Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
The moral force of WikiLeaks is the bent for the truth and that truth is in the interest of the common good. According to both Plato and Aristotle the common good can only be delivered and sustained as a result of truth. Not since Socrates challenged Athenians has anyone driven as passionately for the truth as has Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks founder drove an unprecedented contemporaneous calling to challenge the citadels of the powerful that forever degenerate to oppressor and oppressed dichotomies. WikiLeaks gave not only voice to the powerless but also to the sense of hope. In taking on the powerful, WikiLeaks took on the rulers of the world and the influence and control they have over institutions throughout our world.
The majority would say that no-one can defeat corruption, that corruption is an immutable constant, that exploitation is an immutable constant. Many would say there are millions of injustices each day under the sun on this earth, so why bother my brother? But there are some who think contrary, that the pursuit of truth should be met fearlessly. That truth does matter. WikiLeaks took on the rulers of the world – they who in effect control the fate of the world.
[ ... CONTINUES ... ]
The presumptions of innocence and of whistleblowing in the public interest were hijacked by the then Prime Minister’s statement that WikiLeaks had acted ‘illegally’. Gillard and her government portrayed WikiLeaks as if a criminally bent organisation. The American administration was depicting WikiLeaks as a terrorist organisation. What led a highly skilled lawyer such as Gillard to abrogate the presumption of innocence, to dismiss the right of WikiLeaks as whistleblowers, as investigative journalists, as acting in the public interest? Prime Minister Gillard fell into line with the contrived rage from the American government and its clandestine institutions – a nation of which a majority of its conservatives and excessive self interest groups were calling for the smashing of WikiLeaks and for Assange’s blood. Psychosocially this was displaced anger – it was about guilt and being exposed. Censorship protects the guilty. This type of anger and the subsequent malice and vindictiveness have been a tragic constant in the human narrative; where moral forces shine the light on the immoral or amoral and are then punished for doing so.
President Barack Obama’s administration has prosecuted and jailed more whistleblowers than any previous American administration.
The David and Goliath like tussle between the oppressed and the oppressor continues.
Haiti is one of the world’s poorest nations. It is the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. More than 80 per cent of Haiti’s predominately rural population lives in poverty. During the past decade the poverty has degraded further, becoming more extreme and dire. The life expectancy of a Haitian is 57 years of age. Less than half the Haitian population is literate and only one child in five attends secondary schooling. Less than 25 per cent of the population have access to safe water. The Haitian population continues to grow at about 200,000 per year.
In November 2010, WikiLeaks released 1,918 documents from 2003 to 2010 – ending six weeks after the January 12, 2010 earthquake which further devastated Haitian life. The documents were among the most disturbing I have read of the files published by WikiLeaks, in how America was controlling Haitian policy-making but to the detriment of the Haitian people.
It is not news that America meddles, bullies, wars with nations who do not abide. But it is darkly disturbing to read these documents and to see one of the world’s powerless nations downtrodden further by the world’s most powerful superpower. The Haitian cables wreak an air of hopelessness. One cannot not be moved by the Haiti cables.
TONY JONES: Okay. You're watching Q&A. Remember you can send web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen to find out how to do that. Well, the next question is a video question and it comes from Julian Assange, who is under house arrest in England.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Prime Minister, you just got back from Washington but what Australian citizens want to know is which country do you represent? Do you represent Australians and will you fight for Australian interests because it's not the first time that you or a member of your cabinet has been into a US government building and exchanged information. In fact, we have intelligence that your government has been exchanging information with foreign powers about Australian citizens working for Wikileaks. So Prime Minister, my question to you is this: when will you come clean about precisely what information you have supplied the foreign powers about Australian citizens working or affiliated with Wikileaks and if you cannot give a full and frank answer to that question, should perhaps the Australian people consider charging you with treason?
TONY JONES: Take the treason part first, if you like.
[ ... CONTINUED ... ]
TONY JONES: What about espionage which, of course, is the charge the United States would like to lay at the feet of Julian Assange?
JULIA GILLARD: Well, Mr Assange hasn't been charged with anything relating to Wikileaks. He's got some legal issues relating to personal conduct questions - alleged personal conduct questions in Sweden - and no one in the United States raised with me Mr Assange. No one.
-- formal accusation of felony
-- issued by grand jury
-- based on proposed charge, witness testimony & other
-- presented by public prosecutor (District Attorney)
-- grand jury vote that there is enough 'evidence'
-- of 'probability' that a 'crime' was committed
-- & that accused should be tried
-- District Attorneys do not present full case
Grand Juries
-- used in federal charges
-- due to Fifth Amendment to US Constitution
-- capital crime (or otherwise infamous crime) presentation to Grand Jury required
-- states use 'preliminary hearing' in place of grand jury
Sealed Indictment
-- indictment (formal accusation)
-- sealed so it stays non-public until unsealed
Federal court ruling re sealed indictments example:
"The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons."
Anyone else wonder why the then Prime Minister of Australia was not informed by her American counterparts (and strategic, defence and trade allies), that an American Grand Jury had issued a sealed indictment for the head of Australian journalist-publisher, Julian Assange, about 6 weeks prior to the Prime Minister's appearance on national Australian television?
Likewise, in the case of Australian Foreign Minister Rudd (aka deposed-by-Gillard former Labor Prime Minister) ... over a year down the track.
Yes, I realise it is a 'sealed' indictment, but if US private intelligence contractor, Stratfor, knew about the issue of a sealed indictment against Assange in January of 2011 (as per their leaked communications), the US government knew also, of course.
UNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.
In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ''We have a sealed indictment on Assange.''
He underlined the sensitivity of the information - apparently obtained from a US government source - with warnings to ''Pls [please] protect'' and ''Not for pub[lication]''.
Mr Burton is well known as an expert on security and counterterrorism with close ties to the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He is the former deputy chief of the counter-terrorism division of the US State Department's diplomatic security service.
Stratfor, whose headquarters are in Austin, Texas, provides intelligence and analysis to corporate and government subscribers.
On Monday, WikiLeaksbegan releasing more than 5 million Stratfor emails which it said showed ''how a private intelligence agency works, and how they target individuals for their corporate and government clients''.
The Herald has secured access to the emails through an investigative partnership with WikiLeaks.
The news that US prosecutors drew up a secret indictment against Mr Assange more than 12 months ago comes as the Australian awaits a British Supreme Court decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned in relation to sexual assault allegations.
Mr Assange, who has not been charged with any offence in Sweden, fears extradition to Stockholm will open the way for his extradition to the US on possible espionage or conspiracy charges in retaliation for WikiLeaks's publication of thousands of leaked US classified military and diplomatic reports.
[ ... ]
The Australian embassy in Washington reported in December 2010 that the Justice Department was pursuing an ''active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act''.
In recent answers to written parliamentary questions from the Greens senator Scott Ludlam, the former foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd indicated Australia had sought confirmation that a secret grand jury inquiry directed against Mr Assange was under way.
Mr Ruddsaid ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US. He added that Swedish officials had said Mr Assange's case would be afforded ''due process''.
The US government has repeatedly declined to confirm or deny any reported details of the WikiLeaks inquiry, beyond the fact that an investigation is being pursued.
The Stratfor emails show that the WikiLeaks publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables triggered intense discussion within the ''global intelligence'' company.
In the emails, an Australian Stratfor ''senior watch officer'', Chris Farnham, advocated revoking Mr Assange's Australian citizenship, adding: ''I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that potentially damage Australian interests upset me. If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.''
But Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assaultagainst Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''
While some Stratfor analysts decried what they saw as Mr Assange's ''clear anti-Americanism'', others welcomed the leaks and debated WikiLeaks's longer-term impact on secret diplomacy and intelligence.
Stratfor's director of analysis, Reva Bhalla, observed: ''WikiLeaks itself may struggle to survive but the idea that's put out there, that anyone with the bandwidth and servers to support such a system can act as a prime outlet of leaks. [People] are obsessed with this kind of stuff. The idea behind it won't die.''
Stratfor says it will not comment on the emails obtained by WikiLeaks. The US embassy has also declined to comment.
"Together with 25 other media partners from around the world, we have been investigating the activities of this company for some months, and what we have discovered is a company that is a private intelligence Enron. On the surface, it presents as if it's a media organisation, providing a private subscription intelligence newsletter, but underneath it is running paid informants networks, laundering those payments through the Bahamas, and through Switzerland, through private credit cards. It is monitoring Bhopal activists for Dow Chemicals. It is monitoring PETA activists for Coca Cola.
So, it is engaged in a seedy business, and not ready to be content with merely monitoring activist for big corporations or providing private intelligence to the US military. It has now started its own internal strategic private investment fund, where it is using this information from insiders -- paid information from insiders -- in order to invest in what it calls a wide variety of geopolitical financial instruments, such as stocks, bonds, and currencies, and this makes News of the World look like kindergarten. I think it is an important exposure for us. It is part of a long continuation that we have had in exposing the activities of secret organisations. Late last year, we worked on the spy files release, showing some 176 organisations involved in providing surveillance agreements and, in some cases, bulk surveillance agreements to monitor whole countries, and so this is a private intelligence organisation.
The activities of intelligence organisations increasingly are privatised and, once privatised, they're taken out of the realm of the Freedom of Information Act, of US military law, and so they are are often used by governments who want to conceal a particular activity. But Statfor is simply out of control. I mean, even as a private intelligence organisation, it has been completely hopeless in protecting the identity of its informants, or even providing accurate information. It has engaged in internal deals with its captive financial investment firms that it is setting up. So it really is some type of Enron, where there is not even proper corporate control within the organisation."
-- end audio --
Daily Mail UK
'Shadow CIA' buys state secrets for cash via Swiss bank accounts, claims WikiLeaks as it releases 'stolen' files
By Daily Mail Reporter Updated: 07:43 EST, 28 February 2012
Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks today started to publish more than five million confidential emails from the global intelligence company Stratfor. The emails, dated from July 2004 to late December 2011, are said to reveal the 'inner workings' of US-based firm known as the 'Shadow CIA'. [ ... ]
WikiLeaks accused Stratfor of 'routine use of secret cash bribes to get information from insiders', and claims an email from chief executive George Friedman in August 2011 suggested his concern over its legality.
In it, he wrote: 'We are retaining a law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 'I don't plan to do the perp walk and I don't want anyone here doing it either.' The group said: 'Like WikiLeaks' diplomatic cables, much of the significance of the emails will be revealed over the coming weeks, as our coalition and the public search through them and discover connections.' It said Stratfor did secret deals with dozens of media organisations and journalists - from Reuters to the Kiev Post.
'While it is acceptable for journalists to swap information or be paid by other media organisations, because Stratfor is a private intelligence organisation that services governments and private clients these relationships are corrupt or corrupting.' The group said it has also obtained Stratfor's list of informants and, in many cases, records of its pay-offs.
"Assange, who has not been charged with any offence in Sweden, fears extradition to Stockholm will open the way for his extradition to the US on possible espionage or conspiracy charges in retaliation for WikiLeaks's publication of thousands of leaked US classified military and diplomatic reports."
Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd - 2012 " ... acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US."
EMMA ALBERICI: We'll get to your political ambitions shortly. Let's begin though with Bradley Manning and the charge that he aided the enemy. When you published the documents he gave you, didn't it occur to you that you might be compromising American and allied military operations in the release of that information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, there's been a lot of speculation and rumours about that by the yellow press. But the fact is not even the Pentagon alleges that a single person came to harm as a result of any of our publications anywhere in the world, and in fact, no other government agency does either. It is not a matter in this case. That's one of the disturbing aspects about the Bradley Manning case, is that they have forbidden the defence to table any evidence whatsoever that no-one came to harm and the prosecution is not going to table any evidence - because there isn't any - that anyone did come to harm.
EMMA ALBERICI: We've learnt that a Navy SEAL found WikiLeaks documents at the Pakistan compound where Osama bin Laden was killed. Presumably you knew it was possible, even probable, that those documents would be read by al-Qaeda, sensitive documents you were releasing.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well I am sure al-Qaeda reads the New York Times. He mentioned that he read Bob Woodward books. He probably has People, maybe even Who Magazine, possibly even Dr Seuss laying around his compound. So what? There's no allegation that al-Qaeda was in any way aided by the publications that we published. Despite the fact, despite the fact that Bradley Manning has been charged with aiding the enemy, a capital offence, the judge in this case has said that the prosecution does not need to show that al-Qaeda was aided in any way whatsoever and the prosecution doesn't allege that al-Qaeda was. All they intend to show is that al-Qaeda had our publications just like everyone else in the world.
EMMA ALBERICI: How can you be 100 per cent certain that information you've released hasn't contributed to at the very least an atmosphere of mistrust between the US and others?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, look, the United States' behaviour is what has led to an atmosphere of distrust. People should not trust the United States military industrial complex. Of course they shouldn't. We've seen abuse after abuse. In fact [WikiLeaks] revealed that the United States military, the Pentagon has been involved in the killing, directly or indirectly, according to its own records, of 129,000 people. Now that wasn't simply in aggregate in Iraq or in aggregate in Afghanistan. That was the individual death records and their locations and what military units were involved in those two countries. That's what we documented.
EMMA ALBERICI: So it doesn't matter to you if you did contribute to a sense of acrimony between the US and other countries?
JULIAN ASSANGE: It does matter; in fact it's very important that the level of trust is proportionate to the level of behaviour. So it's been an extremely important thing that - for example, that Australians do not trust speculative military adventures in Central Asia. Of course it is.
EMMA ALBERICI: One of the key charges levelled against you is that you released that massive volume of material with scant regard for the consequences. Certainly Julia Gillard has said that there was no moral purpose to what you were doing.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, you know, the Senate has twice demanded that Julia Gillardapologise for her statements. Twice they have passed that resolution. Julia Gillard's libellous statements are made outside of Parliament. She's only saved by the statute of limitations. Have resulted in a banking blockade against an Australian publisher. They've also resulted in the Bank of America refusing to send a payment to WikiLeaks, the Australian political organisation. Julia Gillardhas a lot to be responsible for in terms of her libellous comments. If we go to our publications - well not even NATO in Kabul, as it said to CNN, could find a single person in need of protection.So this is all yellow press hype. The Government doesn't allege it. NATO has even looked into the speculative component and says that there's nothing.
EMMA ALBERICI: You've been in the Ecuadorian embassy for a year now. How much longer do you expect to be there?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well it's an interesting question. The situation is very interesting. But, you know, I'm quite optimistic. The support for WikiLeaks as an organisation increases. [...]
And I think the lies and fictions of Bob Carr, for example, are now well and truly over.Even his office is now speaking about the grand jury in the United States. We've seen in the Bradley Manning trial this week, the intent and focus of the United States Government to go after [WikiLeaks]. And they're aware that this organisation and people like it and our values are forming a new body politic and people like Edward Snowden are part of that phenomena.
EMMA ALBERICI: We will discuss Edward Snowden, but before that I wanted to ask you how much contact you're having with the Australian High Commission there in London.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, so that's actually - it's remarkable to look at the statements made by the Foreign Minister, but other Australians who have been in difficult situations will tell you it's all exactly the same. So, I have not met anyone from any consulate, any Australian Government official since 2010, since I was in prison. In the time that I've been in this embassy here - we laugh about it, that once a month, there will be a tick-the-box call to the consul here saying, "Well, how's Mr Assange?" And, well, my response is, "Well, what's your offer?" The last time that they offered some medical assistance to the Ecuadorian Government - the only concrete offer that they ever put on the table - the Ecuadorian consul went to meet with the Australian consul, completely utterly wasted his time. The result of that was, "Well, here you are, here's a list of doctors in London." A list of doctors that the Australian Government is going to pay for? "No." Nothing, nothing at all. Just a list of doctors that I should never, ever go to, apparently. Because, in fact, all that the so-called consular support is doing here is it's simply collecting political intelligence for Bob Carr. There's an Australian member - there's a DFAT member sitting in on the Bradley Manning case. There has been for about six months, secretly sitting there, recording notes. Are those notes passed on to our legal team? Absolutely not. They produce briefing notes for Bob Carr so he can set up his press lines.
So actually, so-called consular support for me and for many other Australians in similar situations, what it's actually about is collecting political intelligence for the minister to set up their press lines, so it's really a type of corruption where money that should be spent on actual consular support is simply spent on producing press releasesfor theForeign Ministerto make it look like he gives a damn about Australians. As we know, he doesn't give a damn about Australians at all. Since the 1970s he's been in bed with the US. Even as a union leader he was having multiple meetings with the US embassy.
EMMA ALBERICI: I know you say that the last real contact you had was 2010. What advice have they given you about your predicament?
JULIAN ASSANGE: They have given no advice, nothing at all. No advice, no information, nothing whatsoever. Not me, not to my lawyers, nothing. You see these absurd claims byBob Carr saying that there's been, I don't know, 87 consular contacts. They include just calling, just this tick-a-box call procedure.No information whatsoever. We asked, "Can the Australian consul give me a passport?," for example. "No." The absurd response is, "Well just come down to the Australian consulate." It's a joke. I mean, they insult the Ecuadorians with this sort of behaviour. They insult me. They insult all of Australia with this sort of behaviour.
EMMA ALBERICI: And is that the basis for your pitch for election to the Australian Senate?
JULIAN ASSANGE:
[...] You know, we went toe-to-toe with the Pentagon, we've gone toe-to-toe with many other corrupt states. Canberra is a corrupt little mini-state. We all know that. There's a corruption of purpose. We elect people, we send them to Canberra to represent Australians, to represent Australians to the bureaucracy, to hold the bureaucracy to account, to represent Australian interests overseas. And yet we have people likeBob Carr and Julia Gillardrepresenting mining industries, representing Macquarie Bank, representing their long-lost American pals. That is not acceptable.
EMMA ALBERICI: Well how do you expect to represent the people of Victoria when you're locked up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and you're wanted in Sweden on sexual assault allegations?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, you mention these in an inflammatory way. People should go to Justice4Assange.comand they can read all about your so-called allegationswhere even the women concerned say they had absolutely no intention to file any such formal allegations. This is a matter that has been taken by the Swedish state. That is admitted in the Supreme Court here on paper, it's admitted in the High Court here. This is matter taken by the Swedish state. So people should have a look at Justice4Assange.com. They can also look at the excellent Four Corners investigation into that entire episode.
The above is only extracts that I find interesting. The entire transcript is available at the link provided.
It's hard to say who's more despicable of the Australian political parties.
Going by the video on ASIO, CIA, MI6 and Nugan Hand Bank, quietly fraternising with the Americans is standard in Australian politics. One imagines the practice also continues with Australian intelligence, who appear to be the unelected government of the country (judging by the 1970s unseating of the democratically elected Whitlam government).
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Australia is still run by the CIA ... which would explain a lot when it comes to the zero assistance Assange has had. Let's face it, it's not likely the CIA deposed of an Australian Prime Minister in the 1970s, and just quietly went home afterwards.
So, what does that say about Australia's nationhood, freedom, and democracy?
For those that haven't seen the video | here or below:
"Karl Rove's career in U.S. President George W. Bush's administration began shortly after the first inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001." [here]
"... authors of [book] Bush’s Brain produce material that underscores the fact that for the first time in modern history a president attained office through outright criminality." [WSWS]
Rise of Bush & Rove, apparently, coincided with therise of "semi-fascist elements from the Christian right," and Rove is said to "represents the rise of political gangsterism in the Republican Party." [below & here]
"In 2002 and 2003 Rove chaired meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), an internal White House working group established in August 2002, eight months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WHIG was charged with developing a strategy "for publicizing the White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States." [here]
Long-term friend of thenSwedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt (prior PM, said to be the power behind the Sweden PM 'throne' - PM said to defer to him. Bildt exposed as US spy & in English (elsewhere) here (re Expressen's attempt at casting this as 'smear', see WikiLeaks press release - here.
Long-term friend & advisor of thenSwedish PM, Fredrik Reinfeldt
Julian Assange, journalist/publisher, WikiLeaks, who released:
the Collateral Murder video on 5th April 2010 (depicting US war crimes); and
the Afghan War Logs: 2004-2010 (comprising 91,000 US reports), on 25 July 2010);
before going on to release the Iraq War Logs (comprising 391,832 US reports) that same year: October, 2010.
EXTRACTS [this section - not strict order]
Bush’s hatchet man: two biographies of Karl Rove
Bush’s Brain and Boy Genius
By Joanne Laurier 19 July 2003
Both volumes are muckraking accounts of Rove’s career, but despite their varying levels of criticism, the journalist/authors cannot help but express admiration for him. At various moments, it becomes clear that the authors measure Rove by the standards of contemporary American culture: Rove is a success, a “winner” and not a “loser,” no matter how unattractive he is as a personality and political type.
Bush’s Brain begins by claiming that Rove is “something grander” than a presidential advisor. “His influence marks a transcendent moment in American politics: the rise of an unelected consultant to a position of unprecedented power,” which may “raise” constitutional questions. The book’s authors describe Rove as the “co-president of the United States.” This is a remarkable assertion, but even more remarkable is the failure of the authors to grasp that the rise of an unelected consultant takes place as the consequence of the rise of an unelected president! Rove’s prominence is one expression of the quasi-Bonapartist character of the Bush administration.
“Cabinet appointments were vetted through him [Rove], judicial nominations crossed his desk, as did the details of a proposed energy bill, administration policy on stem-cell research, steel tariffs, and health care policy. Nearly every speech was shown to Rove before it was delivered,” asserts Boy Genius.
This wide portfolio is all the more significant because Rove seems to have little interest in the substance of policy, outside of its impact on maintaining political office. He rose through the ranks of the Republican Party as a career political operative, concerned mainly with the process of manipulating public opinion to produce a desired electoral result.
While ahard-core right-winger, Rove is not a product of the Christian fundamentalists, the neo-conservatives, the Southern racists or other factions of the contemporary far right. He comes from a slightly earlier, but equally foul, political tradition—the McCarthyite red-baiter.
Born in Denver in 1950, Rove grew up in Colorado, Utah and Nevada. Beginning his political career as a die-hard Nixonite (from age 9), Rove “escaped the Vietnam draft, but loathed everything those anti-war protesters on TV stood for,” according to Boy Genius. “I came from a relatively conservative state, Utah, and it was hard to sympathize with all those Commies,” proclaimed Rove.
After dropping out of college, Rove’s first foray into dirty tricks campaigning was in Illinois in 1970.
The notion that Bush is unchallengeable, a quasi-mythical being, is patently absurd and, more than anything, demonstrates the political outlook of these supposed critics. The temporary success of the Bush-Rove team has less to do with their innate strength than with the historic collapse of liberalism and the prostration of the Democratic Party. The current crisis arising from the exposure of Bush administration lies about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” whatever its immediate outcome, demonstrates the fundamentally narrow social base of the present regime and its inherent political weakness.
Bush’s eventual victory was only due to the machinations of the Republican Party on election night and in Florida in the subsequent weeks, a conspiracy in which Rove was centrally involved, culminating in the anti-democratic ruling by the US Supreme Court that shut down vote-counting.
To help his clients win office, Rove conducted “whisper wars”—a genteel way of saying slander campaigns—against political opponents. Whispers of homosexuality in the Texas state government purportedly undermined the gubernatorial campaign of incumbent Ann Richards in her unsuccessful 1994 fight against Rove’s client George W Bush. The same tactic was used in the 2000 GOP primary against John McCain. Rumors were circulated that McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, had become mentally unhinged as a result of his imprisonment.
Although Bush was Rove’s premier asset—“the keys to the kingdom”—the latter maintained a list of private business clients who paid for his political advice. Among them was tobacco giant Philip Morris, which hired Rove to provide “political intelligence.” Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos and Angolan anti-communist guerrilla leader and mass murderer Jonas Savimbi also paid Rove to lobby for them.
The authors of Bush’s Brain produce material that underscores the fact that for the first time in modern history a president attained office through outright criminality. Documents released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) some 19 months after the election reveal that the Bush team flew an estimated 250 operatives to Florida to disrupt the vote recount. Dubbed the “Brooks Brothers Riots” (after the upscale clothing worn by the disrupters), a successful effort was organized to stop the recount in Miami-Dade county of the estimated 10,000 “undervotes”—ballots for which no presidential choice had been registered by the original machine count.
The authors of Bush’s Brain contend that “Rove represents a new species of advisor,” a “product of the permanent campaign, the co-president, whose relationship with Bush, and his faithful guidance, have put him at the heart of power in a manner unknown to previous political consultants and U.S. electoral history.” But Rove must be placed within the appropriate political context—the takeover of the Republican Party by semi-fascist elements from the Christian right. He represents the rise of political gangsterism in the Republican Party, and his current political “success” is the product of the alliance of these forces with the Christian fundamentalists, for which he has been a leading facilitator.
In general, the authors elevate Rove’s role at the expense of other members of the Bush administration, such as Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Both books tend to exaggerate his significance in order to avoid a more probing analysis of the present government and the political and social crisis in America.
Nonetheless, the ascent of this right-wing mediocrity, whose only apparent skill is manipulation and deceit, to the highest levels of power is telling. It is one expression of the decay of bourgeois democracy in the US and the degeneration of the ruling elite as a whole. In the final analysis, semi-criminal elements like Rove come out of the woodwork to attempt to rescue, by any means necessary, a fatally diseased American capitalism.
Richard Phillips: Can you comment on the latest details of the United States grand jury indictment and what happens if you’re extradited to Sweden?
Julian Assange: The new evidence that emerged from the Stratfor files—emails from a Texas-based private intelligence agency—show that the US government has obtained a secret grand jury indictment against me. The US ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis Susman, stated in February 2011 that the US government would wait and see what happened with the current Swedish extradition case as to whether it would pursue extradition itself.
The US ambassador to Australia [Jeffrey L. Bleich], one week prior to Obama’s recent visit, also told the Australian media that the Australian government might have to consider its extradition obligations in relation to me, presumably in case I returned to Australia. And while WikiLeaks has many of its people under legal attack, the organisation itself is also under an extra-judicial financial blockade. There are some 40 people who have been swept up in operations by the FBI, Scotland Yard or other police forces.
... Even if we are successful in the Supreme Court, the situation will be similar because the United States is likely to unseal its espionage charges through the grand jury and apply directly for my extradition from Great Britain.
RP: Do you have any detailed information on direct collusion between Britain, the US and Sweden over your extradition?
JA: What we can say publicly is that on December 8, 2010, the Independent newspaper published a report about informal contacts that were already occurring at that stage between the US and Sweden in relation to my extradition. The Australian embassy in Washington also sent a cable to Canberra round this time, stating that the US intelligence and criminal investigation into WikiLeaks was of “unprecedented scale and nature.” It also said that the criminal prosecution in relation to me was “active and vigorous”. That material was the result of a Freedom of Information request and printed in the Sydney Morning Herald a few months ago.
The UK crown prosecution service has also refused a request under the Freedom of Information Act in relation to communications over potential extradition arrangements, stating that it would affect Great Britain’s diplomatic relations with other countries. In the middle of last year, the UK’s extradition reform panel, which was appointed by the home secretary, met with Eric Holder, the US attorney general, and a number of members of the Defence Department in the United States. In addition, there have beenother recent meetings between Carl Bildt, the Swedish minister of foreign affairs [and close friend of Karl Rove], and William Haig, the UK foreign affairs minister.
RP: Can you comment on the role being played by Australia’s Gillard government?
JA: The reaction by the Gillard government to WikiLeaks activities, in particular our release of the US diplomatic cables, was publicly the worst of any nation. Gillard falsely stated that our organisation was engaged in illegal activities. This was found to be false by an Australian Federal Police investigation.
Together with the attorney general, she initiated a “whole of government task force” against WikiLeaks, recruiting the Australian Federal Police, the external intelligence agency ASIS, the domestic intelligence agency ASIO, the defence department and the attorney general’s department. Publicly, Gillard has not issued a single statement of support and we are not aware of any private support.
The US government is trying to erect a new interpretation of what it means to be a journalist. It wants any communications with a source to be viewed legally as a conspiracy. In other words, it wants journalists to be completely passive receptacles for others. But this is simply not how national security journalism has been traditionally done. If they succeed, it will be the end of national security journalism in the West as we know it.
These attacks on us have also been picked up by other countries and used to legitimise their own crackdowns. For example, two Swedish journalists are currently being jailed in Ethiopia. They were investigating a Swedish oil company by the name of Lundin—Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildthad previously been a director of the company—but have been sentenced to 11 years jail in Ethiopia on terrorism charges. The Ethiopian prime minister says that it is perfectly acceptable to treat journalists this way and has pointed to my circumstances as justification.
The issues facing WikiLeaks are entirely political and therefore a matter of public concern. My message to people everywhere is: do not wait until WikiLeaks is bankrupted or its members extradited to the United States before acting. It will be too late then. If people act strongly now, then the organisation will succeed. WikiLeaks has a lot of support and we’re battle hardened now. We’re not going down without a fight and if everyone pulls together then we will win.
Rove Suspected In Swedish-U.S. Political Prosecution of WikiLeaks
EXTRACT
Rove has advised Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt for the past two yearsafter resigning as Bush White House political advisor in mid-2007.
Legal Schnauzer blogger Roger Shuler scooped me on the story about Rove's Swedish work in a Dec. 14 column, "Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?" But a big part of our role as web journalists should be following up on each other's work.
Shuler is an expert on how Rove-era "Loyal Bushies" undertook political prosecutions against Democrats on trumped up corruption charges across the Deep South, including against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, his state's leading Democrat. The Siegelman case has turned into most notorious U.S. political prosecution of the decade, as readers here well know. It altered that state's politics and improved business opportunities for companies well-connected to Bush, Rove and their state GOP supporters.
Is Karl Rove Driving the Effort to Prosecute Julian Assange?
EXTRACT
That Assange's legal troubles would originate in Sweden probably is not a coincidence, our source says. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has been called "the Ronald Reagan of Europe," and he has a friendship with Rove that dates back at least 10 years, to the George W. Bush campaign for president in 2000. Reinfeldt reportedly asked Rove to help with his 2010 re-election in Sweden.
On the hot seat for his apparent role in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Rove sought comfort in Sweden. "When [Rove] was in trouble and did not want to testify on the three times he was invited [by the U.S. Congress], he wound up in Sweden," our source says. "Further, it was [Reinfeldt] that first hired Karl when he got thrown out of the White House.
"Clearly, it appears that [Rove], who claims to be of Swedish descent, feels a kinship to Sweden . . . and he has taken advantage of it several times."
Why would Rove be interested in corralling Julian Assange? To help protect the Bush legacy, our source says. "The very guy who has released the documents that damage the Bushes the most is also the guy that the Bush's number one operative can control by being the Swedish prime minister's brain and intelligence and economic advisor."
PM's Biographer Sees Rove Influence In Swedish Politics
EXTRACT
George W. Reinfeldt: The art of making a political extreme makeover
Dr. Brian Palmer of Uppsala University in Sweden provided an illuminating interview on the Jan.13 edition of my Washington Update radio show regarding the influence of Karl Rove on Swedish politics as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party.
Got the worst pain -- ever. Out of nowhere. Think it's my stomach, but it's quite high up under my rib cage. Hope I'm not having a heart attack. If there's no further posts, I'm dead. LOL Novorossiya are steaming-rolling head, judging by the reports. But we'll see. Can't sit still. Sort of squirming in my seat, huffing & puffing to take the edge off whatever's wrong. Hoping couple of pain killers kick in and take the edge off this soon. Poland/Tusk is lobbying for the NATO-Ukraine incursion. Guessing Tusk is either (a) ultra conservative or (b) from the US/NGO 'sausage factory'. Same old anti Russian articles around the traps. Get ridiculously worked up about it, like I'm taking it personally or something. Too bad I don't have a chilled, sarcastic take on it like some of the Twitter dudes do -- they're so funny. Anyway, it's not like the Russians care. Rogozin, Putin and Lavrov have all been going about their business -- and working the Russian crowds. Lavrov seems to have a few fans. Take it he's a popular figure.
Getting worked up about the bad press Russia gets is rather embarrassing: nobody's worried and tomorrow's another news day. That's just how it works -- there's a 'villain' who gets a daily beat-up and Russia is that 'villain'. Anyway, there's no holding back the tidal wave of nasty, underhand poison-pen persuasion pieces from assorted lobbyists.
Someone pointed out that the propaganda's dished out in a stop-start fashion and it's true. Every so often there's a crescendo of official 'condemning' statements, combined with an avalanche of press vilification ... followed by a lull. Not sure how it works. I've only started to watch politics. Never had an interest before. Might have already mentioned, Italy's Federica Mogherini's been appointed the UN High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Policy of the Economic Union, which I'm quite pleased about. Better than Bildt and Tusk. And better looking. Unfortunately, Tusk's got himself the President of the European Council job, but in a toss up between creepy Carl Bildt or Tusk being appointed, Tusk suddenly shines. LOL Tusk/Poland and the Baltic states sound like they've joined forces to bitch about the Mogherini appointment. It was reported that they weren't pleased with her appointment because she's too 'close' and too 'soft' on Russia, or something like that. Everyone's whispering about the lack of experience, as well. But it's probably not a real job, so who cares. She's kinda hot in a milfy way, so what's the problem? And it's not like Ashton's some Wonder Woman: those nuclear talks are ongoing. The EU alliances and back-room lobbying probably matter far more than the actual positions. But that's just a guess. Speaking of Ashton, she met with the Iranian foreign minister (I think it was) for another round of EU nuclear talks. Russia's up for another round of sanctions from the US puppets and Australia's Prime Minister also joined in bleating about sanctions to be taken against Russia. What is utterly appalling is that NO SANCTIONS are to be taken against the US puppet government in Ukraine and that all these representatives of 'truth', 'justice', 'peace', 'democracy' - and other fanciful crap we're supposed to believe - meekly adopt US policy and support the shelling of civilians by the Ukraine government. Not a word of condemnation. So what does that tell you? New Zealand has its own suppression order and spy scandal, under the John Key government. Also, his Justice Minister resigned over some very unsavoury allegations. But that's not all, folks ... NZ's law prohibits spying on citizens of NZ, but that hasn't stopped the government spying -- AND they've executed illegal warrants (re Kim Dotcom raid) AND they've refused to answer questions about funding from their US equivalent, so there's obviously some murky stuff going on in NZ government and intelligence -- and it has USA and NSA fingerprints all over it. Hollywood's a player in this as well ... but I'm not entirely clear on the ins and outs of the Dotcom scandal, because I've been flitting from one thing to another that happens to take my interest. Facebook are censoring the Novorossiya supporters' posts by the look of things. I've hooked them up with a Ukraine article that appears to indicate that the Ukraine government is having social media stuff censored. Translation kind of garbled, but I think that's the gist of it -- and if that's the case, it's outrageous. But I don't know who to complain to.
"Facebook removed our post about the abominable declarations of neonazi Battalion Azov leader, Andriy Biletsky,..." >> Porkkky has done a deal w/ -- blocking social media for Ukraine government - http://www.president.gov.ua/news/31108.html
Anyway, that's some of the stuff that caught my attention. Disappointed that I don't cover more ground. No idea what's happening in France, apart from new cabinet having been formed after the economy minister bitched about not-so-socialist policy.
The Labor government in Australia has sprung to mind, but they're not socialists, although they're supposed to be the 'left'. Not sure what they are. Sound like they're just another bunch of conservatives -- or they're happy to make the sift wherever necessary (if it means gaining power). Worse, they appear to be US-Israel dominated. Check out the WikiLeaks cable regarding Julia Gillard's determined climb to the top ... over Rudd's 'dead' body, so to speak.
---------------------------------------------
PS
Geez, it's annoying pressing 'publish' and finding typos.
What's with the 'drafting blindness', I wonder? As in, why are typos easier to see once you've published?
A rather boring post, as well. Sounds like it's been written by a robot. Don't see that improving any time soon. Boring writing comes naturally. :)
If I've repeated any info, my apologies. I've not been focused on the blog, so I'm just rambling.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 