Saturday, January 7, 2012
Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE
He says it in his own words. This is dangerous.
Notice the Americans cheer and or laugh at our entire system of government being flushed down the toilet.
IAEA report: zero evidence of Iran nukes. US Orwellian corporate war media: Iran building nukes?
Carl Herman
, LA County Nonpartisan Examiner
February 20, 2010 -
The good news is corporate media war propaganda is so easy to reveal and crush. Today’s version of CIA Operation Mockingbird, the US Senate Church Committee disclosure of over 400 CIA operatives within US corporate media to propagandize for war policies, is escalating their paper-thin lies of omission and commission to manipulate America into war with Iran.
The great news is millions of Americans recognize corporate media lies; especially after the confirmed lies they viciously and endlessly repeated for wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. Millions also authoritatively understand these wars are clearly unlawful (and here).
The fantastic news is that our forefathers already won the structural legal limitations to prevent Wars of Aggression in the UN Charter to only two conditions: defense from armed attack by another nation’s government, and/or if authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC). This means that because the evidence and rule of law that US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the case for war with Iran are unlawful in Orwellian and “Big Lie” extreme, our men and women in government and military are poised to refuse all orders for these unlawful wars and end them. Subsequently, prosecutions and possible Truth and Reconciliation will ensue.
The exciting news that we’ll discover is if this news is good enough for humanity to finally overcome the history of Wars of Aggression; if humanity is ready to commit and realize our values of unalienable rights and government under law.
The bad news is the potential of World War III escalating from war with Iran if a critical mass of our military and government “places the mission first” in surrender to mass-murderers rather than doing what they swore to do: support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
IAEA and Iran: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in their inspection role for compliance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had their preliminary report on Iran’s nuclear energy program leaked. The bottom line:
46. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
Let’s unpack this:
- IAEA confirms zero evidence of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Remember this: zero, zip, zilch, nada. This conforms to the agreement of all 16 US intelligence agencies in their December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.
- IAEA continues obfuscating language about the story of Iran’s Additional Protocol, a voluntary set of additional safeguards they administratively approved without treaty ratification within their legislature and then withdrew after two years of US non-compliance for their compliance (history here). The language essentially says we can’t prove there isn’t nuclear material we don’t know about that’s being used to build weapons. This is like someone accusing you, “Your family might be involved in terrorist activities that we don’t know about.” This choice of language screams of a thinly-veiled agenda to paint Iran as potentially dangerous.
IAEA is likely under the same type of political pressure to make a case for war with Iran that we witnessed before the US invasion of Iraq: the US eliminated the UN agency director who would have resolved concerns of alleged Iraq weapons:
"…the conservative first option should have been the UN Security Council voting for the UN WMD agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to directly request Saddam to submit to OPCW’s authority. The Director-general of OPCW, Jose Bustani, was in talks with Saddam to do so. Instead of supporting this reasonable alternative to war, the US promised to withhold its funding of the UN (22% of the UN’s budget) until Bustani was fired. The US called Bustani’s talks with Saddam an “ill-considered initiative.” The US request was honored; the US then paid its 2002 UN dues in April 2002; less than one year before the US invasion of Iraq. This was the first time in UN history where the Director of an international program was fired.[13] By the way, the US does not cooperate with the OPCW to ensure US compliance with International Laws of chemical and biological WMD."
The real propaganda for war with Iran comes in this part of IAEA’s report:
The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved. Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.
This propaganda of “gathering concern” is similar to what preceded war with Iraq; the admission of zero evidence of unlawful activity framed in a rhetorical trick at the same level of someone demanding of you: “Prove you’re not a mass murderer of people we don’t know about!”
The first damning evidence that proves this section as propaganda is IAEA’s lie of omission that previous “sources” concerning Iran nuclear weapon development are now confirmed as planted evidence (here, here and here).
CNN’s screamingly headlined the IAEA propaganda as: Watchdog: Iran may be working on nuclear warhead
The video report below has this banner at the bottom: “Iranian nuclear warhead?” with the glaring lie of commission that a 20% enrichment is a “magic number” that shows enrichment for a nuclear weapon despite it being exactly what’s needed for lawful nuclear medicine, the IAEA has constant monitoring for enrichment to never exceed that amount, let along to reach the 85%+ for weapons-grade.
CNN’s written report allows the White House lie that Iran’s disclosed Qom nuclear facility can’t be used for peaceful nuclear use, despite independent analysis that its specifications are precisely for that purpose and IAEA would know immediately if enrichment went beyond the facility’s limits. They lie again by reporting the facility as “secret” despite the fact it was reported by Iran to IAEA ahead of their NPT requirement to do so. They continue on their roll of lies by not reportingIran’s several offers to accept medical isotopes as imports provided they had a guaranteed timeline.
So understand: this whole issue could be averted if the US merely agreed for a simultaneous swap of fuel.
But the US doesn’t do so, and the war-whore media won’t report this solution for the same reasons that the US got rid of the UN Director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who was working with Saddam to resolve any concern over their alleged WMD: the US wants some BS excuse for war.
From CNN's report:
In Washington, Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley noted that the report is the first one the IAEA has produced since the discovery of the secret nuclear facility at Qom."There is no explanation for that facility that is consistent with the needs of a civilian nuclear program. And it characterizes the way in which Iran has conducted its ... relations with the IAEA and its failure to satisfactorily explain, you know, what its activities and ambitions are in the nuclear sphere," he said.Crowley said the conclusions of the report "are consistent" with arguments Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made in the Middle East during her visit this week."We have ongoing concerns about Iran's activities," Crowley said Thursday at the regular daily briefing at the State Department. "We cannot explain why it refuses to come to the table and engage constructively to answer the questions that have been raised, and you have to draw some conclusions from that."
Among other reports, this headline is typical: IAEA report: Iran may be developing atom bomb
You have to go outside Operation Mockingbird corporate media to find exposure of this propaganda, such as Jason Ditz on AntiWar.com and Global Research, and Global Research founder Michel Chossudovsky, also reprinted at Alex Jones’ Prison Planet, who provides his analysis in the below video.
My policy recommendations of how to respond to this Orwellian dystopia follow.
Please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.
I appreciate your attention to these facts and encourage your further study and action consistent with your own self-expression. My recommendations:
Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:
- Understand the laws of war (and here). These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. The current US wars are not even close to being lawful and are legal treason against the US. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. To fulfill their oath they must immediatelyrefuse and end all orders associated with unlawful wars and military-related constant violation of treaties.
- End the transfer of trillions of American taxpayer money to banksters and admitted as“lost” by our military. End poverty through global cooperation to achieve the UN Millennium Goals by developed countries investing 0.7% of their income (not that the UN is serious for their accomplishment, but the goals are what we should invest to produce). Support global security through cooperation, dignity, justice, and freedom. Create a US Department of Peace to help.
- Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate that you will be attacked and prepare your virtuous response in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
- Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation(T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R are subject to prosecution.
Local perspective: Part of my professional duties as a teacher of economics and government is to produce competent adult citizenry. This includes realization that our nation’s policies and money are managed at a broad community level, and these issues have tremendous local impact. Of course, we all want human beings to be individually successful and enjoy their unique, beautiful and powerful self-expressions. Concurrently, we recognize our commitment to local success is strongly dependent upon the success of the community, and that government policy and economics are drivers.
Our status in early 21st Century human history is that we suffer from a long history in government and money of human interrelationship well-described as vicious antagonism. Governments frequently use war as a foreign policy, despite its illegality and dependent upon public ignorance, with horrific consequences. Economic policy is still created within a “Robber Baron” paradigm to concentrate money to an elite few families. Two examples:
1. National taxes effect you dearly, especially the tax to pay interest on the national debt. This costs the American public over $400 billion every year. This is $4,000 per year for every $50,000 of income. Do the math to understand your household’s tax burden for a monetary policy invented by banks for banks to create our money supply as debt. Your competence in this area contributes to our collective voice to simply shift monetary policy to easily pay the national debt, enjoy full employment, collectively save us over a trillion dollars every year, and finally realize what ourbrightest American minds have been advocating for centuries beginning with Benjamin Franklin. This would have unprecedented local benefits, and requires collective power to accomplish.
2. Ending poverty everywhere on our planet would cost just 0.7% of our income and save a million children’s lives every month. This human accomplishment will cause unimaginable joy at our local level.
To consider:
"If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in the world. Now the judgment of God is upon us and we must either learn to live together as brothers or we are all going to perish together as fools."
--Inscription on Dr. Martin Luther King’s statue, Moorehouse College, Atlanta
"The day that hunger is eradicated from the earth, there will be the greatest spiritual explosion the world has ever known. Humanity cannot imagine the joy that will burst into the world on the day of that great revolution." -- poet Federico GarcÃa Lorca
Comments policy: I welcome questions and comments that are civil and pertain to the article topic. Impolite and impertinent comments will be deleted.
The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
After years of U.S. threats, Iran is taking steps which suggest that is both willing and capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. On December 24, 2011 Iran started its Velayat-90 naval drills in and around the Strait of Hormuz and extending from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman (Oman Sea) to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.
Since the conduct of these drills, there has been a growing war of words between Washington and Tehran. Nothing the Obama Administration or the Pentagon have done or said so far, however, has deterred Tehran from continuing its naval drills. The Geo-Political Nature of the Strait of Hormuz Besides the fact that it is a vital transit point for global energy resources and a strategic chokepoint, two additional issues should be addressed in regards to the Strait of Hormuz and its relationship to Iran. The first concerns the geography of the Strait of Hormuz. The second pertains to the role of Iran in co-managing the strategic strait in accordance with international law and its sovereign national rights. The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces, which are predominantly composed of the Iranian Regular Force Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy. In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam. More importantly, to transit through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, must sail through Iranian territorial waters. Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters. Iran allows foreign ships to use its territorial waters in good faith and on the basis of Part III of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea’s maritime transit passage provisions that stipulate that vessels are free to sail through the Strait of Hormuz and similar bodies of water on the basis of speedy and continuous navigation between an open port and the high seas. Although Tehran in custom follows the navigation practices of the Law of the Sea, Tehran is not legally bound by them. Like Washington, Tehran signed this international treaty, but never ratified it.  American-Iranian Tensions in the Persian Gulf In recent developments, the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) is re-evaluating the use of Iranian waters at the Strait of Hormuz by foreign vessels. Legislation is being proposed to block any foreign warships from being able to use Iranian territorial waters to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission; the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee is currently studying legislation which would establish an official Iranian posture. The latter would hinge upon Iranian strategic interests and national security. [1] On December 30, 2011, the U.S.S. John C. Stennis carrier passed through the area where Iran was conducting its naval drills. The Commander of the Iranian Regular Forces, Major-General Ataollah Salehi, advised the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and other U.S. Navy vessels not to return to the Persian Gulf while Iran was doing its drills, saying that Iran is not in the habit of repeating a warning twice. [2] Shortly after the stern Iranian warning to Washington, the Pentagon’s press secretary responded by making a statement saying: “No one in this government seeks confrontation [with Iran] over the Strait of Hormuz. It’s important to lower the temperature.” [3] In an actual scenario of military conflict with Iran, it is very likely that U.S. aircraft carriers would actually operate from outside of the Persian Gulf and from the southern Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Unless the missile systems that Washington is developing in the petro-sheikhdoms of the southern Persian Gulf are operational, the deployment of large U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf would be unlikely. The reasons for this are tied to geographic realities and the defensive capabilities of Iran.  Geography is against the Pentagon: U.S. Naval Strength has limits in the Persian Gulf U.S. naval strength, which includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled and unmatched by any other naval power. Primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are nonetheless vulnerable. Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. (see map above) This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of U.S. naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where U.S. vessels are constricted. This is why the U.S. has been busily erecting a missile shield system in the Persian Gulf amongst the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the last few years. Even the small Iranian patrol boats in the Persian Gulf, which appear pitiable and insignificant against a U.S. aircraft carrier or destroyer, threaten U.S. warships. Looks can be deceiving; these Iranian patrol boats can easily launch a barrage of missiles that could significantly damage and effectively sink large U.S. warships. Iranian small patrol boats are also hardly detectable and hard to target. Iranian forces could also attack U.S. naval capabilities merely by launching missile attacks from the Iranian mainland on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf. Even in 2008 the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged the threat from Iran’s mobile coastal missile batteries, anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed small ships. [4] Other Iranian naval assets like aerial drones, hovercraft, mines, diver teams, and mini-submarines could also be used in asymmetrical naval warfare against the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. One key example is the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) war game in the Persian Gulf, which was conducted from July 24, 2002 to August 15, 2002 and took almost two years to prepare. This mammoth drill was amongst the largest and most expensive war games ever held by the Pentagon. Millennium Challenge 2002 was held shortly after the Pentagon had decided that it would continue the momentum of the war in Afghanistan by targeting Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and finishing off with the big prize of Iran in a broad military campaign to ensure U.S. primacy in the new millennium. After Millennium Challenge 2002 was finished, the war game was "officially" presented as a simulation of a war against Iraq under the rule of President Saddam Hussein, but in actuality these war games pertained to Iran.[5] The U.S. had already made assessments for the upcoming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Iraq had no naval capabilities that would merit such large-scale use of the U.S. Navy. Millennium Challenge 2002 was conducted to simulate a war with Iran, which was codenamed “Red” and referred to an unknown Middle Eastern rogue enemy state in the Persian Gulf. Other than Iran, no other country could meet the perimeters and characteristics of “Red” and its military forces, from the patrol boats to the motorcycle units. The war simulation took place because Washington was planning on attacking Iran soon after invading Iraq in 2003. The scenario in the 2002 war game started with the U.S., codenamed “Blue,” giving Iran a one-day ultimatum to surrender in the year 2007. The war game’s date of 2007 would chronologically correspond to U.S. plans to attack Iran after the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was to extend, according to military plans, into a broader war against Syria. The war against Lebanon, however, did not go as planned and the U.S. and Israel realized that if Hezbollah could challenge them in Lebanon then an expanded war with Syria and Iran would be a disaster. In Millennium Challenge 2002’s war scenario, Iran would react to U.S. aggression by launching a massive barrage of missiles that would overwhelm the U.S. and destroy sixteen U.S. naval vessels – an aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships. It is estimated that if this had happened in real war theater context, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemen would have been killed in the first day following the attack. [6] Next, Iran would send its small patrol boats – the ones that look insignificant in comparison to the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and other large U.S. warships – to overwhelm the remainder of the Pentagon’s naval forces in the Persian Gulf, which would result in the damaging and sinking of most of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the defeat of the United States. After the U.S. defeat, the war games were started over again, but “Red” (Iran) had to operate under the assumption of handicaps and shortcomings, so that U.S. forces would be allowed to emerge victorious from the drill. [7] This outcome of the war games obviated the fact that the U.S. would have been overwhelmed in the context of a real conventional war with Iran in the Persian Gulf. Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped both by geography as well as Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman. Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance. Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf. Making the Strait of Hormuz Redundant to Weaken Iran? The entire world knows the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington and its allies are very well aware that the Iranians can militarily close it for a significant period of time. This is why the U.S. has been working with the GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the U.A.E. – to re-route their oil through pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and channelling GCC oil directly to the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Washington has also been pushing Iraq to seek alternative routes in talks with Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.  Both Israel and Turkey have also been very interested in this strategic project. Ankara has had discussions with Qatar about setting up an oil terminal that would reach Turkey via Iraq. The Turkish government has attempted to get Iraq to link its southern oil fields, like Iraq’s northern oil fields, to the transit routes running through Turkey. This is all tied to Turkey’s visions of being an energy corridor and important lynchpin of transit. The aims of re-routing oil away from the Persian Gulf would remove an important element of strategic leverage Iran has against Washington and its allies. It would effectively reduce the importance of the Strait of Hormuz. It could very well be a prerequisite to war preparations and a war led by the United States against Tehran and its allies. It is within this framework that the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline or the Hashan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline is being fostered by the United Arab Emirates to bypass the maritime route in the Persian Gulf going through the Strait of Hormuz. The project design was put together in 2006, the contract was issued in 2007, and construction was started in 2008. [8] This pipeline goes straight from Abdu Dhabi to the port of Fujairah on the shore of the Arabian Sea. In other words, it will give oil exports from the U.A.E. direct access to the Indian Ocean. It has openly been presented as a means to ensure energy security by bypassing Hormuz and attempting to avoid the Iranian military. Along with the construction of this pipeline, the erection of a strategic oil reservoir at Fujairah was also envisaged to also maintain the flow of oil to the international market should the Persian Gulf be closed off. [9] Aside from the Petroline (East-West Saudi Pipeline), Saudi Arabia has also been looking at alternative transit routes and examining the ports of it southern neighbours in the Arabian Peninsula, Oman and Yemen. The Yemenite port of Mukalla on the shores of the Gulf of Aden has been of particular interest to Riyadh. In 2007, Israeli sources reported with some fanfare that a pipeline project was in the works that would connect the Saudi oil fields with Fujairah in the U.A.E., Muscat in Oman, and finally to Mukalla in Yemen. The reopening of the Iraq-Saudi Arabia Pipeline (IPSA), which was ironically built by Saddam Hussein to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and Iran, has also been a subject of discussion for the Saudis with the Iraqi government in Baghdad. If Syria and Lebanon were converted into Washington’s clients, then the defunct Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) could also be reactivated, along with other alternative routes going from the Arabian Peninsula to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea via the Levant. Chronologically, this would also fit into Washington’s efforts to overrun Lebanon and Syria in an attempt to isolate Iran before any possible showdown with Tehran. The Iranian Velayat-90 naval drills, which extended in close proximity to the entrance of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden off the territorial waters of Yemen, also took place in the Gulf of Oman facing the coast of Oman and the eastern shores of the United Arab Emirates. Amongst other things, Velayat-90 should be understood as a signal that Tehran is ready to operate outside of the Persian Gulf and can even strike or block the pipelines trying to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Geography again is on Iran’s side in this case too. Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz still does not change the fact that most of the oil fields belonging to GCC countries are located in the Persian Gulf or near its shores, which means they are all situated within close proximity to Iran and therefore within Iranian striking distance. Like in the case of the Hashan-Fujairah Pipeline, the Iranians could easily disable the flow of oil from the point of origin. Tehran could launch missile and aerial attacks or deploy its ground, sea, air, and amphibious forces into these areas as well. It does not necessarily need to block the Strait of Hormuz; after all preventing the flow of energy is the main purpose of the Iranian threats. The American-Iranian Cold War Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using all means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East. Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10] Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica's syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) in Moscow, Russia. Notes [1] Fars News Agency, “Foreign Warships Will Need Iran’s Permission to Pass through Strait of Hormuz,” January 4, 2011. [2] Fars News Agency, “Iran Warns US against Sending Back Aircraft Carrier to Persian Gulfhttp:/Iran Warns US against Sending Back Aircraft Carrier to Persian Gulf,” January 4, 2011. [3] Parisa Hafezi, “Iran threatens U.S Navy as sanctions hit economy,” Reuters, January 4, 2012. [4] Fariborz Haghshenass, “Iran’s Asymmetric Naval Warfare,” Policy Focus, no.87 (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, September 2010). [5] Julian Borger, “Wake-up call Wake-up call,” The Guardian, September 6, 2002. [6] Neil R. McCown, Developing Intuitive Decision-Making In Modern Military Leadership (Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, October 27, 2010), p.9. [7] Sean D. Naylor, “War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge ‘02 ‘was almost entirely scripted,’” Army Times, April 6, 2002. [8] Himendra Mohan Kumar, “Fujairah poised to be become oil export hub,” Gulf News, June 12, 2011. [9] Ibid. [10] John Arquilla, “The New Rules of War,” Foreign Policy, 178 (March-April , 2010): pp.60-67. | |
Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya |
Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report: Got $487.4M in Tax Money, Did 329,445 Abortions
By Jack Blood
January 3, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – According to its latest annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period and performed 329,455 abortions.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards and President Barack Obama. (AP Photo)
In addition, the number of adoption referrals made by the organization continued to decline.
The latest annual report covers the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the PPFA’s fiscal year. Thereport states that the organization received “government health services grants and reimbursements” totaling $487.4 million.
Previous Planned Parenthood annual reports showed total funding from “government grants and contracts” (which were $363.2 million in 2009), while this year’s report also accounts for payments from Medicaid managed care plans among the payments the group receives from government .
When compared with previous annual reports, the latest one shows an almost steady increase in the number of abortions performed at its clinics: In 2006, Planned Parenthood did 289,750 abortions; in 2007, it did 305,310; in 2009, it did 331,796; and, in 2010, it did 329,445–a small decrease from the previous year.
(AP Image)
The annual report for fiscal year 2008-2009 does not include abortion or adoption figures, but a PPFA Fact Sheet posted on its Web site and said to be current as of September 2010, states that 324,008 abortions were performed at Planned Parenthood clinics around the country in 2008.
According to PPFA’s annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008, in 2007 Planned Parenthood’s “adoption referrals to other agencies” totaled 4,912. In Fiscal Year 2010 that number was 841, a decrease of 82.8 percent.
The PPFA Fact Sheet states that adoption is included in 1 percent of services in 2008 (primary care and “other services” are included in that 1 percent), or 2,405 adoption referrals.
The latest annual report claims that abortion services make up 3 percent of “medical services,” but PPFA states it served 3 million people and performed 329,445 abortions – numbers that show 11 percent of customers received an abortion.
The Fiscal Year 2009-2010 annual report also shows that PPFA’s net assets as of June 30, 2010 topped $1 billion, specifically $1,009,600,000.00.
Planned Parenthood supporters at a rally in Philadelphia, Pa. (AP photo/Matt Rourke)
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization that lobbies Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, called the organization an “abortion giant.”
“With over a billion in net assets and a business model centered on abortion and government subsidies, it is time for Planned Parenthood to end its reliance on taxpayer dollars,” Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Despite an unprecedented effort by statewide and federal leaders to defund them, a wave of former employees willing to testify against them, and uniform agreement amongst Republican presidential candidates that they should be defunded, Planned Parenthood continues full-steam ahead.”
“They are unwilling to answer to the pro-life American majority that wants out of this business,” Dannenfelser said.
As reported earlier by CNSNews.com, a spokesperson with Planned Parenthood told Bloomberg’s Businessweek last year that 90 percent of government funding the organization gets is from the federal government or from Medicaid.
Mexico deploys 8,000 troops to Texas border
By Mario Andrade
DeadlineLive.info
DeadlineLive.info
Two weeks after a U.S. Military convoy was seen in the northern Mexican city of Matamoros, the local head of Mexico’s military police has been relieved of duty. After denying rumors that he was being relieved, Brigadier General David Mejia quietly stepped down and was transferred to another duty station due to a ‘promotion’ according the Matamoros Public Safety Office.
Did the U.S. Military Officials influence the Mexican Government in the decision to relieve the Chief of Military Police in Matamoros? According to NORTHCOM’s Colonel Wayne M. Shanks, U.S. Military officials traveled to Matamoros to hold a ‘routine meeting.’ In an interview withthe Brownsville Herald, Colonel Shanks also mentioned that meetings between the U.S. and Mexican militaries take place regularly.
This would perhaps explain the reason why a Mexican military helicopter landed at the Laredo Texas airport just a few months ago. The difference this time is that the ‘military meeting’ took place on the Mexican side of the border. Are the U.S. and Mexican Governments allowing these military incursions to take place without informing their citizens?
Matamoros is one among many cities in the border State of Tamaulipas where the police departments have been dismantled and relieved by Mexican MP’s due to accusations of corruption and collaboration with the drug cartels.
Also, this week, the Mexican Government has deployed 8,000 troops to the border cities of Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa in addition to the 5,000 troops already stationed there. Was this perhaps another recommendation from the U.S. Military?
War zone along the Rio Grande Valley
In recent months, there have been many reports of drug cartel members engaging in shoot outs with the Mexican Military, and eventually crossing into the U.S. side of the border as they’re being chased. Groups of armed men have been crossing the border and terrifying residents in Roma, Elsa, and Rio Grande City, Texas. Last year, on the Mexican side of the border, a teenager from Nuevo Laredo was shot twice with what appeared to be Mexican Military stray bullets. Also last month, three American Citizens died when Los Zetas attacked and tried to hijack a bus in Veracruz.
Since 2010, the battle between Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel displaced 6,000 residents from the border town of Mier. Some of those residents are living as refugees across the border in Roma, Texas.
Last month, just a few miles from Mier in Falcon Lake, authorities discovered human remains. Some believe the remains belong to American David Hartley, although it hasn’t been officially confirmed. Hartley was killed by Los Zetas a year and a half ago when him and his wife were jet skiing in Falcon Lake.
As drug cartels become more aggressive, there have been a string of shootings and kidnappings in Hidalgo County. Last month a deputy was shot in the McAllen, Texas area when he tried to arrest a drug cartel member.
Since it has become more difficult to smuggle drugs across the Rio Grande, the cartels are now stealing from each other once they bring the shipments to the U.S. side of the border, engaging in violent shootings and kidnappings and endangering the lives of U.S. citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)