SOUNDS OF EVOLUTION


Saturday, February 14, 2009

US MILITARY WILL OFFER PATH TO CITIZENSHIP



Stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American military will begin recruiting skilled immigrants who are living in this country with temporary visas, offering them the chance to become United States citizens in as little as six months.

Immigrants who are permanent residents, with documents commonly known as green cards, have long been eligible to enlist. But the new effort, for the first time since the Vietnam War, will open the armed forces to temporary immigrants if they have lived in the United States for a minimum of two years, according to military officials familiar with the plan.

Recruiters expect that the temporary immigrants will have more education, foreign language skills and professional expertise than many Americans who enlist, helping the military to fill shortages in medical care, language interpretation and field intelligence analysis.

“The American Army finds itself in a lot of different countries where cultural awareness is critical,” said Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, the top recruitment officer for the Army, which is leading the pilot program. “There will be some very talented folks in this group.”

The program will begin small — limited to 1,000 enlistees nationwide in its first year, most for the Army and some for other branches. If the pilot program succeeds as Pentagon officials anticipate, it will expand for all branches of the military. For the Army, it could eventually provide as many as 14,000 volunteers a year, or about one in six recruits.

About 8,000 permanent immigrants with green cards join the armed forces annually, the Pentagon reports, and about 29,000 foreign-born people currently serving are not American citizens.

Although the Pentagon has had wartime authority to recruit immigrants since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, military officials have moved cautiously to lay the legal groundwork for the temporary immigrant program to avoid controversy within the ranks and among veterans over the prospect of large numbers of immigrants in the armed forces.

A preliminary Pentagon announcement of the program last year drew a stream of angry comments from officers and veterans on Military.com, a Web site they frequent.

Marty Justis, executive director of the national headquarters of the American Legion, the veterans’ organization, said that while the group opposes “any great influx of immigrants” to the United States, it would not object to recruiting temporary immigrants as long as they passed tough background checks. But he said the immigrants’ allegiance to the United States “must take precedence over and above any ties they may have with their native country.”

The military does not allow illegal immigrants to enlist, and that policy would not change, officers said. Recruiting officials pointed out that volunteers with temporary visas would have already passed a security screening and would have shown that they had no criminal record.

“The Army will gain in its strength in human capital,” General Freakley said, “and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream.”

In recent years, as American forces faced combat in two wars and recruiters struggled to meet their goals for the all-volunteer military, thousands of legal immigrants with temporary visas who tried to enlist were turned away because they lacked permanent green cards, recruiting officers said.

Recruiters’ work became easier in the last few months as unemployment soared and more Americans sought to join the military. But the Pentagon, facing a new deployment of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, still has difficulties in attracting doctors, specialized nurses and language experts.

Several types of temporary work visas require college or advanced degrees or professional expertise, and immigrants who are working as doctors and nurses in the United States have already been certified by American medical boards.

Military figures show that only 82 percent of about 80,000 Army recruits last year had high school diplomas. According to new figures, the Army provided waivers to 18 percent of active-duty recruits in the final four months of last year, allowing them to enlist despite medical conditions or criminal records.
Military officials want to attract immigrants who have native knowledge of languages and cultures that the Pentagon considers strategically vital. The program will also be open to students and refugees.

The Army’s one-year pilot program will begin in New York City to recruit about 550 temporary immigrants who speak one or more of 35 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Igbo (a tongue spoken in Nigeria), Kurdish, Nepalese, Pashto, Russian and Tamil. Spanish speakers are not eligible. The Army’s program will also include about 300 medical professionals to be recruited nationwide. Recruiting will start after Department of Homeland Security officials update an immigration rule in coming days.

Pentagon officials expect that the lure of accelerated citizenship will be powerful. Under a statute invoked in 2002 by the Bush administration, immigrants who serve in the military can apply to become citizens on the first day of active service, and they can take the oath in as little as six months.

For foreigners who come to work or study in the United States on temporary visas, the path to citizenship is uncertain and at best agonizingly long, often lasting more than a decade. The military also waives naturalization fees, which are at least $675.

To enlist, temporary immigrants will have to prove that they have lived in the United States for two years and have not been out of the country for longer than 90 days during that time. They will have to pass an English test.

Language experts will have to serve four years of active duty, and health care professionals will serve three years of active duty or six years in the Reserves. If the immigrants do not complete their service honorably, they could lose their citizenship.

Commenters who vented their suspicions of the program on Military.com said it could be used by terrorists to penetrate the armed forces.

At a street corner recruiting station in Bay Ridge in Brooklyn, Staff Sgt. Alejandro Campos of the Army said he had already fielded calls from temporary immigrants who heard rumors about the program.

“We’re going to give people the opportunity to be part of the United States who are dying to be part of this country and they weren’t able to before now,” said Sergeant Campos, who was born in the Dominican Republic and became a United States citizen after he joined the Army.

Sergeant Campos said he saw how useful it was to have soldiers who were native Arabic speakers during two tours in Iraq.

“The first time around we didn’t have soldier translators,” he said. “But now that we have soldiers as translators, we are able to trust more, we are able to accomplish the mission with more accuracy.”

Friday, February 13, 2009

THE EUROPEAN UNION & THE GAZA WAR


The European Union and the Gaza war
2009 01 29

By Yusuf Fernandez | presstv.ir

The recent war in Gaza has served to highlight the European Union's relations with Israel. Although the genocide in Gaza has embarrassed many EU officials, there are no signs that the European Union is going to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement signed in 2004.

According to this Agreement, Israel became a partner of the European Union within the framework of the EU's European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

According to the ENP Internet site, the European initiative seeks to develop the EU's relations with other states on the basis of "the mutual commitment to common values (democracy and human rights, rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development)."

Although Israel continues to violate all these values and principles on a daily basis and is also the country holding the record of non-compliance of UN resolutions, the EU Council and Commission decided on December 8 to boost the relations between the Union and Israel through the approval of a Protocol to the Agreement.

For the first time, EU foreign ministers spoke of inviting Israel to a bilateral summit and to take part in missions related to its defense policies.

Furthermore, EU ministers decided to put aside a proposed action plan to promote the peace process in the Middle East in 2009, after Israel demanded the EU to do so.

The new six-month Czech presidency of the European Union is thought to be interested in strengthening the links between the Union and Israel. Czech Foreign Minister, Karel Schwarzenberg insisted, after the beginning of the Israeli offensive in Gaza, that Israel had "the right to defend itself", according to the Reuters news agency. Later, he was forced to change this statement.

Many Europeans feel outraged by these European overtures towards Israel, which is behaving like Nazi Germany used to and they do not want their money to be used for sustaining Israel's criminal policies.
Israel has carried out a genocidal offensive against the Gaza Strip and is taking Palestinian lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) in order to expand its illegal settlements, a fact that is destroying any possibility of a peace process as it prevents the creation of any Palestinian state deserving such a name.

Moreover, the Israeli army has been aiding fanatic Zionist settlers to attack helpless Palestinian in Al Khalil (Hebron) and other cities. As a result of this, large sectors of European public opinion consider Israel to be a huge threat to world peace.

During the recent protests against the Israeli genocide in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of Europeans condemned EU leaders' policies towards Israel.

More than 100,000 people participated in a demonstration in Paris while in London, 200,000 demonstrators condemned Israel's crimes. Placards exhibited by the participants were clear enough: the genocide, the criminal blockade, the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza had to be stopped.

The demonstrators denounced the fact that many European leaders were totally blind to the brutal genocide that was being carried out against 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where Israel has imposed a siege in order to deny Gazans food and medical care.

This blockade has been compared by many, including Richard Falk, the UN Rapporteur of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, to that suffered in the Warsaw Ghettos.

Sergio Yahni, Director of the Al Quds-based Alternative Information Center (AIC) has called the agreement of the EU Council and Commission "a failure of the international legal system." In a telephone interview with Ma'an agency, Yahni said the agreement was "the first time since World War II that the European community has actually regressed in its protection of human rights."

Some European officials have started to react to this popular clamor and on December 11, the European Parliament decided to postpone the vote on the new agreement. The Parliament's Vice President, Luis Morgantini, said that the Parliament would not pass the new agreement until Israel respects international law and human rights.

Morganitni said that the decision of the Parliament intended "to send a clear message to the Israeli government that their brutal policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not going unnoticed and that the cries of the Palestinians, humanitarian workers and political activists are not falling on deaf ears." She added that the vote was also a signal to the EU Council and Commission, which were probably embarrassed by the Parliament's vote that they had to put pressure on Israel to stop its colonization of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territories.

In the United Kingdom and under popular pressure, the Foreign Office warned British citizens against buying properties in illegal Zionist settlements in Palestinian territories. Foreign Office officials said that they would take possible measures against newspapers that publicized ads on real estate in the Israeli-occupied territories.

Settlements are considered illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from moving its nationals into the occupied territory.

As a result of this decision, Yuval Steinitz, a possible candidate for the post of Israeli foreign minister - if the right-wing Likud party wins in the upcoming parliamentary election in February - advised the UK to abandon this campaign and accused the country of 'anti-Semitism'. "When Israel is boycotted one should wonder if there is no implicit anti-Semitism," he said.

For his part, EU's Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, Louis Michel, told the Belgian daily La Libre Belgique that Israel was not respecting international human rights laws. "The first obligation is that an occupying power must preserve the lives of the population, protect them, feed them and look after them. That is manifestly not the case and I cannot accept it," Michel said.

Michel also condemned Israel's shelling of a UN compound in Gaza calling for an independent investigation.

However, although the negotiations between the European Union and the Israeli apartheid regime have been put on hold, many European citizens fear that this step is only a "technical postponement", as Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor has claimed.

EU's ambassador in Israel, Ramiro Cibrian-Uzal, has also downplayed the possibility of European sanctions against Israel due to the Gaza war. "The European Union has never contemplated, to my knowledge, has never seriously envisaged sanctions," Cibrian-Uzal said.

While no measures have been taken in Europe against Israeli media, some of which are permanently making an apology for the genocide, Hamas's television channel, Al Aqsa, was forbidden in Europe less than 24 hours after it was added to the France-based Eutelsat network.

This channel is, however, available in Arab networks. The measure was adopted after French regulators received a letter of complaint from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

Some European leaders such as Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel continue to give their unconditional support to Israel, which makes them real accomplices of its policies. Merkel gave her full backing to the criminal attacks by Israel on Gazans. The German government spokesman, Thomas Steg said that Merkel, in a telephone call to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, had declared that Hamas was "exclusively" responsible for the conflict, a lie that has been repeated by some other European leaders who have not said a word about the suffering of the Gazan people.


Merkel & Sarkozy


Actually, after the victory of Hamas in the democratic elections in 2006, European leaders, following the trend imposed by Israel and the US, boycotted the new government. When all its attempts to topple the Hamas government failed, Israel imposed a siege, preventing supplies of food, medicine and fuel from entering Gaza.

This provoked a serious humanitarian crisis. About the 95% of Gaza's factories were forced to close down and 80% of the people there started to depend on international assistance. Despite all this, Hamas respected a ceasefire agreement with Israel that was agreed on in June 2008.

On the night of November 4, the day of the US elections, Israel fired missiles on Gaza violating the truce. Following that, Israel bombed the Strip over the next six weeks killing dozens of Palestinians. "The escalation towards war could, and should, have been avoided. It was Israel which broke the truce, in the tunnel raid ... two months ago," the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote in a press release. "Since then, the army went on stoking the fires of escalation with calculated raids and killings."

On January 23, the French leader, Nicolas Sarkozy ordered a French frigate to start to patrol the waters off Gaza in order to "fight arms smuggling" to Gaza. A helicopter-carrier could also be sent there.
British and German governments also stated that they could take part in operations against smuggling. It is noteworthy to point out that these operations will be carried out "in full cooperation" with Israel. This way, these governments are clearly aligning themselves with Israel and trying to keep Hamas disarmed, a goal that Israel failed to achieve during the war.

Sarkozy, who had recently said that he would not shake the hands of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's for his public criticism of the Zionist regime, has not had any problem shaking the hands of notorious war criminals such as Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert or Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni.
The pro-Israeli biased policies of some European countries risk alienating and radicalizing the large Muslim minorities in Europe and damage relations with the southern Arab neighbors, which completely identify themselves with the suffering of the people in Gaza.

There is no doubt that EU's decision to upgrade relations with Israel despite the latter's brutal oppression of the Palestinians and its grave violation of human and civil rights of the Palestinians is an insult to Arabs and Muslims all over the world.

This European stance towards Israel does not satisfy the interests of EU's member states. Moreover, it contradicts the values that the European Union claims to defend and promote. Actually, the current economic and political axis in the world is starting to move towards Asia and any European policy supporting Israel and ignoring the views of Arab and Muslim masses will certainly have far-reaching negative consequences for long-term European interests.

Furthermore, the European decision to upgrade its relations with the Israeli apartheid regime means to award the Israeli genocidal policies in Gaza, to betray the core values on which the European Union was built and to destroy the international legal system created to prevent a repetition of the crimes committed during the Second World War in European countries: massacres, expulsions and ethnic cleansing.

SCIENTISTS & GOOGLE CREATE SINGULARITY UNIVERSITY TO SOLVE MANKINDS GRANDEST CHALLENGES





Some technologies are so complex and have so many frequent breakthroughs that few people can keep up. Now comes a new nine-week summer program in Silicon Valley for super-smart people. Dubbed Singularity University, its founders hope it will help close the gap in understanding and applying fast-developing technologies to solve what they called "humanity’s grandest challenges."


Peter Diamandis, the Santa Monica physician credited with fueling private space rocketry; S. Pete Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center; and futurist Ray Kurzweil are behind the move to form the school. Internet giant Google is a sponsor.


The goal of the Singularity school, which will be located at an Ames facility in Sunnyvale, Calif., is to bring together the world’s top graduate and postgraduate students in 10 diverse disciplines, such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, medicine and law. They will spend nine weeks together learning about each others' disciplines and then focus on ...

... finding ways to overcome pressing challenges such as poverty, hunger and pandemics. Technology heavyweights, including Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, are slated to give the lectures.

Applications should be available at Singularity University's website, which is supposed to go live tonight.

The official announcement is expected Tuesday at the annual Technology, Entertainment, Design conference in Long Beach. The invitation-only confab, better known as TED, draws movers and shakers such as Bill Gates, Jane Goodall and Bono.

The idea for the school came from "The Singularity Is Near," a Kurzweil book that looks at the future of man and technology, Diamandis said.

"It’s a first-of-a-kind curriculum, designed to provide future leaders with an understanding of what is possible today as well as an understanding of where the real opportunities exist for innovation that might spring from converging technologies," Diamandis said.

He expects about 120 students for the annual program, which will begin in June.

TONY BLAIR SET TO BECOME EU CHIEF AS SARKOZY BATTLES TO WIN HIM THE POST




Tony Blair is poised to become the first President of Europe after it was confirmed that French leader Nicolas Sarkozy is determined to help him win the post.

A senior aide to President Sarkozy told a private gathering of senior British and French politicians that he is to tell fellow EU leaders that Mr Blair is the only man who can help Europe stand up to the rest of the world.

The remark by Alain Minc, a key member of Mr Sarkozy’s inner circle, is the second French blow to Gordon Brown’s standing in two days, coming after Mr Sarkozy said Mr Brown’s decision to combat the recession by cutting VAT was a ‘mistake’.

Mr Minc, a political wheeler-dealer, entrepreneur and TV show host, was attending a meeting last month of the Franco British Colloque, a high-powered discussion group of British and French politicians, civil servants and opinion-formers.

Members are under orders not to reveal the confidential discussions, but The Mail on Sunday has established that Mr Minc used the meeting to win support for Mr Sarkozy’s campaign to ensure Mr Blair becomes the President of Europe.

The role is due to be created next year – but only if the EU’s controversial Lisbon Treaty is ratified in the autumn by Ireland and the Czech Republic, the two EU countries which have so far refused to do so.

Mr Minc told the gathering, which was also attended by French Prime Minister Francois Fillon: ‘When the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, Europe will move into a new phase. Europe will need a strong leader and Nicolas Sarkozy will nominate Tony Blair for the position.’

Mr Minc explained why Mr Sarkozy was determined to overcome opposition to Mr Blair from a handful of EU leaders, notably German chancellor Angela Merkel.

He said: ‘We have to unite and say to Mrs Merkel that we cannot afford not to have Tony Blair, who will be a strong figurehead, is entirely respected around the world and will be a commanding leader at the helm of Europe.’

Mr Minc has been described by one commentator as ‘France’s Peter Mandelson’. Indeed, his AM Conseil consultancy has employed Lord Mandelson as an ‘adviser’ in the past and the two are members of the Policy Network think-tank.


Respected: Barack Obama watches Mr Blair speak in Washington last week


The conference took place in Versailles, days after Mr Blair visited Paris to chair a conference for Mr Sarkozy on the economic crisis, in what was seen as the latest part of a charm offensive to boost his chances of winning the EU presidency.

Mr Blair paid glowing tribute to Mr Sarkozy’s recent performance in the rotating EU presidency, saying: ‘Under his leadership, Europe looked as if it were acting in concert.’

Mr Blair was referred to as Prime Minister Blair throughout – Mr Brown was not even invited.

The post of President of the EU’s Council of Ministers will replace the current system under which the EU nations on a six-monthly basis. Supporters say it is the only way to give the presidency rotates among EU a strong voice.

Critics claim it is another step on the road to a European superstate.
Publicly, Mr Blair says he is not campaigning for a job ‘which does not even exist’.

Privately, friends say he would relish it.

Likewise, in public Mr Brown’s advisers say he is ‘relaxed’ about the prospect.

Privately, they admit it is a ‘nightmare’ which would further diminish his status.


Overshadowed: Mr Brown's aides say Mr Blair's appointment would be a ‘nightmare’


Mr Minc was not the only person at the conference to make provocative remarks about ‘President Blair’.

Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, tipped to succeed Mr Brown as Labour leader, is in hot water after apparently backing the idea.

Asked if Mr Blair was the right man for the job, Mr Purnell said: ‘We need someone who is a world-respected statesman, has experience of being involved in intractable international issues like the Irish peace process, and, while being on the Centre Left, understands how the markets work and sparkles with charisma...’

As Mr Purnell, a close ally of Mr Blair, paused for effect, there were gasps from some in the audience who realised they were meant to think he was referring to Mr Brown’s predecessor.

He then added: ‘...which is why I nominate Bill Clinton.’

The joke was not lost on fellow guests, who knew that, as an American, Mr Clinton is not eligible.

A spokesman for Mr Purnell said: ‘It was an after-dinner gag. He did not endorse Mr Blair.’

U.S. NOW SEE'S IRAN AS PURSUING THE NUCLEAR BOMB

The Obama administration seems to have reversed the US position (published in a NIE in 2007) that Iran is not currently pursuing nuclear weapons: (FTA) 'President Obama went so far as to describe Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon" before correcting himself to refer to its "pursuit" of weapons capability.'

read more | digg story

GAZA:THE WORLD LOOKS AWAY







Gaza: the world looks away

If the IDF and Hamas have breached the laws of war, they must be held to account, to set down a marker for future conflicts

On top of the dreadful casualties from Israel's 22-day war in Gaza, we should add a further serious injury. It is longer-lasting and threatens the lives and wellbeing of very many people in the future. In the Israel/Palestine conflict, we are seeing a terrible undermining of international law and the principle that armies should adhere to minimum standards of humane behaviour, even during the heat of battle.

If they fall below this minimum, they should, according to the laws of war, be held responsible for their war crimes – first, by their own superiors or courts, but, if necessary, by other nations or international courts. This principle – of accountability, even in war – is now in a critical condition as the standards are being ignored by Gaza's warring parties. Then, it's being assailed afresh by pugnacious and irresponsible remarks from leaders in the region.

Both sides endangered civilian lives during the conflict, but obviously the behaviour of Israel was massively more destructive. There were reports from Amnesty International of Israeli Defence Forces units commandeering Palestinian homes, forcing families to remain in a ground-floor room while then using the property as a military operations point. In other words, Palestinian families were used as human shields or, at the very least, were exposed to quite unacceptable risk.

Hamas is also accused of using local civilians as human shields, but since this excuse was used for every Israeli attack on civilian targets, we must await objective reports on whether this allegation is true. Even more shockingly, evidence has been growing of the IDF's use of white phosphorous shells in residential areas – a clear war crime in exposing civilians to horrendous deep-burn injuries that have shocked and bewildered burns unit doctors in Gaza's overrun hospital wards. Moreover, as the new BBC Panorama programme on Gaza asks, was the colossal destruction of roads, houses, factories, farms and ordinary civilian infrastructure right across the Gaza Strip (creating what an Amnesty researcher called "total devastation") an act of "wanton destruction" and therefore itself a war crime.

It is true that virtually every conflict has involved atrocious deeds and virtually every armed force, however professional, has lapsed into barbarity. Senior military figures and their apologists will regularly seek to excuse these actions as occurring in the "heat of the moment" or because of the "tremendous pressure of conflict", but it is notable in the House of Commons that it was MPs with a military background who were most shocked by the use of white phosphorus.

It's depressing but predictable that, as things stand, with little word from the UN security council, no one looks likely to be held responsible for the wiping out of hundreds of civilian lives in the three-week Gaza war. This abrogation of responsibility doesn't just let down civilians in Israel and Palestine; it lets down people all over the world. And it is not just the Bush administration that won't apply the Geneva convention in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The UK and the EU are equally collusive in Israel's grave breaches of international law and, as human rights lawyer Phil Shiner has pointed out, have taken no action to uphold the opinion of the International Court of Justice that held the route of the wall and the settlements a complete breach of the Geneva convention. The convention requires all high contracting parties (those who have signed and ratified it) to take action to enforce it. The UK and the EU have taken no such action and, instead, plan to upgrade the EU relationship with Israel, which already extends privileged trade access in a treaty containing conditionalities on human rights which are not invoked. By failing to uphold these standards in the occupied territories, our governments are undermining the whole structure of international law.

Adding further insult to international law in the aftermath of Israel's massive military campaign is the strident post-conflict tone. Prime minister Ehud Olmert has recently threatened a "disproportionate" response to continuing Palestinian rocket attacks – precisely what international humanitarian law forbids and what Israel already stands accused of having engaged in.

The international criminal court's prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo recently confirmed that he is assessing whether the court has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Gaza. But, in fact, the right way forward is for the security council to fulfil the role envisaged for it when the international criminal court was set up. It was anticipated that some international crimes would not be dealt with when the suspects were from states not party to the Rome Statute.

Instead of establishing ad hoc tribunals, as in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, it was provided that the security council should have power to refer cases to the ICC. This was done in the case of Darfur and surely should be done in the case of Gaza.

Last November, I saw for myself the damage wrought by Israel's 19-month blockade of Gaza, and with this battered territory now a scene of almost biblical destruction, of course I understand that humanitarian aid and reconstruction are a priority.

However, the UN security council shouldn't turn a blind eye to wanton destruction and war crimes either. ICC cases against Israel and Hamas will prove explosive, but it's my firm belief that it will also set down a marker for future conflict in the Middle East, as well as more widely in the world – from Sri Lanka to Burma to Zimbabwe.

GEITHNER FALLS FLAT ON HIS FACE



This was supposed to be a great week for Washington and Wall Street. The administration had leaked in advance that it was going to put a full-court press on for its stimulus and bailout programs. That led to intense anticipatory buying by the stock market bulls.

Monday night’s primetime news conference with President Barack Obama only heightened anticipation ahead of the main events on Tuesday: A big speech from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and testimony before Congress by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Geithner's speech was full of grandiose talk and fluff.
Geithner’s speech was full of grandiose talk and fluff.

But shortly after Geithner opened his mouth, stocks began to fall. Then they fell further. By the end of the day, the Dow Jones Industrials had plunged 382 points, or almost 5%.

What the Heck Happened?

Why did the best laid plans of politicians and policymakers fail? What’s going to happen next? Those are questions every investor needs the answers to, and I’m going to provide them today.

Before I take the scalpel to Geithner’s gamble, let me explain exactly what the latest “plan” (and yes, I’m putting that in quotes for a reason) entails …

For starters, the Fed will be expanding its Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF. This is a program whereby the Fed will lend money to investors who buy securities that fund various types of loans.

The facility was originally designed to help the student loan, credit card, and auto loan securitization markets. Now, it’s going to cover commercial mortgages and most likely residential mortgages outside the purview of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Treasury will seed the TALF program with as much as $100 billion. The Fed can then provide additional leveraged funding, allowing for the purchase of as much as $1 trillion in assets.

Second, the Treasury is going to set up a public-private program to buy crummy assets from banks. Private investors would be offered loss caps and/or cheap financing to encourage them to participate. The idea is to avoid the excessively high cost of setting up a program completely funded by Uncle Sam. Early estimates of the size of the program run as high as $500 billion.

Third, there will be additional capital injections into U.S. financial institutions. Regulators will “stress test” bank portfolios, and inject capital into them if necessary through the purchase of convertible preferred securities.
Internal Sponsorship

How to beat your #1
wealth-building challenge today …

If Martin Weiss’ new personal blog is proving anything, it’s that this is indeed a GLOBAL crisis, and folks from all over the globe are on the blog weighing in on yesterday’s “Question of the Day!”

So far, we’ve heard from A. Wilkinson, John and others in England … John in Ireland … Johannes and Christiane in Germany … Aurthur and Harry in Australia … Gerald in Canada … Lookman from Nigeria … and many other readers from every continent.

Plus, there’s one more thing the blog is demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt: Our readers include some of the brightest, most focused investors we’ve ever seen!

Click here for more information …


Finally, there was some fuzzier talk about foreclosure mitigation and prevention. The details weren’t entirely clear, but any program will probably build on existing loan modification programs under way at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and private banks.

So what’s the problem? I hardly know where to start.

But Here Are the
Three Biggest Problems …

Problem #1:
The plan wasn’t ready
for prime time!

Heading into this week’s events, the stock market had rallied significantly. Certain options market indicators were reflecting high levels of complacency. Wall Street investors clearly were betting that this time, the government would spell out exactly how, when, and why it would save the day.

But while Geithner’s speech was full of grandiose talk and fluff — it was extremely light on details. A separate “fact sheet” on the bailout efforts wasn’t entirely clear on how things would work, either.

The message that came through to the markets, loud and clear: Policymakers don’t even have the specifics of their plan hammered out yet!

Why on earth would you make a big deal about a huge bailout plan, leak details to the press for days, and suggest everything was tied up with a ribbon, then essentially announce a “plan to come up with a plan?”

I have no idea …

But the market clearly felt that’s exactly what the administration did. So investors dumped their stocks.

Problem #2:
The “same old, same old” efforts

These programs appear to be nothing more than expanded versions of efforts that have already had either limited success, or failed entirely.

A public-private effort to buy up bad debts that are clogging the system?
Paulson’s attempt to buy up bad debts was a total flop.
Paulson’s attempt to buy up bad debts was a total flop.

Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson floated a plan similar to that called the “Super SIV” back in late 2007. It never really got off the ground and was a total flop.

Another Fed program designed to support the securitization market and jumpstart credit extension?

We’ve been seeing versions of these for more than a year. Remember the TAF, the TSLF, the PDCF, and all the rest of those acronyms? Those programs have kept many “zombie” financial institutions alive.

But the origination and securitization of all kinds of loans has continued to plunge — and credit standards have continued to get tighter.

Just one of many examples:

Commercial loan originations dropped 80% year-over-year in the fourth quarter. EIGHTY PERCENT! Just think of the impact that’s going to have on the commercial real estate business, which I warned you almost two years ago in my Money and Markets column was destined to collapse.

And how about the supposedly new effort to mitigate foreclosures or modify mortgage loans?
Internal Sponsorship

RIGHT NOW is the Time to
Take Charge of Your Retirement!
wealth-building challenge today …

Learn what bonds to stuff into your nest egg immediately … Get another $9,600 (or more!) in Social Security checks … Use a little-known loophole to pile up a tax-free fortune for you and your heirs … Build a cost-effective, worry-free ETF income portfolio … Capitalize on new laws coming out of Washington … And a WHOLE LOT more!

Click here for more information …


Banks, loan servicers, and other interested parties are ALREADY trying to do that. Payment reductions, re-amortization of delinquent balances, interest rate cuts, and other “solutions” are ALREADY being used widely. Temporary foreclosure moratoriums have ALREADY been implemented in several states.

But they’re NOT stemming the tide of foreclosures — or keeping home prices from falling further. Indeed, many borrowers who’ve had their loans modified are just redefaulting anyway.

Don’t just take my word for it …

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, recently reported on the success rate of loans that were modified in the first quarter of last year. Some 36% had fallen behind on their payments again after just three months. After eight months, a whopping 58% were falling behind again!
Washington is talking a big game out of stemming foreclosures. But no interest rate or payment reduction can offset the complete loss of a borrower’s income.
Washington is talking a big game out of stemming foreclosures. But no interest rate or payment reduction can offset the complete loss of a borrower’s income.

Those findings jibe with private reports I have seen or read about. And that’s completely understandable: Some borrowers are so far underwater (they owe more than their homes are worth) that they see no reason to keep paying on their loans. Others are losing their jobs, and no interest rate or payment reduction can offset the complete loss of a borrower’s income.

So sure, Washington is talking a big game out of stemming foreclosures. But the numbers show the efforts aren’t really bearing fruit.

Problem #3:
Investors may finally be
starting to face reality

I think it’s finally dawning on investors that what Martin and I have been telling you all along is true. To reiterate from my January 30, Money and Markets column:

“This latest scheme to save the world will fail just like all the others. That is because nothing … NOTHING … can prevent a painful adjustment process.

“I wish that weren’t the case. But the time to prevent this painful correction and deleveraging process was a few years ago when the bubble was inflating.

“If regulators, policymakers, borrowers, and lenders hadn’t acted so stupidly then, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. But they did, we are, and no amount of Washington happy talk can change that fact.”

Personally, I believe we need to stop shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars more down the financial sector rat hole and get busy eliminating the dead weight.

* That means we should start nationalizing and carving up crummy banks that are just walking zombies anyway — instead of propping them up.

* That means we should also stop pretending the problem is that bad assets can’t be priced. Or that we need to eliminate mark-to-market accounting. Or that we should use taxpayer money to buy assets at inflated values.

Instead, we should acknowledge that the REAL problem is sellers are living in denial. Vulture investors are willing to bid for bad assets. But the banks don’t want to accept those bids because doing so might push them into insolvency.

So we end up with a paralyzed market.

That is EXACTLY what happened in the early stages of the downturn in the underlying housing market. The official gauges of house prices didn’t fall even as volume all but dried up. The dynamic: Buyers were dropping their bids … but sellers weren’t willing to accept them … and the result was paralysis.

But pretending that prices weren’t really falling didn’t help those sellers one bit. By hanging on and hoping for improvement, rather than just selling and getting it over with, they ended up losing even more money because the “real” market kept deteriorating. The same thing is going to happen with the banking industry if policymakers and executives keep sticking their heads in the sand.

For investors like you, the bottom line is clear: You can buy into the hype coming out of Washington and Wall Street. You can believe that there’s some magic bullet solution out there for all that ails us. Or you can acknowledge reality and take steps to prepare your portfolio for a very tough slog.

I trust you know which is truly the best course of action.

Until next time,

Mike

THE PROBLEM WITH WHITES


The Problem With Whites
By Kevin MacDonald
2-13-9



America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues - at least in the long run. After all, it's difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.

And it's not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non- white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu - another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Li vni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation - which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan ("For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better") has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

t's not surprising that the New York Times - the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media - ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting.

Now we have an article "The End of White America" written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: "Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" Well, it's a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don't look out the white race will be-will be utterly submerged. It's all scientific stuff; it's been proved."

Buchanan's comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as "rationalized hatred" presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore "precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan's profile - wealthy, Ivy League­educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure - might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation."

Let's ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure," would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995's White Man's Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like "the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group."

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites - especially white males - are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non- white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002­ 2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile perpetrators increased 43%. Hence, the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, "I think white people feel like they're under siege right now - like it's not okay to be white right now, especially if you're a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. `We used to be in control! We're losing control'" Another says, "There's a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I'm the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, `I don't have a culture.' They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized."

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop-a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites - and only this group - there is "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead-a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'"

This is what I term implicit whiteness - implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti- white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name."

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: ""Like, I'm aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there's a bunch of white people who are desperate - desperate - to say, `You know what? My skin's white, but I'm not one of the white people who's destroying the world.'"

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like - what it's like to be a self- hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won't continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The "God damn America" sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure - as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were "Stalin's willing executioners."

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for causes of leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinians. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the "transformation" of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, "cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity." And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that: the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of "unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness". The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, "in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard" (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, "the Russian Federationwas still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity- free society" (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white- minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University­Long Beach.

OBAMA'S DEFENSE DEPARTMENT APPOINTEE-THE $$3.4 TRILLION $$ QUESTION


Former Raytheon lobbyist, William Lynn, was appointed deputy defense secretary on Wednesday, February 11th after a contentious Senate confirmation hearing that led Republican Senator for Iowa, Charles Grassley, to forcefully object to the appointment on the basis of Mr. Lynn's "very questionable accounting practices that were obviously not in the public interest" while in the position of Pentagon Comptroller during the Clinton administration. The Senator's objection did not go far enough in exploring the "very questionable accounting practices" that Lynn engaged in during his tenure at the Defense Department from 1997 to 2001. The relevant question that should have been asked is "Where did the $3.4 Trillion go?"

In fiscal year 1999, the Department of Defense reported that it was missing $2.3 Trillion. In fiscal year 2000 the Department reported a missing $1.1 Trillion. Total: $3.4 Trillion "missing" taxpayer money. This happened under the watchful eye of the same William Lynn that now passes through the revolving door between the Department of Defense and the Defense industry.

Lynn was the Defense Department's chief financial officer and as such was responsible for all budgetary administration and reporting. He was also responsible for the publication of audited financial statements which he failed to do during his tenure and which have not been published since.

Lynn was nominated by Obama-Biden because "Lynn brings decades of experience and expertise in reforming government spending and making the tough choices necessary to ensure that American tax dollars are spent wisely."

The other appointee, as Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Robert Hale, served as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the role of Financial Comptroller from 1994 to 2001. He was also responsible, along with Lynn, for the management of Defense Department funds. Hale is also a Certified Defense Financial Manager with acquisition specialty. This is his particular connection to the Military Industrial Complex.

Between these two appointees, they have lost enough taxpayer money to pay for Obama's Stimulus Plan 4 times over and are now again responsible for overseeing how the Department of Defense manages its appropriations. Obama's promise of fiscal responsibility within his administration can now be dumped in to the already overflowing trash can of broken promises.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

THE RACIST,APARTHEID STATE OF JEWISH ISRAEL

The Racist, Apartheid
State Of Jewish Israel
Jim Kirwan
2-12-9


"The United States administration, previous administrations, the European governments, the whole official international community has been complicit with Israeli crimes, war crimes in Gaza and in other places, and silent about forty-one years of occupation. So, basically, people in Israel think they can do what they want. If they violate human rights in such a terrible manner and nobody is objecting, I think they think they can move forward towards racism and an apartheid system, and that is unfortunately the case today.

And that gives you a very, very simple picture of how tragic the situation is in Israel today. And it puts us all, as Palestinians, in front of a very clear task: we have to struggle against this apartheid system. We have to break this apartheid system. But the challenge now is on the side of the whole international community, which has been either silent or complicit or trying to avoid the issue, when it is very clear."

HANIN ZOUBI: [translated] Indeed, Lieberman [one of the Israeli candidates] is a natural result of the racist policies in this country for sixty years. Lieberman didn't bring anything new. All the parties demand loyalty from the Arabs. The right, what's called the center, what's called by mistake left or center-left, they all demand loyalty from the Arabs. The new thing by Lieberman is only giving the punishment. The punishment for no loyalty is pulling the citizenship."

"anybody who is against war, for instance, that is conducted by Israel, on Gaza or anywhere else, would be considered as an illoyal or unloyal citizen. Anybody who is not supporting occupation would become not loyal to Israel. This is why it's very dangerous and risky. It is putting the oppressed, which are the Palestinians and the Arabs, who are oppressed from racism and discrimination, in a situation where either they approve of their own oppression by the Israeli government or they become disloyal to the Israeli government and then entitled to losing their citizenship. That is the risk, and that's why it looks like a very clear neo-fascist approach.

Now, on the issue of settlements, I want to say that since 1967 there hasn't been any period where there was a real freeze of settlement activities. On the contrary, they have been growing at a much faster rate, especially during the times of the so-called peace process. During Annapolisperiod, the rate at which settlement continued to expand was forty times more than before Annapolis. And now we are witnessing the creation of even new-whole new settlements." (1)

Which brings us to this global-crisis of having the world's most unstable and unfinished "nation" in the position of becoming even more rabid, in their pursuit of extermination for anyone not sharing their belief, in the superiority of the Zionist State, over everyone else on the planet.

For those that have not kept up with what Israel has taken control of, here are just a few of the things that have eluded the headlines. Israel is in charge of US stockpiles and facilities for all our nuclear weapons (leaked out during the mystery surrounding the missing nuke aboard a B-52 flight from South Dakota to New Orleans). Israel has also blackmailed the USA into backing their bid to achieve The Greater State of Israel which includes parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon, and possibly parts of Saudi Arabia.

Beyond these recent leaks we know for certain that JFK tried to prevent the Israelis from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that not only failed, but along the way JFK ended up dead. His successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson was blackmailed into 'Not-stopping' the Israeli attacks upon the unarmed USS Liberty, during the six day 1967 war. Thirty-four American sailors were killed and 174 were injured, many seriously. The attack was covered up by Senator John McCain's father-Admiral McCain. (2)

Then it was Robber-Baron-Ronnie's turn to turn traitor and run from Israel. This time it was the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut,Lebanon that killed 242 U.S. Marines, and we failed to challenge or investigate that false-flag terror attack upon us by Israel. Time and again events have been perpetrated against US interests that very specifically served Israeli interests, regardless of the cost in American lives.

We give Israel more money than all the other foreign-aid combined; yet what do we get in return? We get attacked and we are told exactly what we can and cannot do in foreign affairs and in all things having to do with the military security of Israel. Iraq and Iran as well as Pakistan andAfghanistan are all targets because they play into the creation of The Greater State of Israel. Turkey, Lebanon, Syria are also part of this massive war on all of Israel's neighbors. Israel for her part claims that all she wants is 'peace,' but what she means is that all she really wants is another "piece," of every country that is anywhere near her ever-shifting borders. The US government calls Israel our partner and ally: what she is our master, both at home and abroad-and Americans do not protest this blatant insult because they've been brainwashed!

No one has ever explained what we get for all that money and support that ordinary US taxpayer's give to Israel. If we have a 'partnership with Israel, where is the reciprocation-where is the benefit to all those American citizens that Israel thinks of as her enemies?

Israel has been a constant irritant to the entire world for the last 60 plus years. Israel hates everyone that does not bow-down to her infamous hatreds and unquenchable greed. Israel has become a pariah among nations, and a curse upon the planet. The world needs to have an immediate "Regime-Change" in Israel-especially now that her new government has chosen to eliminate democracy in favor of Apartheid, and Israel's stated goals have turned from supposed openness to just another fascist regime in a world that is plagued by state-terrorism at every turn. Here's Cynthia McKinney, just one of AIPAC's intended victims who has continually fought back. (4)

Jews have been banished forty-seven times in a thousand years ­ from a wide variety of countries and by very different peoples. The major exception has been the United States. We have not allowed any other people to take over the lives of Americans in their own country-only Israel gets away with that. And "this" is only possible when good people continue to choose to "Do Nothing"! (5)

Here's just an excerpt from one example:

"Commenting on the latest Israeli one-directional onslaught against the Palestinians of Gaza Strip, the Israeli 10th TV channel has disclosed that the Israeli genocidal forces had used half of its air force and had launched at least 2500 air raids against Gaza Strip.

The television military correspondent stated that the Israeli warplanes had dropped more than a thousand tons of explosives, including white phosphorous and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) bombs, during three weeks on the virtually unarmed densely populated 360 square Kilometers Strip.

He added that the shells fired by tanks, artillery, gunboats, and infantry were not included in those fired by the air force.

After a whole week of continuous air bombardments Israel sent in its elite foot soldiers; 30,000 of them, and called in 10,000 of its reservists. Armed with the latest weapons of mass murder, covered with an umbrella of free reigning air force, and accompanied with raining shells of heavy artilleries, they drove their tanks into the civilian towns murdering civilians and destroying every structure in their path.

Living outside of Gaza one cannot fully understand the barbarity of this genocide especially when the Western media had barely covered any of its atrocity. To gain a slight idea of its enormity one should remember that, during the 6-days war of 1967, this same Israeli army was distributed on four fronts; Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, and Lebanese, and it was fighting regular armies. Now the whole brunt of this army is concentrated on a small strip against unarmed and untrained civilian population.

Latest official count was 1350 murdered, 40% of them were children, and 5300 were injured; mutilated and amputated. It was reported that 80% of the injured were the victims of burning phosphorous bombs. More dead are being discovered under the rebels, and many seriously injured are expected later on to die.

Israeli tanks had left several city blocks completely destroyed without any homes or structure standing. The tanks shelled homes and apartment towers. Due to the small size of Gaza Strip Palestinians had to build vertically. Many apartment towers went up 15-20 stories high with each story containing 6-8 apartments.

A total of 20,000 buildings were completely or partially burnt and damaged. The UN has reported that more than 50,000 Palestinians are left homeless and are now crowded into 50 emergency shelters.

An estimated of 50,000 more are living with relatives and in tents they erected on the ruins of their homes.

The Israeli bombardment targeted everything in Gaza including government buildings, police headquarters, banks and business offices, the main university, 67 schools sheltering civilians, shopping centers and market places, factories, water, sewer, and electricity infrastructures, private homes and apartment towers and charity organizations." (6)

We have a place that used to be a nation, but is no longer, because our leadership is wholly owned by others. Out of 535 members of congress 531 of them voted against the people of the United States and the world, when they endorsed the slaughter outlined above and more fully in the footnote. Israel stands for everything the founding documents opposed in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, and ultimately in the US Constitution and its Amendments.


If any other nation but Israel had done what Israel is now continuing to do to the world; the outrage and fury would have forced it from the global stage long ago. And probably, the world would have banished any surviving Zionists to uninhabitable parts of the earth, or to life imprisonment, if not death. But what have we done-NOTHING except to continue to give them whatever they demand!


Now Israel is a place where Apartheid will flourish, and where the people there shall no longer have rights or freedoms outside the narrow view of the fascists that run the world's smallest rogue state: A restless ruthless state with the fourth largest military on the planet, which we paid for ten times over. If we let that dung-heap continue to rule our every action, then we shall deserve to live in the hell that has been designed by the Zionists for us all.We could make a start by forcing all dual-citizens out of federal office: because our government ought to be reserved for Americans alone to occupy, as any other policy (such as the one that we have now) is a clear and potentially treasonous conflict of the national-interests of the United States.

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net

1) The Israeli Elections
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/11/palestinian
_lawmaker_mustafa_barghouti_on_the

2) Israel's Attack on the USS Liberty
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair06082007.html

3) Beirut was an Israeli Bomb
http://judicial-inc.biz/Beirut_false_flag.htm

4) What is Dignity ­ video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfb15ySoAVQ

5) Jews have been Banished 47 Times in a thousand years
http://www.rense.com/general85/banished.htm

6) Israeli Spokesman Brags about Controlling America
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/9334-israeli-spokesman
-says-we-control-stupid-americans.html

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

EDITORIAL:TWO TYPES OF SCHOLARS IN THE GLOBAL AFRICAN COMMUNITY

There are two types of fundamental scholars within the world of
African people. There are those scholars who have internalized the
value system of white supremacy. They, generally, never question any
theories, models, perceptions, assumptions or concepts that come from
the minds of White males in the world. They then proceed to write and
teach rooted in the assumption that white scholars cannot be
questioned in their social, cultural, philosophical or theological
approaches to the human condition. In general their very merit as
scholars is rooted in their approval by the white male developed and
controlled institutions of higher learning, and they depend on the
validation of the white male as the source of their professionalism
and views. This group of scholars within the global African community
can command accesss to the media, major publishing companies, the
university lecture circuit, and even access to other nation of African
people. These scholars, in conjunction with a very dishonest
mainstream African media in the U.S., the Caribbean and on the African
continent then engage in reinforcing white supremacy simply because
that endorsement pays well, supports the business, provides the
indivdual with economic stability and personal notoriety. Even those
who take the position of being progressive, liberal and radical only
do so within the context of White male cultural thought. They only
referrence other Africans who reference radical, progressive and
liberal whites. Such scholars attempt to control the direction of the
conversation of African people. They are more prone to talk in
'universal' themes, 'international' themes, 'humanism' themes and
'class' themes which are all inventions of the white male mind in
their concept, assumptions, values to serve the purpose of his
maintenance of human supremacy. Thus the conversation for them is
always 'how do we transcend race to a common dialogue of humanity'
which is always based on how the white world wants to transcend race.
For them the goal is for African people to prove to the white world
that African people are worthy of respect, regard and assistance
whether that argument is posed from the conservative right or the
radical left of white cultural thought. In essence they spend a life
time promoting world white nationalism disguised as 'modernity,
technological advancement and social democracy' as defined by the
white male mind. They have not had an original thought ever and
denounce original thought as invalid and unrealistic because it does
not allow African people to learn how to live in a white cultural and
social reality. Their combined force of conversation then attempts to
drown out the second type of scholar, the African-centered,
Nationalist and Pan-Africanism scholar. This type of scholar has
struggled for two centuries to be heard by African people yet this
scholar has had to contend with the power of white supremacy by way of
the first scholar, the media preference of the first scholar and the
innate selfl-preservation of white male culture that has created a
climate and environment to starve his scholar out. This scholar has
learned the theories, models, perceptions, and concepts and
assumptions of the same schools of the white male thought as the first
group of scholars yet this scholar has not only chosen to challenge
their fundamental validity but has moved into the direction of
replacing them with sound thinking that comes out of an African way of
looking at the human condition rooted in those cultural concepts,
theories, models, perceptions and assumptions of a fundamentally
African value system. This scholar has been a student of Jeffersonian
philosophy, Marxism, Christianity, Islam, capitalism, industrialism,
and found all of them to be unAfrican in nature, sensibility and
application. This scholar has started from the position that the
white male is not above being challenged in ALL of his theories,
models, approaches, assumptions and concepts about anything human.
This scholar takes the position that the white male is no more
intelligent than any other group of people on the planet. He has
merely had the ability to use seduction, coercion and brutal violence
to persuade the rest of humanity that he is the ultimate
representative of civilization, human achievement and human
aspiration. These scholars, however, have generally worked in
isolation from one another, without the advantage of financial support
that their peers have received continuously. They have had to
struggle against a mainstream African American, Caribbean and
continental African media that has been convinced of the credibility
that anything worth doing must be a copy of the white male model of
human intellect and social organization. These scholars for the most
part have not headed any historically Black college departments in
America, nor have they been made the heads of such departments in
Caribbean and African universities. Often times these scholars have
not only struggled to print their material but to get it advertised in
the mainstream black media. They have never been featured on
mainstream black controlled programming on a regular basis. They have
not been offered syndication by the Black media in the U. S., in the
Caribbean or on the African continent. They have had to pursue an
intellectual guerrilla strategy to get exposure in the Black world
globally. The power of white male supremacy is such that those
African people on the right of the white male cultural perspective and
those on the left of the white male cultural perspective have attacked
them with equal venom, and where they have not been attacked, they
have been deliberately ridiculed or questioned. Those who have
challenged them have read nothing of Martin R. Delany, Paul Cuffee,
Edward Wilmot Blyden, Marcus Garvey, Ida B. Wells, Queen Nzingha,
Queen Asantewaa, Cheikh Anta Diop, Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, etc..
Their books have not been used by the vast majority of Black history
courses in the U.S. And of course they have not been approached by
most universities in the Caribbean and on the African continent to use
their books for courses. Yet this group of scholars has always
attempted to put the needs of African people first, realizing that the
other groups on the planet do not need our help, and are generally
helping themselves bettter than we are helping ourselves. All of
these scholars have started with the assumption that we have enough
genius within our ranks to solve our problems if we are willing to
think ourside of the Eurocentric cultural box. For them, we need to
learn how to think from a position of power; work together to
establish a position of power and be able to threaten retaliation from
a position of power."

Baye Kes Ba Me-Ra
"Two Types of Scholars in The Global African Community"
Powered By Blogger