practice engaged in by both sides).

The study concluded that “there was evidence that the high death rate was not due primarily to Communist maltreatment … it could be accounted for largely by the ignorance or the callousness of the prisoners themselves”. {42} “Callousness” refers here to the soldiers’ lack of morale and collective spirit. Although not mentioned in the study, the North Koreans, on several occasions, claimed that many American POWs also died in the camps as a result of the heavy US bombing.

The study of course could never begin to catch up with all the scare headlines to which the Western world had been treated for three years. Obscured as well was the fact that several times as many Communist prisoners had died in US / South Korean camps – halfway through the war the official figure stood at 6,600 {43} – though these camps did hold many more prisoners than those in the North.

The American public was also convinced, and probably still is, that the North Koreans and Chinese had “brainwashed” US soldiers. This story arose to explain the fact that as many as thirty percent of American POWs had collaborated with the enemy in one way or another, and “one man in every seven, or more than thirteen per cent, was guilty of serious collaboration – writing disloyal tracts … or agreeing to spy or organize for the Communists after the war”. {44} Another reason the brainwashing theme was promoted by Washington was to increase the likelihood that statements made by returning prisoners which questioned the official version of the war would be discounted.

In the words of Yale psychiatrist Robert J Lifton, brainwashing was popularly held to be an “all-powerful, irresistible, unfathomable, and magical method of achieving total control over the human mind”. {45} Although the CIA experimented, beginning in the 1950s, to develop just such a magic, neither they nor the North Koreans or Chinese ever possessed it. The Agency began its “behavior-control” or “mind-control” experiments on human subjects (probably suspected double agents), using drugs and hypnosis, in Japan in July 1950, shortly after the beginning of the Korean War. In October, they apparently used North Korean prisoners of war as subjects. {46} In 1975, a US Navy psychologist, Lieutenant Commander Thomas Narut, revealed that his naval work included establishing how to induce servicemen who may not be naturally inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. He referred to these men using the words “hitmen” and “assassin”. Narut added that convicted murderers as well had been released from military prisons to become assassins. {47}

Brainwashing, said the Army study, “has become a catch phrase, used for so many things that it no longer has any precise meaning” and “a precise meaning is necessary in this case”. {48}

“The prisoners, as far as Army psychiatrists have been able to discover, were not subjected to any thing that could properly be called brainwashing. Indeed, the Communist treatment of prisoners, while it came nowhere near fulfilling the requirements of the Geneva Convention, rarely involved outright cruelty, being instead a highly novel blend of leniency and pressure … The Communists rarely used physical torture … and the Army has not found a single verifiable case in which they used it for the specific purpose of forcing a man to collaborate or to accept their convictions.” {49}

According to the study, however, some American airmen, of the ninety or so who were captured, were subjected to physical abuse in an attempt to extract confessions about germ warfare. This could reflect either a greater Communist resentment about the use of such a weapon, or a need to produce some kind of corroboration of a false or questionable claim.

American soldiers were instead subjected to political indoctrination by their jailers. Here is how the US Army saw it:

“In the indoctrination lectures, the Communists frequently displayed global charts dotted with our military bases, the names of which were of course known to many of the captives. “See those bases?” the instructor would say, tapping them on the chart with his pointer. ‘They are American – full of war materiel. You know they are American. And you can see they are ringing Russia and China. Russia and China do not have one base outside their own territory. From this it’s clear which side is the warmonger. Would America have these bases and spend millions to maintain them were it not preparing to war on Russia and China?’ This argument seemed plausible to many of the prisoners. In general they had no idea that these bases showed not the United States’ wish for war, but its wish for peace, that they had been established as part of a series of treaties aimed not at conquest, but at curbing Red aggression.” {50}

The Chinese Communists, of course, did not invent this practice. During the American Civil War, prisoners of both the South and the North received indoctrination about the respective merits of the two sides. And in the Second World War, “democratization courses” were held in US and British POW camps for Germans, and reformed Germans were granted privileges. Moreover, the US Army was proud to state that Communist prisoners in American camps during the Korean War were taught “what democracy stands for”. {51}

The predicted Chinese aggression manifested itself about four months after the war in Korea began. The Chinese entered the war after American planes had violated their air space on a number of occasions, had bombed and strafed Chinese territory several times (always “in error”), when hydro-electric plants on the Korean side of the border, vital to Chinese industry, stood in great danger, and US or South Korean forces had reached the Chinese border, the Yalu River, or come within a few miles of it in several places.

The question must be asked: How long would the United States refrain from entering a war being waged in Mexico by a Communist power from across the sea, which strafed and bombed Texas border towns, was mobilized along the Rio Grande, and was led by a general who threatened war against the United States itself?

American airpower in Korea was fearsome to behold. As would be the case in Vietnam, its use was celebrated in the wholesale dropping of napalm, the destruction of villages “suspected of aiding the enemy”, bombing cities so as to leave no useful facilities standing, demolishing dams and dikes to cripple the irrigation system, wiping out rice crops … and in those moving expressions like “scorched-earth policy”, “saturation bombing”, and “operation killer”. {52}

“You can kiss that group of villages good-bye”, exclaimed Captain Everett L Hundley of Kansas City, Kansas after a bombing raid. {53}

“I would say that the entire, almost the entire Korean Peninsula is just a terrible mess”, testified Major General Emmett O’Donnell before the Senate when the war was one year old. “Everything is destroyed. There is nothing standing worthy of the name.” {54}

And here, the words of the venerable British military guide, Brassey’s Annual, in its 1951 yearbook:

“If is no exaggeration to state that South Korea no longer exists as a country. Its towns have been destroyed, much of its means of livelihood eradicated, and its people reduced to a sullen mass dependent upon charity and exposed to subversive influences. When the war ends no gratitude can be expected from the South Koreans, but it is to be hoped that the lesson will have been learned that it is worse than useless to destroy to liberate. Certainly, western Europe would never accept such a ‘liberation’.” {55}

The worst of the bombing was yet to come. That began in the summer of 1952 and was Washington’s way of putting itself in a better bargaining position in the truce discussions with the Communists, which had been going on for a full year while the battles raged. The extended and bitter negotiations gave rise to another pervasive Western belief – that it was predominantly Communist intransigence, duplicity, and lack of peaceful intentions which frustrated the talks and prolonged the war.

This is a lengthy and entangled chapter of the Korean War story, but one does not have to probe too deeply to discover the unremarkable fact that the barriers were erected by the anti-Communist side as well. Syngman Rhee, for example, was so opposed to any outcome short of total victory that both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations drew up plans for overthrowing him; {56} which is not to suggest that the American negotiators were negotiating in the best of faith. The last thing they wanted to be accused of was having allowed the commies to make suckers of them. Thus it was that in November of 1951 we could read in the New York Times:

“The unadorned way that an apparently increasing number of them [American soldiers in Korea] see the situation right now is that the Communists have made important concessions, while the United Nations Command, as they view it, continues to make more and more demands … The United Nations truce team has created the impression that it switches its stand whenever the Communists indicate that they might go along with it.” {57}

At one point during this same period, when the Communists proposed chat a cease fire and a withdrawal of troops from the combat line should take place while negotiations were going on, the United Nations Command reacted almost as if this were a belligerent and devious act. “Today’s stand by the Communists”, said the UNC announcement, “was virtually a renunciation of their previously stated position that hostilities should continue during armistice talks”. {58}

Once upon a time, the United States fought a great civil war in which the North attempted to reunite the divided country through military force. Did Korea or China or any other foreign power send in an army to slaughter Americans, charging Lincoln with aggression?

Why did the United States choose to wage full-scale war in Korea? Only a year earlier, in 1949, in the Arab-Israeli fighting in Palestine and in the India-Pakistani war over Kashmir, the United Nations, with American support, had intervened to mediate an armistice, not to send in an army to take sides and expand the fighting. And both these conflicts were less in the nature of a civil war than was the case in Korea. If the US/UN response had been the same in these earlier cases, Palestine and Kashmir might have wound up as the scorched-earth desert that was Korea’s fate. What saved them, what kept the US armed forces out, was no more than the absence of a communist side to the conflict.

William Blum is an American author, historian, and critic of United States foreign policy. https://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope


  1. New York Times, 1 October 1950, page 3.
    2. The US Imperialists Started the Korean War is the subtle title of the book published in Pyongyang North Korea, 1977, pages 109-10.
    3. Radio address of 13 April 1950, reprinted in The Department of State Bulletin, 24 April 1950, page 627.
    4. For a discussion of the war’s immediate origin, see:
    a) Karunakar Gupta, “How Did the Korean War Begin?”, The China Quarterly (London) October/ December 1972 No 52, pages 699-716.
    b) “Comment; The Korean War”, The China Quarterly, April/June 1973, No 54, pages 354-68. This consists of responses to Gupta’s article in issue No, 52 and Gupta’s counter-response.
    c) New York Times, 26 June 1950. Page 1 – South Korea’s announcement about Haeju. Page 3 – North Korea’s announcement about Haeju.
    d) Glenn D Paige, The Korean Decision (June 24-30, 1950) (New York, 1968) passim, particularly page 130.
    e) I F Stone, The Hidden History of the Korean War (New York, 1952) chapter 7 and elsewhere.
    5. John Gunther, The Riddle of MacArthur (London, 1951), pages 151-2.
    6. New York Times, 25 July 1950, page 4; 30 July, page 2.
    7. Khrushchev Remembers (London, 1971) chapter 11. Study of transcription vs book: John Merrill, Book Reviews, Journal of Korean Studies (University of Washington, Seattle) Vol 3, 1981, pages 181-91.
    8. Joseph C Goulden, Korea: The Untold Story of the War (New York, 1982) page 64
    9. New York Times, 26 June 1950.
    10. Ibid, 1 October 1950, page 4.
    11. Goulden, pages 87-8; Stone, pages 75, 77.
    12. For further discussion of the UN’s bias at this time see Jon Halliday, “The United Nations and Korea”, in Frank Baldwin, editor , Without Parallel: The American-Korean Relationship Since 1945 (New York, 1974), pages 109-42.
    13. Trygve Lie, In the Cause of Peace (New York, 1954) chapters 18 and 19.
    14. Shirley Hazzard, Countenance of Truth: The United Nations and the Waldheim Case (New York, 1990), pages 13-22. In his book, page 389, He states that it was he who initiated this practice.
    15. CIA memorandum, 28 June 1950, Declassified Documents Reference System (Arlington, Virginia) Retrospective Volume, Document 33C.
    16. Stone, pages 77-8.
    17. The full text of the Security Council Resolution of 7 July 1950 can be found in the New York Times, 8 July 1950, P. 4.
    18. Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (New York, 1963) page 340.
    19. For a discussion of post-war politics in South Korea see:
    a) Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes, 1945-1947 (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1981) passim.
    b) E. Grant Mcade, American Military Government in Korea (King’s Crown Press, Columbia University, New York, 1951) chapters 3-5.
    c) George M McCune, Korea Today (Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, 1950) passim, pages 46-50 (KPR). Professor McCune worked with the US Government on Korean problems during World War II.
    d) D F Fleming, The Cold War and its Origins, 1917-1960 (Doubleday & Co, New York, 1961) pages 589-97.
    e) Alfred Crofts, “The Case of Korea: Our Falling Ramparts”, The Nation (New York) 25 June 1960, pages 544-8. Crofts was a member of the US Military Government in Korea beginning in 1945.
    20. Crofts, page 545.
    21. Gunther, page 165.
    22. Crofts, page 545.
    23. Ibid.
    24. Ibid, page 546.
    25. Collaborators: Cumings, pages 152-6; Mcade, page 61; McCune, page 51; plus elsewhere in these
    sources, as well asin Fleming and Crofts. Japanese and collaborators retaining positions to thwart the KPR: Cumings, pages 138-9.
    26. McCune, pages 83-4, 129-39, 201-9.
    27. 1946 election: Mark Gayn, Japan Diary (New York 1948) page 398; 1948 election: Crofts, page 546; Halliday, pages 117-22; 1950 election and US warning; Fleming, page 594. For a discussion of Rhee’s thwarting of honest elections in 1952 and later, and his consistently tyrannical rule, see William J. Lederer, A Nation of Sheep (W W Norton & Co, New York, 1961), chapter 4.
    28. Gunther, pages 166-7.
    29. Gayn, page 388.
    30. Ibid, page 352.
    31. John Kie-Chiang Oh, Korea: Democracy on Trial (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1968) page 35.
    32. The Nation (New York), 13 August 1949, page 152.
    33. Gunther, page 171.
    34. Oh, page 206; see also New York Times, 11 April 1951, page 4 for an account of a massacre of some 500 to 1000 people in March in the same place, which appears to refer to the same incident.
    35. Jon Halliday, “The Political Background”, in Gavan McCormack and Mark Selden, editors, Korea, North and South: The Deepening Crisis (New York, 1978) page 56.
    36. New York Times, 11 April 1951, page 4.
    37. Rene Cutforth, “On the Korean War”, The Listener (BBC publication, London) 11 September 1969, page 343.
    38. Gregory Henderson, Korea: The Politics of the Vortex (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1968 page 167.
    39. New York Times, 9 February 1951, George Barrett.
    40. Goulden, pages 471-2. This information derives from Goulden’s interview of Tofte.
    41. New York Times, 27 November 1951, page 4.
    42. Eugene Kinkead, Why They Collaborated (London, 1960) page 17; published in the US in 1959 in slightly different form as In Every War But One, The Army study was not contained in any one volume, but was spread out over a number of separate reports. Kinkead’s book, written with the full co-operation of the Army, is composed of a summary of some of these reports, and interviews with many government and military officials who were directly involved in or knowledgeable about the study or the subject. For the sake of simplicity, I have referred to the book as if it were the actual study. It is to the Army’s credit that much of the results of the study were not kept secret; the study, nonetheles contains some anti-communist statements of the most bizarre sort: lying is often punished in China by death … communists live like animals all their lives … [pages 1903 193)
    43. Keesings Contemporary Archives, 5-12 January 1952, page 11931, an announcement on 31 December 1951 from General Ridgeway’s headquarters.
    44. Kinkead, page 34.
    45. Robert J Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism; A Study of brainwashing in China (London, 1961) page 4.
    46. John Marks, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control (New York, paperback edition, 1988), page 25, based on CIA documents.
    47. Sunday Times (London), 6 July 1975, page 1. Narut at the time was working at a US naval hospital in Naples, Italy, and made his remarks at a NATO-sponsored conference held in Oslo, Norway the week before.
    48. Kinkead, page 31.
    49. Ibid, pages 17, 34.
    50. Ibid, pages 105-6.
    51. Ibid, page 197.
    52. For a concise description of the “terror bombing” of 1952-53, see John Gittings, “Talks, Bombs and Germs: Another Look at the Korean War”, Journal of Contemporary Asia (London) Vol 5, No 2, 1975, pages 212-6.
    53. Air Force Communique, 2 February 1951, cited by Stone, page 259
    54. Military Situation in the Far East, Hearings Before the Senate Committees on Armed Services end Foreign Relations, 25 June 1951, page 3075.
    55. Louis Heren, “The Korean Scene”, in Rear-Admiral H G Thursfield, editor, Brassey’s Annual: The Armed Forces Year-Book 1951 (London, 1951) page 110.
    56. San Francisco Chronicle, 15 December 1977, page 11, based on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
    57. New York Times, 12 November 1951, page 3.
    58. Ibid, 14 November 1951, page 1.
Posted in Uncategorized

Propaganda for a coup in Venezuela

Looting in Venezuela http://www.inskn.com

Recently, CNN posted this article on social media and its usual outlets, hundred of them.

5 reasons why we should care about the crisis in Venezuela  

By Doug Criss

It starts by saying that “thousands of refugees” are fleeing to America.

However government statistics do not appear to show a flood of refugees into the United States.

Using the US Homeland Security, Legal Immigration and Adjustment of Status Report Fiscal Year 2017, I found

Table 2: In both quarters of 2017, “approximately two-thirds of refugees were from five leading countries of nationality:  the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Burma.” Venezuela is not even included on the list.

Venezuelans cannot gain even temporary protected status in the United States as refugees. El Salvadorians, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Hondurans can.

Table 4A: In the first quarter of 2017, Venezuelans gained 52,992 non-­­­immigrant admissions to the United States.  Australia with a lower national population gained 137,619 admissions, more than twice as many. The qualifications for non-immigrant admission are in table 4b.

In Table 1A: the report calculates that 5662 Venezuelans were granted permanent residency in the US in 2017 to July 31; of those most were adjustments of the status of existing residents. Only 1318 new permanent residents arrived in 2017 and the number fell in the second quarter. It includes many categories listed in table 1b.

The Department of State Refugee Processing Centre has documented only 1543 refugees arriving from the whole of South America between October 2016 and July 31, 2017. That’s 3% of the total for the whole world.

I cannot find where Criss obtained the graph shown above and titled ‘Venezuelans Lead US Asylum Applications’. Its alleged source is the (USCIS) website.

There, I did find a document entitled ‘Asylum Office Workload June 2017’ that lists Venezuelans as the main source of asylum applications in 2017. However, applicants have to be physically in the United States and there is no data given on how long the applicants have been there (two-thirds of illegal residents have been there more than 10 years).  There is also no information on which applications are defensive i.e. against deportation under Trumps February orders. That and his belligerent attitude towards refugees and Venezuela would lead one to believe that this document alone is insufficient to reasonably assess the number of genuine asylum seekers recently arrived from Venezuela.

Whilst there may be an increase in the number of refugees from Venezuela, the government statistics do not indicate a flood. If the simplistic graph above has drawn on the Asylum Office report at USCIS it is useless for anything other than as a ploy to negatively influence American attitudes towards refugees. Trump’s election proved they were already far from positive.


Criss’s article continues with more claims likely to be taken on board by Americans such as that Maduro and government supporters are creating anti-American sentiment and that the government is withholding food and medicine to deliberately cause suffering in Venezuela’s children. He does not mention American sanctions and economic warfare or that Venezuelans may have very good reasons for negative attitudes to America.

Finally Criss presents the ultimate straw that will break any American resistance to the idea of regime change in Venezuela. He says –

IT COULD HURT US IN OUR POCKETBOOK… and  in one of our most sensitive spots: the gas pump.









Posted in debunk, Highly suspicious, propaganda, South America, Text that lies, United States, USA, Venezuela | Tagged , , , ,

Getting Julian Assange: The Untold Story By John Pilger

John Pilger presents a clear, unambiguous and fair account of the injustice meted out to Julian Assange that counters the unfair, biased and murky story told by the British, Swedish, American and Australian governments, and the media.

May 21, 2017 “Information Clearing House

Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”.

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure. This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden.

“It’s a laughing-stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally. The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law. These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.

In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistle blowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.

Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden‘s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.

Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.

The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistle blowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s “ founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”. Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation”, they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the “rape of two women”. The word “rape” can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world. Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”

Enter  Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case. At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.”

On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST — publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]”. Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed “rape investigation” to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London. Finally, he was allowed to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court. He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.

For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case. Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as “abnormal” and demanded she be replaced.

Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be “rendered” to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.

“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”

The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the “rape” allegations. Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn’t she question him? Catch-22.

When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”. Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” The women were manipulated by police – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”

Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.

Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington. The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport – until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.

The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.

In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia’s Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia. I gave him Gareth Peirce’s letter about the threat to Assange’s rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.

For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism… (Read the full article for information on media culpability in this case)

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit.” In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador’s decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador’s decision.

Ecuador’s embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague’s Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.

During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors. Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, “Sure beats a supermax.”

It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations – last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.

Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution endures in the heart of London.

The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?

If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us.

John Richard Pilger is an Australian journalist and documentary film maker based in the United Kingdom since 1962. http://johnpilger.com/ Follow John on twitter @johnpilger

Posted in Australia, Britain, The Media, Uncategorized, United States | Tagged , , , ,

Who are the new jihadis? Oliver Roy analyses them and finds they are not whom you think they are.

Terrorist eyes

Read the full article in the Guardian


In one of the best articles explaining the phenomenon of jihadi terrorism that I have read, Oliver Roy gives a clear analyses of their origins. He clarifies the link between Islam and radicalisation, showing that they mostly lived a “highly secular life – frequenting clubs, drinking alcohol… and share a number of common features: second generation; fairly well integrated at first; period of petty crime; radicalisation in prison; attack and death – weapons in hand – in a standoff with the police.” Rather than Islamists they were nihilists.

Other key points that I thought were well worth noting were that, “Suicide terrorism is not even effective from a military standpoint. While some degree of rationality can be found in “simple” terrorism – in which a few determined individuals inflict considerable damage on a far more powerful enemy – it is entirely absent from suicide attacks…

The strength of Isis is to play on our fears. And the principal fear is the fear of Islam. The only strategic impact of the attacks is their psychological effect. They do not affect the west’s military capabilities; they even strengthen them, by putting an end to military budget cuts. They have a marginal economic effect, and only jeopardise our democratic institutions to the extent that we ourselves call them into question through the everlasting debate on the conflict between security and the rule of law.”  It begs the question, who is ultimately behind the radicalisation of young men in the West.

Roy finishes with, “There is a temptation to see in Islam a radical ideology that mobilizes throngs of people in the Muslim world, just as Nazism was able to mobilise large sections of the German population. But the reality is that Isis’s pretension to establish a global caliphate is a delusion – that is why it draws in violent youngsters who have delusions of grandeur.” It’s well worth reading the whole article.




Posted in Uncategorized

Syrian women are free.

I think, like me, many of us have no idea what life was and is still like for women and girls in Syria outside the rebel zone. I mean the secular Syria that the Daesh/Isis are trying to destroy.

From the Duran  

The following video shows life as it has been during the war in Syria, which is seldom shown in the western mainstream media. Young people talk about their love of art and music which would be prohibited or even punishable by death under Al-Qaeda rule.

In government controlled areas the video shows how all people enjoy their daily life in peace even after years of war. Such are the spirits of the Syrian people; to celebrate life even in the face of war, death and destruction. They have learned to defy the terrorists’ mortar shells as they rain daily on them.

Syria is a secular society where people enjoy life to the full through open access to theatre, cinema, mosques, churches, museums, restaurants, music halls, and sports stadia. Free education to university level and free health care available to all citizens, despite US imposed sanctions for years.

If the US objective of regime change were to be achieved, the alternative to such a vibrant dynamic peace-loving society with its ancient heritage and culture would be Al-Qaeda and its fundamentalist Wahabbi medieval view of life.

Indeed, in the video some speak of their experiences of living under Daesh before they fled to safety in government controlled areas. Under the terrorists’ rule people were punished severely or killed for such silly matters as watching TV or listening to music or wearing jeans let alone major issues such as women’s rights or lack of them.

Now watch “Syrians” produced by TVLibertés

Posted in Freedom, Syria, True words, Uncategorized | Tagged ,

JIT report: a deliberate fabrication.

Much of the JIT report is deliberate fabrication. For example: the video they used to show the truck allegedly carrying a BUK missile launcher has been deliberately but crudely manipulated to remove identifying road signs. Why bother unless it was to hide the fact that the truck was on a different road or even a different country.


From the JIT website https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

See the image above in Animation 3 – 3.20 minutes in.

Funny how the Russians always use khaki trucks; but JIT tells us that in this case only, they used a white Volvo to take the scenic route across Ukraine. Even stranger, the semi at the front is clearly seen in the videos but the alleged BUK carrier and low loader beneath it is always misty. (A stealth BUK perhaps?)

Then there are the deliberate lies such as that the missile was fired from a clearly separatist area; yet they omitted to mention that at the time,the missile was fired, the Ukrainian army was engaged in a 40 days long siege of Saur Mogila in exactly the same area.

As you can see from this video, the strategic hill of Saur Mogila and its huge monument was attacked from all sides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DATlYLR4E4s
This video shows the Ukrainian army shelling the area below the monument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb2P6juINCg

Far from having sufficient information to initiate criminal proceedings against Russians, the JIT investigative team has provided sufficient evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against themselves for fraud.




Posted in Uncategorized

Aid Convoy not shot from the air – the photographic evidence.

There has been much about the UN aid convoy destroyed in Aleppo in the media; most of them blaming Russia and the Syrian government.



This package of medical supplies provided as proof of an air attack by the White Helmets has been shot from below.


Below, the green truck trailer parked at an angle shows boxes that appear to be medical supplies, They were carefully unloaded before the attack and the truck’s prime mover driven away; whereas supplies for civilians were trashed and burnt.


Below, where is the explosive damage to the vehicles and the debris to be expected from an air attack?


The photographic images from the Aleppo attack reveal a different story to that of western media outlets and the White Helmets: the convoy was shot at from below, no doubt killing some of the drivers, supplies useful to the rebels were unloaded first, then the whole was set on fire to cover the evidence. The White Helmets say that not all the drivers and offsiders were killed. Where are they? 


Posted in Uncategorized

Signs of escalating war in the Middle East

Sadly, I suspect the US and its allies are going to expand military activities to an all-out war in Syria.

Here’s why I think that.

July 2  Australian election

July 18  US Vice president, Joe Biden meets winning Prime minister Turnbull.

August 29  Malcolm Turnbull brooches 25 legislative changes on the day before parliament opens. Hidden amongst them is a never-before-mentioned change to war crimes legislation.

Here’s the original legislation.

268.70   War crime–murder 
(1)  A person (the perpetrator ) commits an offence if:
(a)  the perpetrator causes the death of one or more persons; and
(b)  the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(c)  the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances establishing that the person or persons are not taking an active part in the hostilities; and
(d)  the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty:  Imprisonment for life.
(2)  To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a person or persons who are not taking an active part in the hostilities includes a reference to:
(a)  a person or persons who are hors de combat ; or
(b)  civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel who are not taking an active part in the hostilities.
(Under Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, non-international armed conflicts are armed conflicts in which one or more  non-State armed groups are involved.)

Australian troops never had any problem with the existing legislation in Afghanistan. But now that we are in Syria….

Turnbull wants to add to the legislation that: war crime offences of murder and attacking civilians in a non-international armed conflict do not apply to protect members of an organised armed group not engaged in fighting.

In effect, it gives immunity to Australian troops who attack civilians, captives, slaves, hospitals, schools, infrastructure and religious communities because it is impossible to separate them from ‘members of an organised armed group not engaged in fighting’.

Turnbull mentions Isis when he refers to an organised armed group,  but doesn’t mention them in the legislation which could just as easily mean the Syrian government, the Kurds or anyone else anywhere in the world.

This smacks of a major US change in strategy.

Posted in Uncategorized

The evolution of a terror attack in Jerusalem

The Jerusalem paper, the Times of Israel shows how a fire on an empty bus becomes a terrorist attack on innocent civilians. The reports it uses on its online breaking news page come from its own sources and a variety of other news media.

The story changes from the police saying they are not sure it was a terror attack at 18.17, to a Reuters report from a spokesperson for the Mayor of Jerusalem saying “Blast definitely caused by bomb” at 19.24, and Prime Minister Netanyahu saying “We will settle accounts with those behind the Jerusalem bombing.” at 10.23 pm.

Note the interesting divergence between the Channel 2 and Reuters report at 19.24. It reveals a striking difference in their agendas.

 The Times of Israel – Investigators hunt for clues after Jerusalem bus bombing

 Tuesday, April 19, 2016 18:17

Police now not sure it was a terror attack

Now police are saying they’re not sure it was a terror attack after all, Channel 2 says.

The blast was on an empty bus. This in turn set off a fire on a second bus nearby and a private car. Most of the injured were on the second bus, the TV report says.

Police now say “all avenues of investigation being followed.”

Emergency services at the site of a possible bus bombing in Jerusalem, April 18, 2016. (Israel Police)

Police: Bus was empty, wounded are from nearby vehicle

Police say the bus hit by an explosion in Jerusalem was empty at the time of the blast, and the injured are from a nearby bus. Another private vehicle is also hit in the blast.

Two people are in serious condition, six are in moderate condition and seven are lightly hurt.

Two burning buses on a Jerusalem street. The cause of the incident was being investigated by police. (Israel police)

Red alert on Gaza border is false alarm

The red alert siren for incoming rocket fire that sounds on the Gaza border is a false alarm, Walla reports.


Fire service: No one trapped in burning buses in Jerusalem

The fire service says that no one is trapped in the buses that are alight following a blast on one of the vehicles in Jerusalem.


16 hurt in Jerusalem were on both burning buses

The 16 people wounded in Jerusalem came from the bus that was set ablaze and a nearby one that was also set alight, Channel 2 says.

Police are still trying to establish if it was a terror attack.


Police urge vigilance in wake of Jerusalem blaze

The police are calling on Israelis to be vigilant after two buses are set alight in Jerusalem. The authorities are still trying to determine whether this is a terrorist incident.

Israel Police spokeswoman Luba Samri urges people to report any suspicious incidents.


Israel Police: Not ruling out terror attack in Jerusalem

Israel Police spokeswoman Luba Samri says authorities are not ruling out the possibility that the blazes on two buses in Jerusalem are the result of a terrorist attack.

All avenues are being examined, Samri says.


Jerusalem police: No advance intel on imminent attack

A spokesman for Jerusalem police says there was no advance intelligence of an imminent terror attack in Jerusalem .


Egged official: Hard to believe this was not terror

An official in the Egged bus company, whose buses were hit in the Jerusalem blaze, says it is hard to believe that the incident was not the result of a terror attack, the NRG website reports.

Fire service: Jerusalem blast occurred inside one of the buses

Jerusalem fire service says that the blast that set two buses alight in the city took place inside one of the vehicles.

“This is definitely an irregular incident,” a member of the fire service tells Channel 2.


Jerusalem mayor: Explosive device caused bus blast

The blast on a Jerusalem bus was caused by a small explosive device, Mayor Nir Barkat tells Channel 2.

He says however that it is still unclear whether this is a terrorist attack.

The mayor calls on Jerusalem residents and all Israelis to be alert but to primarily carry on with their normal routine.

Barkat spokeswoman: Jerusalem blast definitely caused by bomb

A spokeswoman for Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat says that the explosion that set two buses alight and wounded 16 people was definitely caused by a bomb, Reuters reports.

The comment comes after Barkat tells Israeli TV that a small explosive device detonated inside one of the two buses caught up in the incident.



PM: We will settle accounts with those behind Jerusalem bombing

Netanyahu says that Israel will find the people responsible for today’s attack on a bus in Jerusalem that wounded more than 20 people.

“We will find out who placed the bomb, we will reach those who dispatched them and we will also get to those who stand behind them, and settle accounts with these terrorists,” he says.

The prime minister also sends wishes for a speedy recovery to those injured in the bombing.

Later the driver of the bus next to the one that exploded reveals his assumption that any explosion must be an attack; although it’s unlikely that he needed to tell nearby observers to ring emergency services.


Jerusalem bus driver: I knew at once it was a terror attack

The driver of the Jerusalem bus hit in today’s bombing says he was caught up in traffic when he suddenly heard a blast, and knew at once an attack had taken place, Channel 2 reports.

“I reached Moshe Baram Street in Talpiot and stopped in traffic. Suddenly, there was a loud explosion from the back of the bus and I immediately realized it was a terrorist attack,” says Moshe Levy from Shaare Zedek hospital, where he is being treated for light injuries.

“I opened the doors to save people,” he says. “The people fled quickly. I immediately ran to the cars stuck in traffic and told them to call the police because there had been an attack.”

Read the full Times of Israel page at http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-april-18-2016/#

And in case you think bus explosions without a bomb never occur, here are some examples…

Bus explodes into flame outside school at Park Ridge (Brisbane)

Forty-seat bus explodes ‘like a cannon going off’     (Melbourne)   

Plumes of black smoke billowed from the site of the explosion, which triggered miles of gridlock

In fact bus explosions are all too common.

Posted in Highly suspicious, Israel, Palestinians, propaganda, Text that lies, The Media, The shame page | Tagged , , , , ,

Barrel Bombs. The US accuses Assad while the rebels get on with making them.

Washington’s claims of Assad using barrel bombs are made with no evidence that ties them to the government of Syria. Yet, western media continue to report and repeat the charges as if they were a credible fact. Most recently by Elliot Higgins.

The most damning for Syria is this video below, which has been so poorly edited that the gunner is not there, and then is. And the European who appears to be giving directions to the bomber has a different uniform, not Syrian, with what may be an American sniper badge on his left epaulet. Syria does not use the red,white and blue.

sniperNot a syrian army uniform

Considering the large number of videos and images of the ‘rebels’ making gas bottle bombs and then firing them from home-made mortars while yelling Allah Akbar (God is Great); and considering how easy it is to find images and videos like those below, on the web; there is no excuse for publishing propaganda as fact.

A few minutes Google search revealed this rebel promotional video of rebels loading barrel bombs and several incriminating images, below.

Note – the Syrian army wears boots not sneakers and the badge/logo on the bomb is Lebanese and appears to have been added to the image. Perhaps it is a video stamp..

Rebel makes gas bottle bombs.   Bomb
Flying bombsphotoshopped

Then there is this image above, where the photo shopping was so poor that the leg of the seat does not meet in the middle.

It is evident that the rebels have been using home-made bombs since the start of the war. The Syrian army may have too, but so far the evidence presented in the media points directly to the rebels.


Posted in Uncategorized

Shame BBC – blatant bias and propaganda

Why did the BBC embed this video in a report largely blaming Isis for chemical attacks in Syria? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34211838

The video presented by Ian Pannell and labelled Harrowing footage showed the aftermath of an alleged chlorine gas attack by Syrian government forces, is a composite fabrication blaming the Syrian government.

Not only does it include obviously fake footage of crude propaganda against Syria, it encourages viewers to support an Al Nusra organization which appears to do little except support terrorists, fabricate videos and collect donations. https://www.facebook.com/SyriaCivilDefence/info?tab=page_info

It’s also an all-too-convenient attempt to sway public opinion in Britain, Australia, Canada and the US towards an attack on Syria.

Capture of image from BBC video and link to the video

Click to see video

Note: At 26 seconds into the video, the small child’s eyes are clear and wide open, not even crying. Other children can be heard crying, not wheezing, screaming or wailing as seriously hurt children do. We cannot hear then choking or coughing as those attacked by chlorine gas would also do.

50 seconds into the video is a pretty little girl. She shows no signs of a gas attack, just signs of the natural fear a little girl would have being washed down by a group of shouting men in the dark.

Little girl wide eyed and breathing normally being washed down by a group of shouting men in the dark.

On the top left of the video is the green SGRC logo – the coalition of rebels fighting against the Syrian government including Al Nusra/AlQueda

It is highly likely that this section of Pannell’s presentation is fake.

Towards the end of the video Pannell lauds the white helmeted Syrian volunteer civil defence.

Rick Sterling in Counter Punch has more information about the White Helmets in his article, About those chlorine attacks in Syria. He says, “This is a new organization, highly publicized as civilian rescue workers in Syria. Their video and reports have influenced Avaaz and other humanitarian groups. Avaaz refers to the White Helmets as “Syria’s respected and non-partisan civil protection force.”

In reality the White Helmets is a project created by the UK and USA.

Training of civilians in Turkey has been overseen by former British military officer and current contractor, James Le Mesurier. Promotion of the program is done by “The Syria Campaign” supported by the foundation of billionaire Ayman Asfari.

The White Helmets is clearly a public relations project which has received glowing publicity from HuffPo to Nicholas Kristof at the NYT. White Helmets have been heavily promoted by the U.S. Institute of Peace (U.S.IP) whose leader began the press conference by declaring “U.S.IP has been working for the Syrian Revolution from the beginning”.

Apart from the PR work, White Helmets work in areas of Aleppo and Idlib controlled by Nusra (Al Queda). The video from a medical clinic on March 16 starts with a White Helmets logo. The next video of same date and place continues with the Nusra logo.

US and UK tax dollars pay for a program which has an appealing rescue component and is then used to market and promote the USA and UK policy of regime change in Syria in de facto alliance with Nusra.”

Posted in Australia, Britain, Canada, Highly suspicious, Images that lie, Syria, USA | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Refugee Crisis: What The Media Is Hiding

This explains everything about the refugee crisis.

With thanks to Syrian Girl and ICH.

Posted in Finding humanity, Germany, Highly suspicious | Tagged , , , , , , ,

60 minutes and the Buk – MH 17

MH17 – Special Investigation
“The Russian Are Lying And Here Is The Truth”

Video Report
60 Minutes – MSN – Australia

Who shot down MH17? 60 Minutes tracks the killers deep inside rebel territory.

Watch the video on http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41878.htm

Here’s the real truth.

If you halt the video at almost any point you will find photoshopped images and purported facts that were not backed up by evidence; so much so that it appears that the whole thing is a fraud. And the biggest fraud is Eliot Higgins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins

None of Higgins evidence is original. It and all the video and photographic evidence used by Sixty Minutes journalist Michael Usher were released by Ukrainian intelligence within 3 days of the downing of MH17 such as this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIdODh-3-p8

The video was photoshopped before it was first released. Look at the green edge of the billboard. Note it is painted over a branch. Later, I waited in vain for Usher to show us the other side of the billboard that he claimed was the one in the video. Of course it would have been a miracle if it was. He was standing on grass that should have been trees with a view of a lake and pointing in the wrong direction.

MH 17 Billboard photoshopped

Then there is the way that the Usher flits over Higgins’ images claiming they are identical. I captured this from the video. Now that it is still, you can see that the two images are far from identical and that the top one has been photoshopped to make the trees look similar. Usher diverts us from the obvious dissimilarities by specifically directing our attention to the ‘similar’ trees. The only conclusion I can draw is that he colluded in the fraud.

MH17 Buk video - not the same place

Nothing in the 60 minutes program is real. Not even Usher’s attempt to be an investigative reporter. He says he was arrested by the rebels but his sequence was wrong. He hadn’t reached the rebel checkpoint at that stage and to add some colour he photoshopped Russian flags on the road he was travelling on. Sloppy work.

MH17 photoshopped Russian flag

Posted in Uncategorized

Where is the blood?


According to the Daily mail and Fox News, the photo above, “provided by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry shows the inside view of a bus destroyed by a rebel shell at the (government) checkpoint near the town of Volnovakha in the Donetsk region, eastern Ukraine, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015. At least 10 civilians were killed and a further 13 wounded as the bus was hit by a pro-Russian separatists’ shell while passing through the checkpoint, local officials said. (AP Photo/Ukrainian Interior Ministry)”

I can’t see any blood on the floor and the seat covers have been removed.

A rebel shell?

The image provided plainly shows bullet holes in the seats and curtains coming from the back of the bus..

This is what a bus looks like after a shell hits it.




And where is the blood?

On the snow outside the bus.

Ukraine bus 2

Murder of defenceless civilians is a war crime.


Update – Video Evidence.

Now the Ukrainian government are claiming it was heavy weapons fire rather than a shell. The bullet holes in the seats were just a bit too obvious.

The missing blood has also appeared – on the floor at the front of the bus.

Judging by the angle of the bullet holes in the seats and their exit towards the front of the bus in the video; it appears that checkpoint guards boarded the bus and herded the passengers towards the exit. They then fired at their backs with some bullets going through the seats.

They have also admitted that the bus, carrying mostly women and children, came from rebel held areas. I’m guessing any refugees who want to return to their families in western Ukraine will, in future, visit Russia instead. And that may very well be one of the purposes of this atrocity considering the state of Ukraine’s economy.

Update – Revenge Motive

In August 2014, Eastern Ukrainian rebels captured a bus carrying Right Sector paramilitaries. Twelve were shot in the firefight and the rest taken captive. The ultra-nationalist,  Right Sector includes neo-nazis and other far right-wing groups  such as the Patriot of Ukraine below.

A graphic video (Not for children) of the bus shows Right Sector fighters killed by the defenders of Donetsk in August 2014. Yarosh vows revenge. To see more select the link below.


Several websites publishing the earlier attack were updated on the January 13.

So could the attack on the 13th of January, 2015, have been revenge by members of one of the Right Sector battalions that the government in Ukraine used for propaganda purposes?

Posted in Europe, Highly suspicious, Images that lie, propaganda, Text that lies, The shame page, Ukraine, Uncategorized, United States, War, War crimes | Tagged , ,

The Chameleon and the Phoenix: Atlas Shrugged and the Hunger Games

For easy reading, enlarge Powerpoint and click on screen icon at bottom right.

Posted in propaganda, The shame page, United States, War | Tagged , ,

Fake – video of brave boy rescuing girl from snipers

Footage of Syrian ‘hero boy’ dodging sniper’s bullets to save girl revealed as FAKE

Nov 15, 2014 14:03 By Chris Gee

Read more from the Mirror… http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/footage-syrian-hero-boy-dodging-4633019

Fake image of boy being shot

Scene from the video shot in Malta.


Posted in Images that lie, propaganda, Syria | Tagged , , , ,

Hypnotised, conned and scared

Posted in Australia, Britain, Highly suspicious, Iraq, Media, Obama, Syria, War | Tagged , , , , , , ,

No Rendition; no Guantanamo… just shaming of captured Ukrainian contract soldiers.

These videos have been censored by You Tube.

The first shows a rebel officer explaining to captured government recruits the ethical problems and guilt that comes with attacking your own people. The recruits are given tea and sandwiches and sent home.

The second shows civilians, mostly women – very angry women giving their victim statements in no uncertain terms to captured government troops who attacked their town.

When have we ever seen western soldiers doing this.

And this is what the local civilians think of the Ukrainian soldiers.

Posted in Europe, Finding humanity, The shame page, Ukraine | Tagged , ,

What we think of Tony Abbott

Elena Gabrielle is brilliant in her scathing attack on Australian Prime Minister Abbott and his policies.

Posted in Australia, Finding humanity, The shame page, You can't help laughing | Tagged

Whose land is it anyway?

Judaism has no more historical right to Israel than any other invader’s religion.

Posted in Israel, Palestinians, The shame page, War

Ukrainian rebels see Kiev fighter planes using passenger planes as shield a month before Flight M17 was destroyed

This video was posted a month before Flight M17.


I will let you draw your own conclusions from this.

Posted in The shame page, Ukraine, United States, War, War crimes | Tagged ,

Lab rats: Using Palestinians as a free way to test new weapons of people control

Israel has rapidly come to rely on the continuing captivity of Palestinians in what are effectively the world’s largest open-air prisons. The reason is that there are massive profits to be made from testing Israeli military innovations on the more than four million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. (Jonathon Cook)

The Lab (The business of the Israel’s military occupation)

Is Gaza a testing ground for experimental weapons?


Concerns about Israel’s use of non-conventional and experimental weapons in the Gaza Strip are growing, with evasive comments from spokesmen and reluctance to allow independent journalists inside the tiny enclave only fueling speculation.

The most prominent controversy is over the use of shells containing white phosphorus, which causes horrific burns when it comes into contact with skin. Under international law, phosphorus is allowed as a smokescreen to protect soldiers but treated as a chemical weapon when used against civilians.

The Israeli army maintains that it is using only weapons authorized in international law, though human rights groups have severely criticized Israel for firing phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza.

But there might be other unconventional weapons Israel is using out of sight of the watching world.

One such munition may be DIME, or dense inert metal explosive, a weapon recently developed by the United States army to create a powerful and lethal blast over a small area.

The munition is supposed to still be in the development stage and is not yet regulated. There are fears, however, that Israel may have received a green light from the US military to treat Gaza as a testing ground. Read more…..

Tear gas, the Scream and Skunk

Using Palestinians as a free way to test new weapons of people control


Posted in Israel, Palestinians, The shame page, War crimes | Tagged , ,

BBC Fraud on Syria chemical attack and CIA spies playing reporter

Man on stretcher - Clip from video titled Media 'staged' Syria chem attack

Clip from video titled Media ‘staged’ Syria chem attack

The BBC deliberately created fraudulent video on chemical weapons in Syria and the CIA plants spies as journalists. See more:

Media ‘staged’ Syria chem attack


For a more detailed analysis see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/rt-claims-bbc-stages-syria-chemical-attack-to-propagate-war-bbc-responds.3341/  (Note the original version of this video was removed by YouTube but the text analysis is well worth reading)

But wait, there’s more. Much more on who, inthe US military knew

Seymour Hersh Unearths More Lies on Syria

By Jonathan Cook April 07, 2014 “ICH” – Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has a second fascinating essay The Thin Red Line and the Rat Line that rewrites the official record of the sarin gas attack on Ghouta, near Damascus, in August last year. As usual, Hersh uses his sources in the US security establishment to throw light on what really took place. The bottom line: Turkey was almost certainly the party responsible for the attack, hoping it would force Obama to honour his threatened “red line” if Assad used chemical weapons. Read more, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38149.htm

Posted in Highly suspicious, Images that lie, Media, Syria, The Media, The shame page, United States | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Fraud is not black and white – The prejudice and opinion writing of Andrew Bolt

‘There’s nothing I would rather be, than to be an Aborigine, and watch you take my precious land away.

For nothing gives me greater joy than to watch you fill each girl and boy with superficial existential shit.’

(Jimmy Chi)


A waggish tweeter said of opinion columnist, blogger and shock jock of the written word, Andrew Bolt,

‘Full time patriot, defender of wealthy white opinions, developer of Skintone, expert with copy and paste shortcuts and limited news.’

I would add, deliberate denier of Aboriginal literary and artistic success and even Aboriginality itself.  (Bolt 2009, 2012)

Amongst his many articles attacking Aborigines and Aboriginal issues, were several claiming that Aboriginal literary, Art and community awards and honours, scholarships and jobs were actually achieved by white people falsely claiming to have an indigenous heritage. Bolt’s sole criteria for judging a lack of that heritage in It’s so Hip to be Black, White is the New Black and White Fellas in the Black, was the ‘existential’ colour of their skin.

bolt its so hipto be black

In It’s so Hip to be Black above, Bolt begs the question why the photo montage he selectively cut and pasted from Google Images was digitally enhanced to lighten and warm skin tones? It also calls into question his choice of images and his deliberate rejection of the visual evidence revealed by other images on the same Google image search page – the younger Mick Dodson for instance.

Mick Dodson

Mick Dodson

Bolt seems to think that Aborigines are Australian Negroes; whereas at first contact with Europeans, Aboriginal skin colour ranged from dark brown, some with blond hair to being thought to be lost whites by explorer Abel Tasman. Now, after two hundred years of rape, sexual abuse, intermarriage and light children being removed from their families, Aboriginality is defined by ancestry, culture and recognition by Aboriginal communities rather than by skin colour.

Makeup goes to court

Skin tones seem personally important to Bolt with his complexion revealing an almost indigenous tan before 2011 and a pale foundation after.  On the other hand, he seemed oblivious to the fact that Larissa Behrendt may have bleached her hair and be like him, wearing makeup.

Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt

2011 was also the year that Bolt was finally forced by the Federal Court of Australia, to admit that all nine of the claimants in the case of Eatock v Bolt that resulted from the above articles were Aborigines, not frauds, and that he had breached the Racial Discrimination Act. He didn’t go to jail, he wasn’t asked to pay a fine. No, in spite of his continuing claims that section 18c/d of the law limited his free speech, he wasn’t prevented from publishing at all. He was simply required to provide balance by putting the judge’s decision in front of his own – all forty pages of it.

Superficial existential shit 

When does a writer selectively using information to promote a particular world view, become a fraud? When does a deliberate refusal to research the history, background and different sides of issues, become lying by omission? When do the subtexts of opinion writing become so scurrilous that they should be termed prejudice? Subtexts such as: that whites out-competed Aborigines for Aboriginal Art and literature awards; that they abuse the public purse; that Aborigines are given preference in awards and jobs in the Arts; and that real Aborigines don’t have university degrees. Bolt reinforces those subtexts with emotive language such as:

“Hear that scuffling at the trough? That’s the sound of black people being elbowed out by white people shouting ‘but I’m Aboriginal, too”’ (Bolt 2011)

I wonder why Bolt thinks that any writer or artist would want to scuffle at the public trough for short term grants, a ‘generous’ $260 a week to live on, frequent pleasant holidays when unemployed and perhaps a short but exciting life experiencing Her Majesty’s Pleasure? Pat Eatock ’s story in Judge Bromberg’s summary would have enlightened him. (Eatock v Bolt pp.154–164)

‘Blacker-than thou

If dislike of literary fraud and pretense was really Bolt’s rationale for those articles, why doesn’t he have issues with men pretending to be women who write romance? As Harold Lowry, who writes as Leigh Greenwood says ‘Contrary to popular opinion, men are romantic. We just have more cultural obstacles to overcome’. (Sarah 2007)

Aborigines write, whatever their skin colour. They also have more cultural obstacles to overcome including shock jock opinion writers.

Works Cited

Andrew Bolt Quotes. 25 Nov. 2012. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. <https://twitter.com/BoltQuotes&gt;.

Bolt, Andrew. “Making a Saint out of Mabo.” Herald Sun. News Ltd, 12 June 2012. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.

Bolt, Andrew. “White Is the New Black.” Herald Sun. Newscom, 15 Apr. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.

Chi, Jimmy. Nothing I Would Rather Be. 1990. Lyric.

Connor, Michael. “Andrew Bolt on Trial.” Quadrant Online. 1 May 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.

Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 Summary. FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA. 28 Sept. 2011. Austlit. Federal Court of Australia, 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html>.

Sarah, S. B. “Male Writers of Romance.” Smart Bitches Trashy Books. 24 Aug. 2007. Web. 5 Jan. 2014. <http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com&gt;.

(c) Jan 7 2014

Posted in Australia, Finding humanity, Freedom, Images that lie, Text that lies, The shame page, Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

Pay $120 and feed the humans

Shame on city and county officials who brought in and enforced these heartless laws.

Go Abby! Show them up for the heartless, tax wasting maggots they are.

Posted in Finding humanity, The shame page, United States | Tagged , , ,

They swapped socialism for this

Sow hunger, reap anger: why Bosnia is burning

Posted: 09 Feb 2014 04:29 AM PST

Post image for Sow hunger, reap anger: why Bosnia is burning

Failed privatizations, rampant unemployment and a thoroughly inefficient and unaccountable political system lie at the basis of the Bosnian protests.

Bosnia-Herzegovina finally emerged from the sidelines, once again as a country in flames. On February 5, laid off workers of the recently privatized factories of the industrial city of Tuzla, the third largest in Bosnia-Herzegovina, took to the streets to claim their healthcare and pension payments, to get their 50 months’ back pay, and to demand the government to fight youth unemployment, whose rate in Bosnia-Herzegovina ramped up to 60%. Read more  http://roarmag.org/2014/02/bosnia-protests-tuzla-workers/

“Collective nervous breakdown” rocks Bosnia




Posted in Europe | Tagged , , , , , , ,

“Honour The Treaties” Neil Young – Mother Earth (Live)

Oil sands strip mining of Indian lands and boreal forests – for what?

Posted in Canada | Tagged , , , , ,

Who’s a terrorist?

Here’s the FBI definitionhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Here the Wiki definitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Obstacles_to_a_comprehensive_definition

All the definitions refer to violence.

So why are peace, anti-war, environmental, human rights and other social movements targeted by so called anti-terrorism squads acting with corporate spies?

Report: One in Four ‘Activists’ May be Corporate Spies


British police stole IDs of dead children to infiltrate political organizations


Three Political Police Spies


Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Justice American style

This Man Was Sentenced to Die in Prison for Shoplifting a $159 Jacket: This Happens More Than You Think

Thousands of lives have been ruined by life sentences for crimes such as shoplifting.

Democracy, freedom, liberty are words spouted freely by American leaders

Pity they don’t also possess a sense of proportion, fairness and respect for human rights.

In most countries, the press would run this story until the Government relented. What is wrong with the US courts, legislature and media that they would allow a man to be imprisoned for life for $150.   Read more: http://www.alternet.org/man-was-sentenced-die-prison-shoplifting-159-jacket-happens-more-you-think?

Posted in Media, The shame page, United States | Tagged , , ,

The Startling Size of US Military Operations in Africa

The Pentagon’s Africa Command will tell you there’s one military base on the entire continent and that they have a light touch in Africa. Don’t believe them.

—By | Fri Sep. 6, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

Africa US MilitaryMapLegend630

“They’re involved in Algeria and Angola, Benin and Botswana, Burkina Faso and Burundi, Cameroon and the Cape Verde Islands. And that’s just the ABCs of the situation. Skip to the end of the alphabet and the story remains the same: Senegal and the Seychelles, Togo and Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia. From north to south, east to west, the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, the heart of the continent to the islands off its coasts, the US military is at work. Base construction, security cooperation engagements, training exercises, advisory deployments, special operations missions, and a growing logistics network, all undeniable evidence of expansion—except at US Africa Command.” Read more . . .


U.S. Military Averaging More Than a Mission a Day in Africa

Documents Reveal Blinding Pace of Ops in 2013, More of the Same for 2014

By Nick Turse

For years, the U.S. military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are small scale. Its public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on that continent, including a remarkably modest presence when it comes to military personnel.  They have, however, balked at specifying just what that light footprint actually consists of.  During an interview, for instance, a U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokesman once expressed worry that tabulating the command’s deployments would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts there.

It turns out that the numbers do just the opposite. Read more . . .



Posted in Africa, Obama, United States, War | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

What is the real story behind the unborn baby with a bullet in its skull?

British surgeon David Nott, says snipers shot this fetus inside its mother’s womb. He blames the Syrian government and says eight pregnant women were shot in the uterus in two days.


The same article in the Daily Mirror reports that he said there were two women and does not assign blame to the Syrian government.


Although it is sometimes difficult to see damage in an X-ray of a bullet in a skull, I would have expected to see some damage to the delicate skull of a fetus – an entry point perhaps, and I doubt a tiny baby with its delicate bones would have done much to stop a bullet unless it was nearing the end of its trajectory.

Nonetheless, casualties of war are not just enemies. They are babies and grandparents, mothers and children, pets and farm animals. All suffering for the greed of the few.

Posted in Images that lie, Syria, The Media, The shame page, United States, War crimes | Tagged , , ,

Four Chemical Attacks U.S. Wants You to Forget

Published on 9 Sep 2013

Abby Martin speaks about the blatant hypocrisy regarding Obama’s “red line” of chemical attacks as the motivating factor to intervene militarily in Syria, citing the top four chemical weapons attacks that the US military does not want you to know about.

Go Abby.

Posted in Nuclear, Obama, Syria, The shame page, United States, War crimes | Tagged

The Images 911 conspiracy theorists don’t want you to see.

Websites, blogs and Facebook are the communications media of this century. Ethical standards are just as important for them as the traditional press. Hiding evidence or, by omission, creating videos that mislead the public, is just as unethical when it’s on the web as when it’s on newsprint.

This is the image that won’t appear on 911 conspiracy websites and that is continually taken  down on other blogs such as ICH. It’s of WTC1 falling onto Building 7. You can clearly see the moment debris hits the building.

Tower 1 falling on WTC 7

Tower 1 falling on WTC 7

In the next image, taken just a few seconds before the first. You can clearly see the huge structural steel and aluminium panels that caused severe damage to the corner of Building 7 (bottom left corner of the image)

wtc columns 3 falling on building 7

Bldg7 burns Steve McCurry

WTC7 burning


An often used claim is that Building 7 fell into its own footprint. Here is another image, not often shown by conspiracy theorists.

Building 7 debris

The debris field from Building 7   –   30 West Broadway/Fiterman Hall is the striped building in the background. The US Post Office building is the lower building on the right

As you can see, a huge amount of Building 7 debris fell to the North onto Barclay Street and 30 Broadway/Fiterman Hall, the striped building at the top of the image. The debris was almost as high as the building on the right. The Southern half of the west facade and most of the South facade of 30 Broadway/Fiterman Hall, were severely damaged or destroyed, in spite of the fact that they were on the other side of Barclay Street. Therefore, Building 7 did not fall into its footprint.

The videos of Building 7 falling that are so often used on conspiracy websites, are taken from the relatively undamaged Northern side of the building. Video clips taken from other viewpoints showing different sides of the building, tell a very different story. Fire is evident on many floors and the building twists and buckles as it collapses.

The first video below shows a collection of video clips that include views of the building leading up to the scene usually shown on truther sites. The second shows deliberate omissions; one can only suspect, for the purpose of misleading the public.

3 minute 58 seconds into Nathan Flach’s video compilation, you will see the part edited out on conspiracy sites. The penthouse and the corner of the building that was most damaged by WTC 1, falls first. You can see that the structure behind the north facade has collapsed on the left hand side.  In fact you can see daylight through the windows. There is a short delay, and then  the rest of the building collapses, not straight down but towards the North across Barclay Street. The deliberate editing out of those first few seconds on a number of videos and the selective use of  videos shot mainly from the North, strongly suggests fraud on the part of a number of conspiracy sites that claim that the fall of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.


Committing fraud on a public still traumatized by the events of 911 is unethical and cruel. Not least, because it constantly reminds them of the tragedy on blogs, websites, Facebook and twitter. It is the 21st Century version of 19th Century scams on the bereaved and just as profitable for the main instigators.

Posted in 9-11, Highly suspicious, Images that lie, The shame page, United States | Tagged , , , ,

Israel’s Most Liberal City Introduces Racially Segregated Kindergartens

Israel can no longer claim the moral high ground as it continues to prove that it promulgates apartheid.

Israel’s Most Liberal City Introduces Racially Segregated Kindergartens


by Lisa Goldman Aug 23, 2013

and here’s Sherry Wolf on Israel’s Apartheid State

Posted in Israel | Tagged , , ,

Gore Vidal’s American Presidency

Gore Vidal gives the briefest, most surgically accurate analysis of the Presidents of America ever written.

Posted in Australia, Central America, Iran, Iraq, Libya, South America, The Media, United States, War | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Sweet Lies and a War Called Peace – Kennedy, Obama and Spin


2 sides of the same coin

 J.A. McHenry analyses the deliberate lies and hypocrisy to be found in Kennedy’s and Obama’s speeches. 


Sweet Lies and a War Called Peace

Kennedy, Obama and Spin


J.A. McHenry

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

       John F Kennedy, Commencement address, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 11 June 1962


Two men, two presidents almost fifty years apart, one a child of white privilege, the other a child of multiculturalism, both commanders in chief of an empire of military bases on every continent from the Arctic to the Antarctic, both world leaders of their times, both are consummate speakers, both are masters of spin..

            The spin, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama used in their speeches, might differ but each in his own way achieved what, if not exactly impossible, was thought highly improbable in their times. They did it using powerful rhetoric.

Kennedy and his speechwriters Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Theodore “Ted” Sorensen were masters of traditional empire building rhetoric that referenced ancient Greece and Rome in tones of imperial gravitas. His style was typified by his Inaugural Address in Washington in 1961.

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans–born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage  .  .  .

Whilst I doubt that many Americans used the words, go forth, foe or tempered, they were hypnotized by his address. His command of classical rhetoric created the myth of a great leader and the people hung on his words.

Obama and his speechwriters Jon Favreau and Cody Keenan choose instead to toggle between the rhetoric of the founding fathers and the common touch depending on the circumstances. Obama’s speech on Race Relations; delivered at the National Constitution Center across from Independence Hall in Philadelphia started with ‘We the people, in order to form a more perfect union. Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy.’ He draws on the style and dignity of the Constitution. Whereas the simpler language and common expressions of his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention draws on colloquialisms like fudge the numbers.

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

With these rhetorical strategies, Obama deftly places himself as a man of the people and an American. In fact what his spin on this piece is disguising is encapsulated in the line “to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war”. He could have said, ‘When I become president, and I go to war, I want more troops.’

 It is almost 50 years since Kennedy wrote his last speech in November 1963. He was due to deliver it on the day he was assassinated.  Would he deliver the same speech today? Would the president of the country that believed it won the greatest war in history, a country in economic growth and with a politically naïve population make the same speech to the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Dallas Citizens Council and Assembly? Would he make the same speech after two long, unsuccessful wars and one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression?

Parts of Kennedy’s speech might be even better received today than that which Obama presented on a similar theme. For instance the carefully scripted, almost poetically rhythmical “There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.” It sounds almost Shakespearean compared to Obama’s down to earth and school masterly defense of his tax compromise with Republicans in 2010.

Now if that’s the standard against which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about ourselves about how good our intentions are, how tough we are.

On the other hand, Kennedy’s boast about spending on nuclear missiles is unlikely to escape the notice of online critics today. The political capital invested in nuclear weapons has long since dissipated and his aggressive dialectic in the Dallas speech would be more likely to offend allies and American citizens than make them feel secure, particularly after the Chernobyl and Fukushima leaks and in the light of many more countries possessing nuclear weapons than in 1963.

.  .  .  the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory – and the certainty of total destruction – if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.

It is also doubtful that any president today would provide so much ammunition to his opposition and national enemies as this list of military expenditures from Kennedy’s remarks at the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce in 1963, his last delivered speech.

In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South VietNam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it.

Keeping in mind his military and nuclear weapons spending, as he has just outlined, leads to a clearer understanding of Kennedy as a manipulative rhetorician and spin doctor particularly in the light of his famous speech to the Commencement Address at American University on June 10 in 1963.

Kennedy started with his title. “Peace and Freedom Walk Together” In fact he used the word “Peace” 50 times in this one speech, a clever linguistic device that remained fixed in his listener’s minds rather than the actual content of what he said. In addition, he used the word “Freedom” 9 times at key points even though he had already created the CIA’s Domestic Operations Division that year. Freedom, but perhaps not so much for Americans.

Later in his speech, it is doubtful this gem of rhetorical absurdity would achieve anything like the effect it had in 1963. “To secure these ends, America’s weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.”

Kennedy goes on to say with a straight face, “For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.”  This was at a stage in his presidency when he was well on the way to be able to say to the citizens of Fort Worth ‘Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky, and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3.5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier’.

He concludes with the hypocritical ‘The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war.” As he said at the time, he was actively escalating involvement in Vietnam and he conveniently omitted to mention, Laos. In fact, as linguist and political researcher, Noam Chomsky said, ‘by 1962, Kennedy’s war had far surpassed the French war at its peak in helicopters and aerial fire power’.

It was a clever speech, a satisfying one to those who looked at Kennedy with rose tinted glasses even today. After all, he says “peace” 50 times leading many people to believe that the Commencement Day speech was proof that Kennedy was a peacemaker and that he intended to withdraw from Vietnam. But his actions as he states himself prove otherwise. Rather, his clever speech, aimed at mollifying increasingly radical students, is proof that he was, in his time, a master of double speak. Not a man for all seasons but a man for all men, who adapted his speeches to appeal to each of his audiences. A man who could make a speech that talks of war to one person and a speech that makes it sound like peace to another. As he says himself ‘No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.’

President Barack Obama could not have existed in the America of 1963. In that year, Kennedy was just coming to the end of his procrastination on the issue of Civil Rights and the Act was not passed until 1964 after his assassination.

However, Obama’s speeches would in many ways, have been understood by the Americans of that time. His catch cry of hope and destiny was just as supportable then as now. In his Iowa Caucus Victory Speech in 2008, ‘Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.’  Later, in his speech delivered in Berlin in 2008, he says, ‘We are a people of improbable hope With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.’ Would the people of America prefer ‘People of improbable hope’ to‘Hope is the bedrock’ in 2013 or 1963?  Does either statement have any meaningful content?

From an ideological and dialectic perspective, Obama reveals the political angles in his spin doctoring and rhetorical appeals to pathos at the Millennium Development Goals Summit in 2010. He says with all sincerity, “When a child dies from a preventable disease, it shocks all of our consciences.” That begs the question whether children killed in drone strikes do not. He spins the polio eradication campaign to make it appear to be a US led program. “We’re working with partners to finally eradicate polio.” When in fact it is an initiative of the WHO, UNICEF and Rotary. And U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan have seriously hindered the final vaccination drive in Pakistan because of the suspicion that the CIA is using the vaccination campaign as a cover as it identifies potential drone targets.

Obama goes on with “instead of just treating HIV/AIDS, we’ve invested in pioneering research to finally develop a way to help millions of women actually prevent themselves from being infected in the first place.” However he does not share with his audience what the United States Presidents Emergency Plan for Aids Relief,   PEPFAR, does with its ‘pioneering research’. Take Uganda as an example. As Scott Evertz, a leader in health policy practice, pointed out; previously Uganda had a comprehensive ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms) strategy which reduced the Aids rate from 15% to 6% of the population. Now PEPFAR provides much of its Aids funding to Christian religious groups promoting an abstinence-only strategy and actively attacking condom use. As a result, Aids is rising again.

Omission continues to be Obama’s strategy in informing the public about other foreign aid particularly that channelled through the Millennium Development Corporation. He speaks glowingly of the Corporation, and its help building rural roads in El Salvador. However, as reported in Voices from El Salvador, in 2012, U.S. Ambassador Maria Carmen Aponte said that approval of new MCC funds is dependent upon the passing of the P3 Law. Unions and indigenous people say that the P3 Law will privatize government services such as air and seaports, health care facilities, and education. The much-lauded roads are not for the local people but to enable investment in tourism and hotels on indigenous land.

Another strategy Obama uses is the appearance of even-handedness. Words like ‘balance’ allow Obama to place socially positive concepts next to more controversial political actions such as freedom and need for security or privacy protection and intercept communication.

That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are.  That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

Kennedy said more or less the same thing in his address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961 but uses a yes/but argument with a complete about face.

And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. .  .  . Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

The strength of Obama’s speeches is evident in his success in two elections as the first black president in America. He is a president that like Kennedy is capable of flights of rhetoric and hyperbole that stir the imagination and inspire Americans. Like Kennedy, he uses sweet lies and shibboleths that appeal to his electorate as he prevaricates and plays with the truth. The content and historical context of their speeches is often almost identical. At times, their speeches could be interchangeable and in fact, Americans of 1963 and 2013 would probably see little difference in their politics or rhetoric as read in:

We are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It’s the answer that led those who’ve been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. .  .  To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.

Or this

History will not judge our endeavors–and a government cannot be selected–merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these.

For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each one of us–recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state–our success or failure, in whatever office we may hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:

First, were we truly men of courage–with the courage to stand up to one’s enemies–and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one’s associates–the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?

Secondly, were we truly men of judgment–with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past–of our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others–with enough wisdom to know that we did not know, and enough candor to admit it?

Third, were we truly men of integrity–men who never ran out on either the principles in which they believed or the people who believed in them–men who believed in us–men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?

Finally, were we truly men of dedication–with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and compromised by no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest.

The first is Barack Obama’s Victory speech in Grant Park, 2008. The second is John F. Kennedy’s Address before the Massachusetts General Court, January 9, 1961.

When History and the people of America take their rose colored glasses off, they will judge the endeavors and hypocrisy of Kennedy and Obama for what they are – excellent rhetoricians, poor human beings, 50 years apart, who but for the color of one’s skin would have been completely interchangeable.


“Ce n’est pas la première fois que je remarque combien, en France particulièrement, les mots ont plus d’empire que les idées.”
“It’s not the first time I’ve noticed how much more power words have than ideas

George Sand, Indiana




Works Cited

“Address, “The President and the Press,” Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association, 27 April 1961.” – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.

“Attack on Team of Polio Vaccinators in Pakistan Kills One.” Zeenews.com. Zeenews, 20 May 2013. Web. 30 May 2013.

“Barack Obama 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address – American Rhetoric.” Barack Obama 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address – American Rhetoric. C-Span, 18 Aug. 2008. Web. 28 May 2013.

Chomsky, Noam. “Noam Chomsky – 1993 – Rethinking Camelot.” Scribd. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.

“The Debate Over Public-Private Partnership Law and MCC Funding in El Salvador.” Voices from El Salvador. N.p., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 29 May 2013.

Drum, Kevin. “Obama Goes Medieval on the Left.” Mother Jones. N.p., 07 Dec. 2010. Web. 28 May 2013.

Evertz, Scott H. Rep. How Ideology Trumped Science Why PEPFAR Has Failed to Meet Its Potential. Center for American Progress • Council for Global Equality, Jan. 2010. Web. 30 May 2013.

Kennedy, John F. “Address before the Massachusetts General Court, January 9, 1961.” – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013.

Kennedy, John F. “Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963.” – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013.

Kennedy, John F. “Commencement Address at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 11 June 1962.” – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. National Archives and Records Administration. n.d. Web. 29 May 2013.

Kennedy, John F. “Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Trade Mart in Dallas, November 22, 1963 [Undelivered].” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. National Archives and Records Administration. n.d. Web. 28 May 2013.

Mirengoff, Paul. “This Month in Civil Rights History.” Power Line. N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 30 May 2013.

Obama, Barack. “Barack Obama Gives His Iowa Caucus Victory Speech.” Barack Obama.net. Barack Obama, 3 Jan. 2008. Web. 30 May 2013.

Obama, Barack. “Barack Obama Speech – Election Night Victory – Nov 4 2008.” Barack Obama. N.p., 04 Nov. 2008. Web. 30 May 2013.

Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President at the Millennium Development Goals Summit in New York, New York.” The White House. US Govt., 22 Sept. 2010. Web. 30 May 2013.

Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President at the National Defense University.” The White House. US Govt, 23 May 2013. Web. 30 May 2013.

“Obama Speech on Race at the National Constitution Center.” Obama Speech on Race at the National Constitution Center. National Constitution Centre, 8 Mar. 2008. Web. 28 May 2013.

“President Kennedy 1961 Inaugural Address.” YouTube. YouTube, 14 Jan. 2009. Web. 28 May 2013.

Record, Jeffrey. “The Wrong War Why We Lost in Vietnam.” Books. New York Times, n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.

“Trade Mart Speech (Kennedy’s Last Speech).”American Experience: TV’s Most-watched History Series.” PBS. n.d. Web. 28 May 2013.

J.A. McHenry 30/05/2013


Posted in United States | Tagged ,

Defending Julia from the Media

As usual, the Australian media, corporations, US embassy and the parliamentary opposition have removed another effective prime minister in Australia. They played on the inherent misogyny in Australian politics, in the Murdoch and Newscorp media and truth be told, in the Australian public.

Their strategy was multi-pronged.

First they attacked her for gaining the parliamentary numbers on Rudd. Constant media stories particularly in Murdoch’s main rag, The Australian, claimed that this was unprecedented and that it indicated her disloyalty. So were the musical chairs within the prime ministership unprecedented. Absolutely not. There have been 21 changes of Prime Minister without an election. Reasons include: party-room coups: Hughes, Menzies, Gorton, Hawke, Gillard, Rudd,: Voluntary (or involuntary) departure: Barton, Fisher, Page, Forde, McEwen, Menzies and defeat in Parliament: Deakin twice, Watson, Reid, Fisher, Fadden. Note the list includes many of our most beloved and trusted prime ministers such as Menzies and Hawke.

Part of the problem is that people seem to think of the Prime Minister as something like an American President. They even think that a president is elected directly by the people whereas as all Americans know (particularly Al Gore), the Electoral College elects them. In Australia, Prime ministers are elected from amongst sitting members by a caucus of their party i.e. they are the prime or first ministers (think of class captain). Therefore, Gillard becoming prime minister did not do so “Behind the backs of the Australian people” but rather was acting in the good old Australian tradition of counting the numbers in parliament. If the two independents had switched sides, there would have been a complete change of government.

The press constantly criticized Gillard for increasing costs for ordinary Australians particularly with the Carbon pollution tax (the corporations took out full-page ads, wonderfully profitable for Murdoch) In fact, Gillard paid the working and non-working classes recompense for the increased charges industry imposed because of the carbon price to prevent their pollution. (Pollution did fall with the carbon price)

Treasurer Wayne Swan kept interest rates to their lowest ever and the Gonski reforms meant that working class kids got the education funding they needed. Would Australians rather keep the previous Howard government’s system of private school kids getting three times as much as a worker’s kid from the worker’s taxes?

Patrick O’Connor said, “In Gillard, the Obama administration found a compliant instrument to realign Australia with its aggressive “pivot” to Asia in order to encircle, and prepare for war against, China.” However he was wrong. Gillard was the consummate negotiator who managed to negotiate Washington’s request for four major bases across the North of Australia (Think Camp Bondsteel) down to permission to share some of our facilities mainly for R&R and training. Of course, she could not get out of the treaties signed by earlier governments for all the smaller facilities that the US uses for monitoring such as Pine Gap. She also was firm about US requests to stop trade with China and traveled to Beijing to reassure the Chinese, imagine the job situation in Australia if she had not.

Mass layoffs of thousands of medical, education, public service and environmental workers and the selling of state assets such as schools by right wing state governments following an American agenda are unfairly laid at Gillard’s door. In fact, as has happened, they were the agenda of the current government under Abbott and Newmann.

Then there are the corporate economic pundits who try to sow panic with “The Australian dollar is now plunging in value against other currencies, driving up the cost of fuel and other imported products upon which working people depend.” Again, this is a deliberate attempt to sway readers with false information. A low Australian dollar means more jobs in Australia, more exports, more manufacturing and it is not imported products such as iPhones, on which workers depend. It is homegrown food and housing and the more that is home grown, the more jobs there are.

The widespread popular hostility towards Gillard was started by the media, continued by the media, never let us forget it by the media, 5 pages demonizing Gillard in every edition of The Australian, media. As Obama said, “If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth”. It is the media, (Murdoch, Newscorp and Fairfax) that are pushing the Yank line. It is the media that is undemocratically trying to remove the Labor government leaving the way for a right wing pro-American Abbott government. The media is the true ‘anti-democratic’ force in Australian politics

Patrick O’Connor sees the danger ahead for Australia “the ruling elite is demanding nothing less than a European-style social counter-revolution, with permanent, sweeping spending cuts to public education, healthcare, welfare, other basic services and social infrastructure.” He should have added that national assets would be stripped in the biggest fire sale in history, the national parks and the environment would be hardest hit, that conscription has been mooted and the US would have free reign to build bases. Queensland is the example of what can happen. Australia would be virtually the 51st state, but then he goes into la-la land when he thinks Australians are ripe for revolution. Nothing could be further from the truth; Australians are too comfortable. We won’t revolt unless they try to take Medicare away from us.

None of the media mentions any of the socially responsible (very un-American) things Gillard’s government has done. As Van Badham said – Julia Gillard navigated Australia through the financial crisis, presided over a 14 per cent growth in the economy and pushed through several impressive policy reforms including:

  1. ·Australia’s first National Disability Insurance Scheme, of direct benefit to the 500,000 Australians living with disability
  2. ·Introduction of carbon pricing and an Emissions Trading Scheme which has reduced carbon emissions in Australia between 8-11 percent and recompensed Australians for any flow on effects
  3. ·Overseeing the Gonski review for the revolutionary overhaul of the entire primary and secondary education funding sector
  4. ·Seeing that Australia take up a seat on the UN security council for the first time
  5. ·Instituted life-changing policies for improvements in indigenous literacy
  6. ·Overseeing a national broadband network for a high-speed internet
  7. ·Economically, her government maintained a commitment to Keynesian policy, unswayed by popular faulty spreadsheet economics that have impoverished other developed nations. Australia was the only developed economy to survive the global financial crisis, and under Gillard’s leadership, the economy grew by 14%.
  8. Then there are all the smaller things such as funding alternative power projects across Australia and environmental initiatives – the latest protecting old growth forests in Tasmania.
  9. ·One initiative she was working hard to achieve when she was ousted, was to include dental care with Medicare.

As Van Badham says “It must beggar belief in other developed nations to see a leader who has delivered low unemployment, low interest rates, low inflation, three triple-A credit ratings and the third-lowest rate of debt in the OECD shafted so brutally by the press and her fellow parliamentarians.”



Ad astra, Who will Newspoll kill off next? 2013, http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2013/06/30/Who-will-Newspoll-kill-off-next.aspx

Patrick O’Connor, The Political Crisis in Australia, 2013, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35430.htm

Van Badham, Julia Gillard ousted: Achievement does not equal respect if you’re a woman, The Telegraph, 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10143834/Julia-Gillard-ousted-by-sexism-Achievement-does-not-equal-respect-if-youre-a-woman.html

Posted in Australia, The Media, The shame page, United States | Tagged , , , , ,

Police State America

Cop Sexually Assaults Woman Then Arrests Her For Protesting whilst the Judge Fiddles.

Reblogged from ICH.


I would like to rant about this however the video says it all. Shame on the marshalls who, I note reacted as if it was perfectly normal and didn’t even ask one question about the incident. Shame on the hearing master on the bench who as a lawyer had the obligation and authority to step in but didn’t. In fact she looked as if she had seen it all before and was so intimidated that she turned her back, then left as the arrest took place.

Police State – yes, not because of what the cop did because feeling up women is a traditionally bad habit of cops. But because the rest of the court authorities stood by and did nothing. Shame on them all

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , ,