21st Century Wire says All the world s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages. William Shakespeare Theatrics in politics is nothing new, but this latest TV drama was just a little over-the-top, even for this entertainer-and-chief. HIGH DRAMA: Obama s epic tears during his gun control rally on Tuesday.During President Barack Obama s landmark New Year s TV address on gun control he grew visibly emotional when invoking Newtown, with bountiful tears arriving in good measure.While right-wing commentators were incensed, left-wing media pundits were understandably blown away by his performance, and commented on it like it was a performance. In media terms, it was a very weird moment, to say the least.Of course, no one would dare accuse the President of producing tears on demand, after all that would be impossible to fake unless of course you re an extremely talented and trained actor and who would believe that our President would have received that sort of special coaching which is reserved for professional TV and film actors.The thought of it is simply preposterous, right? After all, this President is surely not an actor Nonetheless, it was high drama for sure, but there was something about what seemed incredibly staged that morning in the White House s East Room. Anyone who watched it on TV could see how the crowd clapped on cue, and laughed on cue. It was almost like a Democratic Party pep rally which is not what the East Room is for, but there you go.Watch the scene on Tuesday here: Still, after the usual vitriolic calls to save lives , Obama called for Smart Guns with high-tech biometric, personalized triggers. This seemed to be a bizarre over-simplification, as he compared firearms to iPhones, as was his strange comparison of a bottle of aspirin with a gun. If a child can t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure they can t pull a trigger on a gun, said Obama.Such dumbed-down rhetoric hardly inspires confidence in the President s grasp of the firearms issue and the 2nd Amendment.The only problem with the President s much anticipated Executive Action plan for gun control in America is that it will not be effective. In fact, nothing he is proposing would have stopped any of the supposed gun deaths constantly being bandied about by the establishment s and media s macabre list of high-profile mass shootings . So why do it then? Answer: this is an election year, and the Democratic Party is attempting to push the issue of Guns in America on to the list of institutionalized, classic American political wedge issues along with the usual balloons like abortion, immigration and gay marriage.Aside from all this, the President s executive action is illegal. In the US system of checks and balances, the President cannot write laws only Congress can. You d think the President, who claims to have taught constitutional law at Harvard, would know about checks and balances.The only real tangible result of the Administration s rhetoric on gun control and the politicization of mass shootings is that gun sales in America are skyrocketing. Shares of gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger were up on Tuesday morning after Obama s speech.One could easily argue here that this President has done more to help firearms sales and profits than any other person in history, more than Duck Dynasty, and even more than Charleton Heston.The White House s campaign has less to do with actually reducing gun crime, as it does increasing federal control over the lives of law-abiding Americans. Some critics believe that this new Executive Action on guns is part of a federal nudging strategy that s using federal mental health directives and changes in the state HIPAA laws to deny certain persons, including US veterans, of their 2nd Amendment rights. Make no mistake about it, there is an overall strategy at play here, only it s not being revealed to the public.So, once again, it s all theatre.The government-media complex is going fult-tilt again. Later today, together with its media partner CNN, the White House is co-producing a Town Hall TV special live from Virginia, entitled, GUNS IN AMERICA . The agenda for this program is self explanatory and will be hosted by CNN s top mocking jay, news actor and former CIA operative, Anderson Cooper, who a key operative in the mass media brainwashing that TV networks like CNN do on a daily basis promoting fear at home, and selling illegal wars abroad. OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD: Political-media operative Anderson Cooper.No doubt this political campaign program will feature all of the usual suspects from America s highest rated, high-profile mass shootings events including Sandy Hook, Roanoke, Isla Vista, Aurora, Lafayette, and San Bernardino to name only a few.In the days before the fall of Rome, as historians have often remarked, the Crisis of the Republic was not so much a crisis of the people of Rome, but rather, it was a Crisis of the Ruling Class, and of Rome s Elite Ruling Families. The Republic eventually lost its way and crumbled because of their misrule and institutional corruption. Like Shakespeare, they eventually lost the plot. In the end, of course, the Republic fell because as a system of government, it could not be separated from the individuals who wielded the most power within it. In 1995, Obama s Attorney General, then US Attorney for District of Columbia , Eric Holder, revealed the progressive agenda to subvert the Second Amendment and achieve gun control in America an agenda which is actually being played out right before our eyes today: . Create Your Own Crisis Barack Obama s former chief of staff and top Democratic Party insider, Rahm Emanuel, coined the mantra for our new government by crisis, saying crassly, You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Today, Thursday January 7th, is a very strange day, with a number of unsavory narratives aligned and assembled by the Mockingbird media. Aside from CNN s big budget political campaign stunt, there are a few other worrying events taking place today:Early this morning, CNN started running is programming for the one year anniversary of the infamous GLADIO-style, staged false flag Charlie Hebdo event in Paris. CNN also dispatched many of their top staff to Paris to remind us about the dangers of terrorism, and that we should remain afraid.Also happening today, members of the Bundy family, assorted Militia and public lands activists are presently holed-up at a federal wildlife refuge center outside of Burns, Oregon. There are many people in Washington and throughout the mainstream media establishment, who would like nothing more than to see government forces sweep in and deal with those people . What that entails is anyone s guess.Certainly, some high-profile mass shooting , or gun-related incident scheduled for today would dovetail perfectly with CNN and the White House s joint media messaging and socio-political narrative being rolled out today. Let s hope that does not happen, not today, and not ever READ MORE GUN CONTROL NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 2nd Amendment Files


Donald Trump appeared at three inaugural balls to celebrate his supporters' victory, and to promise a determined push for their shared campaign goals. ["Well, we did it," he told a cheering crowd at his first speech, given at the Liberty Ball. He continued: Now the work begins. There are no game, no games, right? We're not playing games. I want to thank everybody. We love you. We're going to be working for you, and we're going to be producing results. "Now the work begins," he said at his second speech, given at the Freedom Ball. "We did a good job together … there has never been a movement like this anywhere in the world," he told his enthusiastic supporters. "We will not be taken advantage of anymore. We're going to have those great companies come pouring back in," Trump said. "We are not going to let you down. Remember the theme: Make America Great Again … greater than ever before — it will happen," he said. Trump also promised to keep Tweeting, saying: Should I keep the Twitter going or not? Should I keep it going? … You know, the enemies keep saying 'Oh no, that's terrible.' But it is a way of bypassing dishonest media, right? The White House pool report said thousands of people attended both rallies.


We Use Cookies: Our policy [X] 2016 Asked What Its Fucking Problem Is November 11, 2016 - BREAKING NEWS , ENTERTAINMENT Share 0 Add Comment  FOLLOWING the news that the year 2016 has added songwriting legend Leonard Cohen to its list of prominent homicides this year, the world has confirmed it wants to know what 2016's fucking problem is.  "You're just fucking taking who you like – a funk and pop God, a Glam hero and someone I played on vinyl when I needed a good cry, I don't get it. It's like you are trying to ruin every day of my life," Colm Henry, a Dublin native, shared as part of furious temper tantrum.  "And don't get me started on fucking Brexit and that shower in America," Henry added while blocking out thoughts of whom 2016 might potentially take next.  2016, a 366 day calendar year has been consistently criticised throughout its reign of terror as its record of killing people and a penchant for batshit crazy happenings compares unfavourably with its peers 2015, 2014 and 2013.  "Raspberry Beret wasn't supposed to make me sad, it was supposed to make me look like a fool on the dance floor at weddings, and 2016 has fucked that up for me, cheers, you complete bastard," added Maggie Dunleahy, from Waterford.  Livid members of the public also pointed out that 2016, despite having an Olympics and European Championships, still managed to leave people feeling 'incredibly sad, frustrated and annoyed'.  "It's not too much to ask is it, for an explanation like, seriously, what the fuck is its problem?" added just about everyone.


In a speech on Wednesday in Phoenix, Arizona, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump outlined his plan for reforming the U.S. immigration system. The New York businessman has made immigration a central issue of his bid for the White House, taking a harder line than his Democratic rival, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, ahead of the Nov. 8 election. Trump's plan includes: 1. Building a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico. Trump emphasized that this would be a physical wall, albeit bolstered by technology. 2. Ending "catch and release," a term often broadly used to refer to practices under which not everyone apprehended by immigration agents is necessarily deported. 3. Immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. Trump has promised to begin these deportations on his first day in office. Going forward, undocumented immigrants arrested for committing a crime would be placed into immediate deportation proceedings. 4. Blocking funding for "sanctuary cities," places that limit, to differing extents and through different methods, how much they help immigration officials in the apprehension and deportation of undocumented immigrants. 5. Cancellation of executive orders and enforcement of immigration laws. This point would particularly hit two of President Barack Obama's executive actions, known by their abbreviations: DACA and DAPA. The actions gave a certain legal status to certain undocumented immigrants, such as those brought to the United States as children or those who now have American children. 6. Suspending visas to immigrants from parts of the world where screening procedures are deemed inadequate. Trump singled out Syria and Libya as two countries from which immigration would be suspended. 7. Ensuring that other countries take back their citizens when the United States moves to deport those immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that these people cannot be detained indefinitely, but without a country to which to return they often are simply released from detention. Trump said he would force the immigrants' home countries to take them back. 8. Completing a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system. Many undocumented immigrants enter the country legally, and then overstay their visas. In those cases, this kind of system would be more effective than a border wall. While such a system has been discussed for years, the logistics remain a major challenge. Putting in such a system would likely require major overhauls of U.S. points of entry, such as airports and ports. 9. Making it harder for undocumented immigrants to get jobs and benefits. Trump specifically cited the E-verify system as part of this. That system allows employers to check whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. Trump also mentioned ending access to benefit programs such as public housing or food stamps. 10. Serving the best interests of American workers. Trump's final point serves as something of a catch-all for his immigration proposal. But he also mentioned a few specific goals here, such as limiting immigration. He also talked about being more selective about who gets to enter the country, for example limiting immigration to people who can be financially self-sufficient.


Liberia s Supreme Court on Monday put a presidential run-off on hold until the electoral commission can investigate claims of irregularities and alleged fraud in last month s first round of voting. Former footballer George Weah was initially set to face Vice-President Joseph Boakai on Tuesday to determine who will replace Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. A successful vote would be Liberia s first democratic transfer of power in over 70 years. But preparations for the second round were halted last week when the Supreme Court announced it was examining a complaint by the Liberty Party of third-placed candidate Charles Brumskine. The Supreme Court s order for a full investigation into the allegations could push back the run-off date by weeks or even result in a re-run of the first round. The NEC (National Elections Commission) is stopped and prohibited from conducting the run off election until the complaint filed by the petitioners is investigated by the NEC, the Supreme Court ruling said. Addressing the Supreme Court last week, Brumskine cited gross irregularities in the first round and accused NEC officials of fraud. The NEC has denied wrongdoing and said the election was largely fair. International observers say they saw no major problems with the vote. But a growing chorus of parties have expressed doubt about the vote, including Boakai s ruling Unity Party, which last week accused Johnson Sirleaf, one of its own members, of trying to influence the vote. She rejected the allegation. The course we pursue is not about Charles Walker Brumskine. It is not about the Liberty Party. It is greater than all of us. It is about our country, Brumskine said following the Supreme Court ruling. Janga Kowo, Secretary General of Weah s CDC party, called upon supporters to remain calm and allow the legal process to run its course. The Unity Party had no immediate comment on Monday s ruling. Expectations of a poll delay have increased tensions in Liberia, where many are eager for change after 12 years of Johnson Sirleaf s rule. Her tenure cemented peace after a long civil war, but many Liberians say she did little to alleviate widespread poverty despite vast iron ore reserves. It is now unclear when the run-off will take place. The NEC has until mid-November to rule on the Liberty Party s complaint. If it is rejected, Brumskine could still take the case back before the Supreme Court with an appeal, potentially pushing the date of the second round into December. The court also has the option of calling a new first round vote to be held within 60 days.


The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Monday claiming that government payments to President Donald Trump's businesses violate the U.S. Constitution. Payments to the president's enterprises from foreign and domestic governments through his hospitality empire draw business away from Maryland and D.C. venues and put local governments under pressure to give Trump-owned businesses special treatment, according to the complaint. Foreign and domestic government payments to Trump's businesses were the target of a similar lawsuit brought in January by plaintiffs including an ethics nonprofit group, and Democratic lawmakers have blasted them as potential corrupting influences on Trump. The Trump Organization has said it will donate profits from customers representing foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury but will not require the customers to identify themselves. "Every time the president has spoken about drawing a line between his presidency and his businesses, he's walked those promises back," said D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said at a news conference on Monday. The case by Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, both Democrats, has a better chance in court as the first government action over allegations that Trump, a Republican, violated the Constitution's so-called emoluments clauses, legal experts said. Democratic attorneys general have taken a lead role in challenging Trump policies, successfully blocking executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries. The Maryland and D.C. attorneys general are seeking an order in U.S. District Court in Maryland preventing Trump from continuing to receive government payments beyond his salary. White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday rejected the claim that Trump's business interests violated the Constitution and said "partisan politics" were behind the lawsuit. Trump's lawyers will likely move to dismiss the case, he said. The Justice Department declined to comment. Trump's ownership in hundreds of businesses hurts Maryland and D.C. and violates "emoluments" clauses in the Constitution that bar the president from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval as well as from domestic governments under any circumstances, according to the complaint. While Trump turned over management of the umbrella Trump Organization in January to a trust controlled by his two elder sons, he still owns his businesses, including the Trump International Hotel in Washington, and can draw revenue from them at any time. The attorneys general argued they had standing to sue Trump because their citizens will be harmed if payments to Trump are used to influence his allocation of federal funds. They also said local hospitality companies, including state-owned facilities, are being harmed. The Justice Department on Friday argued in the other lawsuit that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue because they cannot allege enough specific harm caused by Trump's businesses. The attorneys general have a better chance of establishing standing, legal scholars said, although they are divided over whether the AGs will ultimately succeed. Plaintiffs typically only have standing to file lawsuits under federal law if they can show they have been injured and a court ruling would remedy the harm. Fordham Law School Professor Jed Shugerman said state governments' special duty to protect their citizens means they face a lower bar to standing in federal court, and the AG lawsuit should proceed. However, Derek Muller, a professor at Pepperdine University School of Law, said it was unclear that this harm could be remedied by a favorable ruling. The government has also said Trump hotel revenue does not fit the definition of an improper payment under the Constitution. Payments to Trump's hotels do not qualify as a violation of the emoluments clause, which is intended to cover personal services performed by the president, the government said. "If the Justice Department is correct, the emoluments clause has no meaning whatsoever," said Frosh, the Maryland official. "The president can stand over here with his president of the United States hat and he's not allowed to take payments. But he takes a step over here and puts on his businessman hat, they can funnel as much money to him as they want."


Only a few days after his inauguration, President Donald Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation s immigration policies Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and block federal grants from immigrant-protecting sanctuary cities. Beginning today the United States of America gets back control of its borders, Trump declared during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security. We are going to save lives on both sides of the border. Trump cast his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge to enact hard-line immigration measures, including construction of a wall paid for by Mexico. With the families of Americans killed by people living in the U.S. illegally sitting in the audience, Trump said, When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics. Trump cast his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge to enact hard-line immigration measures, including construction of a wall paid for by Mexico. With the families of Americans killed by people living in the U.S. illegally sitting in the audience, Trump said, When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics. PBSAlthough the source of funding for a border wall was never really clear, most Americans believed with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, funding for a secure border wall, as part of our national security was a no-brainer. Conservative Review The proposed budget deal before the House of Representatives is playing out like a bad replay of the latter Obama era: A Republican-controlled Congress given the power of the purse by the American people giving away the farm to Democrat demands.But the capitulation is far worse than one may realize. It s not just the lack of new funding for a southern border wall; this omnibus, which funds countless liberal priorities, prohibits existing funds from being used on any sort of border wall as well.According to a Congressional Research Service report from January, the Department of Homeland Security could have taken non-obligated funds and used them to put structures along areas of the border already spelled out in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandating a double-layered fence. Indeed, nothing in current law would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers, it contends, at least so long as this action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry or was deemed warranted to achieve operational control of the southern border. It s important to remember that the requirement to construct no less than 700 miles of border fencing (originally 850 miles) has been the law on the books for over a decade. Obama used waiver authority and very loose discretion (thanks to the weakening of the law in 2008) to skirt the requirement.Now that Trump wants to fulfill the existing mandate, Congress really has a moral obligation to honor the existing statutory authorization with sufficient appropriations. This is not some Trump boondoggle; this is a law passed with major bipartisan support in 2006.What the current proposal does is not only not fund a border wall, but it s so specifically worded as to prohibit any of the currently allocated funds from going to construction on the project. The bill actually rescinds $21 million in unobligated funds for border fencing.This means that even previous resources cannot be used on new construction as well, thereby tying the administration s hands and essentially weakening current law. Without this language, Trump could theoretically begin entering into contracts so that by the time the September funding bill is signed, he can hit the ground running with new funding (not that he will fight then, either). So, rather than take what money exists and use that to start negotiating contracts, run studies, and do whatever else is conceivable on physical border security between now and when Congress revisits this never-ending budget circus in September, nothing except for maintenance on the current, insufficient structure will be permitted.Meanwhile, the current budget retains provisions either providing funds specifically for, or predicating them upon, border security in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Ethiopia, and other countries affected by extremism. That is not to say that the security of these borders against the likes of jihadists aren t our concern, or that these provisions ought not to exist. Assisting in physically stopping the flow of terrorist arms and personnel across borders is but one basic tool to be employed in the global fight against Sharia supremacism. But the juxtaposition of these is telling.A Republican Congress is willing to pass a bill that realizes border security is necessary for countries across the ocean, but will sacrifice not only a symbol of our own sovereignty, but a physical means of protecting it (the only effective way of tackling the policy and political problems with open borders).


Ted Cruz thinks he could be an asset to the campaigns of his fellow Republican senators. There s just one problem, though: most of them don t like him.Republicans currently face an uphill climb this year, especially with Donald Trump at the top of the 2016 ballot. The nomination of Trump presents a major problem for Republicans who hope to keep their seats or take seats away from Democrats.Indeed, instead of riding Trump s coattails to victory, Republicans are looking at down-ballot rejection as people associate them with the Republican nominee and his vile campaign.Despite being destroyed by Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz wants to lend a hand to his colleagues. That can go a long way toward establishing good relationships, one Cruz adviser told The Hill. At the same time, though, I d be wildly surprised if he suddenly started moderating his principles just to get along. Establishing good rapport with colleagues is incredibly crucial to running for higher office. But Ted Cruz has alienated and pissed off most of his Senate colleagues because of his aggressive losing strategies in recent years, the biggest of which is undoubtedly the government shutdown in 2013.Cruz incited the shutdown because he thought it would force President Obama to dismantle Obamacare. In the end, it was a PR nightmare for Republicans as the American people rightfully blamed them for shutting the government down.But the Cruz adviser thinks his colleagues will be interested in taking Cruz s help. I think politicians are practical people, he said. They re going to be pretty interested in the kind of support he can give them I think fewer people would say they don t want him now. Unfortunately for Cruz, he seriously underestimates just how much his colleagues loathe him.As it stands, incumbent Republicans facing tough re-election battles don t want Ted Cruz making their lives more difficult.When asked by The Hill if she would accept help from Ted Cruz, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte said, Uh, no. I don t think I d ask anyone to come up, generally, other than I had [Sens.] Joni [Ernst (Iowa)] and Shelley [Moore Capito (W.Va.)] up, she continued. This is about me campaigning for New Hampshire. I m going to be focusing on my campaign for me. It s not a reflection on him, or anyone else he hasn t contacted me, but I m sure there s a lot of different races out there. In other words, please don t come to New Hampshire, Ted.In Pennsylvania, Senator Pat Toomey also faces a tough campaign, but that doesn t mean he wants Cruz there to make it worse.[Cruz is] not going to [be] into what my campaign is doing, Toomey insisted.And then there is Arizona Senator John McCain, who has famously referred to Cruz as a whacko bird. Yeah, he definitely does not want Cruz stumping for him in his home state.McCain said he only seeks help from people he is close to. I m not close to Sen. Cruz, McCain declared.So it looks like many Republicans would rather not have Cruz s support, which isn t surprising considering how extreme he is on several issues.Frankly, if Cruz wanted his colleagues to be more enthusiastic, perhaps he should have thought about that before becoming the most annoying voice in the Senate.Featured Image: Spencer Platt/Getty Images


Turkey expects to receive its first Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles in 2019, Defence Minister Nurettin Canikli said on Wednesday, the first time Ankara has given a firm timeline for a deal that has alarmed its NATO allies. Turkey has been in negotiations with Russia to buy the S-400 for more than a year, a decision seen by Washington and some of its other allies in NATO as a snub to the Western military alliance. Giving the most detail yet on the deal to parliament s budget committee, Canikli said it called for delivery of two S-400 systems, but that the second one was optional. The deal has raised concern among NATO countries in part because the weapons cannot be integrated into the alliance s defenses. Ankara has said it had no choice but to buy the Russian missiles, because NATO countries did not offer a cost-effective alternative. Once these systems are received, our country will have secured an important air defense capability. This solution aimed at meeting an urgent need will not hinder our commitment to developing our own systems, he said. Relations between Turkey and Russia deteriorated sharply over years during which they backed opposite sides in the war in neighboring Syria, but have improved markedly over the past year. The countries are now cooperating on Syrian peace efforts. Canikli said Turkey was also in talks with the Franco-Italian EUROSAM consortium on developing its own missile defense systems, after signing a memorandum to strengthen cooperation between the three countries in defense projects. With the memorandum in question, Turkish, French and Italian firms have started cooperation to identify, develop, produce and use a more advanced version of the SAMP-T (missile system) in a common consortium, he said. Turkey aimed to bring talks with EUROSAM to a definitive end soon, he said, adding that Ankara aimed to finalize the deal by the end of 2017 at the latest. Turkey has been working to develop its own defense systems and equipment, and has lined up several projects for the coming years, including combat helicopters, tanks, drones and more. Canikli said Turkey received bids last Friday for the production of 500 Altay battle tanks, of which 250 are optional. Shares of Turkish commercial and military vehicle producer Otokar rose almost 3 percent following the news about the 7 billion euro ($8.24 billion) domestic tank project.


Bravo! This woman is example of true courage. More Americans need to take a stand against anyone who attempts to silence their First Amendment right Whenever folks in Penfield, New York get a hankering for pancakes for lunch they head over to the 5 Mile Caf .The family-owned restaurant is known in those parts for serving breakfast any time of the day (order their homemade corned beef hash).They are also known for their patriotism. We are very patriotic here at the caf all year round not just this time of year, owner Jennifer Aquino told me. We have American flags and patriotic things around the caf . So Jennifer decided to ask the town for a permit so she could post a God Bless America banner on the front of her restaurant. She wanted to display the banner from Memorial Day through Independence Day.There was just one significant problem.Penfield has a strict banner allotment policy. Businesses are only allowed to post banners for a total of three weeks out of the year. And Jennifer had used up her allotment. At one point we had banners all over the town and the town just looked trashy and our residents said enough s enough, town supervisor Tony LaFountain told WHEC.Jennifer s request was denied.Instead of posting the banner outside the restaurant, she posted it inside. And that was that until the Orlando terrorist attack. I decided on my way to work that I was going to put it up regardless of the town telling me I couldn t, she said. So I put it up. A bit later that day she received an email from the town telling her to remove the banner. They warned her that she could face a possible fine for violating the ordinance. I didn t take it down, Jennifer told me. And I was willing to pay the fine. The [message on the banner] means a lot to me especially during this time in our country with all that s going on with terrorism, she said. I just can t believe that I can t have this banner up and be supported by the town board. The fact that I m being asked to take it down is wrong, she said. It s against my First Amendment rights. People need to open up their eyes. If we start letting them tell us we can t do this it s going to get worse. Jennifer tells me she never imagined there would be a day like this in America. I have lots of veterans in my family, she said. I have a cousin who fought in Desert Storm so that we could have the freedom to hang a banner that says, God bless America. And yet we live in a nation where you can be punished for simply being patriotic.


British aid minister Priti Patel is flying back to London after cancelling a planned trip to Africa, the BBC reported on Wednesday, after local media reported she was facing the sack for not fully disclosing meetings during a holiday to Israel. The BBC quoted unnamed sources as saying that she was on a plane. Some on social media suggested she would arrive in London at around 1500 GMT.


The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi offered his condolences to the son of slain former Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh at his residence in Abu Dhabi, according to his official twitter account. The account tweeted a picture of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces visiting Ahmed Ali at his residence in the United Arab Emirates capital. Ahmed Ali, a former commander of Yemen s elite Republican Guards, once served as Yemen s ambassador to the UAE before it joined ally Saudi Arabia to make war against the Houthis.


If there is one political ideology that every American should despise, it s Nazism. But conservatives don t seem to mind it one bit.On inauguration day last month, Nazi Richard Spencer got punched in the face by a protester during an interview.Spencer, along with others of his ilk, support Donald Trump and hail his presidency as a new era of white nationalism where fascism and racism flourish.It s no secret, of course. Conservatives have been moving further to the extreme right for decades and the end of that side of the political spectrum is Nazism.Rather than run away from Nazism and people like Spencer who advocate in favor of it, conservatives decided to give Spencer credentials to attend their annual CPAC conference.Spencer attended on Thursday, and he had a lot to say to reporters as supporters flocked to him like moths to a flame.When asked how he feels about being at CPAC, Spencer said he feels welcome. Richard Spencer, at CPAC: I feel very welcome here. Nobody s punching me yet. Travis Waldron (@Travis_Waldron) February 23, 2017Spencer then praised Donald Trump for being a supporter of white nationalist causes.Richard Spencer tells reporters at @CPAC he thinks Trump represents the alt-right more than conservatives #CPAC2017 pic.twitter.com/b5dEtXVmKy Kira Lerner (@kira_lerner) February 23, 2017CPAC organizer Matt Schlapp apparently had no problem with Spencer attending the conference despite claiming to disagree with him.Just talked to CPAC organizer Matt Schlapp. Said he didn t endorse Richard Spencer s ideas but won t kick him out of the conference. fake Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) February 23, 2017But then it appears someone felt that Spencer was getting too much adulation at CPAC so they had him escorted out by security.Here s the video via YouTube.Richard Spencer should never have been approved to get credentials to CPAC in the first place, especially if conservatives really don t agree with Nazism.But the fact that Spencer was allowed to attend makes it pretty clear that conservatives are more okay with Nazis than they would like us to believe. And that s an insult to the millions of Americans who fought to stop the Nazis and their evil agenda during World War II.


President-elect Donald Trump said on Thursday after a meeting with House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan that after his inauguration he will work very rapidly on issues like healthcare and immigration. Speaking in Ryan's office, Trump told reporters: "We are going to lower taxes, as you know," and added: "I think we are going to do some absolutely spectacular things for the American people."


In this most contentious of elections, you wouldn't think that a soda tax would be the issue to attract the big bucks. But measures in just two California cities have drawn more money than that state's Senate race and statewide referendums on marijuana legalization and gun control — combined. Soda taxes are on the ballots in San Francisco and Oakland, Calif. and spending to persuade citizens to vote for or against them has topped $50 million — enough to buy every person in those two cities about 100 cans of Coke, at least if you bought them in bulk. On the side are big donations from billionaires: Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, and Laura and John Arnold. And opposing them are the companies in the beverage industry, which is outspending them by a ratio of about 3 to 2. The battle is the biggest so far by health advocates in their efforts to reduce the consumption of sugary carbonated soft drinks that they say leads to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. The idea of taxing beverages, which the measures would do, was initially an esoteric idea hashed out in medical journals. Some municipal officials showed interest, but, until recently, no soda tax got far. The failure of 40 tax measures around the country reflected public skepticism about the idea, often seen as a intrusion. But it also reflected the lopsided investment of industry to defeat them. Recently, the tide has begun to turn, helped in part by big donations from Mr. Bloomberg. Two years ago, Berkeley, Calif. became the first city in the country to pass such a tax. Mr. Bloomberg got involved late in the effort, when it became clear the law had a chance of passing. (San Francisco had its own failed initiative that year it won a majority of votes but failed to clear a supermajority threshold, a bar it won't need to clear this time.) In June, Philadelphia passed its own soda tax through the City Council. The beverage industry spent about $10 million there, but Mr. Bloomberg weighed in too, contributing about $1. 6 million of the $2. 5 million spent to support the bill. Albany, Calif. another community in the Bay Area, is also voting Tuesday, though there has been less direct spending there. Boulder, Colo. will vote on a soda tax measure Tuesday. And Cook County, Ill. which includes Chicago, is to consider a soda tax measure later this month. Public sentiment on soda is also shifting. Many Americans now say they are trying to avoid the products, and national sales of such drinks have been slipping. The Bay Area initiatives are expensive prizes. Unlike Philadelphia, where much of the battle was fought through lobbying, both California tax proposals must win passage by a majority of voters. That means both sides have invested in big public outreach campaigns. Citizens have been inundated with and tax TV and radio commercials, and mailboxes are filled with direct mail from both sides. Canvassers are making phone calls and going door to door in the final days of the campaign. Dan Newman, a political consultant with SCN Strategies, who is working on the campaign, said the volume of messages about the measures dwarfs the 2014 effort. "It was intense and expensive, and folks were amazed in talking about it," he said of 2014. "And it was nothing like this. " The tax battle has also prompted accusations of skulduggery. The soda industry enlisted the help of several local grocers to pose for mailers and state their opposition to the tax. Several of them, later approached by advocates and reporters, said they had been misled about the nature of the tax proposal. Others have become the subjects of negative Yelp reviews and threatened with boycotts, what an campaigner described as "intimidation. " The measures are similar in both cities: They would impose a tax of one cent per ounce of any drink with added sugar, including sugary soft drinks, iced teas and smoothies. The taxes would be imposed on beverage distributors, not at the checkout registers. The emerging evidence from existing soda taxes suggests those higher prices will be passed through to retailers and then to shoppers. If they are, they could result in a price increase of 67 cents on a bottle, or $1. 44 for a . Those higher prices are intended to discourage shoppers from consuming so many sugary drinks, which have been linked to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. The side has been emphasizing the negative health effects of consumption, and arguing the tax will make the city's children healthier. Research from Mexico, which passed a national soda tax in 2014, shows that the taxes can drive down soda consumption. But it is not known yet whether those reductions will result in better health. The industry argues that the taxes have no clear connection to public health and that they will fall disproportionately on shoppers. In California, they have also been arguing that the taxes could result in higher prices for other items at the grocery store as retailers try to spread the rising wholesale cost of soft drinks over other products. But there is no research from Berkeley or Mexico that advocates could cite to support the notion. A local coalition of advocates, led by the American Beverage Association, a trade group for began sending direct mail months earlier than is typical for a ballot initiative. Susan Neely, the association's president, said her organization was committed to fighting soda taxes on every front. "We oppose them wherever they are introduced — that is a clear position that we have staked out," she said. "That is not going to change. " There has been little public polling on the measures, though consultants on both sides said they have been polling privately, and the vote will be close. The complexity of the city's ballots this year makes predicting a result hard. In San Francisco, voters are considering more than 40 initiatives, including two separate measures about plastic shopping bags. The beverage tax is fairly far down on both ballots, which means some voters may grow fatigued and fail to weigh in.


Egypt has blocked the website of Human Rights Watch just one day after the organization released a report on systematic torture in the country s jails. Reuters attempted to access the website late on Thursday but was unsuccessful. Egyptian authorities keep insisting that any incidents of torture are isolated crimes by bad officers acting alone, but the Human Rights Watch report proves otherwise, Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said on Thursday. The report titled We Do Unreasonable Things Here , based on the accounts of 19 former detainees and the family of another, claimed Egyptian authorities used arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture. Rather than address the torture crisis in Egypt, the authorities have blocked access to a report that documents what many Egyptians and others living there already know. Egypt s foreign ministry lambasted the report in a statement on Wednesday, saying it defamed the country and ignored progress made on human rights in recent years. The report ... is a new episode in a series of deliberate defamation by such organization, whose politicized agenda and biases are well known and reflect the interests of the entities and countries sponsoring it, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmed Abu Zeid. Egypt first blocked access to a number of news websites including Al Jazeera and Huffington Post Arabic in May after similar actions by its Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But since, hundreds of other news sites and blogs have been wiped from Egyptian screens with the most recent count according to the Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, a non-government organization tracking the affected sites through software that monitors outages, at 424. Journalists see the campaign against them as a step toward banning all but the most state-aligned media, effectively reversing the private media boom that flourished in the final decade of former president Hosni Mubarak s rule and which they say helped push him from power in 2011. The government has offered no comment on the reason behind the blockages.


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press and let out another gibberish laden response to a question. Does anyone out there understand what she meant by her comments about the wall. How does it mean Trump is weak if he wants a wall? Twisted reasoning is all that comes from Pelosi these days especially when in 2006 most prominent Democrats voted to build a barrier at the border. Immoral and unwise ? How is it immoral and unwise to want to protect your people? You have to understand this part of the country. There s a community going through it. WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THE 2006 BORDER WALL FENCE?Remember the promise of a fence on our southern border? Yes, it was the plan but the $1.2 billion dollar plan was never executed as proposed. You can thank our Liar in Chief and a popular Republican for that WE RECENTLY POSTED THIS VIDEO OF AN IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL SAYING BUILDING A BORDER FENCE ISN T POSSIBLE EVEN THOUGH $1.2 BILLION WAS GIVEN IN 2006 FOR A FENCE: In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011, Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is now basically complete. Like much of what comes out of the Obama administration, that was a lie. What was supposed to be built was a double layered fence with barbed-wire on top, and room for a security vehicle to patrol between the layers. Except for 36 of the seven-hundred mile fence, what was built looks like the picture above or the one below.But that doesn t stop your liar in chief. He claims. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement, Obama said. All the stuff they asked for, we ve done. But even though we ve answered these concerns, I ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time. Maybe he s right the goal posts were moved, but to make the job easier.The Secure Fence Act was introduced on Sept. 13, 2006 by Rep Peter King (R-NY) and passed Congress on a bi-partisan basis. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 s goal was to help secure America s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorized more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border. So far less than 40 miles of a real fence have been built most of it during the Bush Administration.Of the almost 700 miles of fencing, DHS reports there are currently 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing, as the bill required, the kind with enough gap that you can drive a vehicle between the layers. But the majority of the fencing erected has been made from vehicle barriers with single-layer pedestrian fencing, the kind of barriers that are designed to stop vehicles rather than people. The design specifications vary, depending on geography and climate characteristics, but according to the Customs and Border Patrol website, those include post on rail steel set in concrete; steel picket-style fence set in concrete; vehicle bollards similar to those found around federal buildings; Normandy; vehicle fence consisting of steel beams; and concrete jersey walls with steel mesh. The first blow against the promised fence was made by Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican Senator from Texas, at the urging of DHS she proposed an amendment to give the Department discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, Nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location. Hutchison s amendment was included in a federal budget bill in late 2007 despite the fact that Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., had a cow he argued the amendment effectively killed the border fence promised in the 2006 bill, he was right. Hutchison s intentions may have been honorable, but she didn t foresee Barack Obama being the next president.When Janet Napolitano became Obama s first DHS she took advantage of Ms. Hutchison s 2007 amendment, instead of building a fence which look something like the below, she built a fence that was mostly a combination of the two pictures above.When She was still Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano said, You show me a 50-foot wall, and I ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. And she may be right The fence will never STOP all illegal crossings. The purpose of the fence is two-fold, slowing the intruders and making them visible to members of the border patrol. The rest of the work is done by human beings.Very little of the Israeli separation barrier erected to keep out terrorists is a wall, most of the 400 miles of the barrier which has received so much international scorn is a two layered fence like section of their barrier below. The fence has served its purpose, in 2002, the year before construction started, 457 Israelis were murdered; in 2009, 8 Israelis were killed.The reason it has been effective is not simply the fence itself but how the fence is guarded and patrolled. And that s what will make our fence along the Mexican border work.Here s the bottom line. Back in 2006 the people of the U.S. were promised a border fence. Since then thanks to Kay Bailey Hutchison and Barack Obama 95% of the fence wasn t built. The arguments against the fence are bogus especially if you look at Israel s history. It s time for America to demand that its leaders build the fence they promised. No one can honestly say it wont work, after all it hasn t been tried.


1000s of NATO troops train in Adazi (Latvia) Page 1 05/10/14 6 Mail with questions or comments about this site. "Godlike Productions" & "GLP" are registered trademarks of Zero Point Ltd. Godlike™ Website Design Copyright © 1999 - 2015 Godlikeproductions.com Page generated in 0.006s (8 queries)


U.S. President Donald Trump's outside legal team spokesman has resigned amid media reports the team is being reorganized as investigations continue into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. election and possible collusion with Trump's campaign. Mark Corallo confirmed his departure on Friday in an emailed statement. His resignation comes amid reports regarding the role of Marc Kasowitz, Trump's attorney handing the investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia. NBC reported on Friday that Kasowitz was no longer leading the legal team but would remain on board to provide guidance. The New York Times reported late on Thursday that his "role ... will be significantly reduced." A source familiar with the situation told Reuters on Friday that Kasowitz had not left the team. Separately, Trump is considering appointing Wall Street financier and long-time supporter Anthony Scaramucci as his White House communications director, according to a senior White House official. The staff changes come amid other media reports that some of Trump's lawyers are considering ways to limit U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. The Washington Post, citing people familiar with the effort, reported late Thursday that Trump's legal team is seeking to limit or undercut the investigation by targeting Mueller's team and is exploring Trump's pardoning authority. The New York Times also reported that Trump's lawyers are looking into the background of Mueller's investigators, citing three people familiar with the research effort. Moscow has denied any interference with last year's U.S. presidential election. Trump has also said there was no collusion.


Sudan, Africa and the Mosaic of Horrors 27.10.2016 "What could be the most striking image, one that would clearly illustrate the destructive involvement of the United States in Sudan?" I ask. "In short, what should I photograph, that could show the suffering of the Sudanese people?" "Let's go and photograph what is left of the Al-Shifa factory," I am told. "It is terrible, and truly symbolic." It is actually close to impossible to photograph just about anything in Sudan. For right or wrong reasons, the government is paranoid. Elaborate permits have to be issued for traveling outside the main urban areas, and for taking photos and videos even inside the capital city of Khartoum itself. If one dares to at all, one has to work fast and clandestinely, even if one is not planning to do anything damaging to Sudan. by ANDRE VLTCHEK Print version Font Size Why was I here? After making my films, after covering the horrid wars of the African Great Lakes, after witnessing the awful devastation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), I had to finally come to Sudan, which for me represented that remaining, that last piece of the 'puzzle'; a part in the mosaic of the horrors which are now covering almost the entire continent of Africa. I thought that I had to be here, in order to understand all the subtle nuances of how Western imperialist designs have been fragmenting and ruining this entire continent. I convinced one of my friends in Khartoum to accompany me, and on my third day in Sudan, we drove towards the 'legendary' sight of the former Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Bahri, Khartoum North. The path we took led through relatively affluent neighborhoods, full of large houses, even villas, some of which, I was told, belong to Omar al-Bashir himself, and to his relatives. Our car passed near the bizarre complex of Al-Noor Mosque, which is built in a Turkish style. "This may be the only mosque in the world, which has a supermarket behind its walls," my guide explained, smiling sarcastically. "The investment and idea came from our President; from al-Bashir himself." A few minutes later we see what we came here for: the site, the rubble, the devastation . A surviving chimney of the factory is right in front of us. On the left-hand side of the road, it is just pure destruction. 18 years after the 'event', nothing grows here, and nothing, no structures have replaced what has been converted into debris. I work fast. I don't want to get caught. I came here in order to document the brutality of the Western global regime, but somehow here I feel like a thief, like an intruder. At this point I still don't know why. US missile destroyed factory: Clinton The Al-Shifa factory was hit and destroyed by US Tomahawk cruise missiles in 1998, just a few days after the terrorist attacks on the American embassies in both Kenya and Tanzania. President Bill Clinton ordered the attack, arguing that the compound was storing nerve gas, something that was strongly denied by both the Sudanese government and the owner of the plant. On October 20 th , 2005, The New York Times reported in its uncommonly critical article: " American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's... no apology has been made and no restitution offered, which has Sudan's government steaming, even seven years after the ground shook and the dark sky over Khartoum turned light as the plant was hit. On the most recent anniversary of the bombing, Sudanese authorities did what they always do and repeated their call for a United Nations investigation of the American attack on the factory, which, if nothing else, was a major provider of medicines for humans and animals at the time it was destroyed. Mustafa Osman Ismail, who was foreign minister until recently, also raised the issue at the United Nations summit meeting in New York last month, saying the bombing "damaged the development efforts of my country and deprived my people of basic medicines."" "It is thoroughly paradoxical," I am told, as we are driving away. "The Americans ruined Sudan's most important medicine supply. They bombed a private factory that actually belonged to a person with extremely close business ties to the United States." But this is not the only paradox that I will encounter in this country. And it is not the only paradox in its relationship with the arch tormentor - the United States. *** In Khartoum, I met dozens of people: Sudanese people, Eritrean people, Europeans as well as Asians. I kept putting the same questions to everyone: is Sudan really at odds with the West, particularly with the United States? Or is 'the game' actually much more complex than that? Western media again distorts the truth If Sudan is really a brutal dictatorship, then Sudanese people are shockingly outspoken. Those who are opposing the government are speaking against it openly, even in front of a total stranger like myself. This would be unthinkable even in today's Egypt or Turkey. "But no names, please, no names," I am told. I understand. I take notes, but do not write down any names. A man working for an international organization is laughing, as we are having dinner: "In Sudan, people can meet and say whatever they want. Nobody cares. But god forbid if they begin to organize." He is talkative and friendly. But later I find out that he thinks (and tells his colleagues) that I am a 'spy', which, in turn, is explained to me, is quite the usual way of looking at each other here. It is enough to be half Eritrean or Ethiopian to be suspected of spying. All Westerners are flatly considered to be professional spies, no matter how strong their anti-imperialist credentials are. This constant suspicion is what made me uncomfortable in Sudan, from the first moment I stepped off the plane. I never felt like this in Eritrea or in Zimbabwe. There, they knew who I was and what I do: they read my books and have watched my films, and consequently they trusted me. Here, one paradox piles on top of another. There is this brutal embargo, and open confrontation between the West and Sudan. Already, many years ago, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against the President. It is almost impossible to get a Sudanese visa with a US passport. But, as I am told, half of the Sudanese parliamentarians are holding US citizenship and regularly 'commute' between Sudan and North America. Bizarre? Yes, thoroughly. Is it even possible? Apparently it is: welcome to Sudan! In the meantime, over one of the tastiest steaks I have ever had in my life, my acquaintance spills his heart out to me (allegedly a foreign spy): "We have some of the best meat in the world... The embargo means, no chemicals, everything is organic. Sudanese are herders... Beef, sheep... Such a rich land! We have plenty of water below the ground. Our people are nice, they are peaceful, welcoming... We want to be friends with everybody in this world." At the end, he helps to arrange a car for me, for the following day. He is not supposed to, as I am not allowed to drive anywhere in this country. Especially if he thinks that I'm a spy. Things are slightly confusing. But I am quickly getting used to it. *** Several African and foreign analysts now believe that the events in Sudan, the West's desire to destabilize it, to overthrow its government and ultimately to break the country into pieces, are closely linked to the horrific past and present of the rest of Central Africa, particularly to Rwanda, Uganda and the DRC. Others dispute it. The disagreements are often only over whether the main booty of the West was actually supposed to be the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan. In his legendary work, first published in 2004, CENTRAL AFRICA: 15 YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE COLD WAR. THE INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT, Dr. Helmut Strizek, a German academic, argues: " Most people expected that Clinton with his "leftist" leanings would pressurize the Bashir-Turabi regime into a process of democratization in line with the Bush-Mitterrand approach that had been adopted after the end of the Cold War. But things took a different course. Clinton and Madeleine Albright, the new American Ambassador to the U.N., considered Sudan to be a "rogue state" and the number one enemy in Central Africa. They therefore opted for a proxy approach ("get others to fight your war"), a well known strategy that had been applied during the Cold War. Mitterrand was unlikely to comply with the intended "regime change" in Khartoum. He was apparently not informed about Washington's Sudan policy and could not understand the effects this new policy had on the Rwandan problem. After the Somalia disaster of 3 October 1993, Madeleine Albright used all the tricks in the book to minimize a U.S. contribution to the UNAMIR peacekeeping force envisaged in the Arusha Agreements. These activities were the first signs that the U.S. wished to reduce its commitment in favour of power sharing in Rwanda, help Museveni and his friend, Paul Kagame, to win the Rwandan war, and find other anti-Khartoum allies." The horrors in Rwanda occurred in 1994 and then the US-backed Tutsi RPF took power almost immediately there (or one could say almost simultaneously), the same year. One year later, Rwanda and Uganda began one of the most brutal and genocidal wars in the history of the 20 th Century - the one against the people of the DRC. The war continues until now, and is fought on behalf of several Western powers and business interests. By the recent count, at least 10 million people have already lost their lives. The West was interested in chipping off several resource-rich parts of Sudan, including the then so-called southern Sudan. Neighboring Uganda was extremely interested in the 'project', too. It was enjoying full impunity and was clearly emerging as a brutal regional power. It had already supplied, trained and hardened the RPF cadres, (before the RPF took power in neighboring Rwanda). It was already helping with plundering the DRC, and it felt suddenly ready to play and to think big. Not everyone was impressed. But the stakes were extremely high, and rebellious heads, those that did not want to support the West's Machiavellian designs, began to roll. Helmut Strizek continues: " UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali was considered in Washington to be a "French and Sudanese sympathizer". He became a prominent victim of the approach to Sudan. Richard Clarke reveals a strange deal: "Albright and I and a handful of others (Michael Sheehan, Jamie Rubin) had entered into a pact together in 1996 to oust Boutros-Ghali as Secretary-General of the United Nations, a secret plan we had called Operation Orient Express (...). The entire operation had strengthened Albright's hand in the competition to be Secretary of State in the second Clinton administration." (CLARKE 2004:201/202). This pact was forged after an attempt - attributed to the Khartoum regime - to kill Egypt's President Mubarak during a conference of the Organization for African Unity in Addis Ababa in June 1995. "Following that event, Egypt and we (joined by other countries in the region) sought and obtained the United Nations Security Council's sanctions on Sudan." Well, Egypt was always on the side of the British colonialists, when it came to the wars against Sudan. Similar to his predecessors, Mubarak faithfully served the Empire. In 1998, Bill Clinton organized a 'meeting' in the Ugandan city of Entebbe, in order to amalgamate a group of the proxies - those willing to launch a war against Khartoum. Helmut Strizek again: " Rather than promoting democracy the meeting was intended to prepare for war against Khartoum with the help of this so-called "new generation of African leaders". But the war never took place. Shortly after Clinton left Africa, an absurd war broke out between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Laurent Kabila, whose anti-democratic record - according to different reports in the press - had made Clinton feel very uneasy in Entebbe, used this war as an excuse to leave the anti-Khartoum alliance and try to get rid of his Rwandan "protectors" in late July 1998. As a result the anti-Khartoum alliance collapsed." " While the planned war failed to materialise, the joint U.S.-U.K. policy initiative to topple the Sudan government continued. Although Richard Clarke would like to make the world believe that the bombing of a chemical plant in Khartoum on 20 August 1998 in retaliation for the Al Qaida attacks on the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam was a success story, in fact it was a failure. This attack only exacerbated anti-American feelings, because the Sudan government had apparently not supported Osama bin Laden after he left Sudan in 1995. The failed attempt to kill bin Laden the same day in Afghanistan reinforced his belief that he was protected by "providence" and so he stepped up the fight against the "American devil"." " Despite the improved relations between Sudan and Egypt, there was no change in the policy to bring about a regime change in Khartoum before the end of the Clinton era. Even Jimmy Carter, who cannot be suspected of excessive sympathy with Muslim fundamentalism, disapproved of this inflexible approach in 1999. "The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is U.S. government policy. The U.S. is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States. Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the U.S. government has basically promoted a continuation of the war." What Jimmy Carter said is definitely correct, but it does not, of course, apply exclusively to Sudan. It could be traced to almost all the conflicts in which the Empire has some involvement (therefore, to almost all of them), from those in Africa to those in the Middle East, including Syria. Helmut Strizek believes that the wars in the African Great Lakes Region were directly connected to the US attempt at destabilizing Sudan, that they were actually ignited by the West, for Sudan to be destroyed or conquered in the end. But many others, including a legendary Canadian international lawyer, Christopher Black, who has been deeply involved in the events of the region (where he was working for the ICTR in Arusha, Tanzania), disagree. Chris wrote to me, shortly after I sent to him Strizek's report: " Strizek... He testified for the defense in our trial at the ICTR and put forward this thesis about Sudan. I think most of what he says is correct but found then and still find his theory that the war in Rwanda was about Sudan a little difficult to accept. It may have been one of the considerations for Museveni and the US and UK etc. but it was not the primary one. The primary one was the war on Zaire, to kick out Mobutu and break Congo into pieces, That was the central plan for the RPF, US, UK, Belgium etc. re Rwanda and I have a letter from Kagame saying so. Strizek was used by an opposing defense team in my trial to try to make it look like I forged that letter from Kagame and I went after him about that. I think he fell into a trap about that - that is that other defense team, who I am sure were working for the prosecution, tricked him into doing. We discussed it later and he admitted perhaps he had been wrong but would not totally retreat. But we are in touch still... So in my opinion, the rest of his paper is basically correct re the geopolitical situation and he is correct on who invaded Rwanda and is responsible for that war, but I disagree that Sudan was the central objective of that war - that objective was Zaire. I agree re Sudan's importance but I fail to see how the take over of Rwanda had any effect on the attempt to break up Sudan. It is not on Sudan's border, Uganda is. No doubt Museveni etc. wanted that result - but I could never quite see how Rwanda fitted into that picture except in general terms - that is the US etc. wanting to take over all central Africa which would make them stronger further north in Sudan etc. But it is clear from all the other evidence at the trial and that of the French expert Dr. Bernard Lugan and others that the main objective of the Rwanda war was to take over Rwanda so they could use it to attack and break up Zaire, which is what they did." My comrade, a Ugandan opposition politician Arthur Tewungwa, agrees with Christopher Black, but he also thinks that the West 'drenched in blood' the entire region, whatever have been its 'primary goals': "Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC have all been the victims of a cross-Atlantic foreign policy that has left the region disfigured and drenched in blood. While the motives have been presented as altruistic, the net result has been dreadful. Loud Western propaganda based on simplistic interpretations has been the order of the day. Sadly this approach has drawn celebrities and other well-intentioned individuals who have contributed to suffering equaled only during WWII. Darfur, Luwero, Eastern Congo and Rwanda have narratives built that don't stand the test of objective scrutiny. Who will repair the damage visited on these places? The only answer is the victims. The do-gooders have done enough bad to warrant their exit left of stage!" *** I then asked my close friend and a dedicated internationalist, Mwandawiro Mghanga, Chairperson of (Marxist) Social Democratic Party of Kenya (SDP), to comment on the situation in Sudan. He expressed, in his letter, a strong opinion and his support for the Sudanese people, against the sanctions and against Western imperialism in general: "The economic and political sanctions imposed against Sudan by Western countries have existed for many years. However, despite disrupting the development of the country they have not succeeded into forcing the people with a long and proud history and culture to surrender its freedom to Western imperialism. Western countries imposed the sanctions against Sudan ostensibly for its violation of the human rights of South Sudan which until recently was part of Sudan. But even after the government of Sudan participated in the democratic process that gave birth to the Republic of South Sudan (RSS), still the West continued with its hostilities and sanctions against Sudan. Sudan is now accused by the West of gross violations of human rights in Darfur. Yet despite its propaganda, the West is not actually interested in solving the problem of Darfur but in undermining the government of Sudan, compromising its sovereignty and carving another country out of Sudan. After RSS and Darfur the West will encourage another region of Sudan to demand to split and so on until Sudan is left into a tiny country like Rwanda. In fact, until the RSS was created, Sudan was the largest country in Africa in terms geographical size and ethnical diversity. This did not please Western imperialism that was imposed into Africa through the partition and balkanization of the second largest continent in the World and sharing it among the European colonial powers. Colonialism then existed in Africa through the notorious tactic of divide and rule that it continues today. The goal of Pan - Africanism and African Union for regional integration and eventual political union of African countries has always been seen as a threat to imperialist's interests in Africa. In this context, Sudan like Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with it rich natural resources is seen to be too big by the West to dominate and therefore all means possible are used to balkanize it. They do not even care that the creation of RSS from Sudan has escalated inter-ethnic violence, violations of human rights and undermined real freedoms. The national liberation hero of Sudan and leader of South Sudan John Garang was assassinated by the West 'with the connivance of the Ugandan government under President Yoweri Museveni because he was leading the struggle for the liberation of the whole of Sudan and not the creation of RSS. In the meanwhile, the sanctions against Sudan have only made the country more determined to safeguard its freedom and independence, to explore and implement self - reliance strategies and to search for alternative development partners - Russia and China. And so Sudan struggles and lives on." Not everyone in Africa feels deep solidarity with Sudan, though. The country has an extremely complex history and relationships with its neighbours. My close colleague from Eritrea, usually very outspoken and passionate about the West's devastating involvement in Africa, this time just commented, simply and dryly: " The only thing I can say is that in Sudan it's not similar to Eritrea - ours is a clear case of economic sabotage, injustice, and double standards." *** The last day before my departure, I ended up working with a lady, an acquaintance of mine, who spent a long year working in Darfur. Are things there really as they are described by the Western mass media? We sit in the lobby of my hotel, drinking coffee, and I'm taking notes. No names, of course, no names here... But she speaks freely, confidently, and what she describes is actually not much different from the nightmares occurring in many other parts of Africa: " It is extremely tiring working in Darfur. You don't realize it when you are still there; at some point it all becomes somehow 'normal', but then when you leave the place, it all comes back to you, and it is hard to keep living a normal life afterwards. You are asking whether it is it as horrible there, as we are told? Yes it is, and perhaps worse... Killings and rapes, refugees and despair, and great suffering of the people... But it is not happening, honestly, just because of this government, and the state-backed Janjaweed militias... although they can be blamed for many terrible acts, of course. But the other side is not blameless either. And local people almost never report crimes committed by the rebels, and the Western media hardly mentions them..." What I want to know is what role the West is actually playing in Darfur? " The West is definitely trying to encourage Darfur to leave Sudan. The West, even Israel, is supporting Abdelwahid rebels from Fur African tribe. It is not unlike what it did in South Sudan. Darfur is rich in uranium and other raw materials. The conflict in Darfur, and brutality of it, is actually being fuelled from outside. The UN peacekeeping force UNAMID is thoroughly ineffective in Darfur. It hardly interferes on behalf of the local people. One has to wonder, what are their mandates and true goals there. I asked and was told that they are there 'to report'. It often appears that the so-called international community is doing everything for the conflict to continue, so it could justify its push for separation. In the meantime, the refugees are flowing into neighbouring Chad, and elsewhere. In the camps in Chad, they are often screened and interviewed, by foreigners, even Israelis... I don't know what happens there, in those camps, afterwards." As we speak about Chad - its top military brass is having a joint meeting with local, Sudanese commanders. The entire hotel lobby is filled with men in various uniforms. Some are armed. I then ask to be taken to the so-called 'open areas' outside Khartoum; places inhabited by the South Sudanese refugees. Like Darfur now, South Sudan had been, in the past, destabilized and encouraged to leave the Republic of the Sudan. The West did its best to create this the 'youngest country on Earth', rich in oil and many other resources. As I was already explained to on several occasions by foreigners who have been based in South Sudan, the place has been, from the beginning, an ungovernable, and an artificial country, ruled by local warlords but above all, by countless international organizations and NGOs. That was actually the plan of the West from the outset. The situation in South Sudan is now so terrible, that people are fleeing across the newly marked border, to the Republic of the Sudan. Before the breakup, the exiles would be processed simply as IDP's, but now they are 'true refugees', as they are technically coming from a different country. We drive slowly to one of the 'open areas' called Altakamul, in Alhag Youseif town. My acquaintances are feeding me with the latest data from UNHCR and other sources: "there are now 7 camps for South Sudanese refugees in White Nile State, with a population of 101,495. And there are 35,507 refugees located in the open areas, in and around Khartoum." How are they treated here? "Right after the separation, there was a lot of talk about South Sudanese people being our 'brothers and sisters'. We were told to treat them exactly as we would treat our own people. Some actually have relatives here, even houses. But now, with the economical difficulties that Sudan is facing, things are becoming very problematic." Altakamus is a tough, miserably poor area, covered by sand and dust. As with everywhere else, I am not supposed to photograph here. And as with everywhere else, I do. Garbage covers almost entire alleys and the sides of roads. The whole area consists almost exclusively of only two colours with some varieties of shades: yellow and grey. Only very few economic activities could be detected. At this hour, children should be in school, but many are not. So this is where the increasing number of South Sudanese people are now ending up; this is the result of yet another 'glorious' Western experiment on human beings: of mingling with the borders, creating new states that should serve the Empire's political and economic interests. How many more are 'planned' for this area? We know of at least of some others: Goma (the DRC), Darfur (Sudan), Jubaland (Somalia). *** I don't know where Sudan is heading. Despite many problems, despite its clearly capitalist leaning, corruption and economic troubles, I am impressed with many things here. Khartoum looks definitely much cleaner and safer than Nairobi or Kampala, two cities in countries that are fully supported and often loudly glorified by the West. In Nairobi, more than half the people live in desperate, deadly, even 'toxic' slums. In Khartoum, poverty has a much gentler face. Despite sanctions, despite everything... Sudanese leaders have many new grand plans for their country: new housing developments, a new international airport, new office towers, hotels, riverfronts, office buildings and shopping malls. Some of these projects are now delayed, or even cancelled, but others are ongoing and on target. Life is tough here, and much tougher in the provinces. Because of the sanctions, many goods and basic equipment (even those for the hospitals) are missing. No credit cards are accepted here. Inflation is mounting. Goods and services are often calculated in dollars, but there are two parallel exchange rates in place: official and the black market one. Several times a day I hear the same question: "Do you like Sudan?" I don't know. It is a complex place, but inhabited by warm, courteous people. Honestly, this is not my fight. Here I don't see a struggle, an attempt to build an egalitarian country based on social justice. But Sudan is, to a great extent, a victim. A place which has been placed on that horrid hit list of the Empire and selected for demolition. And as such, I feel, it deserves to be supported. I wandered through the National Museum, with its exquisite artefacts. Two local schoolgirls wearing headscarves approached me, demanding to take selfies with me, on their phone. At times, life appears to be almost 'normal', but there is always some tension. As we drive through the city of Omdurman, I ask my friend: "Is it true what one reads in Western press; that they amputate hands for theft, that they are nailing people on the cross?" She laughs, mockingly: "Of course not! They got rid of these practices a long time ago! If they kept up with them, half of the government would be running around without hands!" *** But who is who here, and who works for whom? I am told that imaginary 'spies' are really everywhere. One day, I was sitting with a friend and with a local filmmaker in a cafe, discussing the possibility of my returning here and making a documentary film. The filmmaker was offering to drive me to Port Sudan if I come back, even to arrange my visa and all the necessary permits. At one point, we began discussing my latest novel "Aurora" . He asked about the plot. I told him that the book is about the European cultural institutions, which are funding young artists and thinkers in almost all developing countries, then using the arts and 'culture' as a vehicle for spreading capitalist and pro-Western propaganda, silencing almost all rebellious voices. At first interested, the filmmaker became gradually very edgy, and towards the end of my explanation, he apologized and ran away from the cafe, faster than the speed of light. I never heard from him again. "You hit the nail on its head," my friend began laughing, right after he vanished. "He is funded by all those organizations that you mentioned. You scared him witless." Before I left the country, all my notes 'mysteriously' disappeared. Someone entered my hotel room and took both notepad and my Mont Blanc pen, which was attached to it. The Mont Blanc had been, for many years, one of my dearest writing tools. Practically, it was not easy to depart Sudan. At the airport, my passport was endlessly scrutinized, and in the end I was ordered to produce my 'registration paper'. I was told that registration is not required for stays under 30 days. I began expecting the worst. But in the end, the security apparatus allowed me to leave. But which security apparatus was harassing me, really? Who is in charge in this country? I will most likely never find out. In 1898, during the Battle of Omdurman (and later in 1899 during the Battle of Umm Diwaykarat), British imperialism debilitated, and eventually ruined the entire Sudan. British forces relied on their alliance with the Egyptians. In modern history, the West has never really left this proud nation in peace. All the terrible attacks came in the name of higher principles. The West has always claimed that it has been liberating Sudan from someone or something. In the end, the Sudanese people have suffered immensely. Those who were supposed to be 'freed' were actually mercilessly sacrificed. Some things never change!  Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel "Aurora" and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: " Exposing Lies Of The Empire " and " Fighting Against Western Imperialism " . View his other books here . Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter . Sent to Pravdareport by the author


During the Democrats first debate last month, Bernie Sanders said we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people. Denmark s Prime Minister came out swinging, demanding that Sanders get his facts straight, Denmark is not a socialist nation, it has a market economy. Democrats have been working for decades to adopt the progressive policies based on political correctness that permeates most European nations.Sweden, the Rape Capitol of the world, is a perfect example of how well their politically correct, open-border policies have worked out for them. As the Muslim invasion of these European nations escalates, we are seeing this indifferent attitude of live and let live that only benefits those Muslim invaders who have no intention of assimilating in their host nations. This video shows how a nation gripped with fear reacts with apathy towards the criminal as opposed to taking action to save the supposed victim. It illustrates how easily a group of invaders can overtake a nation conditioned to accepting everyone, so as not to offend anyone. Sadly, we live in a country which has the highest rate of reported cases of rape. And this land is called Sweden. Rape is a very serious crime which not only affects our country, but the rest of the world. So in our new social experiment, we put Swedish citizens up for a test. This video is a great example of what happens to a nation who puts political correctness before the safety and security of its citizens: A poor girl can be heard screaming for help from the backseat of a car. There is no question she is being sexually assaulted, yet one after another, Swedish citizens continue to walk by pretending not to hear.At one point in the video, the rapist a brave passerby took action to stop him. Sadly, most of the other apathetic citizens were satisfied to look the other way, so as not to get involved. The biggest sin of the humankind is indifference.


A confidential draft United Nations blacklist seen by Reuters on Tuesday names a Saudi Arabia-led military coalition for killing and maiming children in Yemen, though it notes that the alliance has put in place measures to improve child protection. In an effort to dampen controversy surrounding the annual children and armed conflict report, the draft blacklist - contained in an annex to the full report - is split into listed parties that have put in place measures during the reporting period to improve the protection of children and those which have not. In Yemen, the coalition s actions objectively led to the listing for the killing and maiming of children, with 683 child casualties attributed to this party, and, as a result of being responsible for 38 verified incidents, for attacks on schools and hospitals during 2016, according to a draft explanation of the blacklist seen by Reuters. The coalition is included in section B of Annex I, as it has put in place measures during the reporting period aimed at improving the protection of children, the draft said. The draft U.N. annex blacklists the Houthis, Yemen government forces, pro-government militia and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for violations against children in 2016 as it did in last year s report covering violations in 2015. The draft report has to be approved by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and is subject to change. It is due to be submitted to the U.N. Security Council this month, and the 15-member body is to discuss the report on Oct. 31. The Saudi U.N. ambassador, Abdallah Al-Mouallimi, declined to comment until the report is officially issued. In August, the Saudi U.N. mission said there was no justification whatsoever for including the coalition on the blacklist. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the United Nations does not comment on leaked documents. The coalition was briefly added to the blacklist last year and then removed by then-U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon pending review. At the time, Ban accused Saudi Arabia of exerting unacceptable undue pressure after sources told Reuters that Riyadh threatened to cut its U.N. funding. Saudi Arabia denied threatening Ban. The report - produced by U.N. children and armed conflict envoy Virginia Gamba and issued in Guterres name - does not subject those listed to any U.N. action, but rather shames parties to conflicts in the hope of pushing them to implement measures to protect children. The Saudi-led coalition began a military campaign in Yemen in March 2015 with the aim of preventing Iran-allied Houthi rebels and forces loyal to Yemen s ex-President Ali Abdullah Saleh from taking power. An earlier draft of the latest annual report, which covers 2016 and was seen by Reuters in August, said that of the 683 child casualties blamed on the Saudi-led coalition, about half of those were killed and the rest injured. That earlier draft said the Houthi rebels and affiliated forces were responsible for nearly a third of the total 1,340 child casualties verified by the United Nations. The annual children and armed conflict report is produced at the request of the U.N. Security Council. In 2015 the United Nations left Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas off the blacklist, after they had been included in an earlier draft, but criticized Israel over its 2014 military operations. Separately, the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council agreed on Friday to set up a panel to examine all alleged human rights violations committed in Yemen s war and identify those responsible. U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra ad al-Hussein had long-pleaded with the 47-member Human Rights Council to launch an independent investigation into the war, which has killed thousands, ruined the economy and pushed millions to the brink of famine.