Blood money: 'Philanthropist' Soros buys 1.9 million more Halliburton shares

This site which is owned by the group running Google etc. is doing its utmost to block me from publishing on my own log.

It's like a f,,,,,,g thought police straight from Orwell when he was sick.

The censorship has gone so far that the Blogger people do not answer emails for help anymore. Decency seems to be dead there too. It's not only the brains and morals.

Anyhow: the alternative blog (beta) is here at Url.: http://forpressfound.weblogs.cz/

Today's item:

Blood money: 'Philanthropist' Soros buys 1.9 million more Halliburton shares
Henk Ruyssenaars - Foreign correspondent
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
Who ever heard of a billionaire who made money in an honest way? According to Reuters stock market info, 'philanthropist' Soros yesterday - and being perfectly well informed about all war crimes and the millions of dead human beings making the inhuman Halliburton corruption and profit possible - bought 1.9 million more shares of the globally infamous Halliburton corporation.

US: SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI HIRES CIA-SOROS ACTIVIST

by Henk Ruyssenaars

FPF - Febr. 15th 2007 - About Soros and his machinations an article is written by Rev. Sheldon, who is ''a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, an ordained minister, and the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition in Washington, DC.'' The Reverend however, seems to be blind on at least one eye though: within the smoke-and-mirror circus there is no 'left' nor 'right. The group fighting for hegemony of course also uses the 'divide and rule' tactic.

And there is absolutely NO difference whatsoever between Republicans or Democrats in the US: those corrupt politicians nearly all voted for wars and fascism, using faked slogans to keep people divided and easily ruled. Those groups just create some 'opposition' to make operations more 'reality' like. Like the US junta in areas they want for their resources etc. creates disasters which they then say they will 'solve'. They'll 'liberate' anybody anywhere of the last pennies and when seen as useful also 'liberate' them of their lives. The group doing this is not human but a bunch of money-making psychopaths and serial undertakers. - [http://www.serendipity.li/bush/beyond_insanity.htm]

The same goes for the role played by George Soros' collaborator and his 'cover' the 'Open Society Institute': Director of U.S. Advocacy Morton Halperin, who wants the power for the Soros group, and not for what he claims to be ''the other CIA.'' Soros also represents the group of warlords in London but tries to give his actions a benevolent façade by doling out some of the by him at any price gathered money. As such he is presented in the propaganda by the massmedia they own, and to uninformed people he's thus 'sold' as a philanthropist.

BUYING HALLIBURTON TOO: SOROS IS A WAR PROFITEER

Confirming again that in the group of warlords steering the US and its Washington junta's war machine, there's only lust for power and profit. Human beings do not count. Halliburton may be one of the worst corrupted corporations on earth: the group doesn't care, nor does Soros. [http://tinyurl.com/3yrk4h] - Of the people reading this, 99.9% - like you and me - is seen as a source of income. Living in what we think are 'countries' but what they see as 'production units'. And when we have to be killed for profit we are just 'collateral damage'.

If you read this first you'll see the connections: Billionaire and crooked old CIA hand Soros - Who is he?
Url.: http://www.oilempire.us/soros.html

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI HIRES GEORGE (CIA) SOROS ACTIVIST

Part of the misery is pointed out by the one-eyed Reverend Bresciani in his article concerning the fact that the group's new Speaker of the House, the nefarious Nancy Pelosi - who also is a multi millionaire - hired a Soros collaborator as an aide and consigliere. It's from a logical point of view understandable: the group - like the captain on the USS Titanic - just keeps the course as Bush says and steams on until their own steamroller will flatten them.

Anyhow, this is what the reverend wrote yesterday, while Soros was buying another 1.9 million Halliburton shares: "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently hired Joseph Onek to be her Senior Counsel. Most people have never heard of Onek before, but he was an operative in both the Carter and Clinton White House. While in the Carter Administration, Onek served as Deputy Counsel to Jimmy Carter. In the Clinton Administration, Onek was a deputy Associate Attorney General and was the Rule of Law Coordinator with the State Department.

Onek also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and served as an Assistant Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But his more recent work as a Senior Policy Analyst with the Open Society Institute (OSI) should be of deep concern to all Americans. The Open Society Institute is a creation of billionaire atheist George Soros. This virulently anti-Christian man operates what some have called a "shadow government in America" - a network of groups and radical individuals who wish to control America's social and national security policies. - [They do already - HR]

Discoverthenetworks.org monitors the web of leftist organizations that seek to rule our nation. It describes this shadow government as being "conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes - all identified with the Democratic Party left."?

SOROS FUNNELS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

The OSI funnels millions of dollars into various leftist causes, including euthanasia, open borders, abortion, homosexual activism, marijuana legalization, the undermining of our nation's war on terrorism and other neo-Marxist visions of social justice. A list of OSI's grantees (posted on the discoverthenetworks.org web site) reads like a phone book of every anti-American, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual group in America.

Soros has a warped vision for America, and he's pouring millions of dollars into public policy organizations that will push his agendas. He is also pouring money into elections. He spent $26 million to defeat Bush in 2004. Today, Soros has decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our next president and has anointed him for that purpose. He will provide Obama with funding plus whatever publicity he can generate for the senator through his various front groups.

SOROS EITHER FUNDS OR OPERATES A WHOLE RANGE OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, BUT THE OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE IS HIS FLAGSHIP ORGANIZATION.

The current president of OSI is Aryeh Neier, who as director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy, founded the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) back in 1959. OSI's Director of U.S. Advocacy is Morton Halperin, a man who has devoted his entire life to subverting America's intelligence efforts to fight domestic and international threats. Halperin is a former Carter and Clinton official who has consistently attacked the work of the CIA.

George Soros must be pleased to have one of his operatives a heartbeat away from Speaker of the House Pelosi. Did Onek get his job with Pelosi through the influence of Soros? Was Onek placed in her office to direct policy decisions? What role does Onek play in Soros' shadow government?

But, more to the point: What role does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi play in George Soros' shadow government?

Americans deserve answers to these questions. 

Rev. Sheldon is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, an ordained minister, and the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition in Washington, DC.

[andend] - Story Url.: http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21264224.shtml

-0-


* BILLIONAIRE AND CROOKED OLD CIA HAND SOROS - Google selection: Soros-CIA-News - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/4uzo7

* GOOGLE "JOSEPH ONEK" +SOROS - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yusvxe

* SOROS YESTERDAY AGAIN ADDED 1.9 MILLION SHARES OF HALLIBURTON (HAL.N: Quote, Profile , Research) - REUTERS - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2rpsmx

* SOROS & HALLIBURTON GOOGLE SELECTION - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/39vf2c

* NO WONDER THE WORD SOROS REMINDS OF THE YIDDISH WORD 'SORES' - Meaning: 'trouble, worries' (tsores or tsoro) 'adversity' and 'suffering'. - Url.: http://homepage.mac.com/schuffelen/duhebrew.html

* THE USE OF THE PHRASE 'ANTI SEMITISM' IS PURE NONSENSE - Url.:  http://tinyurl.com/y8fwhf  

* WHERE DOES ALL THE WEALTH GO? There is no law nor court anywhere in this world which can stop them. They are the 'untouchables' and are listed here at the 'BIS' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yj7p5b

* DOES 'THE CROWN' OWE YOU TOO? - Url.: http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/how-the-crown-rules-the-world

* THE EVIL EMPIRE REVISITED - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/hcrg7

* R.I.P. Habeas Corpus & Powerless judges - Are we entering America's darkest hour? - Url.: http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/10/2015.php

* US "Death Squad Protection Act" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/6xdfw

*SELLING SOROS AND HIS GROUP TOO: THROW OUT WAR PROPAGANDISTS LIKE THE BBC, FOX, CNN ETC.! - Url.:  http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/07/1632.php

* The Dutch author this far has lived and worked abroad - never in an English speaking country - for more than 4 decades for international media as an independent foreign correspondent. Of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism!

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-



 

 

 

Putin claims the US junta tries dominating our world

Blogger is owned by Google, Yahoo etc. which like all other big US search machines under different names are a very important part of the US junta's war and propaganda machine. So I had to get another blog: http://forpressfound.weblogs.cz/

Like I said: I've had huge problems with this ''Blogger'' because they're doing everything to make critical voices and people go away and disappear in their miserable 'Memory hole'. Blogger people never answer letters with civilized questions or when someone is asking for help or explanations. But here's another one:

FPF-fwd. Putin's Munich speech
You better read it, because this is your world too.

Whatever one may think: Vladimir Putin the present President of Russia in Munich in his speech said what billions of people around the world feel and say.

As a senior foreign correspondent I have seen a couple of wars in East and West and have no illusions concerning Mr. Putin, but I in this case fully agree in what he observes and says concerning the enormous crimes against us all - humanity - by the United States' managers and their warring junta. They are wrecking our planet, and in their madness slowly forcing us to commit global suicide. - [http://tinyurl.com/u6ccs]

The US junta's unipolar policy and war machine - including collaborators in NATO and other malignant mercenaries - must be stopped before they kill us all.

They must be stopped by any and all means. - HR

And you better read it, because this is your world too.

-0-

Germany - Munich - February 11, 2007

Speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!

I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.

This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.

Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference – global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And with which results?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before.

Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!

But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.

But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN.

And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.
Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.

Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear  strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals.

And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons.

[FPF-US claims space - http://tinyurl.com/2u7sdw]

Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.

In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.

Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries.

And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule.

We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time?

Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.

This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran.

We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.

The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.

In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.

In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.

I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest -- and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.

What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement  of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored  for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.

According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task.

We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.
We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

Thank you for your attention.

(V. Putin - President of Russia)

Fwd. by:

Foreign Press Foundation

Pls don't forget the new blog: http://forpressfound.weblogs.cz/

Google - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j


HR

-0-

Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door

FPF-fwd. Chalmers Johnson and Tom Engelhardt

Since there have been numerous difficulties with this blog FPF - Internet Samizdat, the articles also are published on another blog at Url.: http://forpressfound.weblogs.cz/

EMPIRE V. DEMOCRACY: WHY NEMESIS IS AT OUR DOOR

by Chalmers Johnson and Tom Engelhardt - February 1, 2007

The dream of the Bush administration – eternal global domination abroad with no other superpower or bloc of powers on the military horizon and a Republican Party dominant at home for at least a generation – long ago evaporated in Iraq. A midterm election and subsequent devastating polling figures tell the tale. The days when neocons, their supporters, and attending pundits talked about the US as the "new Rome" of planet Earth now seem to exist on the other side of some Startrekkian wormhole.

And yet the imperial damage remains everywhere around us. Give the Bush administration credit. They moved the goalposts. They created the sort of dystopian imperial reality (as well as a mess of future-busting proportions) that a generation of relative sanity might not be able to fully reverse. The facts on the ground – the vastness of the Pentagon, the power of the military-industrial complex, the inept but already bloated Homeland Security Department (and the vast security interests coalescing around it), the staggering alphabet (or acronym) soup of the "Intelligence Community" – all of this militates against real change, which is why we need Chalmers Johnson.

Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, the final volume of his Blowback trilogy, is about to storm your local bookstore (and can be pre-ordered at Amazon now). It is a reminder of just how far we've moved from the sort of democratic America that the president is always holding up as a model to the rest of the world. As with Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire before it, Nemesis, Johnson's grand, if grim, conclusion to our American tragedy, is simply a must-read. While you're waiting for the book to arrive in your hands, you can get a little preview of its themes below. ~ Tom

Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door

by Chalmers Johnson

History tells us that one of the most unstable political combinations is a country – like the United States today – that tries to be a domestic democracy and a foreign imperialist. Why this is so can be a very abstract subject. Perhaps the best way to offer my thoughts on this is to say a few words about my new book, Nemesis, and explain why I gave it the subtitle, "The Last Days of the American Republic." Nemesis is the third book to have grown out of my research over the past eight years. I never set out to write a trilogy on our increasingly endangered democracy, but as I kept stumbling on ever more evidence of the legacy of the imperialist pressures we put on many other countries as well as the nature and size of our military empire, one book led to another.

Professionally, I am a specialist in the history and politics of East Asia. In 2000, I published Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, because my research on China, Japan, and the two Koreas persuaded me that our policies there would have serious future consequences. The book was noticed at the time, but only after 9/11 did the CIA term I adapted for the title – "blowback" – become a household word and my volume a bestseller.

I had set out to explain how exactly our government came to be so hated around the world. As a CIA term of tradecraft, "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to, and in, foreign countries. It refers specifically to retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. These operations have included the clandestine overthrow of governments various administrations did not like, the training of foreign militaries in the techniques of state terrorism, the rigging of elections in foreign countries, interference with the economic viability of countries that seemed to threaten the interests of influential American corporations, as well as the torture or assassination of selected foreigners. The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come – as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 – the American public is incapable of putting the events in context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of blowback.

A WORLD OF BASES

As a continuation of my own analytical odyssey, I then began doing research on the network of 737 American military bases we maintained around the world (according to the Pentagon's own 2005 official inventory). Not including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, we now station over half a million US troops, spies, contractors, dependents, and others on military bases located in more than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in.

As but one striking example of imperial basing policy: For the past sixty-one years, the US military has garrisoned the small Japanese island of Okinawa with 37 bases. Smaller than Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands, Okinawa is home to 1.3 million people who live cheek-by-jowl with 17,000 Marines of the 3rd Marine Division and the largest US installation in East Asia – Kadena Air Force Base. There have been many Okinawan protests against the rapes, crimes, accidents, and pollution caused by this sort of concentration of American troops and weaponry, but so far the US military – in collusion with the Japanese government – has ignored them. My research into our base world resulted in The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, written during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

As our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq turned into major fiascoes, discrediting our military leadership, ruining our public finances, and bringing death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of civilians in those countries, I continued to ponder the issue of empire. In these years, it became ever clearer that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their supporters were claiming, and actively assuming, powers specifically denied to a president by our Constitution. It became no less clear that Congress had almost completely abdicated its responsibilities to balance the power of the executive branch. Despite the Democratic sweep in the 2006 election, it remains to be seen whether these tendencies can, in the long run, be controlled, let alone reversed.

Until the 2004 presidential election, ordinary citizens of the United States could at least claim that our foreign policy, including our illegal invasion of Iraq, was the work of George Bush's administration and that we had not put him in office. After all, in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and was appointed president thanks to the intervention of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. But in November 2004, regardless of claims about voter fraud, Bush actually won the popular vote by over 3.5 million ballots, making his regime and his wars ours.

Whether Americans intended it or not, we are now seen around the world as approving the torture of captives at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air Base in Kabul, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at a global network of secret CIA prisons, as well as having endorsed Bush's claim that, as commander-in-chief in "wartime," he is beyond all constraints of the Constitution or international law. We are now saddled with a rigged economy based on record-setting trade and fiscal deficits, the most secretive and intrusive government in our country's memory, and the pursuit of "preventive" war as a basis for foreign policy. Don't forget as well the potential epidemic of nuclear proliferation as other nations attempt to adjust to and defend themselves against Bush's preventive wars, while our own already staggering nuclear arsenal expands toward first-strike primacy and we expend unimaginable billions on futuristic ideas for warfare in outer space.

THE CHOICE AHEAD

By the time I came to write Nemesis, I no longer doubted that maintaining our empire abroad required resources and commitments that would inevitably undercut, or simply skirt, what was left of our domestic democracy and that might, in the end, produce a military dictatorship or – far more likely – its civilian equivalent. The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, an ever growing economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of weaponry, and ruinous military expenses as well as a vast, bloated "defense" budget, not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been destroying our republican structure of governing in favor of an imperial presidency. By republican structure, of course, I mean the separation of powers and the elaborate checks and balances that the founders of our country wrote into the Constitution as the main bulwarks against dictatorship and tyranny, which they greatly feared.

We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation starts down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy.

History is instructive on this dilemma. If we choose to keep our empire, as the Roman republic did, we will certainly lose our democracy and grimly await the eventual blowback that imperialism generates. There is an alternative, however. We could, like the British Empire after World War II, keep our democracy by giving up our empire. The British did not do a particularly brilliant job of liquidating their empire and there were several clear cases where British imperialists defied their nation's commitment to democracy in order to hang on to foreign privileges. The war against the Kikuyu in Kenya in the 1950s and the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 are particularly savage examples of that. But the overall thrust of postwar British history is clear: the people of the British Isles chose democracy over imperialism.

In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt offered the following summary of British imperialism and its fate:

"On the whole it was a failure because of the dichotomy between the nation-state's legal principles and the methods needed to oppress other people permanently. This failure was neither necessary nor due to ignorance or incompetence. British imperialists knew very well that 'administrative massacres' could keep India in bondage, but they also knew that public opinion at home would not stand for such measures. Imperialism could have been a success if the nation-state had been willing to pay the price, to commit suicide and transform itself into a tyranny. It is one of the glories of Europe, and especially of Great Britain, that she preferred to liquidate the empire."

[I DISAGREE WITH CHALMERS JOHNSON AND HANNAH ARENDT: GREAT BRITAIN - 'THE CITY' GROUP - NEVER 'LIQUIDATED' THE EMPIRE. THE GROUP JUST CHANGED NAME BUT NOT GOAL NOR TACTICS. - HR]

I agree with this judgment. When one looks at Prime Minister Tony Blair's unnecessary and futile support of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, one can only conclude that it was an atavistic response, that it represented a British longing to relive the glories – and cruelties – of a past that should have been ancient history.

As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be imperialistic, but it cannot be both.

THE ROAD TO IMPERIAL BANKRUPTCY

The American political system failed to prevent this combination from developing – and may now be incapable of correcting it. The evidence strongly suggests that the legislative and judicial branches of our government have become so servile in the presence of the imperial Presidency that they have largely lost the ability to respond in a principled and independent manner. Even in the present moment of congressional stirring, there seems to be a deep sense of helplessness. Various members of Congress have already attempted to explain how the one clear power they retain – to cut off funds for a disastrous program – is not one they are currently prepared to use.

So the question becomes, if not Congress, could the people themselves restore Constitutional government? A grassroots movement to abolish secret government, to bring the CIA and other illegal spying operations and private armies out of the closet of imperial power and into the light, to break the hold of the military-industrial complex, and to establish genuine public financing of elections may be at least theoretically conceivable. But given the conglomerate control of our mass media and the difficulties of mobilizing our large and diverse population, such an opting for popular democracy, as we remember it from our past, seems unlikely.

It is possible that, at some future moment, the US military could actually take over the government and declare a dictatorship (though its commanders would undoubtedly find a gentler, more user-friendly name for it). That is, after all, how the Roman republic ended – by being turned over to a populist general, Julius Caesar, who had just been declared dictator for life. After his assassination and a short interregnum, it was his grandnephew Octavian who succeeded him and became the first Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar. The American military is unlikely to go that route. But one cannot ignore the fact that professional military officers seem to have played a considerable role in getting rid of their civilian overlord, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The new directors of the CIA, its main internal branches, the National Security Agency, and many other key organs of the "defense establishment" are now military (or ex-military) officers, strongly suggesting that the military does not need to take over the government in order to control it. Meanwhile, the all-volunteer army has emerged as an ever more separate institution in our society, its profile less and less like that of the general populace.

REACT TO A MOVE TOWARD OPEN MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

Nonetheless, military coups, however decorous, are not part of the American tradition, nor that of the officer corps, which might well worry about how the citizenry would react to a move toward open military dictatorship. Moreover, prosecutions of low-level military torturers from Abu Ghraib prison and killers of civilians in Iraq have demonstrated to enlisted troops that obedience to illegal orders can result in dire punishment in a situation where those of higher rank go free. No one knows whether ordinary soldiers, even from what is no longer in any normal sense a citizen army, would obey clearly illegal orders to oust an elected government or whether the officer corps would ever have sufficient confidence to issue such orders. In addition, the present system already offers the military high command so much – in funds, prestige, and future employment via the famed "revolving door" of the military-industrial complex – that a perilous transition to anything like direct military rule would make little sense under reasonably normal conditions.

Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the US will continue to maintain a façade of Constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it. Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the literal end of the US any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948, or Argentina in 2001-2002. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected restoration of the American system – or for military rule, revolution, or simply some new development we cannot yet imagine.

Certainly, such a bankruptcy would mean a drastic lowering of our standard of living, a further loss of control over international affairs, a sudden need to adjust to the rise of other powers, including China and India, and a further discrediting of the notion that the United States is somehow exceptional compared to other nations. We will have to learn what it means to be a far poorer country – and the attitudes and manners that go with it. As Anatol Lieven, author of America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, observes:

"US GLOBAL POWER, AS PRESENTLY CONCEIVED BY THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE US ESTABLISHMENT, IS UNSUSTAINABLE. . .

The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted, and key vassal states are no longer reliable. . . The result is that the empire can no longer pay for enough of the professional troops it needs to fulfill its self-assumed imperial tasks."

In February 2006, the Bush administration submitted to Congress a $439 billion defense appropriation budget for fiscal year 2007. As the country enters 2007, the administration is about to present a nearly $100 billion supplementary request to Congress just for the Iraq and Afghan wars. At the same time, the deficit in the country's current account – the imbalance in the trading of goods and services as well as the shortfall in all other cross-border payments from interest income and rents to dividends and profits on direct investments – underwent its fastest ever quarterly deterioration. For 2005, the current account deficit was $805 billion, 6.4% of national income. In 2005, the US trade deficit, the largest component of the current account deficit, soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion, the fourth consecutive year that America's trade debts set records. The trade deficit with China alone rose to $201.6 billion, the highest imbalance ever recorded with any country. Meanwhile, since mid-2000, the country has lost nearly three million manufacturing jobs.

To try to cope with these imbalances, on March 16, 2006, Congress raised the national debt limit from $8.2 trillion to $8.96 trillion. This was the fourth time since George W. Bush took office that it had to be raised. The national debt is the total amount owed by the government and should not be confused with the federal budget deficit, the annual amount by which federal spending exceeds revenue. Had Congress not raised the debt limit, the US government would not have been able to borrow more money and would have had to default on its massive debts.

Among the creditors that finance these unprecedented sums, the two largest are the central banks of China (with $853.7 billion in reserves) and Japan (with $831.58 billion in reserves), both of which are the managers of the huge trade surpluses these countries enjoy with the United States. This helps explain why our debt burden has not yet triggered what standard economic theory would dictate: a steep decline in the value of the US dollar followed by a severe contraction of the American economy when we found we could no longer afford the foreign goods we like so much. So far, both the Chinese and Japanese governments continue to be willing to be paid in dollars in order to sustain American purchases of their exports.

THE KINDNESS OF STRANGERS

For the sake of their own domestic employment, both countries lend huge amounts to the American treasury, but there is no guarantee of how long they will want to, or be able to do so. Marshall Auerback, an international financial strategist, says we have become a "Blanche Dubois economy" (so named after the leading character in the Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire) heavily dependent on "the kindness of strangers." Unfortunately, in our case, as in Blanche's, there are ever fewer strangers willing to support our illusions.

So my own hope is that – if the American people do not find a way to choose democracy over empire – at least our imperial venture will end not with a nuclear bang but a financial whimper. From the present vantage point, it certainly seems a daunting challenge for any president (or Congress) from either party even to begin the task of dismantling the military-industrial complex, ending the pall of "national security" secrecy and the "black budgets" that make public oversight of what our government does impossible, and bringing the president's secret army, the CIA, under democratic control. It's evident that Nemesis – in Greek mythology the goddess of vengeance, the punisher of hubris and arrogance – is already a visitor in our country, simply biding her time before she makes her presence known.

2007 Chalmers Johnson - Url.: http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=10439
 
-0-

WHICH GROUP WHERE HAS THE POWER? AND WHY?


FPF/HR: Like a beautiful woman missing an eye, in good articles like the one above many times writers abstain from the advice to 'Follow the Money' and thus the main and very important question is missing:

WHO PROFITS?

If one looks at the world the way this group of managers sees it, who for ages have been using wars and power to enlarge their empire, the world and the workers are just one big production unit. It's a factory, a real animal farm...

There's tons of evidence to proof for instance that 'Great Britain' never gave up it's empire, as Chalmers Johnson and Hannah Arendt write. The business tycoons from 'The City' of London just transformed the whole a bit and kept their empire intact under new names. - HR

THE RULING OF THE EMPIRE IS MOSTLY DONE FROM 'THE CITY' IN LONDON - Url.: http://forpressfound.blogspot.com/2006/07/evil-empire-revisited.html

THE PROFITS ARE VIA THEIR PRIVATE 'BANK OF ENGLAND' RECYCLED AT THE 'BIS' their Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland. There is no law nor court anywhere in this world which can stop them. They are the 'untouchables' and are listed here at the 'BIS' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yj7p5b

*US FASCISM: ''MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006'' - (Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin) - Wikipedia - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ydkywt

* TURNING THE US OF AMERICA INTO THE LAND OF THE FEE AND THE HOME OF THE KNAVE. DEFIANT OF ANY LAW ANYWHERE IN OUR WORLD. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yjaqkk

* US CITIZENS: WATCH AND WEEP! Visit this site to check out what the war has cost your town or city or state (NATO etc. tax payers are never informed about how many billions of their tax money is squandered by the people they thought 'represented' them and their humane ideas. The collaborators and their media betray mankind.) - Url.: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

* THE USE OF THE PHRASE 'ANTI SEMITISM' IS PURE NONSENSE - Url.:  http://tinyurl.com/y8fwhf  

* PENTAGON THREATENED TO KILL JOURNALISTS - FPF/HR - Granma - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/bkzum

* R.I.P. Habeas Corpus & Powerless judges - Are we entering America's darkest hour? - Url.: http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/10/2015.php

* AL QAEDA IS THE PRETEXT 'MADE IN THE USA' FOR THE US JUNTA'S 'WAR OF TERROR' - Url.: http://www.globalecho.org/print_view.php?aid=6034

* AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL - THE UNITED STATES AND IT'S GULAG'S SECRET JAILS - Url.: web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005

* AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNS US FOR VIOLATIONS OF UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE - Url.: www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/tort-m12.shtml

* THE ICC - THE 'INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT' IN THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, is absolutely in it's present form NO valid alternative for Justice, respecting human rights. The ICC never protests any of the horrible gigantic war crimes against humanity by the US/Israeli war machine. - Url.: tinyurl.com/p4lxz

* US LEGALIZES TORTURE OF AMERICANS AND COLLABORATORS - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/eom7k

* US "Death Squad Protection Act" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/6xdfw

* PRINTING DOLLARS - THE ABSOLUTE BIGGEST SCAM EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY: 'THE FED' - 'Responsible' only to the 'Bank of International Settlements' (BIS - see above) in Switzerland - Url.: http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/FEDERALRESERVE.HTML

* SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH - American and other scientists, diplomats, researchers etc.: What happened on 9/11? - What is happening to our world? - How can we improve our situation? - Url.: http://www.st911.org/

* BBC IN ARABIC? US PROPAGANDA: R.I.P. AL JAZEERA - DAVID FROST 'FRONT MAN' AT AL-JAZEERA INTERNATIONAL - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/y6us8n

*THROW OUT WAR PROPAGANDISTS LIKE THE BBC, FOX, CNN ETC.! - Url.:  http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/07/1632.php

* MORE LINKS & BACKGROUND LINKS TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE - If after checking a factual error is found, pls. send an email so it can be corrected. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/fhln9

* The Dutch author this far has lived and worked abroad - never in an English speaking country - for more than 4 decades for international media as an independent foreign correspondent. Of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism! Which even a crook like French President Jacques Chirac confirmed - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ym44vm

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-



 

 

 


























 
 

We the People Are the Deciders, Not Bush and his Congress

FPF-fwd. Jim Kirwan 

HR: Personally I too regret that Molly Ivins - who was a very good journalist/reporter - has died. - Url.: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&ct=title&q=%22Molly+Ivins%22&btnG=Search

-0-

We the People Are the Deciders, Not Bush and his Congress

By Jim Kirwan
 
Al-Jazeerah, February 2, 2007
 
Contrary to what Bush continues to claim, neither he nor the Congress or the courts are the Deciders – we the people hold the ultimate power, over who decides what in the United States!

The chess pieces on the board of government are only appointed or elected officials, and so long as they fulfill the needs and desires of the citizens in this land, they serve us: When that changes drastically as it has since the last elections, then consequences must follow.
 
The ship of state has become a rusting and sinking luxury vessel riddled with holes: rudderless and captain-less we now float on a sea of corruption and lies. The turbulent waters where that ship is adrift had their corrupt beginnings in the fifty years of war against the Palestinians in the Middle East. The failure by this government to hold Israel accountable for her crimes against those people, and now against the entire Arab world; is the source that generates so much of the hatred and death both ‘over there’ and ‘over here.’ (1)
 
Congress has more than played a part in keeping these duplicitous policies in force. Having voted, in this first month for the National I.D. Card* that restricts the travel, the privacy and the freedom of all Americans: and for giving Social Security to people-without-papers, while striking down a requirement that would have made English the national language of this country—this is tantamount to the French, not speaking French, or the Spanish not speaking Spanish in their own countries: The public may soon begin to wonder whose country this really is—ours or whichever flavor-of-the-month needs to be courted by Washington? (1)
 
Today, the Congress is still watering down another version of a non-binding gesture that they want to send to Bush—instead of something that would obligate the Dictator to “own the wars” he started, and get out of Iraq now. Instead of listening to either the voters in November or to the new so-called Congress—the self-professed ‘decider’ has chosen to not only add troops in Iraq, but he is stepping up his efforts to provoke yet another phony war: this time with Iran. He obviously thinks he is secure in blasting his way through his own permanently failed diplomatic gestures, while his thugs continue to churn out the same tired lies and innuendos that he and his criminal cabal generated to get into Iraq in the first place.

The self-appointed one has forgotten that he took an oath to protect and defend Americans first: an oath that would include keeping his promises on Katrina, making sure that Americans had jobs and that their retirements would be protected from government’s unending appetite to steal their benefits that they earned over a lifetime of work. Not-to-mention, a fair and affordable way to obtain medical care (not just access to insurance); a believable education for our children, not just a bunch of slogans with no money that are turning American youth into idiots with no past, no present possibilities, and especially no future! What the hell is going on in this nation—have we no say in anything that this so-called government is doing in any area of our lives?
 
PEOPLE HERE, JUST LIKE PEOPLE ALMOST EVERYWHERE ELSE ARE ENTITLED TO LIVE THEIR LIVES FREE FROM THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE THAT EACH OF US MUST NAVIGATE THROUGH – JUST “TO LIVE ANOTHER DAY”!
 
These things may seem small individually, but collectively they comprise the destruction of the Republic and the end of a way of life! This government obviously sees all of this from exactly the opposite position: some even see this as the birth pangs of a glorious New Empire. But when the celebrations end and reality returns; it appears that all that has been accomplished is the selling of America to the blood-lust of AIPAC, and to the New World Order—as only the latest burnt-offering of yet another failed state to bolster their grip on the rest of the world. “Entitlements” are one thing, but the theft of this democracy, this way of life, and of this form of government are not things that any nation worth the name can tolerate for long. (2)
 
It’s not surprising that they’ve gotten as far as they have—because so many prefer not to know what’s happening now, or what really happened in the immediate past that created this monstrous nightmare in the first place. But from here on in things must change: or the temporary wounds they’ve inflicted on the limbs of this “democracy” shall soon become gangrenous and need to be amputated. (3)
 
This is not only about us this is about the survival of the planet. Thanks to our pre-occupations with ourselves alone, we have allowed the global environment to be added to the endangered list. We have only watched while language itself has been turned inside out: so that now war is seen as peace and “lies” are now construed to be “truth.” The very names of government agencies have been upended, to rape and plunder the environment under the aegis of The Environmental Protection Agency. Or in Health and Human Services (HHS), which has become the arbiter over the death and denial of human services to most of those who have the courage to darken their doors.
 
Under this government’s privatization of even government itself, as well as the military: Great strides have been made - huge strides to add to what they’ve already destroyed while they’ve pocketed the spoils from so many previous ventures into their meticulous dissection of the Prison System, the Educational system, and the Insurance Industries – all privatized for extreme profits to the few, at the expense of everything that these areas of life were created to serve. The head of the Justice System recently was asked to explain torture, and the US use of that, in front of a Senate committee – they got no answer at all, from Gonzalez. There is virtually no area of this nation that is currently functioning for the benefit of ordinary citizens: Why is the public still not enraged?
 
THE MEDIA IS AS COMPLICIT

Of course the public can cite the excuse that: “Hey - nobody told me!” That might have worked, had there not been so many alternative ways to find out exactly what is going on. The media is as complicit if not more so in trying to continue to hide what’s really going on: So many half-told stories, so many half-hearted or incomplete investigations that take a back seat to gossip & games, not to mention all the outright lies. The compact between this government and the people of this nation requires the involvement of the people at all levels—and the government has seen to it that its control over the population is so damned complicated and overarching that it becomes virtually impossible to fight them on all the garbage they continue to shove down our throats daily.
 
This tactic needs to be fought in another way, because this is not just about money or health, or the environment or the WARS: this is about the very survival of each and every one of us. We need to return to the basics of what is right and what is obviously just more from the “GREED is GOOD” crowd left over from the Reagan years. The US public’s opinions and needs are not represented in government or by government; but are instead twisted by lobbyists and thieves to become “for the criminal government’s designs” regardless of how these decisions will affect those of us that make government possible. This policy has to be stopped!
 
The infrastructure of this nation is in total disrepair, and there are no jobs that pay a decent wage. The government, if it were a functioning institution, could create programs that could employ virtually all the unemployed in rebuilding the infrastructure of America—by putting everyone back to work on rebuilding this nation: instead of selling off our freeways to foreign governments and letting everything else just go to hell. The same kind of ‘rescue’ could be and SHOULD BE taking place in New Orleans but instead we are told to “just go shopping”! Again: Where’s the OUTRAGE? The USA is spending $8.7 Billion dollars a month in Iraq, and that’s only what we know about. Fraud is running like an unchecked flood through the secretly appropriated funds, at last count nearly $40 Billion was misspent, and no one is even being charged with a crime, what would happen to you or me - if we misspent $40 Billion dollars of the government’s money?
 
PERHAPS MOLLY IVINS SAID IT BEST IN HER FINAL COLUMN TODAY:
 
“We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise Hell… We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding “Stop it, now.”


JIM KIRWAN


Home page - Url.: http://www.kirwanesque.com/
 
Email: kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net
 
1) Time to Remove the Parasitic War-loving Zionist Bankster Brain - Url.: http://www.rense.com/general75/znst.htm
 
2) American Needs Pain - Url.: http://www.rense.com/general75/americ.htm
 
3) An Iron Curtain is Descending and Most Americans Don’t Know - Url.: http://www.ichblog.eu:80/content/view/202/52/
 
4) Jim Webb’s Barnburner - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2yfj92

[andend] - Jim Kirwan's article is at al Jazeera - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yo68ub

FPF - RELATED LINKS:

* ELECTRONIC CONTROL IS SLAVE TRADE - Url.: http://www.salars.net/wordpress/2006/12/20/electronic-control-is-slave-trade/

*US FASCISM: ''MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006'' - (Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin) - Wikipedia - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ydkywt

* TURNING THE US OF AMERICA INTO THE LAND OF THE FEE AND THE HOME OF THE KNAVE. DEFIANT OF ANY LAW ANYWHERE IN OUR WORLD. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yjaqkk

* US CITIZENS: WATCH AND WEEP! Visit this site to check out what the war has cost your town or city or state. - Url.: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

* THE USE OF THE PHRASE 'ANTI SEMITISM' IS PURE NONSENSE - Url.:  http://tinyurl.com/y8fwhf  

* WHERE DOES ALL THE WEALTH GO? There is no law nor court anywhere in this world which can stop them. They are the 'untouchables' and are listed here at the 'BIS' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yj7p5b

* PENTAGON THREATENED TO KILL JOURNALISTS - FPF/HR - Granma - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/bkzum

* US "Death Squad Protection Act" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/6xdfw

*THROW OUT WAR PROPAGANDISTS LIKE THE BBC, FOX, CNN ETC.! - Url.:  http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/07/1632.php

* MORE LINKS & BACKGROUND LINKS TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE - If after checking any factual error is found, pls. send an email so it can be corrected. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/fhln9

* The Dutch author this far has lived and worked abroad - never in an English speaking country - for more than 4 decades for international media as an independent foreign correspondent. Of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism! Which even a crook like French President Jacques Chirac confirmed - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ym44vm

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-



 

 

 

John Pilger - Iran: The War Begins + Open letter

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice-President Cheney said: "It won't stop us." Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq.

-0-

US NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD: Legal And Human Rights Groups Issue Open Letter Warning Of Illegality Of Any Offensive Military Action By U.S. Against Iran - Url.: http://www.nlg.org/news/statements/Military_Iran_2007.htm

-0-

JOHN PILGER: IRAN: THE WAR BEGINS

"AHMADINEJAD DID NOT CALL FOR ISRAEL TO BE "WIPED OFF THE MAP"

By John Pilger

ICH - Saturday, 03 February 2007 - As opposition grows in America to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring. 

The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its disaster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"NETWORKS" MEANS IRAN.

"There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons.

GENERAL PETER PACE, CHAIRMAN OF THE US JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, HAS SAID NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS.

AS THE AMERICAN DISASTER IN IRAQ DEEPENS

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neo-con" fanatics such as Vice-President Dick Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington's Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran's nuclear threat.

In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest.* Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use.*

The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything".* They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world's fifth military power - with its thermo nuclear weapons aimed at Middle East targets and an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions, as the enforcer of the world's longest illegal occupation - Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

AHMADINEJAD DID NOT CALL FOR ISRAEL TO BE "WIPED OFF THE MAP"

THE "THREAT" FROM IRAN IS ENTIRELY MANUFACTURED, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran's "nuclear ambitions", just as the vocabulary of Saddam's non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonising that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has done yeoman service in facilitating [this]"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals how it has been distorted. According to Juan Cole, American professor of modern Middle East and south Asian history at the University of Michigan, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He said: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all". Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Israeli regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian regime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

NUCLEAR OPTION

THE ONE PIECE OF "SOLID EVIDENCE" IS THE THREAT POSED BY THE UNITED STATES.

An American naval build-up in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorisation", was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorised the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being discussed openly in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer".

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilisation.

GROWING ANTI-IRANIAN HYSTERIA, LEAKS, DISINFORMATION

It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes . . . Posing as victims, the Israelis . . . will suffer some tolerable damage and then the outraged US will destabilise Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian . . . hysteria, . . . leaks, disinformation et cetera . . . It . . . remain[s] unclear . . . whether the US Congress is going to authorise the war."

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice-President Cheney said: "It won't stop us." Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq.

Apart from insipid speeches of "disapproval", this has not happened and is unlikely to happen. Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and the would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a "liberal". He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzliya, where he spoke about "an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel [sic]. At the top of these threats is Iran . . . All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

Hillary Clinton has said: "US policy must be unequivocal . . . We have to keep all options on the table." Pelosi and Howard Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking the former president Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an "apartheid state". Pelosi said: "Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party." She is right, alas.

ANSWERING THE CHARGES

In Britain, Downing Street has been presented with a document entitled Answering the Charges by Professor Abbas Edalat, of Imperial College London, on behalf of others seeking to expose the disinformation on Iran. Blair remains silent. Apart from the usual honourable exceptions, parliament remains shamefully silent, too.

Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq, which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now, read Iraq then. And is it not remarkable that North Korea has not been attacked? North Korea has nuclear weapons.

In numerous surveys, such as the one released on 23 January by the BBC World Service, "we", the majority of humanity, have made clear our revulsion for Bush and his vassals. As for Blair, the man is now politically and morally naked for all to see.

So who speaks out, apart from Professor Edalat and his colleagues? Privileged journalists, scholars and artists, writers and thespians, who sometimes speak about "freedom of speech", are as silent as a dark West End theatre.

WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?

The declaration of another thousand-year Reich, or a mushroom cloud in the Middle East, or both?


JOHN PILGER

John Pilger is a renowned author, journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent, his writings have appear in numerous magazines, and newspapers.

First published by the New Statesman (UK) - Story at Information Clearing House + Comments - Url.: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/300/2/

FPF - RELATED:

* US OFFERS NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMS TO 6 GULF ARAB 'ALLIES' - Url.: dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137516/index.php

* UPI -IRAN SATISFIED WITH IAEA REPORT - September 1, 2006 - Quote: "Iran has welcomed the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency as evidence of its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog." - Url.: http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTI4NTQ4

* UN & IAEA FIGURES SHOW: US CONTROLS IRAN PERMANENTLY - Foreign Press Foundation - Url.:
www.countercurrents.org/us-henk160805.htm

* IRAN GENERAL BLAMES 911 ON US AND ISRAEL - General Safavi said that Iran was the leading force of the "Islamic world" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/amn3q The Netherlands ...
forpressfound.blogspot.com/2006/ 09/iran-general-blames-911-on-us-and.html

* IRAN: THE SQUALL AND US/NATO'S BLOODLUST - INVADING WAR FLEET NO MATCH FOR SUPER TORPEDO SQUALL - Url.: forpressfound.blogspot.com/2006/09/iran-squall-and-usnatos-bloodlust.html

* US CITIZENS: WATCH AND WEEP! Visit this site to check out what the war has cost your town or city or state - Url.: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

* AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNS US FOR VIOLATIONS OF UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE - Url.: www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/tort-m12.shtml

* LIST OF EIGHTY-FIVE (85) UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING VIOLATIONS ISRAEL DOES NOT CARE ABOUT - Url.: http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/article/view/24819.html

*THROW OUT WAR PROPAGANDISTS LIKE THE BBC, FOX, CNN ETC.! - Url.:  http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/07/1632.php

* The Dutch author this far has lived and worked abroad - never in an English speaking country - for more than 4 decades for international media as an independent foreign correspondent. Of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism! Which even a crook like French President Jacques Chirac confirmed - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ym44vm

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-



 

 

 

Scotland Yard questions #1 Crime Minister Tony Blair again

This was publishd yesterday at the other FPF-blog Url.: http://forpressfound.weblogs.cz/

Today - Friday Febr. 2007 it's the death of Molly Ivins many regret.

-0-

Scotland Yard questions #1 Crime Minister Tony Blair again

Maybe the 'rabbit' which the money masters are going to pull out of their top hat is the ''very underreported'' and surprising appointment last 15 January to 'Chief Executive Officer of the Crown Prosecution Service' mr. Peter Lewis? Who will make the final decision on whether to bring formal charges?

SCOTLAND YARD QUESTIONS #1 CRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR AGAIN

"IN A STATEMENT TODAY, SCOTLAND YARD SAID THE INTERVIEW WAS KEPT "CONFIDENTIAL" FOR OPERATIONAL REASONS. A SPOKESWOMAN DECLINED TO SAY WHAT THESE WERE."

FPF - Feb. 2nd 2007 - Amsterdam/London - Relevant to this scam is the article published last December 15th concerning the 'grilling' by the police of #1 Crime Minister Tony Blair. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2l8qf8

Now the following is happening: Police investigating the cash-for-honours affair have recovered sensational deleted e-mails from Downing Street computers. They have unearthed potentially vital evidence that key figures close to Tony Blair openly discussed the possibility of Labour donors being rewarded with peerages. Many of the e-mails were not voluntarily disclosed and may have been deliberately concealed, police sources say. These internal communications are key to the file submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will make the final decision on whether to bring formal charges.

So far, four people have been arrested over the inquiry. They are Miss Turner, Lord Levy, major Labour donor Sir Christopher Evans and headteacher Des Smith. Although police are said to be "bullish" about their inquiry, officers accept that the final decision to charge will be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

SOURCES HAVE NOT RULED OUT AN INCREASINGLY DESPERATE NO10 PULLING A "RABBIT OUT OF THE HAT" IN AN 11TH HOUR ATTEMPT TO AVOID A HUGELY DAMAGING COURT CASE.

Now let's guess: Maybe the 'rabbit' which the criminals responsible of this swindle are going to pull out of their top hat is the ''very underreported'' and surprising appointment to 'Chief Executive Officer of the Crown Prosecution Service' from 15 January Peter Lewis? (English for Levy) Mr Lewis is the one and only who will make the final decision on whether to bring formal charges and take the criminals to court. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/344l5b

The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. - More about this financial Vatican and The Crown - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/zydqo

Knowing Prosecutor Lewis is from The City's Crown* we are not holding our breath. But, what's in a name? Like a rose, a turd is a turd even if called by any other name. Like 'a Lord' - HR

CASH-FOR-HONOURS POLICE QUESTION TONY BLAIR AGAIN

Published by Ian Morgan

UK - Press Association - 01/02/2007 - Prime Minister Tony Blair has been questioned for a second time by police investigating allegations of cash for honours, his official spokesman said today.

The Prime Minister was questioned as a witness for less than one hour at 10 Downing Street last Friday morning.

THE POLICE REQUESTED A NEWS BLACKOUT ON THE INTERVIEW, WHICH WAS NOT LIFTED UNTIL THIS MORNING.

Downing Street refused to comment on the content of the interview, which came a few days after the January 19 arrest of Mr Blair's close aide, Ruth Turner, on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, and shortly before this week's arrest of his chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Downing Street said it was not known whether Mr Blair would be questioned again, saying that was "a matter entirely for police". The Prime Minister was not under caution and was not accompanied by a lawyer for Friday's interview, said his official spokesman. The only people present were the Prime Minister himself, a Downing Street note taker and an unknown number of police officers.

The spokesman was unable to say how many police were present, whether they were uniformed or whether they included inquiry chief Assistant Commissioner John Yates.

Because the police requested that news of the interview should not be made public, members of the Downing Street press office team were not informed until late yesterday, when police said that the blackout could be lifted. The spokesman declined to say whether anyone else in Downing Street was informed, saying only that the information was "kept extremely tight".

Mr Blair was previously interviewed by detectives in December, on the day he departed for a week-long tour of the Middle East.

Following Friday's interview, he left London for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. SNP MP Angus MacNeil, whose initial complaint sparked the police inquiry, said the news marked "another bleak first in British politics". "Mr Blair's situation is looking worse with every passing day. He appears to be in very deep trouble. "He's questioned and then a few days later his chief fundraiser Lord Levy is re-arrested. I'd say this marks another escalation in the police inquiry." Mr MacNeil added: "It also gives the lie to suggestions coming out of Downing Street that the police have been leaking, because apparently they asked for a news blackout."

Mr Blair's official spokesman told a regular daily briefing of reporters: "Last Friday, the Prime Minister was briefly interviewed by police as a witness. "At the request of the police, this was kept utterly confidential and as a result the press and communications team in Downing Street were not informed. As far as we were concerned, nothing had changed. "During the course of yesterday afternoon, the police contacted Downing Street to inform us that the requirement for confidentiality had been lifted.

"I AM INFORMING YOU AT THE FIRST APPROPRIATE MOMENT."

The spokesman is asked on a daily basis whether or not Mr Blair has spoken to police or received any request for an interview from Scotland Yard and over the past few days he repeatedly stated that he knew of no such developments.

BUT HE INSISTED TODAY HE DID NOT MISLEAD THE MEDIA, pointing out that he was not informed about the interview until yesterday and was always careful to say: "As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed." Asked about the nature of Friday's interview, he said: "It was at No 10 and it was well short of an hour, not under caution. "We did not in any way brief the content of the initial interview and we will not be briefing the content of the second interview.

"THERE WAS NO LAWYER PRESENT."

Asked whether Mr Blair expected to be interviewed again by police, the spokesman said: "That's a matter entirely for them." He insisted that Mr Blair was not being distracted from his job by the 10-month investigation, which has seen the arrest of four people, including his director of government relations Ms Turner, Lord Levy and major Labour donor Sir Christopher Evans.

The investigation was launched by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Crime Directorate last March following complaints from nationalist MPs that individuals who lent Labour large sums to bankroll their 2005 general election campaign had subsequently been nominated for peerages.

THE SPOKESMAN SAID: "THE PRIME MINISTER GETS ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT.

"The issues which are in front of the Government in which he is taking a leading role, whether energy policy, reform of the health service, education, representing the county abroad in terms of issues such as the Middle East, as well as Northern Ireland, are vital issues. "If you look back at the last 12 months on the issues that have come to the fore and are still being driven forward, you can see that this is a government which is moving forward with a very, very strong agenda."

Asked whether Mr Blair was eager to see the lengthy investigation brought to a conclusion, the spokesman said: " What the Prime Minister is determined is that No 10 will fully co-operate with the police and they will carry out their investigation as they should." He added: "There is a police investigation, no one should prejudge the outcome of that investigation in any way. The important thing is that the Prime Minister is getting on with the business of government."

Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llwyd said: "I think it's indicative of the fact that the whole thing does centre around Number 10. "When you think that this whole escapade was kept from the (Labour Party) Treasurer, it's not surprising that the thing is based at Number 10. "It's inevitable now that the police will concentrate all of their efforts on Number 10. "I can't believe under any circumstances that Lord Levy would have been acting in the manner alleged without the tacit understanding of the Prime Minister in that, bearing in mind the close proximity of each man to the other." Mr Llwyd said he had anticipated the Prime Minister would be questioned again given Lord Levy's four-hour police interview this week. "That will have had to be sifted through and matters arising from that put to the Prime Minister," he said.

ON THE NEWS BLACKOUT DOWNING STREET SAID HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY SCOTLAND YARD, MR LLWYD ADDED: "IT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL. IF THEY HAVE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE, WHY DON'T THEY TELL US ALL ABOUT IT?"

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell's chief of staff, Edward Davey, said: "It is clear that this inquiry is going to haunt Tony Blair throughout his last months in office and beyond. "What is important at this point is that Labour MPs stop sniping at the police from the sidelines and allow them to continue to do their job professionally. "Once again this underlines the significance of securing reform of party funding and the House of Lords at the earliest possible opportunity."

SCOTLAND YARD REFUSED TO COMMENT ON WHY IT HAD REQUESTED A NEWS BLACKOUT ON THE INTERVIEW WITH MR BLAIR UNTIL TODAY.

"We have nothing to say at the moment," a spokeswoman said.

The arrest of Lord Levy on Tuesday on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was confirmed by the force - albeit in a statement referring to a "man" - on the same evening. But there has been no explanation as to why Scotland Yard asked for a six-day news blackout on last Friday's interview with Mr Blair. Scotland Yard also refused to comment on the reasons for the second interview. The headlines last Friday were dominated by judges going into open revolt over Home Secretary John Reid's plea to send only dangerous offenders to prison. Reports have suggested that Downing Street blames the police for damaging leaks during the investigation. Senior figures at the Metropolitan Police Authority have also alleged there is a "whispering campaign" against Mr Yates - emanating from Westminster.

Labour MP Clive Betts played down he seriousness of the development. "Let's be clear, he is being questioned as a potential witness, he is not under threat of a charge," he told Sky News. He urged the police to come to its conclusions quickly and present any evidence to support the allegations. "Here we have a Prime Minister who has been asked some questions by the police, not even under caution," he said. "Let's try and get this investigation to a conclusion as soon as possible."

Conservative backbencher Nigel Evans said the police should be allowed to take time if that was necessary. But he added: "The fact is the public need to be kept informed about what is going on."

SCOTLAND YARD OUGHT TO CLARIFY WHAT OFFICERS ASKED OF DOWNING STREET AND THE PRIME MINISTER, HE SAID.

"This has clearly very serious implications," he said. "We are now talking about did Downing Street get involved in a cover-up about whether the Prime Minister had a second interview." In a statement today, Scotland Yard said the interview was kept "confidential" for operational reasons. A spokeswoman declined to say what these were. Mr Blair, she said, was spoken to only as a witness and not a suspect, to "clarify" issues relating to the inquiry. "The Prime Minister has been interviewed briefly to clarify points emerging from the ongoing investigation," a spokeswoman said. "He was interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect and co-operated fully. "We requested the meeting was kept confidential for operational reasons."

Scotland Yard did not make any significant public comment at the time of the Prime Minister's first interview.

Story by Press Association 2007 - Url.: http://www.24dash.com/printNews/57/15973.htm

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION - RELATED LINKS:

At Url. http://www.24dash.com/printNews/57/15973.htm you'll find the following links to this scam including the re-arrest of Lord Levy, The City's banker and purse holder of Britain and Blair. What Levy and his racket runs is perfectly described in 'The Evil Empire Revisited' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/hcrg7

Relevant News

1. Police accuse Labour of 'undue pressure' over cash-for-honours probe
2. 13 people under caution in 'cash-for-honours' probe
3. Lord Levy released on bail in 'cash for honours' probe
4. Miliband named in 'honours for cash' scandal
5. 'Cash for honours' controversy 'should not undermine' flagship city academies
6. Police fall silent over 'honours for cash' scandal
7. Arrest made in 'cash for honours' police probe
8. Corruption charges not ruled out in 'cash for honours' scandal

Lord Levy arrested over 'cash for honours' scandal - Jan. 30 - 2007 - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/2uozas

* THE USE OF THE PHRASE 'ANTI SEMITISM' IS PURE NONSENSE - Url.:  http://tinyurl.com/y8fwhf  

* WHERE DOES ALL THE WEALTH GO? There is no law nor court anywhere in this world which can stop them. They are the 'untouchables' and are listed here at the 'BIS' - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yj7p5b

* THE ABSOLUTE BIGGEST SCAM EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY: 'THE FED' - Url.: http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/FEDERALRESERVE.HTML

*THROW OUT WAR PROPAGANDISTS LIKE THE BBC, FOX, CNN ETC.! - Url.:  http://www.cemab.be/news/2006/07/1632.php

* The Dutch author this far has lived and worked abroad - never in an English speaking country - for more than 4 decades for international media as an independent foreign correspondent. Of which 10 years - also during Gulf War I - in the Arab World and the Middle East. Seeing worldwide that every bullet and every bomb breeds more terrorism! Which even a crook like French President Jacques Chirac confirmed - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ym44vm

* FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/gpr4j
The Netherlands
fpf@chello.nl

-0-