Noam Chomsky: The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful!

"Is America over?" It's a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had? The major energy producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it's not insignificant. The Western controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it's been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources, the main concern of US planners, have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded. Take the US invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq, not because of our love for democracy, but because it's maybe the second or third largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy producing region. You're not supposed to say this. It's considered a conspiracy theory. The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism, mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn't deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear, that it was going to be very hard to reach US goals, and at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007, the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: One, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain, and two, "encouraging the flow of foreign investments in Iraq, especially American investments." In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance,, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes. Iraq was an attempt to re-institute by force, something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, US policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining. Declining because of economic weakness? Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world's wealth , and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed.     

Roitov.com: Assad's Best Friend Attacks Syria!!

Do you know what love is? I'll tell you: It is whatever you can still betray. John le Carre, The Looking Glass War. A thick fog covered the affair from its beginning. Considering its circumstances, this was unlikely to continue. After all, it had been captured on video by several news agencies. The pictures were the same in all the networks. However, the descriptions varied wildly. In the beginning, Israeli media reported that in the afternoon of January 29, 2013, four F16 fighters had entered Lebanon, and left it towards the Mediterranean Sea after five hours. This was not a formal acknowledgment by the IDF, since the main source quoted was the Lebanese army website. Yet, as it often happens, the Hebrew article warned Syria of transferring weapons to the Hezbollah or of losing control on their rockets. Moreover, Israel announced the deployment of two Iron Dome batteries in its north, one of them next to the city of Haifa. Shortly afterwards, confused reports were broadcast. Venezuela's "teleSUR" reported it at first as two separate events. After a while it dropped its initial report. The first event described an Israeli attack on the Lebanon Syria border, the second claimed that a research center of the Syrian army, located near Damascus had been heavily damaged by Israel. Regardless of the report, the images were the same. They showed F16 fighters from below, firing flares. Was this disinformation? Israeli propaganda? Syrian propaganda? It was impossible to tell. Iron Dome in Haifa: Absolute Friends. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. China, Russia, Iran and Syria formally denounced and condemned the attack, yet, they didn't provide details. Israel was silent. The Venezuelan network denounced the UN Secretary General for not condemning the attack on Syrian sovereignty. At this stage, they stopped providing specific details. Apparently, even they felt that something was wrong with the report. I kept waiting. The issue was unlikely to be kept secret for much longer. Following Hebrew media protocols, the issue was clarified on Saturday, February 2, by citing foreign media. A Syrian army convoy transferring Russian SA17 rockets to Lebanon, was hit, while at the Jamraya Research Center of the Syrian Army, which is located between Damascus and Lebanon, eight kilometers from the border. Both stories were true, and related to the same event, though they were both partial reports. After this was revealed, the event became of little interest due to the delay. Maybe this was the aim of the early informational mayhem.    

Stephen Lendman: Iran's Legal Right to Enrich Uranium

Unchallenged. It's been that way for years. Iran fully complies with Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions. Its nuclear program is peaceful. US intelligence says so. Annually, it repeats earlier assessments. Washington, other Western countries, and Israel know what they won't admit publicly. So do media scoundrels. They target Iran unfairly. They report what's not true. They hype fear. They spread Big Lies. They claim non existent existential threats. They do it for political, not security reasons. Iran threatens no one. It hasn't attacked another country in centuries. Its neighbors have no reason for concern. Israel points fingers the wrong way. It's the region's only nuclear power. It's heavily armed and dangerous. It's got sophisticated chemical and biological weapons. It threatens to use its arsenal, if endangered. On January 31, Iran announced plans to enhance uranium enrichment. It told IAEA officials it intends to use IR2m centrifuges. An agency communication said: "The Secretariat of the Agency received a letter from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), dated 23 January 2013, informing the Agency that 'centrifuge machines type IR2m will be used in Unit A-22 at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz." It's Tehran's main enrichment facility. It's used to to enrich uranium to 5%. Faster enrichment runs counter to Western demands. They want Iran to abandon its legitimate rights altogether. Dozens of other nations have similar nuclear operations. Demands to suspend activities don't follow. Tehran alone is targeted. It's solely for political reasons. On January 29, IAEA officials asked Iran to provide technical and other information about its plans. The unit Tehran plans to upgrade can house over 3,000 centrifuges. International Institute for Strategic Studies, nuclear expert Mark Fitzpatrick said upgraded centrifuges could be "a most unfortunate game changer." It depends on the number installed. "If Iran introduces them in a large scale, the timeline for being able to produce fissile material would be significantly reduced," he said. Tehran does so for power generation and medical research. Its program is peaceful. Claiming otherwise is false. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov calls Iran's enhanced enrichment plans acceptable. They're within legal limits. It's "doing everything in line with its commitment under the Safeguards Agreement," he said. 

Abayomi Azikiwe: Malian War Spreading into Niger:

French Military moves Further into Northern Region. Reports emanating from the West African state of Mali, indicate that French ground forces, accompanied by the national army from the capital of Bamako, along with a small contingent of regional troops from Niger, Burkino Faso, Togo, Senegal, Benin, Chad and Nigeria, are moving towards the northern historic city of Timbuktu. Although there has been a media blockade by the French and Malian governments about the impact of the war, details of the conditions taking place, inside the country are emerging. In the northern city of Gao, French and Malian forces claim that they have taken the airport, and are moving to occupy the city. A military press release from Paris stated that they were fired on by Al Qaeda linked terrorist elements who were destroyed, per the Associated Press, January 28. Nonetheless, the ministry of defense in France has attempted to sanitize the actual situation in the contested areas. One report asserted that no civilians have been killed in the imperialist military operations, although other news agencieshave contradicted these statements. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in a press release issued on January 22, stated that air bombing and fighting continue in Mali, as refugees are continuing to cross into neighboring countries. In Mauritania, 4,208 Malian refugees are continuing to cross into neighboring countries. In Mauritania, 4,208 Malian refugees have arrived since January 11. (UNHCR) This same media advisory continues, noting that after being registered at the Fassala transit center, they are being transported further inland to the Mbera refugee camp, which is already hosting 55,221 people from earlier displacements. Curing the same time period 1,300 refugees have arrived in Niger, and 1,829 entered Burkina Faso. Malians arriving in these neighboring states, say that they are fleeing air strikes, being carried out by French fighter jets. They are complaining about shortages of food, fuel and water. Many new arrivals are traveling in vehicles, but others are on foot and on donkeys. The refugees are anticipating that other members of their families will be crossing the borders very soon. Since the escalation of fighting in the north of Mali in January 2012, which was largely the result of the US NATO war against Libya, some 147,000 refugees have fled the country. 

The Economist: Democracy in America: Immigration reform g

is not enough: If November's presidential election, in which some exit polls had Mitt Romney winning just 27% of the Latina vote, was a wake up call to Republicans, the sleep must have been deep indeed. For months, it had been clear enough to anyone with half an eye on the polls, that the Republicans were tanking among Latinos. In August, Mr Romney emerged 39 percentage points behind Barack Obama in the first of 11 weekly tracking polls carried out by Latino Decisions. Those, of course, turned out to be the good days. Whether or not Mr Romney's fondness for self deportation was to blame, the Republican pre election spin, that a focus on jobs and growth would be enough to win around Latino voters, is not only risible in retrospect, it was obviously wrong at the time. OK, election campaigns do funny things to people's brains. At least the Republicans are on board now. After all, as Reagan is once supposed to have said, Latinos are natural Republicans. They just don't know it yet. Ditch the crazy rhetoric, silence the wing-nuts, and take at least partial ownership of immigration reform, and the shared values of Republicans and Latinos, aspiration, pro enterprise, social conservatism, should emerge clearly enough to help satisfy Reagan's formula. This is certainly how John McCain is selling the proposals put forward by his "Gang of eight" senators. His home state of Arizona, where the Latino population grew by almost half between 2000 and 2010, is one that many Democratic strategists see as ripe for competition in 2016. The state has backed the Republican candidate in every presidential election, bar one since 1848. Elsewhere in the mountain west Latino votes have already helped shift the 20 electoral college votes of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, all of them once reliably red states, into the Democratic column in the last two elections. Mr McCain acknowledges the danger, but because of "small business, less regulation, big service in the military, pro life, all these reasons," he argues, Republicans should be able to attract enough Latino support to keep the demographic tide at bay. Mr McCain's commitment to sorting out America's broken immigration system is not in doubt, and the Republican tin ear to immigration concerns certainly helps explain Mr Romney's dismal performance among Latinos.      

The Liberty Beacon: Supreme Court to Review Case

on Obama's forged documents. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz, which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita California, also made the announcement on her website on January 9. As of this writing, major news networks, such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC, have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State. On February 15, all nine justices will gather in conference to review, whether Obama used forged government documents, and fake identification in order to get elected as commander in chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California, that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void. The Supreme Court's website shows that docket file no. 12A6O6 was originally denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, on December 13. On January 9, Chief Justice Roberts sent Dr. Tait's application to the full court, for a review scheduled for February 15. Despite the lack of exposure from the mainstream media,, the issue appears to have gained some steam among conservative bloggers. On January 9, New York Times best selling author Jerome Corsi suggested that the president's nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, may have played a role in removing birther evidence from Barack Obama's passport records. It appears that in 2008, a State Department insider was simultaneously employed by Analysis Corporation of McLean, Virginia, then headed by Mr Brennan, and was reprimanded for accessing, and possibly altering Obama's passport records.On Wednesday, Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the birther cause, posted the following on her website: The case provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate, and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him, according to E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone. 

Allen L Roland: Chuck Hagel is Right Person at Right Time!

Chuck Hagel is the right person at exactly the right time as Secretary of Defense, for his thinking is in concert with main street America, but not necessarily in agreement with our AIPAC cominated Congress. Chuck Hagel is a potential breath of fresh air in the corporate polluted and AIPAC dominated belt way, which enjoys a good or excellent Congressional approval rating, from a scant 9% of American voters, and where 53% of Americans still rightfully feel that neither party represents the American people. Watch and listen to Hagel's opening statement, and you'll witness a humble and plain speaking American patriot, who has seen war and carnage first hand as an infantryman in Vietnam, and who is committed to this refreshing declaration "that our military policies must be worthy of the sacrifices of our military and their families." At the end of these nomination hearings, the impact of the Hagel nomination could well be more about the future of the Republican Party. Susan Eisenhower correctly writes on January 9th: "The Republican Party is now at a crossroads. Over the last decade, moderate Republicans have felt increasingly out of place in its ranks. If the GOP confirms Hagel, it could bolster the idea of a "big tent" Republican Party. A GOP led rejection of a Republican war hero with impeccable centrist credentials, however, could well be a fatal blow to that concept, along with some of the party's longest and most successful traditions. Uri Avery in Israel, precisely summed up my feelings about the Hagel nomination on January 12, 2013: I find Chuck Hagel eminently likeable. I am not quite certain why. Perhaps it's his war record. He was decorated for valor in the Vietnam War. He was a mere sergeant. Since I was a mere corporal in our 1948 war, I find it elating to see a non commissioned officer become Minister of Defense. Like so many veterans, who have seen war from close up, he has become an enemy of war. Wonderful, now Hagel is violently attacked by all the neo-con warmongers. Almost none of whom has ever heard a bullet whistle in the wars to which they sent others, and the combined political regiments of the American Jewish establishment. His main sin seems to be that he objects to war against Iran.