American Finance Minister Jaresko's Bid for Top Job

Article SOURCE http://russia-insider.com/en/ukraines-american-finance-minister-throws-down-gauntlet-wants-top-job/ri13589 http://russia-insider.com/en/ukraines-american-finance-minister-throws-down-gauntlet-wants-top-job/ri13589 Ukraine's American Finance Minister Now Demands PM Yatsenyuk's Job or Else Jaresko has now indicated she wants to be named prime minister or she will likely resign bringing upon Ukraine the displeasure of the IMF Mark Nicholas |  30 minutes ago What happens when you combine the universally fashionable clamoring for technocratic rule of "experts" with the uniquely Eastern European worship of a mythical wise and competent west? You get a strong likelihood your "democracy" will look suspiciously like rule by foreigners who never stood for election in your country, never mind won any. Welcome to Kiev 2016.   Ukraine's 2014 post-Maidan party elections passed without Natalie Jaresko. She wasn't on any of the party lists as she was not eligible to run being a US citizen. She was placed in charge of the country's finances, regardless, largely on her prestige as an 'American expert'. Now she is throwing down the gauntlet, and making a play to be handed over the running of the entire government. Her selling point? Only a "technocratic" government composed of people without "future political ambitions" can deliver Ukraine from its sorry present state:     There comes a time when politics needs to be great, so that the whole country comes together to address fundamental issues for its future.     In my opinion, only technocratic government can address these challenges. The new team must 'belong' to nobody other than the people of Ukraine.     New leaders should have no political past or, indeed, have no desire for any political future. The team must not be subject to the domination of the oligarchs or any politicians’ ‘friends’.     I am ready to assemble such a team that right now is able to work in the interest of the whole country, all its citizens, not some political or business groups. In other words, oligarch Poroshenko get out of the way so that expert Jaresko can fix the mess. Trouble with that is that Poroshenko and his crony Groysman who is the Parliament speaker and the other candidate to replace Yatsenyuk as PM have at least been elected to something, while Jaresko has never even stood as a candidate. The other trouble is that beneath the nice talk of "the whole country coming together" and "working in the interest of the whole country" there is an implicit threat in Jaresko's play:     The stakes are higher now because if Jaresko is not given the top job, she may well resign. This would have an even bigger impact than Abromavicius’ departure, as she has been so high profile during the negotiations to restructure Ukraine’s debt and in a fight with Russia over a $3bn Eurobond that Kyiv is refusing to repay. That's right. Jaresko wants to bring the whole country together (under her) and work for all its citizens (as their boss), but if she isn't given the chance then she will take her toys and go home and let Ukraine fend for itself. What would that mean in practice is that Ukraine would be cut off from any future IMF money:     She is by far the favourite of Ukraine’s international donors, who are already extremely unhappy with the lack of change or visible commitment to reform in Ukraine.     The International Monetary Fund (IMF) de facto suspended Ukraine’s stand-by agreement without formally saying so, and has not made a transfer for five months now.     The last tranche of $1.7bn was supposed to come in February following the government’s adoption of an IMF-compliant tax code, but Abromavicius’ departure started a fresh political crisis that has put everyone off.     Appointing Jaresko PM would end this crisis and should avoid the need for calling early elections. Jaresko presents herself as being the ultimate outsider beholden to no one, but actually she is looked upon favorably by Ukraine's western creditors (erroneously described as "donors"). Far from being an independent operator without a clan of her own it only so happens that her connections are to power centers outside rather than within Ukraine. Now the former US State Department official is leveraging the ties to western finance to its maximum to try and take control of the government for herself and the outside interests she represents. In fact two of her key demands for any members of the new government under her are that they have no loyalties to any Ukrainian parties:     1. Members of the government should be devoted exclusively to serving the people of Ukraine; not themselves nor their party nor vested interests. The main criterion for team members is impeccable reputation; And that they cooperate with the IMF:     4. They all should believe that Ukraine can be successful only through democratic and economic freedoms, in particular, through the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and IMF program; So Ukrainians, do you want the Poroshenko candidate, or the IMF candidate? Think carefully. http://russia-insider.com/en/ukraines-american-finance-minister-throws-down-gauntlet-wants-top-job/ri13589 ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Ukraine's neo-'Nazis' cannot be nationalists in favour of independence, or Ukraine wouldn't be run by a bunch of Americans and their Ukraine oligarch puppets. Bet they're CIA shills.

Video

S-S-S-Single Bed (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f98DOYcfIJ4 I double dare you Charlie & His Orchestra (Propaganda Swing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdcMHeJ9XrU The Way That You Do It (1976) Pussyfoot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hUW-ar2XbE ---------------------- ---------------------- Think I favour #1 ...  it's the shorts & flower.

America's illegal wars: Kosovo & Iraq

Article SOURCE http://russia-insider.com/en/kosovo-evil-little-war-almost-all-us-candidates-liked/ri13583 America's illegal wars:  Kosovo & Iraq Source:  @antiserbianism http://russia-insider.com/en/kosovo-evil-little-war-almost-all-us-candidates-liked/ri13583 Kosovo: An Evil Little War (Almost) All US Candidates Liked Nebojsa Malic Originally appeared at RT Although the 2016 presidential election is still in the primaries phase, contenders have already brought up America’s failed foreign wars. Hillary Clinton is taking flak over Libya, and Donald Trump has irked the GOP by bringing up Iraq. But what of Kosovo? The US-led NATO operation that began on March 24, 1999 was launched under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine asserted by President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. For 78 days, NATO targeted what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – which later split into Serbia and Montenegro – over alleged atrocities against ethnic Albanians in the southern province of Kosovo. Yugoslavia was accused of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” as bombs rained on bridges, trains, hospitals, homes, the power grid and even refugee convoys. NATO’s actions directly violated the UN Charter (articles 53 and 103), its own charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The war was a crime against peace, pure and simple. Though overwhelmed, Yugoslavia did not surrender; the June 1999 armistice only allowed NATO to occupy Kosovo under UN peacekeeping authority, granted by Resolution 1244 – which the Alliance has been violating ever since. US Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Albright, was considered the most outspoken champion of the “Kosovo War.” She is now a vocal supporter of candidate Clinton, condemning women who don’t vote for her to a “special place in Hell.” Clinton visited the renegade province in October 2012, as the outgoing Secretary of State. She stood with the ‘Kosovan’ government leaders – once considered terrorists, before receiving US backing – and proclaimed unequivocal US support for Kosovo’s independence, proclaimed four years prior. One Sanders aide, Jeremy Brecher, resigned in May 1999 arguing against the intervention as it unfolded, since the “goal of US policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction.” Trouble is there was no “destruction.” Contrary to NATO claims of 100,000 or more Albanians purportedly massacred by the Serbs, postwar investigators found fewer than 5,000 deaths – 1,500 of which happened after NATO occupied the province and the Albanian pogroms began. Western media, eager to preserve the narrative of noble NATO defeating the evil Serbs, dismissed the terror as “revenge killings.” NATO troops thus looked on as their Albanian protégés terrorized, torched, bombed and pillaged across the province for years, forcing some 250,000 Serbs, Jews, Roma, and other groups into exile. After George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, his administration adopted the Clinton-era agenda for the Balkans, including backing an independent Albanian state in Kosovo. None of the Republicans, save 2012 contender Ron Paul, have criticized the Kosovo War since. Billionaire businessman Donald Trump actually has been critical – though back in 1999, long before he became the Republican front-runner and the bane of the GOP establishment. In October that year, Trump was a guest on Larry King’s CNN show, criticizing the Clintons’ handling of the Kosovo War after a fashion. “But look at what we’ve done to that land and to those people and the deaths that we’ve caused,” Trump told King. “They bombed the hell out of a country, out of a whole area, everyone is fleeing in every different way, and nobody knows what’s happening, and the deaths are going on by the thousands.” The problem with Trump, then as now, is that he is maddeningly vague. So, these remarks could be interpreted as referring to the terror going on at that very moment – the persecution of non-Albanians under NATO’s approving eye – or the exodus of Albanians earlier that year, during the NATO bombing. Only Trump would know which, and he hasn’t offered a clarification.  Though he has the most delegates and leads in the national polls for the Republican nomination, the GOP establishment is furious with Trump because he dared call George W. Bush a liar and describe the invasion of Iraq as a “big fat mistake.” According to the British historian Kate Hudson, however, the 2003 invasion was just a continuation of the “pattern of aggression,” following the precedent set with Kosovo. Last week Secretary of State John Kerry reluctantly branded the actions of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria “genocidal” towards the Christians, Yazidis, Shiites and other groups. He cited examples of how IS destroyed churches, cemeteries and monuments, and murdered people simply because of who they were. It was March 17, eight years to the day since 50,000 Albanians began a three-day pogrom in Kosovo, doing the very same things – while their activists in the US were raising funds for the very same John Kerry, as he ran for president as the Democratic candidate. “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal,” [Hillary] Clinton said. Given the Kosovo Albanians had renamed a major street in their capital ‘Bill Clinton Avenue’ and erected a massive gilded monument to Hillary’s husband, her comments were hardly a surprise. She is unlikely to be condemned for those remarks by her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. While arguing that Congress should have a say in authorizing the intervention, Sanders entirely bought into the mainstream narrative about the conflict, seeing it as a case of the evil Serbian “dictator” Slobodan Milosevic oppressing the unarmed ethnic Albanians. He saw “supporting the NATO airstrikes on Serbia as justified on humanitarian grounds.” http://russia-insider.com/en/kosovo-evil-little-war-almost-all-us-candidates-liked/ri13583 -------/\/\/ Kate Hudson, Historian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/14/usa.kosovo A pattern of aggression Kate Hudson Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate Hudson Thursday 14 August 2003 11.42 AEST The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense debate - as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states. That challenge, however, is not a new one. The precursor is without doubt Nato's 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, also carried out without UN support. Look again at how the US and its allies behaved then, and the pattern is unmistakable. Yugoslavia was a sovereign state with internationally recognised borders; an unsolicited intervention in its internal affairs was excluded by international law. The US-led onslaught was therefore justified as a humanitarian war - a concept that most international lawyers regarded as having no legal standing (the Commons foreign affairs select committee described it as of "dubious legality"). The attack was also outside Nato's own remit as a defensive organisation - its mission statement was later rewritten to allow for such actions. In Yugoslavia, as in Iraq, the ultimate goal of the aggressor nations was regime change. In Iraq, the justification for aggression was the possession of weapons of mass destruction; in Yugoslavia, it was the prevention of a humanitarian crisis and genocide in Kosovo. In both cases, the evidence for such accusations has been lacking: but while this is now widely accepted in relation to Iraq, the same is not true of Yugoslavia. In retrospect, it has become ever clearer that the justification for war was the result of a calculated provocation - and manipulation of the legitimate grievances of the Kosovan Albanians - in an already tense situation within the Yugoslav republic of Serbia. The constitutional status of Kosovo had been long contested and the case for greater Kosovan Albanian self-government had been peacefully championed by the Kosovan politician, Ibrahim Rugova. In 1996, however, the marginal secessionist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army, stepped up its violent campaign for Kosovan independence and launched a series of assassinations of policemen and civilians in Kosovo, targeting not only Serbs, but also Albanians who did not support the KLA. The Yugoslav government branded the KLA a terrorist organisation - a description also used by US officials. As late as the beginning of 1998, Robert Gelbard, US special envoy to Bosnia, declared: "The UCK (KLA) is without any question a terrorist group." KLA attacks drew an increasingly heavy military response from Yugoslav government forces and in the summer of 1998 a concerted offensive against KLA strongholds began. In contrast to its earlier position, the US administration now threatened to bomb Yugoslavia unless the government withdrew its forces from the province, verified by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The US was now clearly determined to remove Milosevic, who was obstructing Yugoslavia's integration into the western institutional and economic framework. Agreement was reached in October 1998 and 1,000 OSCE observers went to Kosovo to oversee the withdrawal of government troops. But the KLA used the pullback to renew armed attacks. In January 1999 an alleged massacre of 45 Kosovan Albanians by Yugoslav government forces took place at Racak. Both at the time and subsequently, evidence has been contradictory and fiercely contested as to whether the Racak victims were civilians or KLA fighters and whether they died in a firefight or close-range shootings. Nevertheless, Racak was seized on by the US to justify acceleration towards war. In early 1999, the OSCE reported that "the current security environment in Kosovo is characterised by the disproportionate use of force by the Yugoslav authorities in response to persistent attacks and provocations by the Kosovan Albanian paramilitaries." But when the Rambouillet talks convened in February 1999, the KLA was accorded the status of national leader. The Rambouillet text, proposed by the then US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, included a wide range of freedoms and immunities for Nato forces within Yugoslavia that amounted to an effective occupation. Even the former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, described it as "a provocation, an excuse to start bombing". The Yugoslavs refused to sign, so bombing began on March 24 1999. Despite claims by western leaders that Yugoslav forces were conducting "genocide" against the Kosovan Albanians, reports of mass killings and atrocities - such as the supposed concealment of 700 murdered Kosovan Albanians in the Trepca mines - were often later admitted to be wrong. Atrocities certainly were carried out by both Serb and KLA forces. But investigative teams did not find evidence of the scale of dead or missing claimed at the time, responsibility for which was attributed to the Yugoslavs. The damage inflicted by US and British bombing, meanwhile, was considerable, including civilian casualties estimated at between 1,000 and 5,000 deaths. Nato forces also used depleted uranium weapons - linked to cancers and birth defects - while Nato bombers destroyed swathes of Serbia's economic and social infrastructure. Far from solving a humanitarian crisis, the 79-day bombardment triggered the flight of hundreds of thousands of Kosovans. Half a million Kosovan Albanians who had supposedly been internally displaced turned out not to have been, and of the 800,000 who had sought refuge or been forced into neighbouring countries, the UNHCR estimated that 765,000 had already returned to Kosovo by August of the same year. A more long-lasting result, however, was that half the Kosovan Serb population - approximately 100,000 - left Kosovo or was driven out. So was the war worth it? Notwithstanding the Nato-UN protectorate established in Kosovo, the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia was no longer under threat - the Kosovans did not achieve their independence. Nor has western support for the KLA been mirrored in Kosovan voting patterns: the party of Rugova, who never backed the violent path, received a convincing majority in the elections in 2001. Meanwhile, violence dogs the surviving minority communities, and in spite of the presence of 40,000 K-For troops and a UN police force, the Serb and other minorities (such as Roma) have continued to be forced out. More than 200,000 are now estimated to have left. In the short term, support for Milosevic actually increased as a result of the war, and the regime was only changed through a combination of economic sanctions, elections and heavy western intervention. Such interference in a country's internal politics does not generally lead to a stable and peaceful society, as evidenced by the recent assassination of Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic, the most pro-western politician in the country. As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq: illegal aggression justified by spin and fabrication enables might to prevail and deals a terrible blow to the framework of international law. As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq, people's wellbeing comes a poor second-best to the interests of the world's self-appointed moral and economic arbiters. ·Kate Hudson is principal lecturer in Russian and East European politics at South Bank University, London and author of Breaking the South Slav Dream: the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/14/usa.kosovo -------/\/\/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT The American-Anglo NATO criminal alliance consistently uses the pretext of 'hoomanitarian' grounds to lawlessly invade or bomb one unlucky nation after another. In the instance of Yugoslovia, they violated the following: UN Charter (articles 53 and 103) (USA's own charter) 1975 Helsinki Final Act 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and their aggressive incursions set a precedent for Iraq. The American-Anglo politicians are liars and war criminals. Notice how NATO re-wrote its mission in the aftermath of violating international law? It's the same legal redefinition game they played to commit atrocities and war crimes with impunity, against German prisoners of war during their post WWII massacre and occupation of vanquished Germany (which they still occupy today). It's the same shifting of the goal posts and betrayals they've been adept at, consistently violating treaties with native Americans. It's the same dishonesty being played out on the international stage, with the Americans 'unsigning' themselves from the Rome Statute, so they can avoid being held accountable for their war crimes by the International Criminal Court ('ICC') at The Hague. In the lead-up to the establishment of the ICC, USA signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline: -- to ensure that it would be a State party to the agreement -- that could participate in DECISION-MAKING on how the Court works To make certain it would remain immune to prosecution: Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. Washington ... has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals. https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/us-opposition-to-the-icc.html 'Hague Invasion Act'  - Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002)   In addition: US threatens military force if personnel held at The Hague: -- U.S. President George Bush -- 3 August, 2002, signs: -- Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002) -- dubbed the 'Hague Invasion Act' -- because the law:     -- law authorises the use of US military force     -- to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country     -- being held by ICC in The Hague -- USA punishing those that ratify ICC treaty     -- Servicemembers Protection Act     -- provides for withdrawal of US military assistance     -- from countries ratifying the ICC treaty     -- reconstructs US participation in UN peacekeeping, unless US obtains immunity from prosecution     -- but provisions may be waived on 'national interests' grounds -- however, the US has written into law, the provision that the US may:     -- assist internationally to 'bring to justice' those accused of:         -- genocide;         -- war crimes;         -- crimes against humanity;     -- including assistance with efforts of ICC. *USA makes an exception of itself and its partners in crime. http://www.globalissues.org/article/490/united-states-and-the-icc

Rio Tinto - Environmental Disaster - Tonto National Forest - Oak Flat, Arizona

Rio Tinto - Environmental Disaster Tonto National Forest - Oak Flat, Arizona Environmental Disaster Tonto National Forest Oak Flat, Arizona & Rio Tinto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh0b8EkaO5A ---------------------- ----------------------

The Great Whore, An Unnatural Monstrosity: Warmonger Mercantile Empire

Article SOURCE as marked -------/\/\/ The Great Whore An Unnatural Monstrosity: Warmonger Mercantile Empire -------/\/\/ Senator John McCain Chased Off Navajo Nation https://youtu.be/xlkEraYbUko VIOLATING APACHE SACRED GROUNDS Resolution Copper Mining subsidiary of British-Australian mining conglomerate Rio Tinto unsuccessfully sought ownership:  Oak Flat Campground after 13 attempts new bill slipped through by Sen. John McCain & signed into legislation by Obama Opens up Oak Flat for copper mining https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAptwpX-03E Rio Tinto - Environmental Disaster Tonto National Forest - Oak Flat, Arizona LINK | Post -------/\/\/ While I was searching for a list of broken US treaties with native Americans, this is some of what I looked at and found interesting. Still haven't found my comprehensive list of broken treaties, but I understand hundreds of treaties have been broken by the US government, to further dispossess the native Americans whose homelands were invaded by competing European colonists of all descriptions and their respective entourages.  Even today, native Americans are being cheated and dispossessed by the US government (referred to below and here). Yet the brutal proto-Nazi invader of North America and exterminator of Native American peoples, in what is an ignored colossal-scale native American holocaust, committed by an assortment of covetous marauders whose insatiable greed has spawned an unnatural monstrosity that is a corporate warmonger mercantile empire, a 'nation' modelled on a trading company. Mercantile America, the monstrous decayed money-making whore, of her shadowy, god-of-greed worshipping, faceless investor-pimps. America, the whore, whose perverse corporate and oligarchy-controlled politicians and her performer-ambassadors, have the audacity to screw up their lying countenances in feigned 'concern' for the rights of a series of hapless citizens abroad, whose nations they aim to destroy, after yet another relentless campaign of monstrous lies and manipulation. America the great whore of terror, that rains depleted uranium bombs on the very citizens her crass oligarchy-owned politicians and shameless ambassadors profess to seek to 'protect.'  America, the lying, bloated mercantile whore, that's arming terrorists and assassins and knowingly unleashing civil wars,  when her agents are not otherwise promoting  bloody regional conflicts. America, the bloated whore that greedily and mercilessly disregards her own downtrodden, exploited and politically castrated masses, piously lectures the rest of the word on 'hooman rights,' as she prepares to launch yet another unlawful military assault, in pursuit of mass dispossession and mass enslavement abroad; not for the advancement of the many, but for the profit of a mere few that she has always served. And, so, the world stage is set for yet another theatrical performance in aid of this greedy whore's agenda, before the controlled Western press and before a series of supranational bodies that serve to legitimise the great whore's conquests, in what is a long history of greed and brutality,  and deceit and dispossession of other peoples, on behalf of  the privileged, faceless few that control the unnatural monstrosity that is the corporate warmonger American mercantile empire. -------/\/\/ US Program to Subordinate Native American Nations & Expropriate The Land & Resources "U.S. Indian policy has consistently followed a program to subordinate American Indian nations and expropriate their land and resources" [6]   Trail of Broken Treaties Native Americans Dispossessed of Land source NYT & as marked: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/weekinreview/the-nation-mending-a-trail-of-broken-treaties.html   Starting from the Treaty of Fort Pitt in 1776 -- The US government signed 700 treaties  [3] -- NOTE:  700 signed treaties, to 371 ratified Between 1778 & 1871:  US Congress ratified 371 treaties *establishing hundreds of 'nations within a nation' (ie reservations) at that point:  140 million acres owned by native Americans   as at 2000:  only 56 million acres -- barely 2% of USA controlled by native Americans c. 1800 - native American Indians -- controlled THREE-QUARTERS of the United States eventual land mass Indian Removal Act of 1830 -- eliminated all Indian land rights east of the Mississippi River 1887 - Act -- changed common tribal lands into individual allotments 1887 - Native American had 130 million acres remaining [4] By 1932 - ie within 45 years -- almost 90 million acres of tribal land -- was appropriated or sold privately -- before the act was repealed in 1932 1933 - Native Americans had only 49 million acres left, much of it waste and desert [4] Native American tribes lost almost TWO-THIRDS of their land by private property sales under US government policy "designed to make farmers and capitalists out of them"   Eisenhower era policy:  TERMINATION -- paid native Americans to dissolve their tribal units Result of both US government policies:  devastating impact on tribal land holdings However, as at 2000, NYT reports:  a third of the 554 recognized tribes run some sort of gambling operation -- with revenues of $6 billion per annum (2000 figures), enabling native Americans to buy back a tiny portion of land that was appropriated & to mount legal challenges in respect of some portions of native land above info source http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/weekinreview/the-nation-mending-a-trail-of-broken-treaties.html   US government has broken hundreds of native American treaties In addition, state governments have violated terms of native American treaties: eg.  New York - Oneidas native Americans -- 1784 - occupied 6 million acres in New York -- obtained treaty with President Washington -- however, next century, state officials bought & sold their land -- in violation of treaty & failure to obtain federal approval for native land transfers -- by 1919, tribal land merely:  32 acres -- present-day gambling revenue buy-backs regain only 11,000 acres -- but legal contest to regain 250,000 acres from reservation -- result 20,000 non-native land owners paying price of New York state not abiding by law above info source http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/weekinreview/the-nation-mending-a-trail-of-broken-treaties.html -------/\/\/ "Oneidas spilled their blood for the American cause at the Battle of Oriskany in August 1777. One month later the Oneidas would again fight side-by-side with the colonists at the Battle of Saratoga." "During the terrible winter of 1777-78, the Oneida People once again came to the aid of their friend. Then-General George Washington and his troops were near starvation at Valley Forge. The Oneidas carried corn hundreds of miles from their homeland in Central New York to the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania. An Oneida woman, Polly Cooper, stayed at the encampment to show the soldiers how to prepare the white Indian corn which differed from today’s hybrid yellow corn." "In May 1778, the Oneidas again aided the colonists at a skirmish at Barren Hill (near Philadelphia), where this time the bravery of the Oneida scouts saved the Marquis de Lafayette, the French hero and commander of the American Army’s Northern Department." "The Oneidas sacrificed much for American cause of freedom. Their villages were burned by fellow Iroquois who sided with the British and they were driven from their homelands. By the end of the war, the Oneidas had lost about one-third of their population." http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/morenews/39552757.html -------/\/\/ Lakota Sioux Black Hills, South Dakota -- longest unresolved Indian land claim in USA (2000) -- claim pursuant to 1868 treaty -- land promised to Lakota Sioux opened to white settlement -- AFTER GOLD DISCOVERED -- leading to:  Battle of the Little Big Horn -- century later:  Lakota win settlement -- settlement $106 million (1980) -- Latkota Sioux refuse:  holding out for return of sacred Hills info source http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/weekinreview/the-nation-mending-a-trail-of-broken-treaties.html -------/\/\/ USA treaties with native Americans: relationship between federally recognised tribes &  USA = relationship between sovereigns (between govt & govt) -- “government-to-government” principle -- grounded in the United States Constitution -- states have no authority over tribal governments (unless expressly authorised by Congress) -- government-to-government relationship with states recognised -- despite this:  tribes frequently collaborate and cooperate with states -- via compacts or other agreements re matters of mutual concern (eg. environmental, law enforcement) Public Law 280 (1953) -- states required to assume civil & criminal jurisdiction -- over federal native American lands:     -- Alaska (see exemptions)     -- California     -- Minnesota (except Red Lake Res.)     -- Nebraska     -- Oregon (except Warm Springs Res.)     -- Wisconsin     -- later acts of Congress, court decisions & state actions -- result to retrocede jurisdiction back to federal US govt. -- muting some effects of Public Law 280 (1953) -- strengthening tribal jurisdiction re civil & criminal reservation matters Limitations on tribal powers of self-govt similar to imitations on states: -- no power to make war -- no power to engage in foreign relations -- no power to print money or issue currency 1970 - term 'Native American' broad usage -- as alternative to 'American Indian' -- 'Native American' broadly applied since then above info source / more information: http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ 1778 - first treaty with Delawares 1871 - Congress ended treaty-making with Indian tribes 1778 - 1871:  US Senate ratified 370 treaties 1778 - 1871:  US negotiated 45 other treaties but failed to ratify same *note:  treaties broken by being superseded by Congressional legislation Since 1871, relations re native Americans -- formalized and/or codified by:     1.  Congressional acts     2.  Executive Orders     3.  Executive Agreements     USA - three types of federal lands: 1.  military 2.  public 3.  Indian Native American Federal Reservations -- land reserved for tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement -- with United States -- by executive order, or by federal statute or administrative action -- as tribal homelands -- USA government HOLDS TITTLE to land IN TRUST on behalf of Tribe -- abt. 56.2 million acres are held in trust by US govt. -- abt.  326 Indian land areas, administered as federal Indian reservations -- largest:  16 million acre Navajo National Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah -- many smaller reservations equal less than 1,000 acres -- some reservations = remnants of original tribal land holding -- other reservations created by US govt. forced resettlement of Indian tribes -- not all federally recognised Indian tribes have a reservation -- generally, federal Indian reservations except from state jurisdiction (incl. tax) -- EXCEPT when Congress makes a specific authorisation Other types of 'Indian lands': 1.  Allotted lands - mostly post Civil War under various treaties & laws, incl:     -- General Allotment Act in 1887 ('the Dawes Act')     --  Indian Reorganization Act of 1934     allotments conveyed to members of Indian tribes (held in trust - federal govt)     *but removal from trust = subject to state and local taxation     *result:  thousands of acres of land lost by Indians         -- abt. 10 million acres of individually allotted lands held in trust for allottees & heirs      2.  Restricted status - individually held Indian land - approval for transfer required 3.  State Indian reservations - held in trust by state / no state property tax (but state tax) -------/\/\/ John Trudell -- American Indian Movement activist -- d. 8 Dec. 2015 1979 in Washington D.C -- re Leonard Peltier Defence Committee -- convicted of murdering two FBI agents in June 1975 - Pine Ridge Reservation -- Trudell delivered anti-government speech - steps of FBI building -- in 12 hours, at 1:30 in morning Trudell's:     -- pregnant wife Tina     -- their three children     -- his mother-in-law     -- burned to death fire at home - Shoshone Paiute reservation in Nevada     -- FBI declined to investigate     -- later proved the cause was arson         http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/12/188457/remembering-john-trudell-voice-american-indian-movement -------/\/\/ "The message embedded, not only in Peltier's imprisonment, but in the scores of murders, hundreds of shootings and beatings, endless show trials and all the rest of the systematic terrorization marking the FBI's anti-AIM campaign on Pine Ridge, was that the Bureau could and would make it cost-prohibitive for Indians to seriously challenge the lot assigned them by policy-makers and economic planners in Washington, D.C. The internal colonization of Native America is intended to be absolute and unequivocal." "The logic of COINTELPRO, as evidenced in this excerpt from a 1976 document concerning the basis for an "investigation" of AIM and its supporters. Note the mention of the deliberate fostering of "paranoia" among AIM leaders through the use of informers, and insistence that the right of government to suppress dissent outweighs the rights of citizens to "privacy and free expression."" source - http://www.whale.to/b/cointelpro_7.html -------/\/\/ [1]  http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/weekinreview/the-nation-mending-a-trail-of-broken-treaties.html [2]  http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ [3]  Manipulating Treaties, Rosanna Masiola & Renato Tomei (2015) [4]  http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5058 [5]  http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/12/188457/remembering-john-trudell-voice-american-indian-movement [6]  COINTELPRO - American Indian Movement (AIM)      http://www.whale.to/b/cointelpro_7.html [7]  http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/morenews/39552757.html -------/\/\/ ---------------------- ---------------------- Native Americans Still Being Dispossessed by US Govt & Capitalist Greed Bills introduced by Senator John McCain: (Public Law 93-531 as amended in 1996 (Partition)1999 (Settlement) 2001 (Enforcement of Resettlement) 2005 (Expansion of Resettlement) " ... bills introduced by Senator McCain - has led to the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Hon Abdeltalif Amor's condemnation of human rights violations inside the US, over the stripping of rights and forced resettlement of these gentle and deeply spiritual band of Dineh-Navajo Indians from Arizona, swept off of lands they'd owned since 1500 A.D. so that Peabody Western Coal could mine the Coal from beneath their farmlands and tap their wells to slurry pipe it to a power station in Nevada)." "ACSA study reveals that after assembling a team of "pro-Peabody Western Coal" Indians and obtaining a false "Hopi-Navajo" Tribal Counsel designation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for these paid Tribal representatives, in the period 1974-1996, Senator McCain was able to get large bands of the Dineh-Navajo relocated off their lands, so that Peabody Western could mine the coal under their farms at nominal expense. Common Cause has suggested McCain was indirectly compensated by street name cash contributions to his Federal Election Fund during three Presidential runs, and through family business with Las Vegas Casinos who benefited from the coal driven power he supplied." http://warisacrime.org/node/33033

British Police 'Bowed' to Social Media Row

Article SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/26/charges-dropped-against-man-who-confronted-muslim-woman-croydon http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/26/charges-dropped-against-man-who-confronted-muslim-woman-croydon Man who 'confronted Muslim woman' over Brussels says police acted foolishly Matthew Doyle to ‘launch formal complaint’ against Metropolitan police after it was forced to withdraw charges against him Nicola Slawson @nicola_slawson Saturday 26 March 2016 14.56 GMT A man who was mistakenly charged by the Metropolitan police, after claiming on Twitter to have confronted a Muslim woman over the Brussels terror attacks, says he is to launch a formal complaint against the force. Matthew Doyle, from south Croydon, provoked anger on social media after he tweeted about the encounter with the woman. He said the woman gave a “mealy-mouthed” response after he demanded she “explain” the Brussels attacks. Police charged him with an offence under the Public Order Act on Thursday. But on Friday night they were forced to withdraw the accusations, admitting they had no power to charge him in the first place. Doyle said police had bowed to a social media row. “In reality, the Met added ammunition to whatever I said,” he said. “Concurrently, their press office should be cautioned about issuing largely self-congratulatory statements and then being forced to backtrack.” He added: “They smelt blood, but got egg on both their face and reputation.” Doyle had been due to appear at Camberwell Green magistrates court on Friday. But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) later confirmed it did not agree with the Met’s decision, adding that the force did not have the legal power to bring the charges. Police then released a second statement announcing that the charges against Doyle had been dropped and admitting they had had no power to charge him in the first place. It said: “Following discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Doyle is no longer charged with the offence and will not be appearing at court. “Police may not make charging decisions on offences under Section 19 of the Public Order Act.” The CPS guidance on its website about racist and religious crime states that a charge under the act can only be prosecuted with consent of the attorney general and requires a referral to the counter-terrorism division to be dealt with by a specialist prosecutor. The offence carries a maximum jail term of seven years. Doyle’s tweet on Wednesday read: “I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ‘Nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply.” Initially, Twitter users mocked Doyle for his tweet, posting hundreds of parody versions, however later tweets where Doyle referred to Muslims as “towel heads” were met with anger. Asked if he regretted his original tweets, he said: “I said how I felt at that moment in time. If anyone fanned the flames, it was the nameless Twitter trolls who smelt a lynching on their hands. “For the Met to bow to social media rows, it is not only foolish of them but I will be making a complaint against them and [claiming for] damages for trashing my flat, taking all my electronic stuff from my flat and forcing me to leave London.” He said his case had been “badly handled” and complained of his treatment at the police station. He said: “Denied a shave, shower, food etc, I was stripped of any dignity to appear at Camberwell court without looking like a dishevelled hobo, which I am not.” Doyle also explained the details of his interaction with the unnamed woman. He claims he had a “polite conversation” with a British Muslim after approaching her on Wednesday morning. “We had a polite conversation and moved on. I thanked her for talking to me,” Doyle said. The conversation took place in south Croydon. If I was being either threatening or racist, she was free to report me.” In its statement, the Metropolitan police said it would consult further with the CPS over the issue. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/26/charges-dropped-against-man-who-confronted-muslim-woman-croydon ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Metropolitan Police London are vile, disgusting pigs arresting people without any grounds whatsoever, and misusing police powers to penalise trivial social media messaging. How dare they exceed their powers and harass and terrorise the public OVER TWITTER MESSAGES. They trashed that guy's flat, removed his belongings, and slung him in a cell.  And for what?  A string of meaningless words?  For that, I think they should be dismissed from their jobs and immediately prosecuted, as a lesson and a deterrent to others. Anything less than a prison sentence for those that abuse positions of power is insufficient. The same could be said of those that abuse some 'victim' claim or other:  maybe those that claim moral indignation while harassing others and lodging police complaints etc for 'offence' or whatever, should likewise be prosecuted for malicious complaint and wasting police time, or something like that. The culture of crying some 'victimhood' or other, of constantly whining about some delicacy or other, and the culture of collectively harassing other people, of claiming moral indignation, and harassing those who have dissenting points of view is disgusting beyond belief.  It is the result of decades-long institutional, educational and media indoctrination & the affect on police can be seen above. Owing to more of the same indoctrination, migrant crimes are hushed up in the West.