Tag Archives: Mitt

Snooper’s Charter: 19,000 Emails Against, 0 In Favour

Back in August, I urged
people to respond to the consultation on the truly dreadful Draft
Communications Bill, aka Snooper’s Charter. Obviously, I wasn’t alone
in doing that: many organisations concerned about the impact on civil
liberties in this country have done the same. For example, both 38
Degrees and Open Rights Group (ORG) provided suggested texts and asked
people to contact the Joint Parliamentary Committee that has been
considering the Bill – and doing rather a good job of it, I must say.

On Open Enterprise blog.
Read More

EU Unitary Patent Vote: It’s On, Again, Probably

This is getting silly. Over the last year I’ve been warning about problems with the EU’s plan to bring in a Unitary Patent system, culminating in a call to write to your MEPs a few weeks ago about an imminent vote that was taking place in the crucial JURI committee. That didn’t take place, but word is that the committee vote will now take place this Thursday:

On Open Enterprise blog.
Read More

European Parliament Committee Calls For Creation Without Copyright To Become EU Policy

The European Union’s governmental machine is a complicated beast,
with its intertwining of supra-national, national and party-political
levels (if you’re interested in understanding how it works, the digital
rights organization EDRI has put together a useful introduction (pdf).) That makes it quite hard to tell what is going on behind the scenes with this new Opinion of the International Trade Committee on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy (pdf.)

On Techdirt.
Read More

Image Screen-Shot-2012-10-10-at-3.51.17-PM-620x4121-300x199.png

Clinton Sends Lackey to House Committee to Cover Her Involvement in Benghazi Attack

Reading from a prepared statement, Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that criticism of the US government’s response to US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’ death and the attack in Benghazi was the fault of the Obama administration. The mainstream media is calling the attack a “mission in Benghazi would have overpowered even a reinforced security detail.”
Official Eric A. Nordstrom, regional security officer who served in Libya for 6 weeks from September 2011 to July 2012, said to the Committee that “the ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service.”
Nordstrom asserts that Benghazi security was weak and there was an increased concern. In fact, when Stevens requested that the State Department provide more security for him in Libya, he was denied. Since Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is ultimately responsible for providing diplomatic security, she would have had to refuse that request.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were cut from US Embassy security over recent years, which was a perfect reason Clinton could claim as to why Stevens could not have the security needed to protect him in Benghazi.
Kennedy said: “The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security; a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available. The assault that occurred on the evening of September 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men.”

An immediate cover-up over the attack in Benghazi commenced as news about the death of Stevens, Sean Smith and 2 US Marines occurred at the hands of insurgents. The US State Department leased gated-villa in Benghazi where Stevens was murdered was owned by Mohammad al-Bishari. This is one of the facts about the event that were not discussed at the Committee hearing.
The state-sponsored 14 minute trailer was brought to the attention of the Committee as the reason behind the attack in Benghazi, according to an anonymous member of the intelligence community. Sam Bacile, a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was an FBI informant and alleged director/writer/producer of the anti-Muslim film. Bacile, an Israeli citizen turned patsy for the US government participated in the manufacturing of a trailer that has been used to facilitate instigated tension in the Islamic world.
At first, information coming through on cables lacked a reference to the “wag the dog” anti-Muslim trailer which Obama asserts was the reason for the attack.
The official stance of the State Department was: “That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.”
Also curious is that the US government was subcontracting Libyan militias for security to be used in protecting ambassadors like Stevens on missions. Some of these militia members are directly tied to Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist factions covertly used by the US government in times of manufactured decent or in the implementation of a false flag – as is being evidenced in Benghazi as facts are analyzed.
Kennedy continued: “We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time. And that information has evolved. The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point. As time went on, additional information became available.”
Clinton and the member of the current administration ultimately responsible for the attack in Benghazi, has appointed an Accountability Review Board that includes former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen to assess the security systems and procedures in current implementation. Kennedy claims that without the conclusion of this “investigation” there is an “incomplete picture, and, as a result, our answers today will also be incomplete.”
John Brennan, Obama’s Assassination Czar and chief counterterrorism adviser has held a talk with Mohamed Magariaf, Libyan President and other officials in Tripoli, where the actual US Embassy is located. Brennan strongly suggested Magariaf comply with US pressure for “assistance from the US and other countries to combat terrorism.”

The cover-up in Benghazi was politically motivated. Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN stated just days after the attack that this was the work of a small group of extremists. Kennedy pointed out that Rice’s information was based on sketchy intelligence. Rice and the Obama administration have been purveying this false information, intimated Kennedy to the House Committee.
According to a CIA memo the demonstrations that sprung up subsequent to the attack “were spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” The next logical step, as the CIA explains, was that extremists stormed the compound to assault Stevens and the other people inside.
In reality, Stevens was working with the CIA in monitoring operations in Libya where known terrorist groups aligned with the US covertly were being watched and intelligence gathered for future use. Stevens, who was also a special representative for the National Transitional Council (NTC), the US-supported terrorist faction in Libya, was also secretly collecting information on them to be used in conjunction CIA intelligence and possibly to blackmail the faction into submission to defending US interests.
Stevens was involved in arms deals with the NTC who supports the Salafi extremist movement in Saudi Arabia as well as selling weaponry to the Muslim Brotherhood. Ironically, these factions sent their men to murder Stevens at the gated-villa in Benghazi after Clinton reduced security and told the Libyan forces to stand down.
Since this attack, Clinton has been working hard to cover her tracks and involvement in creating the perfect scenario that would facilitate the attack which occurred. The State Department initially said that cryptic warnings of an impending attack on Benghazi was relayed, yet devoid of a time frame and therefore ignored.
In response to Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Clinton asked for more time before speaking to the Committee about her involvement in Benghazi. Clinton suggested that Issa’s investigation be held off until after the November presidential elections or even pushed back into the early part of 2013 because witnesses were being questioned at the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
However, since Clinton could not stave-off the Congressional Committee, Kennedy was sent to read from a pre-written statement.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by Susanne Posel of Occupy Corporatism.
Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism, an alternative news site dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporate-funded mainstream media. You can find Occupy Corporatism on their Facebook page . Read More

Image un-gun-control-treaty-300x157.jpg

U.S Military Plans to Prevent Veteran Suicides by Taking Away Their Guns

by J.G. Vibes
It has long been known that there are more veterans who end up committing suicide than there are who actually die on the battlefield. This fact has been so unsettling for many people in the mainstream because it exposes the true nature of what war is all about. When the people on the front lines are so depressed about what they have seen and what they have been forced to do, it opens up a whole list of questions that people in the US have been running from for over a decade.
As of last month, 270 active-duty service members killed themselves this year alone, and half were from the Army. Instead of targeting the underlying psychological issues and traumatic memories that are pushing veterans towards suicide, the establishment has been putting forward false solutions that just cover up the symptoms, instead of addressing the causal factors behind the depression.
As suicides continue to rise in 2012, the Defense Department officials are developing a suicide prevention campaign, part of which will encourage soldiers to give up their weapons. Under current legislation when troops are identified as high risk, commanders have the authority to confiscate their service weapons, but they can not ask them to hand over their personal firearms.
These new policies that have been suggested by Congress and the Pentagon are hoping to change that, giving commanders and law enforcement the ability to confiscate their personal arms. This is by far the most offensive and alarming attempt by the US government to lower veteran suicides, but it is not the first time that they have put forward a solution to this problem which misses the point entirely. Earlier this year the US Army awarded a scientist at the Indiana University School of Medicine $3 million to develop a nasal spray that eclipses suicidal thoughts.
The underlying problem here, the bottom line, is that human beings are not cut out for the kind of carnage that plays out on the battlefield. Despite the cultural mythology surrounding human nature, and the dark history of subjugation that has plagued humanity for centuries, violence has a very traumatic impact on the human consciousness. The human nature debate is something that I cover frequently in my work; I even released an article last week reporting on recent scientific studieswhich added more evidence to back up the argument for a peaceful human nature.
In my hardback book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance I give a more in-depth description of how post traumatic stress disorder is an indication that human beings are not built for lives of violence. In chapter 12, “Inhuman Nature” I discuss how:
war is the most inhumane and unnatural phenomena on the planet, yet due to endless propaganda and indoctrination it is revered as honorable in most cultures. Dehumanizing programs such as the American ‘boot camp’ are used by governments to remove any traces of empathy, compassion or free thought from the minds of potential soldiers. During these programs the military conditions soldiers into accepting violence through imposing racist and hateful ideologies. This kind of psychological manipulation coupled with the horror of war often results in what doctors describe as post-traumatic stress disorder, a severe emotional condition in which extreme circumstances cause severe depression and panic attacks. If violence was a natural part of the human condition then soldiers would not be coming home from war with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Veteran suicide is a serious problem, that certainly deserves a great deal of attention. However, these solutions that have been put forward by the establishment are nothing more than band-aids that overlook the causal factors behind the depression. These people are suffering through a very traumatic time in their life, where they need to work through their issues and face their demons head on before coming to terms with what they have experienced. To cover up these issues and act like these veterans have no good reason to be depressed is to bury them even deeper in their trauma and increase their risk of depression and suicide.
J.G. Vibes is the author of an 87 chapter counter culture textbook called Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance and host of a show called Voluntary Hippie Radio. He is also an artist with an established record label and event promotion company that hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with his work, which includes free podcasts, free e-books & free audiobooks at his website www.aotmr.com.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by Activist Post of Activist Post. Read More

‘It was an easy decision’: Swedish Academy

The Locals Rebecca Martin catches up with Peter Englund, the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy (Svenska Akademien), to find out more about why one should read the work of 2012s Nobel Prize winner in literature, Mo Yan. Chinese author Mo Yan awarded Nobel lit prize (11 Oct 12)
Seven hot names in the Nobel Literature race (10 Oct 12)

One of the things that is special with this years winner is that he depicts from within – a world that most of us dont have access to. He is originally a peasant boy, born into a farming family and he worked in the fields until he was twelve years old, Englund told The Local. According to Englund there were no harsh deliberations when the committee took the decision, almost a week ago: I would say that it was an easy decision, although these things are always somewhat complicated. Thats how it always is, though. You have five authors, often writing in different genres and styles. So I would say that its complicated but not difficult.”The work of 57-year-old Yan, who became the first Chinese national to ever win the prize, explores the brutality and darkness of 20th-century Chinese society with a cynical wit.He is perhaps best-known abroad for his 1987 novella “Red Sorghum”, a tale of the brutal violence that plagued the eastern China countryside – where he grew up – during the 1920s and 30s.The story was later made into an acclaimed film by leading Chinese director Zhang Yimou.Meanwhile, Englund explained that the translations of Yans work into Swedish does his words justice. We are lucky to have a Chinese speaker on the panel and he has assured us that the translations are very good, Englund said. However, with the decision being reached a week ago – it hasnt been easy to keep it a secret with the wild speculations and the betting that goes on online and in the media. It is something we need to think about and in later years we have had to become even stricter when it comes to secrecy, Englund said.To readers as of yet unfamiliar with Yans work, Englund recommends starting with “The Garlic Ballads”, first published in 1993: You should read Mo Yan when you are ready to face a whole new world, inhabited by new people and showing new ways of looking at the world,” Englund told The Local.But above all you should read him because he is a damned good author!”Rebecca Martin/AFPFollow Rebecca on Twitter here. Read More

Nobel’s will ‘blatantly disrespected’ in Norway

On the eve of the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, The Local catches up with Norwegian lawyer and Nobel historian Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who claims the Norwegian Nobel Committee isn’t following Alfred Nobel’s wishes.’It was an easy decision’: Swedish Academy (11 Oct 12)
Chinese author Mo Yan awarded Nobel lit prize (11 Oct 12)
Live Blog: 2012 Nobel Prize announcements (11 Oct 12)

For years, Heffermehl has been writing books and penning opinion pieces in the Norwegian media arguing that the country’s Nobel Committee, in charge of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize each year, is failing to follow the last will and testament of the Swedish industrialist whose fortune served as the basis for the prize.Nobel’s will states that the prize should be given to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.But in awarding the prize to politicians such as Barack Obama, Henry Kissinger or even Al Gore, whose work is with the environment and not peace and disarmament, the committee has failed to adhere to the will of the deceased benefactor, Heffermehl argues.In the run up to this years peace prize announcement, set to take place on Friday in Oslo, The Local checked in with Heffermehl to hear his thoughts on the problem. The Local: What is wrong with the current selection process of the Nobel Peace Prize? Fredrik Heffermehl: In the beginning, the Norwegian politicians, whose job it is to select the Nobel Committee, were eager to find the right peace-minded individuals working for a global peace order, which is what Nobel wanted to support. But sometime after 1948, in the wake of the Second World War, this eagerness dissipated. Today, the Committee is very different and I would say consists of Norwegian politicians who accept a world system of competing military forces, the direct opposite of the core purpose of Nobels Peace Prize: to support a new system and efforts for global cooperation on demilitarization of international affairs the global peace order that Nobel described in his will.I have been saying for more than five years in books and articles that Nobels will and purpose must be respected. But the Nobel Committee does not want to enter into this discussion. TL: Why is that, do you think? FH: The military sector in Norway was and is a strong sector and the reality today is that a majority politicians favouring a strong military defence are in control of a prize, which was initially meant for their opponents. TL: What happens now? FH: Well, they cant ignore Nobel forever. In fact it has been the shock of my life to see such blatant disrespect of someones last will and testament. I have had support from some very high-ranking people in Norway, but this is in private; no one dares to come out and say it in public. It says something about the political climate that no one wants to stick their neck out. TL: What has the Swedish County Administrative Board (Lnsstyrelsen) tasked with ensuring that foundations created by wills such as Nobel’s follow their statutes done? FH: They were also reluctant to stick their neck out. It took four years to get them to act. I knew that they would have to agree with my point. It is elementary really. The whole purpose of a testament is that the testators will has to be followed and cannot be changed after his death. The authority would have to confirm my view. I put pressure on them but they tried to evade the question for years. It even had to be taken to the administrative court, but I am very happy with the outcome. A decision was passed that confirmed entirely that the prizes must comply with the purpose described by the testator. But the authority was very diplomatic, its decision did not criticize anything that has happened in the past, it only gave directions for the future. TL: What needs to be done about it, in your opinion? FH: There really has never been a proper discussion. They are reluctant to answer these questions because if they enter into the discussion they will be forced to select member for the committee who are actually in favour of a global peace order as Nobel was. After the Swedish decision the Norwegian politicians must reconsider the situation and determine what the purpose of the prize really is and whether they are qualified and willing to continue selecting the five-member Nobel Committees. They must ask themselves the following questions: “Should we, can we still have this role?”; “How have the committees fulfilled the mandate in the past?”; and “Is it possible for Norway’s Parliament to be loyal to Nobel and can official Norway continue to select the trustees of a private Swedish foundation in the future to implement a peace vision that Parliament is directly opposed to?” TL: So, who do you think will win this years Nobel Peace Prize? FH: To be honest, I feel less interested every year the prizes have less and less to do with Nobel. The politicians are using Nobels name to promote their own ideas, they do not understand that Nobel saw the costly and dangerous threat to human survival that would develop if the world failed to curb militarism. His desire for a global peace order is a much more urgent, mandatory need today than when he wrote his will.Rebecca MartinFollow Rebecca on Twitter Read More