Canada’s Pro-Israel Lobby Attempts to Shut Down “Peaceful Pressure” against Israel’s Systematic Violations of International Law

Canada’s Pro-Israel Lobby Attempts to Shut Down “Peaceful Pressure” against Israel’s Systematic Violations of International Law:

The latest attempt of the Zionist lobby in Canada to shut down attempts to organize peaceful pressure against the state of Israel’s systematic violations of international law came at what must have seemed an opportune moment. On May 17, the day that Bill 202, “the Standing Up Against Anti-Semitism Act, 2016: An Act respecting participation in boycotts and and other anti-Semitic actions”, was presented to the Ontario provincial legislature in Toronto and quickly passed first reading, Ontario Premier Katherine Wynne was in Israel, where she warmly shook the hand of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Wynne was reported as stating during that five-day visit that “any movement like the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] movement that is based on anti-Semitism, that is based on division and promotes hatred, is just unacceptable.”1 Although at the same time Wynne also declared herself a supporter of free speech, the proponents of Bill 202, former Conservative Party leader Tim Hudak, Liberal Party deputy speaker of the House Mike Colle, and Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO of Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, who drafted it with them,2 may have hoped that it could be rushed through the House without significant opposition: the bill was scheduled for second and third readings on May 19 and 20.

Read more

The White House Has Been Covering Up the Presidency’s Role in Torture for Years

Obama-bin-Bush

The White House Has Been Covering Up the Presidency’s Role in Torture for Years (The Intercept, March 13, 2014):

The fight between the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee over the Committee’s Torture Report – which Dan Froomkin covered here – has now zeroed in on the White House.

Did the White House order the CIA to withdraw 920 documents from a server made available to Committee staffers, as Senator Dianne Feinstein says the agency claimed in 2010? Were those documents – perhaps thousands of them – pulled in deference to a White House claim of executive privilege, as Senator Mark Udall and then CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston suggested last fall? And is the White House continuing to withhold 9,000 pages of documents without invoking privilege, as McClatchy reported yesterday?

We can be sure about one thing: The Obama White House has covered up the Bush presidency’s role in the torture program for years. Specifically, from 2009 to 2012, the administration went to extraordinary lengths to keep a single short phrase, describing President Bush’s authorization of the torture program, secret.

Read more

Putin Totally Blasts US: U.S. Has Invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan Against International Law And They Bully The World (Video)


YouTube Added: Mar 4, 2014

Putin Totally Blast the U.S. saying; U.S. has invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan against International Law and they Bully the World (Sherrie Questioning All, March 4, 2014):

Putin is Standing up and he is telling the truth.  You will never hear this on the U.S. media channels.

Putin said the U.S. is a big bully and says U.S. will make countries regret not bending to their will.

He says the U.S. invaded Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan illegitimately and Russia is being completely legitimate in going into Ukraine.

Read more

Obama Violated His Own Rules With Yemen Drone Strike (Video)


YouTube Added: Feb 21, 2014

Description:

President Barack Obama violated his own rules for the use of drone strikes in a December 2013 strike on a wedding procession in Yemen, a new report from Human Rights Watch says. The US military initially claimed that the procession was actually members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, then admitted it was a wedding procession, but claimed that most of the people killed in the attack were members of the terrorist organization. But Human Rights Watch says, “The procession also may have included members of AQAP, although it is not clear who they were or what was their fate.” The group went on to say that there is no evidence that members of the caravan posed an imminent threat, and that killing them was a violation of international human rights laws. RT’s Meghan Lopez speaks with investigative journalist Ben Swann about US drone policy and whether the attack was a violation of Obama’s own stated rules.

WAR CRIMES – ‘Highway Of Death’

In recent news:

Marine Corps Investigates Photos From Iraq Showing Troops Burning Bodies (CNN, Jan 16, 2014)


Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.

War Crimes-torched

WAR CRIMES – A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal:

by Ramsey Clark and Others

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the “Highway of Death,” a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who “are out of combat.” There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the “highway of death.” The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.

“It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed… We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice.”Ramsey Clark

Preface

Read more

Bolivian President Morales Brands President Obama As A ‘CRIMINAL’, Prepares Lawsuit To Condemn Him For Crimes Against Humanity

Bolivian president to sue US govt for crimes against humanity (RT, Sep 20, 2013):

Bolivian President Evo Morales will file a lawsuit against the US government for crimes against humanity. He has decried the US for its intimidation tactics and fear-mongering after the Venezuelan presidential jet was blocked from entering US airspace.

“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity,” said President Morales at a press conference in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz. He branded the US president as a “criminal” who violates international law.

In solidarity with Venezuela, Bolivia will begin preparing a lawsuit against the US head of state to be taken to the international court. Furthermore, Morales has called an emergency meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to discuss what has been condemned by Venezuela as “an act of intimidation by North American imperialism.”

The Bolivian president has suggested that the members of CELAC withdraw their ambassadors from the US to send a message to the Obama Administration. As an additional measure he will call on the member nations of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas to boycott the next meeting of the UN. Members of the Alliance include Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Saint Lucia.

“The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights,”
stressed Morales.

Read more

Pentagon Official Who Played Key Role In Creating Guantanamo Under Bush Now Admits: It Should Never Have Been Built

Why we should shut down Guantanamo: Prison camp’s jailer-in-chief makes jaw-dropping U-turn and says it should never have been built (Daily Mail, Aug 3, 2013):

The Pentagon official in charge of Guantanamo Bay has admitted that if he had his time over, he would have argued that the notorious detention camp should never have been built.

William Lietzau, America’s Deputy Assistant Defence Secretary for Detainee Affairs, told The Mail on Sunday in an exclusive interview that Guantanamo’s detainees should have been legally designated  as prisoners of war and held  in Afghanistan, or if charged with crimes, taken to prisons  in America.

Mr Lietzau – who, after three and a half years in his job, last week announced he will be stepping down to take a private sector job in September –  added that the best way for President Obama to close Guantanamo would be to announce that the ‘war’ with  Al Qaeda is over.

Under international law, this would end any justification for continuing to hold prisoners who had not been charged  with crimes.

Lietzau’s words will be seen  as explosive, because alone of senior officials who serve the Obama administration in this field now, he played a key role in creating Guantanamo under George W. Bush.

Read more

Hypocrisy, American Style – The Role of International Law (Veterans Today)

Hypocrisy, American Style – The Role of International Law (Veterans Today, Aug 5, 2013):

US to other countries: Do as I say, not as I do

“The Obama administration, like the Bush/Cheney administration before it, clearly considers that the rule of law only applies to the weak and the poor. The administration makes it clear that international law doesn’t apply to the US.”

On July 30, an American judge found Bradley Manning innocent of “aiding the enemy.” Were a typical American asked who the real enemy is, the answer would, invariably be “congress” or the government itself.

Few Americans understand what or who “Al Qaeda” is or is not, especially since they have, of recent, become America’s ally against the government of Syria.

No one is surprised at the Manning verdict, but many around the world are disgusted by it, particularly those who have tired of America’s hypocrisy.

Only two weeks ago, the US government ordered the defacto release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, in a prisoner swap with Pakistan. She had been considered one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.

Read more

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: No-Fly Zone In Syria Would Break International Law

… and is an act of war:

Let’s Be Clear: Establishing A ‘No-Fly Zone’ Is An ACT Of War (The Atlantic)


No-Fly Zone in Syria Would Break International Law – Lavrov (RIA Novosti, June 15, 2013):

MOSCOW, June 15 (RIA Novosti) – The creation of a no-fly zone in war-torn Syria would contravene international law, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday, amid media speculation that the US plans to do just that.

“You don’t have to be a great expert to realize that this will be a violation of international law. We hope our American colleagues will direct all their practical activity into implementing a joint US-Russian initiative to convene a conference devoted to improving the situation in Syria,” Lavrov said after meeting with his Italian counterpart.

Media reports on Friday cited unidentified Western diplomats as saying that the US, which said this week that it would provide military support to the Syrian opposition, was considering establishing a no-fly zone in Syria. US fighter jets and anti-aircraft missiles were sent to Syria’s neighbor Jordan earlier this month for military exercises.

Read more

UK Military Interrogation Manuals Discovered: Humiliate, Strip, Threaten

Exclusive: Methods devised in secret in recent years may breach international law


Manuals tell British interrogators the use of plastic handcuffs is essential to intimidate and disorientate prisoners. Photograph: Getty Images

The British military has been training interrogators in techniques that include threats, sensory deprivation and enforced nakedness in an apparent breach of the Geneva conventions, the Guardian has discovered.

Training materials drawn up secretly in recent years tell interrogators they should aim to provoke humiliation, insecurity, disorientation, exhaustion, anxiety and fear in the prisoners they are questioning, and suggest ways in which this can be achieved.

One PowerPoint training aid created in September 2005 tells trainee military interrogators that prisoners should be stripped before they are questioned. “Get them naked,” it says. “Keep them naked if they do not follow commands.” Another manual prepared around the same time advises the use of blindfolds to put prisoners under pressure.

A manual prepared in April 2008 suggests that “Cpers” – captured personnel – be kept in conditions of physical discomfort and intimidated. Sensory deprivation is lawful, it adds, if there are “valid operational reasons”. It also urges enforced nakedness.

More recent training material says blindfolds, earmuffs and plastic handcuffs are essential equipment for military interrogators, and says that while prisoners should be allowed to sleep or rest for eight hours in each 24, they need be permitted only four hours unbroken sleep. It also suggests that interrogators tell prisoners they will be held incommunicado unless they answer questions.

The 1949 Geneva conventions prohibit any “physical or moral coercion”, in particular any coercion employed to obtain information.

The revelations come after the Guardian published US military documents leaked to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks revealing details of torture, summary executions and war crimes in Iraq.

Read more

Richard Dawkins plans to arrest Pope Benedict XVI during his state visit to Britain ‘for crimes against humanity’

Pope ‘has no UK arrest immunity’ (Press Association):

Mr Stephens said: “The courts will examine the claim of immunity. I believe that an English court would reject it. If the Pope was here on a state visit, ordinarily a head of state would have sovereign immunity. What I believe is that because he’s not a sovereign, not a head of state, he’s not entitled to the defence.”

He said that the Vatican was declared to be a state by Benito Mussolini, but this had no standing in international law.


8660758
Pope ‘has no UK arrest immunity’

RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.

Read more

UK government is told stance on torture has no legal basis

MPs and peers brand government’s definition of complicity in torture as ‘worrying’ and call for urgent independent inquiry

former-guantanamo-bay-detainee-binyam-mohamed
Former Guantánamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, whose alleged abuse in captivity sparked an inquiry into UK government complicty in torture. (Reuters)

The government’s definition of what constitutes complicity in torture has no basis in law, parliament’s joint committee on human rights warns today in a hard-hitting attack on its attitude towards the abuse of terror suspects.

Its narrow definition of complicity is “significant and worrying” and in light of evidence, notably in the Binyam Mohammed hearings, the case for an urgent independent inquiry into claims of involvement in torture is irresistible, the committee says in a report.

It says ministers gave evasive replies when it asked them what would amount to complicity under international law. But in evidence to the committee and in public statements both the home and foreign secretaries, and the head of MI5, came “very close to saying that, at least in the wake of 9/11, the lesser of two evils was the receipt and use of intelligence which was known, or should have been known, to carry a risk that it might have been obtained under torture, in order to protect the UK public from possible terrorist attack”.

The report adds: “This is no defence to the charge of complicity in torture.” The government changed the question from “does or should the official receiving the information know that it has or is likely to have been obtained by torture?” to “does the official receiving the information know or believe that receipt of the information would encourage the intelligence services of other states to commit torture?”

Under international law complicity does not require active encouragement, the committee says. The formula used by the government “appears to us to be carefully designed to enable it to say that, although it knew or should have known some intelligence it received was or might have been obtained through torture, this did not amount to complicity because it did not know or believe such receipt would encourage … torture by other states”.

Lady Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, appeared to go further in a speech this month: “Nothing, even saving lives, justifies torture.”

What constitutes complicity in torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is a key issue behind Gordon Brown’s refusal to publish new guidance given to MI5, MI6, and military intelligence officers, operating abroad.

Brown has also declined to publish criticism of the guidance by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), whose members are handpicked by the prime minister.

Read more

Tony Blair Was Warned By All 27 Senior Government Lawyers That Iraq War Was Illegal

See also:

Dutch Inquiry: Iraq War Was Illegal, Had ‘No Basis In International Law’

US and UK knew that Iraq Didn’t Have WMDs

Tony Blair ‘knew Iraq did not have WMD before war started’


sir-michael-wood-001
Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign Office’s chief legal adviser at the time of the 2003 invasion

TONY Blair was warned two months before the invasion of Iraq that it would be illegal to go to war without UN backing, it was revealed yesterday.

Senior Government lawyers told the Iraq inquiry that they advised the action had “no legal basis in international law”.

Last night it was reported every one of the 27 lawyers in the department advised the war was illegal.

Yesterday Sir Michael Wood, who was the Foreign Office’s chief legal adviser, told the hearing he warned the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw an invasion would “amount to the crime of aggression”.

Sir Michael said he considered resigning in protest at the decision to join the US-led attack. He described how he was sidelined after he made clear his objections to military action.

His deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, quit in protest on the eve of the invasion in March 2003.

In her first public account of the circumstances leading to her resignation she described the Government’s treatment of the legal advice as “lamentable”.

The explosive revelations intensified pressure on the former Prime Minister, who will face the Chilcot inquiry on Friday.

Read more

Dutch Inquiry: Iraq War Was Illegal, Had ‘No Basis In International Law’

“This is the authoritative view of seven commissioners including the former president of the Dutch supreme court, a former judge of the European court of justice, and two legal academics.”

See also:

US and UK knew that Iraq Didn’t Have WMDs

Tony Blair ‘knew Iraq did not have WMD before war started’


Inquiry says conflict had no sound mandate in international law as it emerges UK denied key letter to seven-judge tribunal

us-marines-in-action-001
US Marines on the city limits of Kut, 100 miles south of Baghdad in April 2003 AP

The war in Iraq had “no basis in international law”, a Dutch inquiry found today, in the first ever independent legal assessment of the decision to invade.

In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.

“The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy,” the inquiry in the Hague concluded. “The military action had no sound mandate in international law.”

In a further twist, it emerged that the UK government refused to disclose a key document requested by the Dutch panel.

The document – allegedly a letter from Tony Blair asking for the support of the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende – was handed over in a breach of diplomatic protocol and on the basis that it was for Balkenende’s eyes only, an inquiry official told the Guardian.

“It was a surprise for our committee when we discovered information about this letter,” said Rob Sebes, a spokesman for the Dutch inquiry. “It was not sent with a normal procedure between countries – instead it was a personal message from Tony Blair to our prime minister Jan Peter Balkanende, and had to be returned and not stored in our archives.

“We asked the British government to hand over the letter but they refused,” Sebes said.

Details of the Dutch inquiry’s findings and the refusal of the British government to disclose the letter are likely to increase international scrutiny on the Chilcot inquiry, as it emerged that the UK was instrumental in influencing the Dutch decision to back the war.

“In its depiction of Iraq’s [weapons of mass destruction] programme, the [Dutch] government was to a considerable extent led by public and other information from the US and the UK,” the Dutch report says.

“This report is an objective finding – it was not political, we searched for the truth,” said Sebes. “We think that over 10 months the seven members of committee made a real effort to make a finding of high quality.”

Philippe Sands QC, a professor of international law, who gave evidence to the Dutch inquiry, said: “There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous. It concludes that the case argued by the Dutch and British governments, including the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, could not reasonably be argued.

“This is the authoritative view of seven commissioners including the former president of the Dutch supreme court, a former judge of the European court of justice, and two legal academics.”

Read more

US General David Petraeus: UAE’s Air Force Could Take Out Iran’s

Iran has not invaded another country for over 200 years!

Syria will defend Iran if Israel attacks

Webster Tarpley: Geopolitical Goals of The Anglo-American Empire in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran

Senior IRGC official: ‘If attacked, Iran will target the very heart of Tel Aviv’

CNN: US Air Force gets new 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb (for Iran or North Korea)

IAEA: U.N. inspectors found ‘nothing to be worried about’ at Iran site

Exclusive: IAEA letter thanks Iran over notification

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Iran truthful, in treaty compliance; US & Israel lying, in treaty violation

Paul Craig Roberts: Another War in the Works; America Is Led and Informed by Liars

Ron Paul on the Iranian Nuclear Program

Paul Craig Roberts: Hypocrisy in Pittsburgh – More Lies, More Deceptions:

The incongruity blows the mind. Here is Obama, with troops engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan demanding that a peaceful nation at war with no one demonstrate “its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”

Putin warns against attack on Iran

Germany: BND denies report on Iran bomb timing; Iran not be able to produce an atomic bomb for years

“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” – H. L. Mencken


Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Bahrain conference calls in Mideast countries to join forces in order to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions

general-david-petraeus
General David Petraeus

WASHINGTON – The United Arab Emirates, a key US ally in the Persian Gulf, has the capability to overpower Iran’s Air Force, US Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus said last week.

Speaking at a conference in Bahrain organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the American general said, “The Emirati Air Force itself could take out the entire Iranian Air Force, I believe, given that it’s got … somewhere around 70 Block 60 F-16 fighters, which are better than the US F-16 fighters.”

Petraeus, who is responsible for overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and security efforts throughout the region, called on the region’s countries to remain united in order to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In light of the growing Iranian threat, said the general, the US has increased its participation in joint military drills held in the Middle East.

Read more

FDA gets Interpol to illegally kidnap and deport herbal formulator Greg Caton

interpol

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today stands accused of taking part in the kidnapping and illegal extradition of a permanent resident of Ecuador, in violation of both international law and Ecuadorian law.

Greg Caton, owner and operator of Alpha Omega Labs (www.AltCancer.com), an herbal products company that sells anti-cancer herbal remedies made with Ecuadorian medicinal herbs, was arrested at gunpoint at a road checkpoint in Ecuador, then transported to an Ecuadorian holding facility to await a hearing on December 14, 2009. Caton was expected to be set free by the Ecuadorian judge at that hearing based on the facts of the case which indicated Caton’s permanent residency in Ecuador is legal and valid.

Three days before the hearing could take place, Caton was taken from his holding facility and, with the help of U.S. State Department employees, involuntarily placed on an American Airlines plane headed for Miami. An Ecuadorian judge rushed to the airport in Guayaquil and demanded that Caton be released from the plane, stating that the attempted deportation was illegal, but American Airlines employees reportedly refused to allow Caton to leave the plane, stating that the plane was “U.S. territory” and that Ecuadorian law did not apply there (even though the plane was still on the tarmac in Guayaquil and under the direction of the air traffic control tower there).

The plane then departed Guayaquil and continued its flight to Miami where Greg Caton was held in a federal detention facility to await trial in the U.S.

His crimes? Selling herbal medicine and daring to tell the truth about those medicines on his website.

By the way, you can listen to my exclusive interview with Cathryn Caton, who details these events in a downloadable MP3 audio file. Find the file here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po…

FDA vs. Greg Caton

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has, for many years, pursued Caton, accusing him of selling “unapproved drugs” — herbal medicines that have never been, and will never be, approved by the FDA to treat anything. He was convicted of these crimes in 2003 and served 33 months in federal prison.

Read more

Fascism in America: By Political Definition The US Is Now Fascist, Not A Constitutional Republic

Must-read! Watch also the short video.

See also:

CIA Director Reveals Spec Ops Report: US Needs Hit Squads, ‘Manhunting Agency’:
(Take a close look at the commentary and add it to the following article.)



thomas-jefferson
We hold these Truths to be self-evident…

Look in any textbook or encyclopedia and compare US policy (not rhetoric) to the definitions of fascism and constitutional republic. I’ll explain it here, but check my work. If at the end of your consideration, you agree that the United States of America is now a fascist state, please speak-up about it. Also, consider the policy requests at the end of the article.

Please read this article like a prima facie legal argument; that means unless you can refute the facts, they stand as our best understanding of the issue. Here, if you can’t refute the evidence that the US is now a fascist state, then accept this as your best understanding. As time passes, if evidence is brought forward to further the case for fascism or refute it, your comprehensive understanding improves. Here we go:

Definitions:

The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights.

“Constitutional republic” is a political philosophy of limited government, separated powers with checks and balances to ensure the federal government’s power stays limited within the Constitution, protected civil liberties, and elected representatives responsible to the people who retain the most political power. In the US we also embrace inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, and creative independence to cooperatively compete for our nation’s best ideas to move forward and be rewarded.

History:

The United States was structured as a constitutional republic. Before we consider the US present condition, let us contextualize our concern from the nation’s Founders’ grave admonishments and doubts as to Americans’ ability to retain it. If you honor America at all, give their most serious warnings your full attention for the next 1,000 words spanning from Ben Franklin to Abraham Lincoln.

On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Benjamin Franklin met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: “This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39

Read more

Israel: Government proposes work camps for illegal migrants

Work camps! Looks like the Israeli government has learned from history.


The government is considering establishing work camps in the south of the country, where illegal migrant workers will receive shelter, food and medical care, Army Radio reported Wednesday. In exchange, illegal migrants would perform manual labor outside the camps, but would not earn a salary.

They would stay at the camp until their asylum claims are decided, which could take months or years.

The proposal, part of the effort to address the problems posed by illegal migrants, would place asylum seekers at jobs in communities in the Negev and Arava. Their salaries would go to the state, in order to fund the camps.

Read more

Paul Craig Roberts: Hypocrisy in Pittsburgh – More Lies, More Deceptions

Iran has not invaded another country for over 200 years!


Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

paul-craig-roberts
Paul Craig Roberts

The G-20 ministers declared their meeting in Pittsburgh a success, but as Rob Kall reports in OpEdNews.com, the meeting’s main success was to turn Pittsburgh into “a ghost-town, emptied of workers and the usual pedestrians, but filled to overflowing with over 12,000 swat cops from all over the US.”

This is “freedom and democracy” at work. The leaders of the G-20 countries, which account for 85% of the world’s income, cannot meet in an American city without 12,000 cops outfitted like the emperor’s storm troopers in Star Wars. And the US government complains about Iran.

The US government’s complaints about Iran have reached a new level of shrillness. On September 25 Obama declared: “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow.” The heads of America’s British, French, and German puppet states added their two cents worth, giving the government of Iran three months to meet the “international community’s demands” to give up its rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to nuclear energy. In case you don’t know, the term “international community” is shorthand for the US, Israel, and Europe, a handful of arrogant and rich countries that oppress the rest of the world.

Who is breaking the rules? Iran or the United States?

Iran is insisting that the US government abide by the non-proliferation treaty that the US originated and pushed and that Iran signed. But the US government, which is currently engaged in three wars of aggression and has occupying troops in a number of other countries, insists that Iran, which is invading and occupying no country, cannot be trusted with nuclear energy capability, because the capability might in the future lead to nuclear weapon capability, like Israel’s, India’s, and Pakistan’s–all non-signatories to the nuclear proliferation treaty, countries that, unlike Iran, have never submitted to IAEA inspections. Indeed, at this very moment the Israeli government is screaming and yelling “anti-semite” to the suggestion that Israel submit to IAEA inspections. Iran has submitted to the IAEA inspections for years.

In keeping with its obligations under the treaty, on September 21 Iran disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it is constructing another nuclear facility. The British prime minister Gordon Brown confused Iran’s disclosure with “serial deception,” and declared, “We will not let this matter rest.”

What matter? Why does Gordon Brown think that Iran’s disclosure to the IAEA is a deception. Does the moronic UK prime minister mean that Iran is claiming to be constructing a plant but is not, and thus by claiming one is deceiving the world?

Not to be outdone in idiocy, out of Obama’s mouth jumped Orwellian doublespeak: “The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”

The incongruity blows the mind. Here is Obama, with troops engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan demanding that a peaceful nation at war with no one demonstrate “its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”

It is the US government and its NATO puppet states, and militarist Israel, of course, that need to be held accountable to international law. Under international law the US, its NATO puppets, and Israel are war criminal governments. There is no doubt about it. The record is totally clear. The US, Israel, and the NATO puppet states have committed military aggression exactly as did Germany’s Third Reich, and they have murdered large numbers of civilians. Following the Fuhrer’s script, “the great democratic republics” have justified these acts of lawlessness with lies and deceptions.

Read more