DaniMartExtras, Too



Posted by Xaniel777 on December 6, 2011

TODAY IS : December 06, 2011

” Alternative News Stories gathered from all over the world and placed here for your awareness ! “

If you have the  extra time,  then check out Xaniel’s Blog at  Danimart.com



Is the war on terror a complete hoax?

Paul Craig Roberts reveals how social engineers infected America with mass paranoia

From Natural News.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) What if there weren’t any real terrorists threatening America and the whole thing was just made up to justify a military agenda? A rational person might say that if we’re all going to give up our rights, and our Fourth Amendment, and have U.S. troops in the streets running checkpoints, then logically there should at least be some evidence that America has been infiltrated with terrorists, right? Or, more specifically,evidence from a reliable source that has not already been caught lying about terrorism, which would exclude the federal government, of course.

Look around you today: Do you see any terrorists? Any “towel heads” aiming guns at your family? Anybody walking around with a vest full of explosives? Nope.

Have youeverseen the TSA catch a terrorist at the airport? Ever read a news report of the TSA catching a terrorist? Ever heard of an Air Marshall stopping a terrorist in-flight? Nope.

Have you ever heard of the FBI halting a terrorist plotthat they didn’t fabricate, plan and carry out themselves?(All the terror plots “stopped” by the FBI are, on the record, planned and carried out by the FBI itself.) (http://www.naturalnews.com/033751_F…)

Seriously. Clear the cobwebs out of your head for a moment and think logically: Where are all these “terrorists” that we’re supposed to be afraid of and give up our rights for? Where are they?

Now, of course, the government can and will, from time to time, stage some sort of terrorist event to remind everyone to be afraid. That’s a given. In classic Orwellian protocol,any war that grants a government unlimited power will be indefinitely sustained.

This is why the “War on Terror” was declared againsta tactic, not a nation or a person. That way, the so-called “war” can be carried out indefinitely. A war with no end. Perpetual tyranny. At first, if you remember, we were told we needed TSA agents at the airports because of Osama Bin Laden, remember? He was the “mastermind” who was going to cause airplanes to fall out of the sky. So what happened after he was killed and removed from the picture? The U.S. government announced the terror threat was now “even higher” because Bin Laden’s loyal supporters would now seek revenge!

Do you see how, under this brand of sick logic, the war on terror will go on indefinitely? They can always claim someone else is dangerous… there’s always a new boogeyman when it serves the interests of the state. That’s why it’s now obvious that this war has beenentirely fabricatedto achieve specific political and social agendas.

The war on terror is a hoax

The best article yet written on this subject was penned by none other than Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

As Roberts explains: (http://www.infowars.com/?p=62008)

“The US government creates whatever new bogeymen and incidents are necessary to further the neoconservative agenda of world hegemony and higher profits for the armaments industry.”

He goes on to provide details:

“If we look around for the terror that the police state and a decade of war has allegedly protected us from, the terror is hard to find. Except for 9/11 itself, assuming we accept the government’s improbable conspiracy theory explanation, there have been no terror attacks on the US. Indeed, as RT pointed out on August 23, 2011, an investigative program at the University of California discovered that the domestic “terror plots” hyped in the media were plotted by FBI agents.”

“As there apparently are no real terror plots for this huge workforce to uncover, the FBI justifies its budget, terror alerts, and invasive searches of American citizens by thinking up “terror plots” and finding some deranged individuals to ensnare. For example, the Washington DC Metro bombing plot, the New York city subway plot, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago were all FBI brainchilds organized and managed by FBI agents.”

Robert goes on to explain the real motivation behind the war on terror. It’s not to fight terrorism, as has been publicly claimed, but ratherto scare Americans into a state of blind obedienceto a police state government:

“When I observe the gullibility of my fellow citizens at the absurd “terror plots” that the US government manufactures, it causes me to realize that fear is the most powerful weapon any government has for advancing an undeclared agenda. Apparently, Americans, or most of them, are so ruled by fear that they suffer no remorse from “their” government’s murder and dislocation of millions of innocent people. In the American mind, one billion “towel-heads” have been reduced to terrorists who deserve to be exterminated.”

And commenting on the TSA’s total thuggishness and criminality, Roberts writes:

“One of America’s finest moments is the case, documented on YouTube, of a dying woman in a wheelchair, who requires special food, having her food thrown away by the Gestapo TSA despite the written approval from the Transportation Safety Administration, her daughter arrested for protesting, and the dying woman in the wheelchair left alone in the airport.”

A nation of gullible, paranoia-stricken slaves

What’s really amazing in all this is how easily the American people are sucked into believing all the imaginary fairytale terrorists. These stilted beliefs are driving national decisions about security, defense spending, Presidential elections and even the Bill of Rights.

What America needs to do right now iswake from its dreamy slumberand realizeThe Emperor Has No Clothes!The war on terror is a fabrication. The whole “if you see something, say something” campaign is ahypnosis script for mass paranoia. The airport security checkpoints are not designed to make flying safer but to make the American people more terrified.

Every element of the so-called “war on terror” is a complete fabrication, just as the original war on Iraq was a total fabrication with its WMDs and fabricated yellowcake uranium claims which turned out to be utter falsehoods.

Of course, if the American people actually got close to waking up and realizing the whole war on terror was a complete fabrication, you can rest assured an event would be staged to instill fear in the minds of the people once again. All the FBI would have to do, for example, isallowone of their many engineered terror plots to continue all the way. The FBI, as you probably know, already provides the terror plots, the weapons, the money, the grenades, ammunition, and anything else necessary for its chosen terror suspects to carry out these acts of violence. It then takes credit for halting these attacks, pretending to be protecting us from the very plots it engineered in the first place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyAX…) (http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-usa-terr…).

It obviously wouldn’t take much for the FBI to simplyallowa mass shooting in a mall or a sports stadium, for example — even as such acts were carried out with hardware supplied by the FBI itself! Here, crazy kid, take some antidepressant drugs, an AR-15 and some FBI ammunition, and go shoot up the local mall, they might say. And there are crazy enough youngsters in America who would carry it out, sadly.

Such an act would immediately be heralded by the corrupt mainstream media as yet more evidence that we’re “losing” the war on terror and therefore we need police checkpoints at every street corner; we need military personnel strip-searching everyone in U.S. cities; and we need to eliminate cash from society so that we can track everybody’s purchases via electronic instruments. Heck, we need to just end the entire Bill of Rights! Who needs “rights” when all these police are everywhere to protect us, right?

So you can expect such acts of violence to be engineered and unleashed upon America in the very near future by the very institutions that claim to be protecting us from terror. In reality, they are the real terrorists in the classic sense of the word. “Terrorism” means, by definition, the use of fear tactics to achieve a political or social goal. There is no better example that fits the definition perfectly than the Department of Homeland Security itself, which is far more interested in figuring out how to INFECT people with fear rather than to PROTECT them from real terrorism.

America’s government owes the Arab-American community a huge apology

What is especially insidious in all this is how these government elements who fabricate all these terror plots specifically work toentrap Arab Americansand others who “look” like terrorists because they are of Middle Eastern descent.

Through these actions, the U.S. government has unleashed a generation of hatred against Arab-Americans, Iranian-Americans and other groups of completely innocent people who are now subjected to social shunning, ridicule and suspicion by the rest of American society. People of Middle Eastern descent are looked at in America today with the kind of condescending disdain that blacks once suffered under just a few generations ago (and in some areas, even today). Some of the demeaning vocabulary has even been grafted onto the new victims, who are viciously called “sand ni…ers” as if that somehow justifies marginalizing their very existence.

On this historical point, by the way, at least when African Americans were held as slaves,they knew they were enslaved!But all the delusional white people running around America today dialing 911 because they saw some guy using CASH — OMG! — still don’t realize that they are far more enslaved than the plantation workers ever were. All these CNN-watching, clock-punching, government-worshipping morons are slaving away 60 hours a week to feed their money into a system that has already plotted to destroy them (and steal their wealth, too). They are the “mindlessly enslaved masses” of our modern world, and they have no clue they are enslaved at all.

Government is guilty of hate crimes

Getting back to the condemnation of Arab-Americans and others of Middle Eastern descent, that the government has specifically targeted these people to be entrapped in terror plot crimes is one of the most outrageous examples of ahate crimeagainst an entire society. It is shameful beyond belief that a government which wants to make it illegal for citizens to engage in “hate crimes” against other citizens has effectively unleashed the greatest hate crime in history by demonizing huge swaths of American citizens whose parents happened to be Persian, or Kuwaiti, or Iraqi, or Saudi.

You know who is carrying out the real terror in America today? It’s not the “towel heads” to borrow a vulgar a highly inappropriate phrase from those who push this agenda. No, it’s thebeer-bellied, white-faced, ego-driven, child-molesting TSA agentswho terrorize tens of thousands of innocent air passengers every single day by stripping them down in those secret little rooms behind the security checkpoint naked body scanners — which are themselves another form ofelectronic strip searchesthat violate fundamental human rights.

And all the people out there who acquiesce to the tyranny, the in-your-pants searches by the TSA, the restrictions of free speech protests, and the coming “secret detainment” provisions just passed by the U.S. Senate (http://www.naturalnews.com/034291_S…),you are all fools and suckerswho have been brainwashed into a state ofirrational paranoia.

Those who foolishly believe the fabricated war on terror are the ultimate pessimists

You who have bought into all this fabricated terror nonsense are the worst “doom-and-gloomers” of our time, living your lives in a constant state of fear and despair, fretting about invisible imaginary terrorists who you think are going to magically leap out of your luggage and blow up an airplane. You’ve been indoctrinated by the “if you see something, say something” paranoia, and you’ve been hoodwinked by a bunch of social engineers who know how to manipulate fear to achieve their desired political (and military) agendas.

It’s pathetic. And it’s the oldest trick in the government book, of course: Use the fear of terror to manipulate the public into supporting a police state agenda which concentrates power in the hands of the executive branch, which quickly becomes a military dictatorship. Read your history, folks, or you will stupidly repeat it.

It might also be worth your time to read George Orwell’s1984novel, as it’s very nearly a blueprint for the Department of Homeland Security’s “perpetual war” fraud.


The Real Reason for Obama’s Threat to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill (Hint: It’s Not to Protect Liberty)

by WashingtonsBlog

Obama Wants to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill Because It Would Hold the U.S. to the Geneva Convention

I – like everyone else – am horrified by the Senate’s passage of legislation that would allow for indefinite detention of Americans.

And at first, I – like many others – assumed that Obama’s threat to veto the bill might be a good thing. But the truth is much more disturbing.

As former Wall Street Street editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts correctly notes:

The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing “extraordinary renditions” to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (Seehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)

The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.

Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.

Police State Started Years Ago

Even if Obama’s threatened veto was for more noble purposes, the fact is that it would not change anything, because the U.S. government claimed the power to indefinitely detain and assassinate American citizens years ago.

For example, law school professor and National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn pointed out in 2006:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, “unlawful enemy combatants.”


Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush’s list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies could bedeclared an “unlawful enemy combatant” and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

Glenn Greenwald and Fire Dog Lake’s Emptywheel have also documented that the White House has believed for many years that it possessed the power to indefinitely detain Americans. See thisthisthis, and this.

noted Friday:

The police state started in 2001.

Specifically, on 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney initiated Continuity of Government Plans that ended America’s constitutional form of government (at least for some undetermined period of time.)

On that same day, a national state of emergency was declared … and that state of emergency has continuously been in effect up to today.

The Obama administration has also said for more than a year and a half it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process.

In 2005, Chris Floyd pointed out that the ability of the government to assassinate U.S. citizens startedthe very week of 9/11:

On September 17, 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the use of “lethal measures” against anyone in the world whom he or his minions designatedan “enemy combatant.” This order remains in force today. No judicial evidence, no hearing, no charges are required for these killings; no law, no border, no oversight restrains them. Bush has also given agents in the field carte blanche to designate “enemies” on their own initiative and kill them as they see fit.

The existence of this universal death squad – and the total obliteration of human liberty it represents – has not provoked so much as a crumb, an atom, a quantum particle of controversy in the American Establishment, although it’s no secret.  The executive order was first bruited in the Washington Post in October 2001 …. The New York Times added further details in December 2002. That same month, Bush officials made clear that the dread edict also applied to American citizens, as the Associated Press reported.

The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen in Yemen by a CIA drone missile on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred in Pakistan this month, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner’s son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported.

But most of the assassinations are carried out in secret, quietly, professionally, like a contract killing for the mob. As a Pentagon document unearthed by the New Yorker in December 2002 put it, the death squads must be “small and agile,” and “able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to…enter countries surreptitiously.”

The dangers of this policy are obvious, as a UN report on “extrajudicial killings” noted in December 2004: ” Empowering governments to identify and kill ‘known terrorists’ places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists… While it is portrayed as a limited ‘exception’ to international norms, it actually creates the potential for an endless expansion of the relevant category to include any enemies of the State, social misfits, political opponents, or others.”

It’s hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an “enemy.” It’s hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is what the great and good in America have done. Like the boyars of old, they not only countenance but celebrate their enslavement to the ruler.

[Note from Washington’s Blog: 9/11 allowed those who glorify war to implement plans they had lusted after for many years (and see this), even though 9/11 happened because Dick Cheney was – at best – totally incompetent, and the government is now doing things which increase the risk of terrorisminstead of doing the things which could actually make us safer.]


This was vividly demonstrated in … Bush’s State of the Union address in January 2003, delivered to Congress and televised nationwide during the final frenzy of war-drum beating before the assault on Iraq. Trumpeting his successes in the Terror War, Bush claimed that “more than 3,000 suspected terrorists” had been arrested worldwide – “and many others have met a different fate.” His face then took on the characteristic leer, the strange, sickly half-smile it acquires whenever he speaks of killing people: “Let’s put it this way. They are no longer a problem.”

In other words, the suspects – and even Bush acknowledged they were only suspects – had been murdered. Lynched. Killed by agents operating unsupervised in that shadow world where intelligence, terrorism, politics, finance and organized crime meld together in one amorphous, impenetrable mass. Killed on the word of a dubious informer, perhaps: a tortured captive willing to say anything to end his torment, a business rival, a personal foe, a bureaucrat looking to impress his superiors, a paid snitch in need of cash, a zealous crank pursuing ethnic, tribal or religious hatreds – or any other purveyor of the garbage data that is coin of the realm in the shadow world.

Bush proudly held up this hideous system as an example of what he called “the meaning of American justice.” And the assembled legislators…applauded. Oh, how they applauded!

This is, of course, the real meaning of the famous Star Wars scene:



Mystery company buying up U.S. gun manufacturers

From The SF Gate

San Francisco Chronicle

    Gretchen Ertl / The New York Times

Randy Miller examines a Remington shotgun with salesman Bob Cabral at Cabela’s sporting goods store in Scarborough, Maine.

Scarborough, Maine —

Lined up in a gun rack beneath mounted deer heads is a Bushmaster Carbon 15, a matte-black semiautomatic rifle that looks as if it belongs to a SWAT team. On another rack rests a Teflon-coated Prairie Panther from DPMS Firearms, a supplier to the U.S. Border Patrol and security agencies in Iraq. On a third is a Remington 750 Woodsmaster, a popular hunting rifle.

The variety of rifles and shotguns on sale here at Cabela’s, the national sporting goods chain, is a testament to America’s enduring gun culture. But, to a surprising degree, it is also a testament to something else: Wall Street deal-making.

In recent years, many top-selling brands – including the 195-year-old Remington Arms, as well as Bushmaster Firearms and DPMS, leading makers of military-style semiautomatics – have quietly passed into the hands of a single private company. It is called the Freedom Group – and it is the most powerful and mysterious force in the U.S. commercial gun industry today.

Never heard of it?

You’re not alone. Even within gun circles, the Freedom Group is something of an enigma. Its rise has been so swift that it has become the subject of wild speculation and grassy-knoll conspiracy theories. In the realm of consumer rifles and shotguns – long guns, in the trade – it is unrivaled in its size and reach. By its own count, the Freedom Group sold 1.2 million long guns and 2.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the 12 months ended March 2010, the most recent year for which figures are publicly available.

Behind this giant is Cerberus Capital Management, the private investment company that first came to widespread attention when it acquired Chrysler in 2007. (Chrysler later had to be rescued by taxpayers). With far less fanfare, Cerberus, through the Freedom Group, has been buying big names in guns and ammo.

From its headquarters in Manhattan, Cerberus has assembled a remarkable arsenal. It began with Bushmaster, which until recently was based here in Maine. Unlike military counterparts like automatic M-16s, rifles like those from Bushmaster don’t spray bullets with one trigger pull. But, with gas-powered mechanisms, semiautomatics can fire rapid follow-up shots as fast as the trigger can be squeezed. They are often called “black guns” because of their color. The police tied a Bushmaster XM15 rifle to shootings in the Washington sniper case in 2002.

After Bushmaster, the Freedom Group moved in on Remington, which traces its history to the days of flintlocks and today is supplying M24 sniper rifles to the government of Afghanistan and making handguns for the first time in decades. The group has also acquired Marlin Firearms, which turned out a special model for Annie Oakley, as well as Dakota Arms, a maker of high-end big-game rifles. It has bought DPMS Firearms, another maker of semiautomatic, military-style rifles, as well as manufacturers of ammunition and tactical clothing.

“We believe our scale and product breadth are unmatched within the industry,” the Freedom Group said in a filing last year with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some gun enthusiasts have claimed that the power behind the company is actually George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire and liberal activist. Soros, these people have warned, is buying U.S. gun companies so he can dismantle the industry, Second Amendment be damned.

The chatter grew so loud that the National Rifle Association issued a statement in October denying the rumors.

“NRA has had contact with officials from Cerberus and Freedom Group for some time,” the NRA assured its members. “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters.”

Soros isn’t behind the Freedom Group, but, ultimately, another financier is: Stephen Feinberg, the chief executive of Cerberus.

Cerberus is part of one of the signature Wall Street businesses of the past decade: private equity. Buyout kings like Feinberg, 51, try to acquire undervalued companies, often with borrowed money, fix them up and either take them public or sell at a profit to someone else.

Before the financial crisis of 2008, scores of well-known U.S. companies, from Chrysler down, passed into the hands of private-equity firms. For the financiers, the rewards were often enormous. But some companies that they acquired later ran into trouble, in part because they were burdened with debt from the takeovers.

Feinberg, a Princeton graduate who began his Wall Street career at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the junk bond powerhouse of Michael Milken fame, got into private equity in 1992. That year, he and William Richter founded Cerberus, which takes its name from the three-headed dog in Greek mythology that guards the gates of Hades.

Today, Feinberg presides over a private empire that rivals some of the mightiest public companies in the land. Cerberus manages more than $20 billion in capital. Together, the companies it owns generate annual revenue of about $40 billion – more than either Amazon or Coca-Cola last year.

Why Cerberus went after gun companies isn’t clear. Many private investment firms shy away from such industries to avoid scaring off big investors like pension funds.

Yet, in many ways, the move is classic Cerberus. Feinberg has a history of investing in companies that other people may not want, but that Cerberus believes it can turn around. When Cerberus embarked on its acquisition spree in guns, it essentially had the field to itself.

“There’s much less competition for buying these companies,” says Steven N. Kaplan, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a private equity expert. “They must have decided there is an opportunity to make money by investing in the firearms industry and trying to build a big company.”

Whatever the reason, Cerberus, through the Freedom Group, is now a major player.

It has sold weapons to the governments of Afghanistan, Thailand, Mexico and Malaysia, among others, and obtained new business from the U.S. Army, including a contract worth up to $28.2 million to upgrade the M24 sniper weapon system.

Cerberus brings connections to the table. The longtime chairman of its global investments group is Dan Quayle, the former vice president. The Freedom Group, meantime, has added two retired generals to its board. One is George Joulwan, who retired from the Army after serving as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. The other is Michael Hagee, formerly commandant of the Marine Corps.

Jessica Kallam, a spokeswoman at the Freedom Group, said executives there declined to comment for this article. Timothy Price, a managing director of Cerberus, also declined to comment.

The old Bushmaster factory in Windham, Maine, doesn’t look like much. With a facade of brick and gray aluminum siding, it squats in an unassuming office park on the Roosevelt Trail.

But Cerberus representatives who arrived here in 2005 clearly saw potential. Inside, several dozen gunsmiths, working by hand, were fitting together 6,000 to 7,000 weapons a month. At the time, Bushmaster was thriving, although it had been stung by bad publicity stemming from the Beltway sniper shootings. (In a 2004 settlement with victims of the shootings and their families, Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, the store where the gun was acquired, agreed to pay $2 million, and Bushmaster agreed to pay $568,000, but they did not admit liability.)

Richard Dyke, then the principal owner and chairman of Bushmaster, welcomed the visitors from New York. A blunt-spoken Korean War veteran and Republican fundraiser, he had made a fortune himself by buying companies in trouble, including one that made poker chips. In 1976, he bought a bankrupt gun-maker in Bangor, Maine, for $241,000, moved it to Windham and later changed its name to Bushmaster. The company that Dyke bought had patents on semiautomatic weapons designed for the military and police. But he was drawn to the nascent market in military-style firearms for civilians. He saw as his customers precision target shooters, including current and former military personnel, police officers and, well, military wannabes, he says.

A Bushmaster Carbon 15 .223 semiautomatic is about 3 feet long. But, weighing in at just under 6 pounds, it is surprisingly easy to maneuver, even for a novice. It doesn’t have to be recocked after it’s fired: You just squeeze the trigger over and over.

“At 25 meters, if you are a decent shot,” Dyke says, “you can put it into a bull’s-eye that is the size of a quarter.”

The Bushmaster brand began to grow in the 1980s after the company started supplying its semiautomatics to police departments. It won a much larger consumer following in the 1990s, after it landed several small military contracts.

Bushmaster was among the first to sell ordinary people on weapons that look and feel like the ones carried by soldiers. Today many gunmakers have embraced military-style weapons, a major but controversial source of growth for the commercial gun market, says Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a research group that backs gun control.

“It’s clear that the militarized stuff is the stuff that sells and is defining the industry,” Diaz says.

Dyke says he’s not sure why Bushmaster caught the eye of Cerberus. Whatever the case, when Cerberus came calling, Dyke, then past 70, was ready to sell. At the time, Bushmaster had $85 million in annual sales and several million dollars in debt, he says. In April 2006, he sold the company to Cerberus for about $76 million, he says, and Cerberus rented the Bushmaster plant here for five years.

The next year, Cerberus formed the Freedom Group.

Now Bushmaster is gone from Maine. Earlier this year, Dyke says, the Freedom Group notified him it was closing Bushmaster’s operation in the state and moving it to a bigger plant owned by Remington, a typical consolidation play for a private investment firm looking to cut costs and increase efficiency. Remington, for its part, announced earlier this year that it was expanding its manufacturing capacity and hiring new employees to make Bushmasters.

Several months ago, Dyke started a new company, Windham Weaponry, at the old Bushmaster site and has rehired most of his former employees. But he’s not planning to go head-to-head with the Freedom Group.

“It’s the big gorilla in the room,” he says, adding: “We don’t have to do $100 million. We’d have hopes of doing $20 million.”

Remington has been producing guns since 1816, when, according to lore, a young man named Eliphalet Remington made a flintlock rifle in his father’s forge in Ilion Gulch, in upstate New York. By the 1870s, the brand was so popular that the company diversified into typewriters. In 2007, the Freedom Group swooped in and bought Remington for $370 million, including $252 million in assumed debt. In one stroke, the Freedom Group gained one of the most famous names in U.S. firearms, the largest domestic maker of shotguns and rifles and a major manufacturer of ammunition.

“That caused a lot of stir in the industry,” says Dean J. Lockwood, a weapons systems analyst at Forecast International, a market research firm.

Next, the Freedom Group in rapid succession went after other firearms companies: DPMS; Marlin Firearms, a classic maker that came with two niche shotgun brands, Harrington & Richardson and L.C. Smith; and Dakota Arms. The Freedom Group also bought S&K industries, which supplies wood and laminate for gun stocks, as well as the Advanced Armament Corp., which makes silencers. It acquired Barnes Bullets, which makes copper-jacketed bullets popular with precision shooters and police departments.

The more the company diversifies its portfolio, analysts say, the more it has to offer to firearms distributors and leading retailers like Wal-Mart and Cabela’s.

This article appeared on page D – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Medvedev ‘drops a bomb’ on missile defense


President Dmitry Medvedev addresses supporters at Gorki, the presidential residence outside of Moscow. RIA Novosti / Mikhail Klimentyev

President Dmitry Medvedev addresses supporters at Gorki, the presidential residence outside of Moscow. RIA Novosti / Mikhail Klimentyev

President Dmitry Medvedev provided some key insights into the run-up to the parliamentary elections, which saw United Russia retain its majority position in the State Duma.

Speaking on US plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, a project that threatens to escalate into another arms race, Medvedev said that his most recent warnings on the project had no connection to the electoral campaign as some critics at home and abroad suggested.

“As soon as I made the statement, I heard rumors it was made to strengthen the position of United Russia before the election and my own position during the period of the transition in power,” the Russian leader told his supporters in Gorki, the presidential residence in the suburbs of Moscow.

“I would like to say again now that the election is over – this was an absolutely conscious statement. I did not want to make it for a long time, but I had to make it in the end,” he said.

Last month, Medvedev warned the western powers that Russia would fortify its borders with Iskander ballistic missiles unless a compromise is reached on the European missile defense project, which Moscow views as a direct threat to its national security. The US and NATO have balked on the question of Russia’s participation in the long-term project, just miles from the Russian border.

The President stressed that his comments were very well received by the Russian public, who is also beginning to express alarm at the irrational behavior of the United States and NATO of late.

“I do not know how it may be interpreted, but I want to say one simple thing that leads to one simple conclusion: I have not seen such unanimity regarding the president’s position for a long time,” Medvedev said. “Everyone – the left, the right, the young and the old – want us to be firm. There is such a demand.”

Medvedev made his comment after a speech by Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO, a member of the committee of the president’s supporters.

“So what shall we do,” the president asked Rogozin in a tongue-in-cheek comment. “Shall we drop a bomb or not?”

‘Against all’ an option

On a political question related to future elections, Medvedev discussed the possibility of reinstating the ‘against all’ option on election ballots, while holding out his personal opinion that he found it a “strange way of expressing one’s opinion.”

“We may have the ‘against all’ option again. Nothing awful will happen,” he said. “However, in my opinion, that is a rather strange way of expressing one’s opinion.”

A drift in the voters’ political convictions derives from an insufficient political structure, as well as ideological problems, he said. The President also said that some people are merely voting “out of spite.”

“When one loses votes, someone else gains,” he said. “Yet I think we should all grow up – there are some people voting out of spite.”

The Russian leader added, however that this could be a sign of protest, which he called “natural.”

Speaking on the phenomenon of people suddenly switching political allegiances, Medvedev said this was likely to be explained by a weakness of conviction.

“As for ideological preferences, I can say that it is rather strange for a person who has always voted for the right to start voting for the left,” he said. “If that is done to spite the system, then that is a question of choice. This means a person has never had firm right-wing convictions.”

Robert Bridge, RT


The Constitution Is Dead: The Gradual Transition towards an Orwellian Police State

Posted by poorrichard at Poor Richard’s Blog

Americans denied their First and Third amendment rights…

by Devon DB via global research

Many in America still believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that politicians, both Republican and Democrat alike, still hold that view and ensure that any and all legislation passed does not violate it. However, in today’s America, the Constitution is effectively a null and void document, nothing more than a symbol politicians pay lip service to.

The destruction of the Constitution began soon after 9/11 when the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress. In the heat of the moment it seemed as if the legislation was meant to protect us from terrorism, however it was later revealed that certain provisions blatantly violated the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments. [1] Interestingly enough, however, this didn’t stop the Senate from to extending the Patriot Act earlier this year [2]. In doing this, the government revealed just how much they respect the Constitution.

The next unconstitutional act to take place was under President Obama. Despite his “hope and change” rhetoric during the campaign, the only thing Obama changed was to further erode the Constitution and the power of checks and balances in government. Obama argued that the UN mandate gave him the right to bombard Libya, however the mandate has nothing to do with the fact that such an action was unconstitutional [3] as the power to declare war in held solely by Congress, not to mention the fact that it violated the War Powers Act. In carrying out this action, Obama did even more to expand the imperial presidency and showed his blatant hypocrisy as in 2007 he clearly stated that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” [4] (emphasis added) However, in later months he would take this disregard of the Constitution to the extreme.

Just two months ago, Obama authorized the assassination of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. While al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda, he was still a US citizen at the time of his death [5] and thus he still had rights as a citizen, specifically the right due process. This never occurred with al-Awlaki. Due to al-Awlaki’s assassination, it sets a legal precedent which allows the current and future Presidents to assassinate US citizens and withhold damning evidence- if there even is any- from the public under the guise of “national security.”

Today, we see due to the brutal crackdown of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Oakland, New York, and most recently Los Angeles, that Americans are being denied their First and Third amendment rights. Mayors are sending the message that if one decides to pose a serious challenge to the status quo, they will be violently crushed.

The Constitution is dead and with it the beliefs and ideals America was founded on have also passed away. The most terrifying occurrence, however, is that Americans are seeing their freedoms eroded are still in denial that a police state is slowly, but surely on its way.



From What Really Happened.com

The United States has vetoed 35 UN resolutions related to the middle east. (Palestine; 24, Lebanon; 8, Syria; 1, Libya; 2)
Shortly after the 1967 war, the US asserted that Israel had to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories, but it was only four years later, in 1971, that the US declared Israel’s actions there to be contrary to the Convention. It took another four years for the US to declare the building of settlements in the occupied territories as being illegal and an obstacle to peace. Yet, two days after declaring its position to the UN (1976), the US vetoed a resolution calling on Israel to stop changing the status of Jerusalem and put an end to settlement building on Arab land. It was only in March 1979 that the US allowed the Security Council to address the situation by abstaining on the UNSCR 446, which stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem[1].

However, at this point, the Resolution was more or less meaningless and it was certainly not going to change Israel’s plans for yet more settlements. Despite the fact that US President Jimmy Carter kept on declaring settlements to be illegal, only three out of seven Security Council Resolutions (during his four years in office) on the issue of settlements were supported by the US.

In 1979, a UN commission reported the existence of 133 Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and almost 100,000 settlers. The number of settlements began rising substantially once the ultra-nationalist Menachem Begin became Israeli Prime Minister in 1977. By the end of his term (1983), there were almost 200 settlements. By the end of Yitzhak Shamir’s term, a further fifty settlements had been built; there were now around 245 000 settlers in the Occupied Territories[2].

In 1981, less than a month after he took office, President Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion that the expansion of the settlements was not a constructive move, but they were ‘not illegal’… ‘maybe unnecessarily provocative’[3]. President Reagan was a strong admirer and supporter of Israel and showed no sympathy for Palestinians, which obviously meant that there was no chance of his Middle East policy-making being even-handed. Israeli supporters filled almost every portfolio in his foreign policy team, and no regional experts in the State Department had any influence on his policies whatsoever. His term in office also coincided with AIPAC’s membership rising dramatically, and saw the launch of the Hasbara Project, which was set up by Israeli supporters and media commentators as an information campaign to try to regain a positive image of Israel. This came after it had been damaged following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982[4].

The first Bush Administration offered some hope for change when Secretary of State, James Baker, addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1989, stating that Israeli settlement expansion had to end. This new Administration also referred to East Jerusalem as Occupied Territory and declared that the settlement issue was one of the main obstacles for peace and one of the first concerns to Palestinians[5].

However this coincided with Jews from the Soviet Union flooding into Israel by their thousands. Shamir, then Israeli Prime Minister, declared that Israel needed to expand its settlement building to be able to house all these immigrants, even if this meant building in the Occupied Territories[6]. James Baker later declared that the U.S. would guarantee a loan for building housing for the Soviet immigrants, but on the condition that the loan was not used to build settlements in the Occupied Territories. Shamir gave Baker assurances about the use of these funds; however, in October he declared that the agreement did not cover Arab East Jerusalem[7].

The Clinton Administration expressed its position on the issue by defending the policy supporting the “natural growth” of settlements. As the Oslo accords began to take shape, the U.S. re-iterated that settlements had been a cause of tension, but both sides were now working together to resolve this. However during the Rabin-Peres Administration, the number of settlers increased by almost fifty percent[8], but these facts were often overlooked, Didi Remez, the spokesman for Peace Now, explained, ‘most Israelis were and are fundamentally unaware of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For them, 1993-2000 were years of Peace’[9]. A report published by B’tselem explains that the Oslo Accords had not dealt with the issue of settlements and thus enables Israel to continue with its policies of land expropriation. According to the report, Israel established 30 new settlements in the Occupied Territories, of which 17 during the signing of the Wye Memorandum[10].

When Netanyahu came to power in 1996, Warren Christopher, then Secretary of State, was asked what the US’s policy was on the issue of settlements. He declared, “I think we’ll have to adapt our policy to the current situation. That is our policy.”[11] In December 1996, Netanyahu spoke out firmly in support of continued settlement expansion, saying that he wanted to match the previous Government’s rate of settlement growth. The hypocrisy of his Government went even further when in 1998, during the Wye Plantation agreement, his Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon, met with settlement leaders and urged them to ‘grab the hilltops’. This resulted in the establishment of 42 new settlement sites[12].

Under Ehud Barak, settlements prospered, marginally less than during Netanyahu, but tenders for public housing were issued at an unprecedented rate. Of the 42 outposts that had been established between 1996-99, only four were dismantled. Barak maintained that most of the settlements were areas of highest national priority[13].

When Ariel Sharon was elected in February 2001, he immediately violated Israel’s commitment made in the guidelines of its own coalition, under which ‘no new settlements will be built’. Shimon Peres is misleading the Israeli public and the rest of the world when he speaks of natural growth and pledges no new expansion. In fact, 39 new settlement sites were established between February and March and ten between June and September of this year[14]. It is pretty obvious to most people that these new settlements are not being built to cater for housing needs, as Professor Amira Goldblum, head of Peace Now’s Settlement Watch team explains; ‘Construction in the settlements has always been an act of provocation, which contributes to the growth of violence and the use of force in the territories. There are thousands of housing units in the territories now standing empty, which could easily fill the settlers’ demographic needs for the coming years’.

Consistently, the international community has viewed the settlement issue as a major obstacle to peace. However very few Security Council Resolutions have in fact dealt with it directly. Only two Resolutions dealing with the settlement issue were adopted, both in 1979, and out of twenty one Resolutions that were vetoed by the U.S., only four included the settlement problem.

The Status of Jerusalem

The issue of the status of Jerusalem has always been at the centre of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and one of the most difficult issues to resolve. During the British Mandate period, from 1922 to 1948, Jerusalem was Britain’s administrative centre for control of Palestine and Transjordan. It was towards the end of the 1930s that the concept of Jerusalem as an international city became the main recommendation for various groups seeking a solution in Palestine. In 1937, the Peel Commission made recommendations for the partition of Jerusalem. Palestine would be divided into two separate states, a Jewish State and an Arab State, and the city of Jerusalem would be under a Special International Regime[15]. In 1946, the Jewish Agency also submitted plans for the partition of city.

In 1947, the UN General Assembly put forth a partition plan (Resolution 181[16]), backed by the US, which would divide Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States with Jerusalem under a Special International Regime. The Resolution designated Jerusalem a corpus separatum with its own Government under the United Nations, which would appoint a Governor who would exercise wide powers over all aspects of life in the city[17]. The Resolution also clearly stated that the Governor of Jerusalem could under no circumstances be a citizen from either State. However, neither Israel, nor Jordan accepted this status for Jerusalem as they both believed their control over the city was effective. On 14th May 1948, Israel was established and the Jewish forces captured the Western part of the city, driving out thousands of Palestinians[18].

The US’s policy was supportive of the internationalization of Jerusalem until 1967, when it then threw the problem back at the Israelis and Arabs saying that it was up to them to establish the status of Jerusalem. From 1947, the US did not recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli or Arab capital. In fact, it strongly rejected Jordan’s and Israel’s claims to the annexation of Jerusalem[19]. In the beginning of 1950, Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and moved some of their government offices, including the Prime Minister’s, to West Jerusalem. This infuriated the US, who then decided to ban all US officials from doing business in Jerusalem. The ban lasted almost thirteen months, after which the US realized that they could not avoid dealing with Israeli officials in the city.

A few months after Israel annexed Jerusalem, Jordan decided to annex East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Jordan River territories that were not occupied by Israel[20]. At this point, the UN and the US were not willing to reverse the situation by force. Furthermore, the Corpus Separatum concept suffered a severe blow when the Soviet Union decided not to back it anymore. After 1952, the international community and the UN General Assembly were disillusioned and did not discuss the status of Jerusalem until 1967. In the US, there was a tendency to ignore the subject, mainly because it was a difficult subject in domestic political terms and until East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in the 1967 war, no measures had been taken[21]. It is important to note that the American public did not really know much about the Palestinians, and ‘no one in the State Department or at higher levels of government thought of them in a political context, with national aspirations or political grievances’[22].

After the Six Day War in 1967, the US no longer supported the internationalization of Jerusalem, or even considered it as a separate entity. The US now believed Jerusalem should remain undivided and its future was up to the two parties to negotiate. President Johnson is believed to have been influenced by Arthur Goldberg, US Ambassador to the UN, to drop the issue of Jerusalem. Johnson realized that by ignoring the issue of Jerusalem, he would win much needed support from the Jewish community, as he had been under a lot of criticism because of his policies in Vietnam[23]. Public opinion in the US was very much pro-Israeli, as they saw Israel as a nation that had just escaped a second holocaust. Polls showed that support for Israel was up to 55 per cent, while support for the Arabs hardly existed at all[24].

Israel continued to expand its control of Jerusalem, and eventually annexed the whole city. The US publicly condemned Israel. The UN General Assembly warned Israel not to change the status of the city with a Resolution in July, but neither of them made any reference to the Corpus Separatum. Israel ignored all criticism. In November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, which, although it made no reference to Jerusalem, stated that the Israeli armed forces should withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict [25]. In May 1968, the Security Council adopted Resolution 252, stating that the ‘acquisition of territory by military conquest was inadmissible’ and in July 1969, SCR 267 condemned Israel for failing to comply[26]. Again, in September 1969, a Resolution condemned failure of Israel to comply with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation. Still, Israel ignored all criticism and refused to comply. In 1971, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution, supported by the US, declaring that both parties should negotiate the status of the city. The Israeli Cabinet rejected the resolution and said that their government would not negotiate[27].

Up until 1976, there had been very little mention of Jerusalem in the US foreign policy, even though it was quietly maintained that Jerusalem was part of the Occupied Territories and should be referred to as such[28]. When Gerald Ford became President, however, he openly declared that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem were void. This was followed by an official protest from Israel, which claimed that the US’s position was now tilting towards the Arabs. Two days later, the US vetoed a Security Council Resolution, which condemned Israel’s alterations to the city. Ford was in fact fighting for his own elections and needed support and contribution from the Jewish community. After his re-election, he reversed the US’s position in the Security Council Resolution, which declared Israel’s absorption of Jerusalem as invalid[29].

In March 1980, the US voted for resolution 465, which referred to Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Territories and stated that Israel’s claims to the sovereignty of the city were void. Two days later, however, the US declared that they had in fact intended to abstain, but a failure in communications resulted in them voting in favour. This indicated the first change in the US position on Jerusalem, which had always been very clear about referring to Jerusalem as Occupied Territory.[30]

In the summer of 1980, after the Knesset enacted a law declaring Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel, the US, under President Jimmy Carter, abstained on Security Council Resolution 478, which censured Israel for its annexation of East Jerusalem and called on those countries maintaining diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to move elsewhere. Even though this did not directly affect the US, Secretary of State, Edmund Sixtus Muskie, denounced the demand from the UNSC to move embassies out of Jerusalem stating that it was ‘a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations’[31]. The reason for the US abstaining on this resolution was also linked to domestic issues; presidential elections were coming up and it was also two days prior to the Egypt-Israel peace agreement[32], which was to be a personal achievement for Carter.

President Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s, was more pro-Israeli than Carter, but still did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, thus the US embassy remained in Tel Aviv. Since then, several presidential candidates have used the issue of Jerusalem in their campaign at home; Gary Hart and Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, all claiming that they would move the embassy to Jerusalem if elected[33].

When George Bush Senior was elected, he referred to East Jerusalem as ‘Occupied Territory’, but the uproar was so strong that the White House Chief of Staff declared that despite these remarks, the US would not change its policy. Israel in the meantime, kept on ignoring criticism and continued expanding and expropriating Arab land. The UN General Assembly, Security Council, the European Union and the Vatican, all refused to accept Israel’s claims to a unified Jerusalem and repeatedly referred to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the laws of belligerent occupation to East Jerusalem[34].

Until President Clinton came to power, the US had also refused to accept Israel’s claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem. Clinton, however, was the first US President to declare that the fate of Jerusalem was a matter for the two parties involved to negotiate. Pressure had been mounting on the US to move their embassy to Jerusalem and in 1994, during Congressional elections, Newt Gingrich, House Speaker, said that the US embassy was to be moved to Jerusalem[35]. In May 1995, Senator Robert Dole announced at an AIPAC meeting that a Bill was going to be introduced to provide for the relocation of the US embassy. Jerusalem was recognized by the Public Law 104-45 as the ‘undivided’, ‘united’ and ‘reunited’ capital of Israel, and the new embassy was ordained to be open no later than May 1999[36]. However, the US President was given the authority to postpone the move for a six-months period on the grounds of national security.

Bill Clinton postponed the move of the embassy, but the US ambassador to Israel established a second residence in Jerusalem, where he could entertain US Jewish groups. This move was designed to diminish pressure from the Congress to officially move the embassy[37].

Shortly after his election, George W. Bush declared that he would allow the relocation of the embassy to take place because Jerusalem was the city that Israel had chosen as its capital. However, in June 2001, with the new Intifada being far from resolved, Bush chose to postpone the move for reasons of national security and ‘notified Secretary of State Colin Powell that he was extending an administrative ban on the move for another six months’[38].

On Jerusalem, the US remains at odds with the international consensus and law, unwilling to accept East Jerusalem as occupied. The US’s use of veto is also in opposition to the international community’s position, which undermines the US’s claim to be a role model in peace negotiations.

Annex 1: American Vetoes

1. 10/09/1972: Lebanon (and Syria)

The Council called on parties to cease military operations.

Votes[40]: 13 (members voting to adopt the resolution) – 1 (member using their veto) – 1; Panama (member that abstained from the vote)

2. 24/07/1973: Palestine

/…supported initiatives of special representatives and Secretary General, and deplored Israel’s continuing occupation of territories seized in the 1967 conflict and expressed conviction that a just solution could be achieved only on the basis of respect for the rights of all states in the area and the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.

Votes: 13 – 1- China did not participate in the vote

3. 05/12/1975: Lebanon

/… condemned Israel for air attacks upon Lebanon

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Costa Rica

4. 23/01/1976: Palestine

Israel should withdraw from the Occupied Territories and the Palestinians right to establish an independent state in Palestine

Votes: 9 – 1 – 3; Italy, Sweden, UK. China and Libya did not participate in the vote

5. 24/03/1976: Palestine

/… called on Israel to respect and uphold the inviolability of Holy places and desist from actions designed to change the legal status of the city of Jerusalem and desist from establishing settlements in occupied Arab territories.

Votes: 14 – 1

6. 29/06/1976: Palestine

/…affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination including the right to return and national independence and sovereignty in Palestine.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; France, Italy, Sweden, UK

7. 28/04/1980: Palestine

/… reaffirmed that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories including Jerusalem and affirmed that the Palestinian’s right to self-determination included the right to establish an independent sate in Palestine.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; France, Norway, Portugal, UK

8. 20/01/1982: Syria (Golan Heights)

/… decided that all Member States should consider applying concrete and effective measures in order to nullify the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights.

Votes: 9 – 1 – 5; France, Ireland, Japan, Panama, UK

9. 01/04/1982: Palestine

/… called on Israel as occupying power, to rescind decisions disbanding municipal of El Bireh and removing Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah and to cease contravening Fourth Geneva Convention.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Zaire

10. 02/04/1982: Palestine

/… called on Israel to observe and apply the Fourth Geneva Convention and deplored acts of destruction or profanation in Jerusalem.

Votes: 14 – 1

11. 08/06/1982: Palestine

/… condemned Israel for not complying with resolutions on withdrawal and reiterated demand for unconditional Israeli withdrawal

Votes: 14 – 1

12. 25/06/1982: Palestine (refugee camps in Lebanon)

/… demanded immediate cessation of hostilities and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to ten kilometers from Beirut and simultaneous withdrawal of Palestinian forces to existing camps and requested UN Secretary-General to station military observers.

Votes: 14 – 1

13. 06/08/1982: Palestine

/… decided that Member States should withhold supplying military aid until Israel withdrew and strongly condemned Israel for not implementing SCRs 516 and 517 (1982)[41].

Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Togo, UK, Zaire

14. 01/08/1983: Palestine

/… determined that Israeli practices and policies in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity and condemned recent attacks against Arab civilian population.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Zaire

15. 28/02/1984: Lebanon

/… called on Israel to respect the rights of the civilian population in the areas under its occupation in Lebanon and demanded that Israel lift all restrictions in violation of Fourth Geneva Convention.

Votes: 14 – 1

16. 11/03/1985: Lebanon

/… condemned Israeli measures against the civilian population in Southern Lebanon […] and demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces and the implementation of SCR 425 (1978) and SCRs 508 and 509 (1982)[42].

Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Australia, Denmark, UK

17. 13/09/1985: Palestine

/… deplored repressive measures taken by Israel against Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories […] called on Israel to immediately stop all repressive measures including curfews, administrative detainees and refrain from further deportations.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; Australia, Denmark, France, UK

18. 17/01/1986: Lebanon

/… deplored Israeli acts of violence and measures against the civilian population in Southern Lebanon and reaffirmed the need to implement SCR 425 (1978) and SCRs 508 and 509 (1982) on Israeli military withdrawal to Lebanon’s internationally recognized boundaries.

Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Australia, Denmark, UK

19. 30/01/1986: Palestine

/… strongly deplores provocative acts which violated the sanctity of the sanctuary Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Thailand

20. 06/02/1986: Libya

/… condemned Israel for its forcible interception and diversion of the Libyan civilian aircraft in international airspace, and its subsequent detention.

Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; Australia, Denmark, UK

21. 15/01/1988: Lebanon

/… strongly deplored the reported Israeli attacks, against Lebanese territory and civilian population and requested Israel to cease attempts to occupy or change the status of Lebanese territory and reaffirmed the need to implement SCRs 425 and 426[43] (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) on Israeli military withdrawal to internationally recognised boundaries.

Votes: 13- 1 – 1; UK

22. 29/01/1988: Palestine

/… calls on Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention to territories occupied since 1967 and comply with obligations under the Convention, and requested continued monitoring by the UN Secretary-General.

Votes: 14 – 1

23. 14/04/1988: Palestine

/… urged Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention, to rescind orders to deport Palestinians, condemned policies and practices of Israel which violate the human rights of the Palestinians and affirmed the need for a settlement.

Votes: 14 – 1

24. 06/05/1988: Lebanon

/… condemned the recent invasion by Israeli forces of southern Lebanon, reaffirmed the urgent need to implement SCRs 425 and 426 (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) and requested the Secretary-General to continue consultations.

Votes: 14 – 1

25. 14/12/1988: Lebanon

/… strongly deplored the attack by Israeli forces on 9 December 1988 against Lebanese territory, and reaffirmed urgent need to implement SCRs 425 and 426 (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) and requested the Secretary-General to continue consultations.

Votes: 14 – 1

26. 11/01/1989: Libya

/… deplored the downing of two Libyan reconnaissance planes by the United States and called on the US to suspend its military maneuvers off the Libyan coast and on all parties to refrain from resorting to force.

Votes: 9 – 3 (France, US, UK) – 3; Brazil, Canada, Finland

27. 17/02/1989: Palestine

/… strongly deplored Israel’s persistent policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories; called on Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions and comply with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention; and requested the UN Secretary-General to report to the Security Council.

Votes: 14 – 1

28. 08/06/1989: Palestine

/… strongly deplored Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories; demanded that Israel desist from deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories; expressed concern about the prolonged closure of schools in parts of the occupied territory and requested the Secretary-General to report no later than

23 June.

Votes: 14 – 1

29. 07/11/1989: Palestine

/… strongly deplored Israel’s policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; called upon Israel to end such practices; requested Secretary-General to conduct on-site monitoring of the situation and to submit periodic reports, the first such report as soon as possible.

Votes: 14 – 1

30. 31/05/1990: Palestine

/… established a Commission of three members of the Security Council to examine the situation relating to Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory; and requested the Commission to report to the Security Council by

20 June 1990.

Votes: 14 – 1

31. 17/05/1995: Palestine

/… confirmed that the expropriation of land by Israel, the occupying power, in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon the Government of Israel to rescind the expropriation orders and refrain from such action in the future.

Votes: 14 – 1

32. 07/03/1997: Palestine

/… called on the Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities, which alter facts on the ground pre-empting final status negotiations, and have negative implications for the Middle East Peace Process; and to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the

1949 Geneva Convention

Votes: 14 – 1

33. 21/03/1997: Palestine

/… demanded that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem as well as other Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories, and requests a report on developments from the Secretary-General.

Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Costa Rica

34. 27/03/2001: Palestine

/… Sending of an unarmed UN Observer force to the West Bank

Votes: 9 – 1 – 5; France, Ireland, Norway, UK, Ukraine

35. 15/12/2001: Palestine

/… Sending of a human rights monitoring force to the Occupied Territories and condemning all acts of terror, extra-judiciary killing, excessive use of force and house demolitions. Also expressed it determination to contribute to ending the violence and to prompting dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian sides.

Votes: 12 –1-2; Britain and Norway abstained

Annexe 2: Security Council Resolution 242
(November 22, 1967)
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary­General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary­General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[1] ‘Settlements in U.S. Policy’, Neff, Donald. Journal of Palestine Studies XXIII, no. 3 (Spring 94), pp. 56-57

[2] Neff, Donald, pp 57-59

[3] ‘Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories’, The Foundation for Middle East Peace. Volume 7, Number 1, January-February 1997. pp 7.

[4] Christison, Kathleen. ‘Bound by a frame if Reference, Part II: U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88’. Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII, no. 3 (Spring 1998), pp 29-30.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Neff, Donald, Journal of Palestine Studies. Pp 61.

[7] Ibid. Pp 61.

[8] Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, ‘Isreali Settlement and the Peace Process: Signed, Sealed, Delivered’ January 97.

[9] Remez, Didi. ‘Facts on the Ground since the Oslo Agreement’, 12/2000. Spokesperson for Peace Now

[10] Sovich, Nina. ‘May 4 statehood threat fizzles out’, Jerusalem File, June 1999. Vol II, Issue 6. p. 8.

[11] ‘Report in Israeli Settlements’. Pp 7.

[12] Peace Now

[13] Peace Now

[14] Peace Now

[15] Neff, Donald. ‘Jerusalem in U.S. Policy’, Journal of Palestine Studies, vol xxiii, nb 1, Aut 93. pp 22.

[16] UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Future Government of Palestine, November 29 1947.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid, pp 23.

[19] Neff, Donald. Fallen Pillars. 1995. Pp 129

[20] Ibid. Pp 135-6

[21] Ibid. Pp 138.

[22] Christison, Kathleen. ‘U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88’, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27, Nr 3, Spring 98. Pp 21.

[23] Neff, Donald. Pp 139.

[24] Christison, Kathleen. Pp 22.

[25] See annex 2.

[26] Zaki Nuseibeh, Hazem. Pp 89

[27] Ibid. Pp 143.

[28] Al Madfai, Mahida Rashid. ‘Jordan, the United States and the Middle East peace process 1974-1991. Pp 111.

[29] Neff, Donald. Pp 143.

[30] Al Madfai, pp 112.

[31] Tillman, Seth P. ‘The United States in the Middle East, Interests and Obstacles’. 1982. Pp 169.

[32] Ibid. Pp 144.

[33] Ibid. Pp 145.

[34] Khalidi, Walid. ‘The Ownership of the U.S. Embassy Site in Jerusalem’ Journal of Palestine Studies XXIX, no. 4 (Summer 2000), pp 82.

[35] Neff, Donald. Pp 148-49.

[36] Khalidi, Walid. Pp83

[37] Makovsky, David. ‘US Ambassador’s ‘second home’ in Jerusalem’. Jerusalem File, June 1999, pp 11.

[38] Al Ahram. ‘US Embassy Move Delay’. http://www.palestinecampaign.org.

[39] Statement by the British Foreign Office, http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/keythemehome.asp?13

[40] Members who voted in favor – Veto – Members who abstained

[41] Security Council Resolution 516 (01/08/82): The Security Council, […] Alarmed by the continuation and intensification of military activities in and around Beirut, 1.Confirms its previous resolutions and demands an immediate cease-fire, and cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese- Israeli border; 2. Authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut; […].

SCR 517 (04/08/82): The Security Council, deeply shocked and alarmed by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982, 1. Reconfirms its (previous) resolutions, 2. Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon; 3. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with above resolutions; 4. Calls for the prompt return of Israeli troops which have moved forward subsequent to 1325 hours Eastern daylight time, on 1 August 1982; 5. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut; […].

[42] Security Council Resolution 425 (19/03/1978): The Security Council, […] Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East […]; 1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity. sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries; 2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanon […]; 3. Decides […] to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces […].

SCR 508 (05/06/1982): The Security Council […] Calls upon all parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border […].

SCR 509 (6/06/1982): The Security Council […] 1. Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon; 2. Demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 […]; 3. Calls on all parties to communicate to the Secretary-General their acceptance of the present resolution within twenty-four hours; […].

[43] SCR 426 (19/03/1978): The Security Council: 1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of SCR 425 […]; 2. Decides that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be established in accordance with the above-mentioned report

See also: Is Israel Blackmailing America? 



From Desert Peace

Despite zionist attempts to hide the truth by censorship, the ‘hidden’ works of Gaza’s children is now available in bookform …. just in time for the holidays.


Buy your copy today. Send another as a gift to a family member or a friend this holiday season! A Child’s View from Gaza: Palestinian Children’s Art and the Fight Against Censorship


Book of censored Gaza children’s artwork published

Nora Barrows-Friedman


Artwork made by children in Gaza who lived through Israel’s attacks in the winter of 2008-09 and exhibited by the Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA) in the Bay Area is now available in book form in order to reach a wider audience.

The collection of original artwork was scheduled to be exhibited in September by the Museum of Children’s Art in Oakland (MOCHA), but due to intimidation and pressure from Israeli lobby groups, the museum canceled the exhibit at the last minute.

MECA immediately sprung into action and arranged for the artwork to be shown at a vacant gallery space around the corner from the children’s museum. Days before the doors opened, MOCHA’s board told MECA’s executive director Barbara Lubin that they could reinstate the exhibit at the original museum space, but that the collection would have to be ”modified.”

Lubin and MECA responded:

We at MECA made a commitment to the children of Gaza to share their experiences and perspectives, and consider any modifications to the art exhibit as a form of censorship. Children everywhere deserve to be heard, but we have an even greater responsibility to listen to the stories of children under siege and who survived Israel’s brutal military assault in 2008-2009.

In a press release for the book’s publication, MECA states that the drawings featured in A Child’s View from Gaza: Palestinian Children’s Art and the Fight Against Censorship ”serve as part of the historical record of the horror inflicted on the Palestinian people during Operation Cast Lead as experienced by children. Photos of the aftermath and the recent efforts by pro-Israel groups to censor the children’s art are also highlighted in the book.”

They added:

With beautiful, high-resolution print images of the exhibit, the book also features a special foreword by celebrated author, Alice Walker, as well as an essay by MECA Executive Director, Barbara Lubin, describing the struggle against the censorship.

As we approach the three-year anniversary of Israel’s brutal assault on the Gaza Strip, in which over 1400 civilians were killed including 352 children, the need to support the ones who survived to tell their stories and the trauma they experienced through art is now more crucial than ever.

The book is available for order on the MECA website.



( Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: