tirsdag 31. mars 2015

Even America’s “Media Watchdogs” Hide Washington’s Ukraine Nazification and Ethnic Cleansing Program
ukraine-nazi-emblems-e1427470301248
















The U.S.’news’ media are so censored and controlled, so that even America’s ‘media watchdog’ organizations — mediamatters.org and fair.org on the left; and aim.org and mrc.org on the right — have hidden from the American public President Barack Obama’s Ukrainian coup in February 2014 that violently overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President and replaced him with a Ukrainian nazi (racist-fascist) rabidly eliminationist anti-Russian, police-state regime in Kiev, which, ever since America’s coup there, has been ethnically cleansing the Ukrainian Donbass region that had voted 90% for the man, Viktor Yanukovych, whom the Obama Administration overthrew.
None of this is reported in the U.S. ‘news’ media — and America’s ‘media watchdog’ organizations hide the media’s hiding of it, though these events could bring on a nuclear war with Russia, which is America’s real target in Ukraine, right next door to Russia.
On 14 January 2015, I headlined “The Most-Censored News Story of 2014 Was What…?” and reported that, after an investigation, I had found that, by far, the most-censored news story of 2014 in America was Obama’s coup and U.S.-supported ethnic-cleansing in Ukraine. Links were provided there to videos of the the U.S.-backed massacre in the Trade Unions Building in Odessa on 2 May 2014, and the following ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region. However, the U.S. even sponsors firebombings of Donbass in order to get rid of the residents there, and our ‘media watchdogs’ are even silent about the ’news’ being silent about that. And, here is a good video of America’s Ukrainian coup, which overthrew Yanukovych. Here is more about that coup.
America is trying to conquer Russia, and the placement of nuclear missiles right next door to Russia, in Ukraine seems to be Obama’s objective. America’s ‘news’ media, and their ‘watchdogs,’ are doing a terrific job of hiding all of this from the American people. They wouldn’t do that if these events weren’t enormously important to the American aristocracy, who, it seems, have bought up all of the major mainstream and alternative news media. Scandals far less important than this ongoing one are routinely receiving much attention from the American press. However, even America’s ‘media watchdogs’ ignore this scandal of America’s press. Thus, there aren’t peace-marches and other public demonstrations about this, even though America’s bringing nazis to power in Ukraine is shocking. But you can find out all about it by clicking on the links here, and on the links within those linked-to news reports. It’s all history now, which was unfortunately never reported by U.S. media while it was still very hot and bloody news.

IMF policies in Ukraine irresponsible – Ron Paul

Published time: March 31, 2015 04:45
Ron Paul (Reuters/Robert Galbraith)
Ron Paul (Reuters/Robert Galbraith)
The IMF move to extend a bailout to Kiev only serves the US foreign policy agenda and does nothing to save Ukraine from economic meltdown, according to former US presidential candidate Ron Paul, who says the whole system cannot be fixed but only scrapped.
“A responsible financial institution would not extend a new loan of between 17 and 40 billion dollars to a borrower already struggling to pay back an existing multi-billion dollar loan,” Paul wrote in an opinion piece for the Ron Paul Institute.

The new four-year IMF extended arrangement is designed to support economic stabilization and wide-ranging reforms in Ukraine. Yet, Paul argues, the new loan scheme does nothing for the Kiev-government allied to Washington, the IMF’s principal financier.
“This new loan may not make much economic sense, but propping up the existing Ukrainian government serves the foreign policy agenda of the US,” Paul writes.
The US politician goes on to accuse the IMF of“tailoring” its actions to advance the US government’s foreign policy goals.
“The IMF also has a history of using the funds provided to it by the American taxpayer to prop up dictatorial regimes and support unsound economic policies,” he writes.
Although Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed off on legislative measures to drastically reduce spending and approved changes to the tax system, the loans still fail to promote a free market, Paul says.
Eugene Federov Explains the Assassination of Nemtsov and the US's Failed Attempt To Destabilize Russia

30 minute interview explaining in detail how the US expected to proceed with a Russian Maidan after the one two three punch of sanctions, oil price fixing and financial market manipulation followed by the assassination of Nemtsov which was supposed to be the spark for the Russian Maidan and physical overthrow of the Kremlin. This was supposed to culminate in the rise of Khodorkovsky, however, the US overplayed their hand and underestimated the spirit of the Russian people and their ability to see through obvious US propaganda and blatant failed coup attempts.






EU Should Lift Anti-Russia Sanctions - Italian FM

Paolo Gentiloni


SPUTNIK 09:29 31.03.2015
The Italian Foreign Minister believes that without Russia Europe will be unable to neutralize the threat to European security posed by Islamist militants in Mali, Pakistan and Libya.
Paolo Gentiloni also believes that the EU is too much fixated on the Ukrainian crisis and ignores other, equally important, problems at hand, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten newspaper reported Tuesday.
Paolo Gentiloni warns that the introduction of international peacekeepers in southeastern Ukraine would not be conducive to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and calls for a “partial lifting of sanctions” against Russia.
Italy has been hard hit by the ban on food and other imports introduced by Russia in response to similar sanctions earlier slapped on it by the EU.
Therefore, Paolo Gentiloni advises Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to restore partnership relations with Moscow.
Matteo Renzi earlier took flak from Brussels and Washington for inviting Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to pay a state visit to Italy, the German newspaper said.
Since March 2014 Western countries have introduced a series of sanctions against Russia over its alleged involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150331/1020240855.html#ixzz3VyguBWWi

IRAN AND RUSSIA GIVE GULF STATES AND ALLIES A 24 HR DEADLINE TO STOP THE WAR ON YEMEN

"IRAN AND RUSSIA GIVE GULF STATES AND ALLIES A 24 HR DEADLINE TO STOP THE WAR ON YEMEN</p>
<p>A 24 hour deadline has been given by Iran and Russia to the Saudi Kingdom and its Israeli/American allies, to stop the bombings in Yemen. </p>
<p>Warships have left the Russian and Iranian ports towards the Bab El-Mandab strait, and accordingly the Russians have warned the Gulf states from interfering in Yemen. Russia has given the ultimatum that if the war is not stopped in the next 24 hours, Russia will stop the war by force. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Iran has warned Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state that such air strikes will cause a regional war and that Iran will work close to the maritime line in the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb. Any bombing that strikes the Iranian warships will cause Iran to directly enter into this war and that the Iranian missiles will be in the range of Saudi Arabia and the countries backing them militarily i.e. Israel and America.<br />
Source: Reuters News Agency"
IRAN AND RUSSIA GIVE GULF STATES AND ALLIES A 24 HR DEADLINE TO STOP THE WAR ON YEMEN
A 24 hour deadline has been given by Iran and Russia to the Saudi Kingdom and its Israeli/American allies, to stop the bombings in Yemen.
Warships have left the Russian and Iranian ports towards the Bab El-Mandab strait, and accordingly the Russians have warned the Gulf states from interfering in Yemen. Russia has given the ultimatum that if the war is not stopped in the next 24 hours, Russia will stop the war by force.
On the other hand, Iran has warned Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state that such air strikes will cause a regional war and that Iran will work close to the maritime line in the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb. Any bombing that strikes the Iranian warships will cause Iran to directly enter into this war and that the Iranian missiles will be in the range of Saudi Arabia and the countries backing them militarily i.e. Israel and America.
Source: Reuters News Agency

mandag 30. mars 2015

Breakdown: Czech spectators give up waiting for US Army convoy after 7hr wait

Published time: March 30, 2015 07:03
A still from Ruptly video
A still from Ruptly video
The US Army show-of-force ride over Eastern Europe was somewhat marred on Sunday, as a vehicle breakdown resulted in a seven-hour delay of the column. Dozens of Czechs gave up waiting at the Polish border to welcome them.
Some 520 US troops and 118 vehicles, including Humvees and Stryker armor are taking part in the Dragoon Ride, a tour through European countries meant to demonstrate US resolve to protect NATO allies from what Washington labels Russian aggression in Europe.
On Sunday, the force split in three separate convoys was meant to cross the border between Poland and the Czech Republic. But one of them met with an unexpected and lengthy delay after one of the Stryker armored fighting vehicles broke down some 2km from the border near the Polish hamlet of Jakuszyce.

The delay was somewhat a disappointment for dozens of Czech spectators, who flocked to the town of Harrachov just across the border to witness the largest military maneuvers the area has seen since 1968. They expected the convoy to show up around 10:30am, but had to wait until 5pm to see the American hardware roll through the town towards the barracks in Liberec where they stayed for the night. By the time the convoy came around half of the initial group had given up waiting and left, according to Czech News Agency (CTK).

A minor altercation was reported at the border, when some pro-NATO activists waving US flag clashed with NATO-skeptic activists of the Czech Communist Party. The incident mirrors a larger division in the Czech Republic, where many people and politicians are uncomfortable with an increasing presence of NATO troops in the country.
Dragoon Ride will continue through the Czech Republic until early April, when the vehicles and troops are to return to their permanent base at Vilseck, Germany.
NATO has boosted its military foothold in Eastern Europe last year, saying it was a response to the events in Ukraine and the reunification of Crimea with Russia after a referendum, a move that West calls an illegal military occupation. Moscow says the transatlantic military bloc is using the Ukrainian crisis as a pretext to further encroach on Russia, as it has been doing since the collapse of the Soviet Union.




Clear & president danger: Poll shows Republicans more scared of Obama than Putin

Published time: March 30, 2015 


U.S. President Barack Obama (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst) and Russian president Vladimir Putin (RIA Novosti/Sergey Guneev)A third of Republicans in the United States believe President Obama is a more imminent threat to their country than Russian President Vladimir Putin. They believe the same about Syria’s Bashar Assad, a poll has revealed.
There is no measure of apprehension or bad publicity the American right has not directed in the past at the Russian and Syrian governments. It may then come as a surprise to some that many see their biggest threat as originating from the inside.
Reuters and Ipsos polled 2,809 Americans in March to see where they stand on threats to the United States. Some 1,083 Democrats and 1,059 Republicans participated. Given a list of countries, organizations and individuals – and the choice to rank them on a scale from 1 to 5, a sizeable 34 percent of the population decided that Obama was an imminent threat. That’s 9 percent more than Putin.

Syria’s embattled President Assad is apparently also an existential threat to about a quarter of Americans, just behind the Russian president.
Experts, however, don’t believe the overall results to be all that surprising, given how polarized the US is along party lines.
"Fear mongering" by both parties is a much-loved pastime, especially in this 2016 presidential campaign, says sociologist and author of ‘The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things’, Barry Glassner.
"The TV media here, and American politics, very much trade on fears," he continued.
Party-wise, 27 percent of Republicans were found to fear the Democrats. The figure is 22 percent in the reverse. Incidentally, 27 percent is also the number of Americans fearing Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Reuters found that the people polled were most concerned with potential terror threats on American soil. For that the Islamic State ranks top, with 57 percent, followed by Al-Qaeda, with 43 percent.
Reuters/Stringer
Reuters/Stringer

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un soared above both Putin and Obama, with 34 percent of Americans believing they're in imminent danger.
Of the threats not posed by known groups or prominent individuals, it was found that the US population is most scared of cyber-attacks and drug trafficking, sitting at 39 and 33 percent respectively.
Predictably, climate change was not a concern to most Republicans, only 27 percent of whom believe it’s anywhere on the threat map. However, only slightly more than a third of Democrats share the fear.

Denmark Joins China's Development Bank

Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei (2nd L) gives a speech for guests at the signing ceremony of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing


Denmark Joins China's Development Bank

© AFP 2015/ Takaki Yajima /POOL
The Nordic country has become the latest western nation to apply to become a founding member of the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Denmark has confirmed its intention to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, placing the current number of founding member countries to more than 40 following a number of announcements in recent days from interested parties keen on beating China's March 31 deadline to sign up for the project.
"It is a significant and exciting development in the world order that China is now establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [AIIB]," said Mogens Jensen, Danish Minister of Trade and Development in an announcement made in China on Saturday. 
"Since many Danish trade interests as well as development cooperation interests will be at stake in AIIB, there are many reasons to engage in and influence AIIB’s investment decisions from its beginning." 
Denmark is the first Nordic country to confirm its application; on Sunday, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, who is in China attending the annual Boao Forum for Asia, told Chinese President Xi Jinpeng that his country is "highly interested" in the initiative and is keen to cooperate. 
The Chinese Ministry of Finance said in a statement on Sunday that China "welcomes Denmark’s decision," and that Denmark's status as a founding member can be approved on April 12, subject to the approval of the bank's other founding members. 
According to the Ministry, as of Sunday 42 countries had joined or applied to join the AIIB as founder members of the bank, which intends to  meet the financing needs of infrastructure projects in Asia and is set to have authorized capital of US$100 billion and initial subscribed capital of around US$50 billion. A report published by the Asian Development Bank [ADB] in 2012 calculated that the region needs another $800 billion every year until 2020 to meet its funding shortfall for infrastructure projects. Manila-based ADB, which is dominated by Japan and the US, lends no more than $10 billion for infrastructure projects each year.
China has said that Tuesday is the deadline for founding member countries to sign the 'Memorandum of Understanding' but gave assurances earlier this month that "the door will always be open for interested countries."  
Of the world's major economies, only the US, Canada and Japan have so far not applied to sign up. Earlier this month, Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso said his country had not ruled out cooperation in the future, but would not make a decision before the March 31 deadline.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/asia/20150330/1020195038.html#ixzz3VspcPKVg
NYT Publishes Call to Bomb Iran
The New York Times continues its slide into becoming little more than a neocon propaganda sheet as it followed the Washington Post in publishing an op-ed advocating the unprovoked bombing of Iran, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

March 29, 2015 "
ICH" - "Consortium News" - If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the U.S. government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about “aggression,” “criminality,” “madness,” and “behavior not fitting the Twenty-first Century.”
But when the newspapers are American – the New York Times and the Washington Post – and the target country is Iran, no one in the U.S. government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.
On Thursday, the New York Times printed an op-ed that urged the bombing of Iran as an alternative to reaching a diplomatic agreement that would sharply curtail Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it was used only for peaceful purposes. The Post published a similar “we-must-bomb-Iran” op-ed two weeks ago.
The Times’ article by John Bolton, a neocon scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, was entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” It followed the Post’s op-ed by Joshua Muravchik, formerly at AEI and now a fellow at the neocon-dominated School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. [For more on that piece, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocon Admits Plan to Bomb Iran.”]
Both articles called on the United States to mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities and to promote “regime change” in Tehran. Ironically, these “scholars” rationalized their calls for unprovoked aggression against Iran under the theory that Iran is an aggressive state, although Iran has not invaded another country for centuries.
Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, based his call for war on the possibility that if Iran did develop a nuclear bomb – which Iran denies seeking and which the U.S. intelligence community agrees Iran is not building – such a hypothetical event could touch off an arms race in the Middle East.
Curiously, Bolton acknowledged that Israel already has developed an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal outside international controls, but he didn’t call for bombing Israel. He wrote blithely that “Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.”
How Bolton manages to read the minds of Israel’s neighbors who have been at the receiving end of Israeli invasions and other cross-border attacks is not explained. Nor does he address the possibility that Israel’s possession of some 200 nuclear bombs might be at the back of the minds of Iran’s leaders if they do press ahead for a nuclear weapon.
Nor does Bolton explain his assumption that if Iran were to build one or two bombs that it would use them aggressively, rather than hold them as a deterrent. He simply asserts: “Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions.”
Pulling Back on Refinement
But is that correct? In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon.
In other words, rather than challenging the “red line” of uranium refinement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew during a United Nations speech in 2012, the Iranians have gone in the opposite direction – and they have agreed to continue those constraints if a permanent agreement is reached with the p-5-plus-1.
However, instead of supporting such an agreement, American neocons – echoing Israeli hardliners – are demanding war, followed by U.S. subversion of Iran’s government through the financing of an internal opposition for a coup or a “colored revolution.”
Bolton wrote: “An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”
But one should remember that neocon schemes – drawn up at their think tanks and laid out on op-ed pages – don’t always unfold as planned. Since the 1990s, the neocons have maintained a list of countries considered troublesome for Israel and thus targeted for “regime change,” including Iraq, Syria and Iran. In 2003, the neocons got their chance to invade Iraq, but the easy victory that they predicted didn’t exactly pan out.
Still, the neocons never revise their hit list. They just keep coming up with more plans that, in total, have thrown much of the Middle East, northern Africa and now Ukraine into bloodshed and chaos. In effect, the neocons have joined Israel in its de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia for a Sunni sectarian conflict against the Shiites and their allies. Much like the Saudis, Israeli officials rant against the so-called “Shiite crescent” from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of Iran.”]
Since Iran is considered the most powerful Shiite nation and is allied with Syria, which is governed by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, both countries have remained in the neocons’ crosshairs. But the neocons don’t actually pull the trigger themselves. Their main role is to provide the emotional and political arguments to get the American people to hand over their tax money and their children to fight these wars.
The neocons are so confident in their skills at manipulating the U.S. decision-making process that some have gone so far as to suggest Americans should side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria or the even more brutal Islamic State, because those groups love killing Shiites and thus are considered the most effective fighters against Iran’s allies. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]
Friedman’s Madness
The New York Times’ star neocon columnist Thomas L. Friedman ventured to the edge of madness as he floated the idea of the U.S. arming the head-chopping Islamic State, writing this month: “Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS?”
I realize the New York Times and Washington Post are protected by the First Amendment and can theoretically publish whatever they want. But the truth is that the newspapers are extremely restrictive in what they print. Their op-ed pages are not just free-for-alls for all sorts of opinions.
For instance, neither newspaper would publish a story that urged the United States to launch a bombing campaign to destroy Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal as a step toward creating a nuclear-free Middle East. That would be considered outside responsible thought and reasonable debate.
However, when it comes to advocating a bombing campaign against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, the two newspapers are quite happy to publish such advocacy. The Times doesn’t even blush when one of its most celebrated columnists mulls over the idea of sending weapons to the terrorists in ISIS – all presumably because Israel has identified “the Shiite crescent” as its current chief enemy and the Islamic State is on the other side.
But beyond the hypocrisy and, arguably, the criminality of these propaganda pieces, there is also the neocon record of miscalculation. Remember how the invasion of Iraq was supposed to end with Iraqis tossing rose petals at the American soldiers instead of planting “improvised explosive devices” – and how the new Iraq was to become a model pluralistic democracy?
Well, why does one assume that the same geniuses who were so wrong about Iraq will end up being right about Iran? What if the bombing and the subversion don’t lead to nirvana in Iran? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more so, that Iran would react to this aggression by deciding that it needed nuclear bombs to deter further aggression and to protect its sovereignty and its people?
In other words, might the scheming by Bolton and Muravchik — as published by the New York Times and the Washington Post — produce exactly the result that they say they want to prevent? But don’t worry. If the neocons’ new schemes don’t pan out, they’ll just come up with more.