DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS Sept 14 2012

Posted by Xaniel777 on September 14, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : September 14, 2012


US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle As Judge Permanently Blocks NDAA Military Detention Provision



NDAA Struck Down By Federal Judge

From Alexander Higgins Blog

Posted by  – September 13, 2012

A federal judge has ruled against President Obama’s NDAA appeal issuing permanent injunction against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

After a long fought legal battle journalists and activists have won a major battle against one of the most totalitarian pieces of legislation in the history of the United States.

The legislation formally known as the National Defense Authorization Action has several constitutional trampling provisions.

The most outrageous of those provisions allowed the United States government to place U.S. citizens in jail indefinitely without ever filing charges, providing access to a lawyer or even allowing those thrown in CIA torture prisons the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations they are being detained.

That section of the NDAA has now been permanently blocked after a federal judge issued a final injunction banning the used of the indefinite detention provision in the so-called “homeland battlefield” bill.

The authority to do so was given because the bill gives the President the authority to conduct military operations in any country in the world, including inside the United States, to fight the so-called war on terror with the need for congressional approval to do so which is effectively a suspension of Posse Comitatus.

Back in January Journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration to fight the totalitarian powers given in the declaration of World War 3 known as the NDAA.

Given the fact the bill presented a clear and present danger to the US Constitution Hedges was joined by a coalition of activists and journalist.

Those journalist filed shocking briefs in the lawsuit detailing how the NDAA was being using to silence political dissent and journalism critical of the US government.

Per standard procedure the corporate media remained silent after not being given a press release from the government to parrot as the case went to trial.

Instead the Pentagon simply engaged in a psychological warfare operation on the internet which was the only place the lawsuit was being discussed which attempt to discredit proponents of the lawsuits as wing nut conspiracy theorists.

After the case was heard Obama revealed in court those conspiracy theorists were right and Obama planned on using the NDAA in the exact manner patriotic Americans feared it would be used – to detain American citizens in military detention indefinitely without charge or a trial.

As such US Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA provisions unconstitutional and issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the use of NDAA military detention against American citizens.

Obama then openly defied the ruling claiming the ban on NDAA detention applied only to the plaintiff’s in the lawsuit.

Judge Forrest then issued another ruling clarifying the protection applies to all US citizens pending a final ruling.

Judge Forest even issued a follow-up warning stating she would find the Obama administration in contempt it had not complied with her previous ruling.

Obama appealed and fought back every step of the way failing to provide legal arguments beyond the vectors of national security secrecy and executive primacy in regard to foreign policy.

At the same time Obama refused to even assert that journalists would not be subject to the NDAA simply for their reporting while also refusing to define what actions constituted providing direct or indirect support for associated forces or who those associated forces were.

Obama appealed claiming the government had the right to determine as they see fit without judicial oversight while working under the cover of secrecy granted by national security through which the government could pick and choose U.S. citizens to detain without trial.

As Zero Hedge reports Obama’s appeals simply didn’t hold muster and as such Judge Forrest has issued a permanent injunction against the provision:

Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have “substantially supported” al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.”

Hedges called the president’s action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous.”

He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the never ending “war on terror” conducted by both parties, targetting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya.

He asked  “why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens.”

A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention.

Today, the war againt the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one.

From Reuters:


The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act’s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions.


The opinion stems from a January lawsuit filed by former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others.

The plaintiffs said they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities would not fall under the scope of the provision.


Government attorneys argued that the executive branch is entitled to latitude when it comes to cases of national security and that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague.


“This court does not disagree with the principle that the president has primacy in foreign affairs,” the judge said, but that she was not convinced by government arguments.


“The government has not stated that such conduct – which, by analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and associational activities that involve al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever is deemed “associated forces” – does not fall within § 1021(b)(2).”

What is ironic, is that in the ongoing absolute farce that is the theatrical presidential debate, there hasn’t been one word uttered discussing precisely the kind of creeping totalitarian control, and Orwellian loss of constitutional rights, that the biparty-supported NDAA would have demanded out of the US republic.

Why? Chris Hedges said it best:


The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn’t support it.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military.

“The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.


But it passed anyway. 

And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them.

They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

He is 100% correct, and today, if it weren’t for his lawsuit, the saying that someone, somewhere in the world might possibly “hate America for its liberties” would have been the biggest lie conceivable.

Also, the total fascist takeover of America would now have been a fact.

Some other insights from Hedges, who explained back in January, just why he is suing Barack Obama:


This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state.

Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason.

Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state.

And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia.

It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe.

It erases fundamental constitutional liberties.

It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.


The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass.

But I won’t.

What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous.

The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11.

The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation.

It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function.

Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea.

Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled.

So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented?

Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen?

Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?


Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power.

Make the people afraid.

Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. 

And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough.

If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship.

Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

Source: Zero Hedge

Related Posts :








Here are 4 reasons that America is turning into a police state

 From the Trenches World Report

Posted on September 13, 2012 by # 1 NWO Hatr

Examiner – In the last few decades, and especially since 9/11, America has gradually but steadily turned into a soft police state.

With bipartisan support, liberties that have taken decades, and even centuries to secure which are the hallmark of a free society have been eroded, chipped away, or outright nullified.

Here are four examples and dangerous trends that should alarm all Americans who value the Constitution, the restraints it places on the state, and the protection of civil liberties.

1. Teenager Questioned by FBI Over YouTube Video

Justin Hallman, a 16-year old boy, recently made a YouTube video for a project in his American Government class that featured clips suggesting that the Maine Republican caucus was fixed, footage of U.S. police terrorizing Americans, military drills taking place in American cities, and warnings about a general loss of civil liberties.

Although Hallman received an A+ and praise from his teacher for the video, two FBI agents knocked on the door of Hallman’s home and requested to speak with him.

They asked him about his interests and hobbies, his support for Ron Paul, and even asked him if he was willing to spy on the hacker group Anonymous.

“They wanted me to be an informant, to possibly put my life in danger, to help them arrest and gain intel on Occupy protesters and hackers,” he writes.

The agents even asked him about a conversation Hallman had with one of his teachers. The fact that federal agents were dispatched to question a teenage boy about a video he made — a constitutionally protected right to free speech — is troubling.

2. Brandon Raub is Detained and Sent to Psychiatric Ward For Facebook Posts

On August 16, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran Brandon Raub was kidnapped from his home by police, FBI and Secret Service and then forcibly jailed in a psychiatric ward in Virginia over posts Raub made on Facebook that were deemed “terrorist” in nature.

Raub set up a group on Facebook with his brother and sister dedicated to what Raub saw as dangerous trends in America.

While the FBI and Secret Service claimed Raub’s posts were a threat, most of the posts contained song lyrics and rants about he perceived to be unconstitutional and immoral actions of his government.

In a great interview with John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute — who volunteered to defend Raub and thankfully helped get him released — Raub explains that two FBI agents came to his door and eventually began asking him about the content of his Facebook posts.

With police in the foreground waiting, after about 15 minutes police surrounded Raub and grabbed him, refused to read him his rights, and didn’t even let him get dressed despite his simple plea. He was then taken to a psychiatric ward three hours away without an attorney.

“It made me scared for my country, the idea that a man can be snatched out of his property without being read his rights should be extremely alarming to all Americans,” Raub recalls.

This illegal kidnapping of Raub is eerily reminiscent of what totalitarian states throughout history have done to those who dissent or are perceived as threats to the regime: whisking them away to a psych ward and making people disappear.

Thankfully, with the huge influx of Internet and grassroots support, Raub’s case went viral.

As Whitehead notes, however, twenty people in the same county as Raub have also “disappeared” at the hands of federal agents in the last month.

3. Orwellian Technology

The incredible growth and spread of technology has undoubtedly benefited mankind by making life, labor, and communication easier and more efficient than previous generations could have ever imagined.

But in the hands of governments (and politically-connected corporations), this technology will prove to be a double-edged sword.

In the last few years, the U.S. government has begun experimenting and using technology that make NSA spying and surveillance look like a libertarian utopia.

Police departments throughout the U.S. have begun using a program called MORIS, an iPhone add-on that gives police the ability to scan the irises and faces of suspectedcriminals and match them against government databases.

By 2014, the FBI plans to launch a national database of iris scans.

Many corporations have already begun to implement this eye-tracking technology on phones, tablets, and other devices to track which words or phrases the user uses or favors.

The Department of Homeland Security is currently working on a new sensor array that will use factors such as race, gender, breathing, and heart rate to detect cues for potential criminals.

Tens of thousands of drones (unarmed, for now) will soon be policing and spying on Americans from the sky, including miniature surveillance drones the size of insects dubbed “cybugs.”

Congress is now mandating that by 2015, all newcars come equipped with event data recorders that can tape and transmit data from on-board computers.

The FBI recently hacked and tracked 12 million Apple devices and ordered Twitter to turn over private information of protesters.

These are just few examples of how the rush of innovation in technology is givinggovernments and corporations police-state powers.


In the last decade, Congress has passed, and the President has signed, multiple pieces of legislation and even new cabinet departments that directly violate the basic tenets of the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties.

In the face of the potential technology that exists to invade our private lives, the Bill of Rights is all we have left as a safeguard against a police state.

When this is removed — no matter how “safe” their proponents claim we will be — there is really no turning back.

This is why more than anything, Americans should be concerned about our civil liberties being quietly legislated away.

These types of laws are entirely predictable. The history of empires has shown that whatever governments do to perceived foreign enemies — like torture and military-style policing — inevitably comes home to inflict the domestic population.

America, despite politicians’ contrary claims about our supposed “exceptionalism,” is no different.

If Americans get frustrated enough to riot or show a bit too much protest, without our civil liberties what’s to stop the U.S. government from treating Americans just like Fallujahns?

Governments always like to see what they can get away with, and since 9/11, they have bent and nearly broke the Constitution in order to see what American will put up with.

And with every generation that passes, each new one grows up accustomed to being less free than the one before, perhaps not even imagining what a free society is.

I cite four major concerns here, but there are many, many more that deserve attention.

Military checkpoints on highways, the drug war, the U.S. prison population, the militarization of law enforcement, and the treatment of Bradley Manning and whistleblowers are just a few more.

Americans have to choose whether they want liberty or continue down the dangerous road of entrusting the state with more and more power to spy on, monitor, regulate, control, dictate, and coerce Americans.

Thankfully, there is a growing principled and radical opposition to America’s growing police state, and perhaps we can take solace in the fact that teenagers and ex-soldiers being targeted means that they are truly frightened and threatened by the idea that Americans might just be waking up.








Intel From Israel on Whats getting set to Happen in the Middle East




September 11, 2012

My brother and his family live in Jerusalem – he is a minister – his office is close to one of Israel ‘s largest underground military bases.

He called me last night which is very unusual – usually it is email.

He called to tell me that he is sending his family back to the US immediately due to what he is seeing happen within the last week and what he is being told by his military contacts in both the Israel and US military.

He said he is seeing with his own eyes military movements the likes of which he has never seen in his 20+ years in Israel .

What he called a massive redeployment and protective tactics of forces is underway.

Over the last two days he has seen anti-aircraft missile deployments throughout the Jerusalem area including 3 mobile units that he can see from his office windows.

In addition, he has seen very large Israeli armored columns moving fast toward the Sinia where Egypt has now moved in Armor.

There are reports of the top military leaders meeting with Israel ‘s Sr. Rabi which is something that has happened preceding every prior military campaign.

His admonition is to watch carefully and pray for Israel and its people.

He is convinced that barring something extraordinary Israel will attack Iran – with or without the US – and very soon.

It is the belief in Israel that Obama does not stand with Israel but with the Arab countries.

He has told me before that Israel will saber rattle from time to time but that this time is very different from what he is seeing and hearing.
He was at the Wailing Wall 2 days ago and there were hundreds of IDF soldiers there. As he was leaving he passed at least 20 military buses full of soldiers in route to the wall.

He has never seen this before either.

Just thought I would pass this along.
My brother is not an alarmist by any means.

When he talks like this it gets my attention for sure and usually I find he knows more than he shares.

There are reports that Israel is asking Obama to come to Israel immediately but they are being answered with silence.

My opinion is that I see the making of the perfect storm.








Is The Tide Shifting? Are We Witnessing A Sea Change In US/IRAN Relations?



From My Catbird Seat

by Kam Zarrabi – September 13, 2012

The very recent rebuff of the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, in which Mr. Obama refused to meet him in person exploded like a bomb shell over the news media. Mr.Netanyahu had earlier lambasted the American administration for refusing to obey his demands to specify clear redlines for Iran, which would trigger a military strike.


Editor’s Note: Obama is taking a stronger stance than one would have expected.

I did not think that he would launch an attack on Iran but I did not think that he would treat Netanyahu in this way.

Phil Weiss thinks that Netanyahu has gone too far—a defeat of the hardline segment of the Israel Lobby. 


Obama must think he has the election won (he is ahead by a larger margin in the polls) and the Israel Lobby would not dare to antagonize him by smear tactics—and that such war-for-Israel tactics could not be hidden from the general public might also cause the Israel Lobby to hold back.

But peace is not secure.

Obama still has put himself in a position where he will have to act militarily against Iran in the near future—or face the full-scale attack from the Israel Lobby.  

We will see, won’t we?

There are signs that the tide is shifting, and it’s about time.

If there were any doubts as to which party would come out on top in the November elections, the Democratic Party Convention left little for the rival Republicans to wish for but some miracle.

The Republican hopeful, Mitt Romney, and his sophomoric co-runner, Paul Ryan, tried everything, from  poorly scripted lies and fabrications to showing themselves off as Israel and its Zionist supporters’ lap dogs, to disgrace themselves; they succeeded in that.

The whole scenario looked much like the 2008 Republican campaign, where John McCain and Sarah Palin, with Joe Lieberman standing right behind them, threw out the last bits of credibility that honest conservative Republicans could still claim. 

This year, as was the case in 2008, the Republican candidates have been trying extra hard to capitalize on the pre-cooked and well-indoctrinated public sentiments against the Iranian regime and the hyped allegations regarding its so-called nuclear “ambitions” and support for international terrorism.

Mr. Romney went as far as calling Russia America’s #1 geopolitical foe.

The ironic aspect of the Republican candidates’ disgraceful, almost seditious, kowtowing to their Zionist benefactors is that, as surveys show, the Democrats continue to enjoy a good majority of the Jewish vote.

I have long maintained that President Obama and his State Department headed by Hillary Clinton are not unaware of or are disinterested in geopolitical facts or what entails America’s best global strategic interests.

What I have always said is that the American administration has been suffering a paralysis inherited from decades of subservience to special interest groups and lobbies that have ruled over the public domain, and a traditional downgrading of the relevance of international affairs.

Mr. Obama knew very well that he was not God Manifest on Earth, capable of implementing plans that he knew full well would result in what was in the best interests of the nation at home and abroad – not during his first term in office, anyway. He had to play ball, to appease, and to accommodate in order to stay alive and continue to trek along the difficult path toward achieving his objectives.

In today’s world, foreign affairs and America’s integrated role in global goings-on, must, and have, taken the center stage of political debates.

Eleven years ago, it was the terror attack on America’s homeland that awakened the nation to the fact that there was a world out there and people in it that somehow didn’t see it as we did, who had grievances against our policies and actions in their homelands.

At the time, America responded in no uncertain terms; Bombing the shit out of them, whoever they were and wherever they lived,even though we didn’t really know who they all were and where they lived!

This knee-jerk reaction, a natural human response, led to the quagmire we find ourselves in today after ten years of war, thousands of deaths and injuries suffered by our country,

not to mention trillions of dollars that could have been better spent, plus the devastation of two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deaths of over a million non-combatants in those lands.

Just to think that a Bin Laden and a small group of zealots could have initiated such a horrendous chain of events is mind boggling.

Bin Laden triggered an already loaded cannon that was prepared in advance by thinkers and planners who penned their strategy in a document dating back to 1996 in Israel, titled A Clean Break, Securing the Realm.

A year later, the Neoconservative think tank in Washington, The Project for the New American Century, PNAC, carried the torch and championed the move to initiate the attack on Iraq using the 9/11 terrorism as the casus belli.

I wrote at that time that I didn’t believe for a minute that the decision to attack Iraq was based on faulty intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

Our very good intelligence was fully aware that no WMDs existed to seriously endanger our troops.

We knew invading Iraq was to be a cake walk, and it was.

Otherwise, why hasn’t South Korea, with or without American support, invaded North Korea to remove that REAL threat from the face of the map?

Is it because North Korea does possess nuclear weapons and is, in fact, trigger happy, as well?

We now admit, at least most sane people do, that the Iraq war was ill-advised, but some still maintain that the ten-years-long military engagement in Afghanistan was somehow for a legitimate cause, even though it should also be brought to an end very soon.

After all, its Raison d’être, Bin Laden, is dead and gone!

We see now how the next flashpoints, Syria and perhaps Lebanon, are being triggered by the same influence peddlers that haven’t given up as yet.

And, don’t think for a second that Obama and his Sate Department and Pentagon are not aware of all that.

The President has been blamed by many for following in George W. Bush’s footsteps in his approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

He has been criticized by many honest Iran specialists (I say “honest” because the so-called “Iran specialists” we see interviewed often in our mass media are anything but!) for not demonstrating more flexibility and conciliatory approach toward Iran.

They constantly flag up the points about Iran’s legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear research, or the lack of any evidence as to Iran’s violations of its NPT agreements, as though the White House or the State Department or the Pentagon are unaware of the facts.

Even Netanyahu and his advisors know that Iran is not and will not be a nuclear threat to Israel, as Israel’s own intelligence services have repeatedly stated.

Obama’s seemingly harsh, even harsher than was George Bush’s, rhetoric against Iran and the ratcheting up of the economic sanctions, supposedly even “crippling”, have been, in my opinion, well measured and calculated, not to bring Iran to its knees to throw in the proverbial towel, but to appease his hawkish detractors and the wrongly motivated Israel supporters. 

Obama simply needs his second term in office to show his true resolve, and he is going to get his chance.

President Obama knows what the Israeli leadership wants, and so does the Israeli leadership: It is not a war with Iran, alone or with American support.

A war with Iran would not serve anyone’s purpose or best interests.

1- Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities would, as attested by practically all experts in that field, not only be ineffective, it would enrage and encourage Iran to expand its activities toward developing nuclear weapons in earnest in order to exact reprisal some day.

2- The retaliatory measures in response to any unprovoked attack would be enormously costly for Israel, as well as for the US forces in the region and the global energy markets.

3- The global condemnation against such an attack would result in incalculable damage to Israel and to American prestige and standing, considering that over 75 percent of the global community of nations support Iran’s position.

4- Such an unprovoked attack would trigger groups such as the Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Palestinians to wreak havoc against Israeli targets.

5- Attacking Iran would definitely result in major regional disturbances and expand the theater of war beyond easy containment.

Those who believe that an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons would be worse than any or all the points mentioned above, should consider the following:

1- Will such eventuality lead to a belligerent Iran preemptively attacking Israel, the US forces, Europe or even the United States as some intellectually challenged hawks predict?

The answer is no.

People who have weathered through over thirty years of political, diplomatic and economic harassment and sanctions and have survived, are certainly not stupid or suicidal.

Any unprovoked assault by Iran, a country with no history of attacking any other country in recent history, would be committing mass annihilation by nuclear armed countries like Israel or the United States.

2- Will a Nuclear armed Iran trigger an arms race in the region?

The answer is, again, no.

Why didn’t the Israeli nuclear arms. or Pakistan’s, trigger such an arms race?

Besides, why would the Gulf Arab states, our own friendly, obedient clients, need to worry about “protecting themselves” against Iran, when the United States military might is ready and capable of defending them, for its own strategic energy interests, of course?

Also, wouldn’t it be fairly easy for the United States to persuade them, from the tiny Emirates to the larger Saudi Arabia, even Turkey, against opting for their own nuclear “deterrents”?

Perhaps the real reason for fearing a nuclear capable Iran is the security or the deterrence it might provide the Islamic Republic against potential attacks by hostile states such as Israel.

But even this premise does not stand on solid, logical grounds.

As explained above, Israel stands to gain nothing, and will suffer irreparably, should it decide to attack Iran.

The nuclear deterrent, therefore, is today an outdated concept, hence Ayatollah Khamaneh’i’s fatwa against the possession of any nuclear weapons by Iran or anyone else.

So, what is it that President Obama knows the Israeli leadership wants, and the Israeli leadership is also after, if it is not attacking Iran?

 The answer is simple: Israel wants the assurance of America’s support on many fronts:

1- Israel needs America’s multi-billion dollar annual gift that, when looked at realistically, is far greater than the “official” three billion dollars we hear about. And they want to be guaranteed that.

2- Israel does not intend to give in to the Palestinians’ demands for a fair settlement of contentious issues leading to any peace treaty, unless Israel dictates the terms. And Israel will be guaranteed that through America’s influence at the UN or the Security Council.

3- Israel wants to remain the region’s top dog militarily and enjoy America’s total commitment to its defense. And, Israel has been and continues to be guaranteed that.

4- Israel wants to enjoy access to oil and gas resources of the region, particularly from the Iraqi Kurdistan, and it will be guaranteed that, even of it should cost the American taxpayers a bunch to arrange it.

With the above in focus, we can appreciate the new tone in Administration’s rhetoric regarding Iran and Israel as the sign that there will be a sea-change awaiting us in the Middle East with regard to US/Iran relations.

The signals began to appear in the United States’ refusal to set a deadline or redline for Iran to do as it was told to do, or else!

Another was the President’s lack of more stern or specific threat of action against Iran in his 4323 word acceptance speech, in which only a short sentence addressed Iran’s nuclear issue; “The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions.”

That was it!

Then it was the comedic episode of trying to reinstate the reference to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel from the Democratic Party Platform, which turned into the foolish theatrics by the Chairman, Los Angeles Mayor, Villaraigosa, who clearly overruled the voiced votes of at least half of those present, by deciding on his own that the two-thirds yes votes had prevailed.

The very recent rebuff of the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu,in which Mr. Obama refusedto meet him in person exploded like a bomb shell over the news media. Mr. Netanyahu had earlier lambasted the American administration for refusing to obey his demands to specify clear redlines for Iran, which would trigger a military strike.

Netanyahu did speak with President Obama over the phone, the accounts of which are not fully known, but one could guess the gist of that conversation. 

This is what I would have liked to hear Mr. Obama tell the Israeli Prime Minister: “Listen buddy, you know you’ll have to deal with me for another four years beyond this year.

You know you don’t have to worry about our support and guarantees that you count on.

You know Iran is no threat to you.

You know how much America has lost and is losing on account of your arrogance and regional thuggery. Enough is enough; shut the $%#@ up and don’t screw things up anymore.

Remember, in my administration, America’s interests come first; don’t you ever forget that.”

I am sticking to my long prediction that 2013 will see a major change in the US/Iran relations for the better, perhaps starting with the easing of sanctions that are not only inhumane and hurting average Iranian people and businesses, but also America’s own business opportunities in that country.

Kam Zarrabi is the author of In Zarathushtra’s Shadow andNecessary Illusion.

He has conducted lectures and seminars on international affairs, particularly in relation to Iran, with focus on US/Iran issues. Zarrabi’s latest book is Iran, Back in Context.

More information about Mr. Zarrabi and his work is available at:intellectualdiscourse.com

ED NOTE: Press TV has conducted an interview with Merlin Miller, US presidential candidate for the American Third Position party, to further talk over the issue. 

I had not heard of Miller before nor have my colleagues in the USA, which tells you where he stands in terms of visibility in the Media, but he is correct.

Israel’s lap dogs contest US election: presidential candidate









Major Naval Deployment: War by Miscalculation, Mistake or Accident




By Global Research News

Global Research, September 11, 2012

By Andrew Schoerke, member of Veterans For Peace


The U. S. Navy is currently assembling four Carrier Strike Groups in the Arabian Sea and when in place it will be the most powerful carrier task force assembled since WW II.

Although not yet announced, there is little doubt that the purpose of this sea power is to ride “shotgun” for a multi-nation countermining exercise to be held in the Gulf of Oman beginning September 24.

Arguably, the exercise is also intended to show Iran that it should not attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz through which over a third of the world’s oil supply transits.

The origin of the escalating crisis with Iran goes back nearly thirty years to when it announced that it had begun a program to enrich uranium for medical research and for use as fuel for a nuclear reactor to generate electricity.

Over time, and under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection, Iran’s program has advanced to the point where it has enriched significant amounts of uranium to a degree high enough that it would take very little to bring it to a high enough for a nuclear weapon.

However, the international community isn’t buying the peaceful use of the material being put forth by Iran.

Instead, it believes that Iran may be engaged in a rogue weapons program and has, therefore, placed more and more stringent sanctions on the country in an effort to force Iran give up its enrichment program.

Because Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu believes a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to Israel’s very existence, he has vowed his determination to destroy Iran’s presumed capability to build a nuclear weapon.

However, Mr. Netanyahu has a problem.

The American made F-15 and F-16 aircraft flown by the Israeli air force, have neither the range nor the bomb carrying capacity to take out Iranian air defenses or targeted enrichment facilities, most of which are deep underground. 

Since Israel does not have the strike force it needs, Mr. Netanyahu is trying to get the U.S. involved in his attack.

But President Obama has stated, and the IAEA agrees there is no evidence that Iran has the capability to build a nuclear weapon nor is there evidence it even has one.

According to accounts being carried in Israeli newspapers and television stations, Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to attack Iran before the U.S. national election on November 7. 

In response to this threat, Mr. Parviz Sarvari of the Iranian National Security Committee is quoted as saying:” If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure.”

Compounding the crisis, President Obama, on July 27, signed into law the United States-Israel Enhanced Cooperation Act which, among other things, mandates that the U.S. governmentprovide Israel aerial refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and special munitions.

It would be a gross miscalculation on Mr. Netanyahu’s part to launch an attack on Iran believing that the U.S. would come to his rescue using the firepower of the four Carrier Strike Groups in the Arabian Sea as well as other U.S. forces.

Further, it would be a mistake on the part of the Iranians to strike at an American or multinational warship thinking that they had joined Israel in attacking their country.

The most troubling circumstance, however, would be for some Israeli, Iranian or American, to accidentally begin shooting for no reason or without authorized command.

Another Mideast war with the resulting human and economic costs for both the region and the world would be catastrophic.

Whether it is a war by miscalculation, mistake or accident, war is not the answer to this escalating crisis.








National disaster: Millions of children prescribed antipsychotic drugs they don’t need

Children in the US overprescribed antipsychotic drugs

Children in the US overprescribed antipsychotic drugs


August 08, 2012

Are doctors going crazy?

US psychiatrists prescribe antipsychotic drugs to children in one third of all visits, which is a rate almost three times higher than during the 1990’s.

Roughly 90 percent of antipsychotic prescriptions written between 2005 and 2009 were prescribed for something other than what the US Food and Drug Administration approves them for.

Researchers say the increase in antipsychotic drug prescription is largely to treat disruptive behaviors, including attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – even though those disorders are not treatable by antipsychotics.

Medications such as Abilify and Risperdal, which are used primarily to treat patients with schizophrenia, are increasingly being prescribed “off label” to control youngsters with ADHD who have problems controlling their behavior.

Only a small proportion of antipsychotic treatment of children (6 percent) and adolescents (13 percent) is for FDA-approved clinical indications,” said Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in an interview with Reuters.

Children with ADHD are most often taking drugs approved for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and irritability with autism. 

“People from all walks of life are taking medications for mental-health conditions,” psychiatrist David Muzina told the Wall Street Journal.

In 2010, Americans spent $16.1 billion on antipsychotic drugs meant to treat bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression.

But whether they are effective or not, the drugs have been known to cause other health problems, such as diabetes, high cholesterol, muscular tics and weight gain.

A University of Massachusetts study found that kids taking antipsychotics were four times more likely to develop diabetes.

Between 1993 and 2008, 31 children died from taking Risperdal and more than 1,200 suffered serious health problems.

“We have a national catastrophe,” Dr. Peter Breggin told US News & World Report. “This is a situation where we have ruined the brains of millions of children.”

But in many cases, antipsychotic drug prescriptions are not even necessary to treat behavioral disorders.

There are psychosocial interventions, such as parent management training, that are able to reduce aggressive and disruptive behaviors in kids, Olfson said.

Instead of taking the time and money to gradually reduce their children’s behavioral problems, parents are opting for antipsychotic medications for an instant fix.

Drugged from a young age onward, many American children will grow up dependent on serious antipsychotic drugs they had no need for.








(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



One Response to “REAL NEWS Sept 14 2012”

  1. scam said

    Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point.

    You obviously know what youre talking about, why
    waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us something informative
    to read?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: