INDEPENDENT - THE ENTIRE FREE WORLD IS IN PERIL

Richard Ferrer Tuesday 29 July 2014 We ignore the new anti-Semitism taking hold at our peril As Europe prepares to mark the 75th anniversary of the Second World War, the warning signs from history are hauntingly familiar The oldest hatred, this time cloaked as legitimate concern for Gaza, has once again cast its ominous shadow across Europe. From Berlin, Paris and Rome to Amsterdam, Ankara and Istanbul, protests are turning into pogroms. ... There can be no political solution because Hamas is not a political party. It is an ideology. It wants to kill Jews. Every last one. If it’s the last thing it does. If it achieved its ideological aims it would spell danger for the entire free world. The only way forward, the only chance to end this merry-go-round of misery, is for the Palestinian Authority, bolstered by the EU, UN and USA, to finally remove this malignant cancer from their midst. Then there will be genuine be hope for peace. ... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-ignore-the-new-antisemitism-taking-hold-at-our-peril-9634919.html

This guy's taken a leaf out of Gatestone Institute's recent article (blog post - here) ... with a slight twist on the theme.

BLACKWATER - IRAQ - TRIAL

Re - Article from Washington Post (28 July 2014) - here.

Headline's 'Government suppressed ..." but it's hardly 'suppression' of evidence if the evidence was inadvertently excluded due to a set of oversights.  Well, either that or it's some sort of ruse or performance for the sake of the jury.

Basically, four (4) Blackwater US mercenaries are currently on trial for the deaths of '14' persons in 2007, Nisoor Square, Baghdad, Iraq.

I've not been following the trial and the entire Blackwater and Iraq thing is very new to me.

Defence is claiming that the government withheld photographs taken at the scene, which could be vital evidence in the defence of the accused.

Photographs taken at the scene -- principally, photographs of 8 shell castings that 'could fit' into an AK-47 (which is a weapon used by the insurgents and the Iraqi authorities); as well as photographs of those at the scene.

The prosecution says the absence of the photographs was inadvertent and that it arose out of a series of oversights.

The defence complains that they haven't had the opportunity to question witnesses -- who have already appeared at the trial -- in relation to the photographs.

Nobody on the US side has the shell castings.  Not the State Department.  Not FBI.

In a 2007 statement to the FBI, 'then-army captain' Peter Decareau, one of the first to arrive at the scene, stated that Iraqi army General Baja took items from the scene.

The possibility was raised that the Iraqi authorities took the shell castings.

However, WP also says:

Based on Decareau’s testimony, federal prosecutors understood that Decareau did not observe any AK-47 shell casings on the scene, Machen wrote to the defense lawyers.

I don't know how the jury's going, but I'm thoroughly confused right now.

Is there a distinction between the 'scene' and the bus stop location?  Are the bus stop shell casings part of the 'scene'.  If so, why does Decareau's testimony reflect that he did not observe any castings?

Or was there a 'did not observe' declaration because there were no shell castings -- at all?

I'm a little scattered today and finding it extremely difficult to focus on scraps of the story that don't seem to make sense to me.

As I said, I haven't been following and I don't know the ins and outs.  But from what little I've read so far, a bunch of civilians stuck in in traffic were fired upon by US mercenaries -- as well as a helicopter crew who fired from above -- and even an incendiary device was tossed into a car (or perhaps more than one car?).  Forty bullets were fired into a single white Kia at the scene.  The occupants were killed and burnt to a crisp.

Now there's a magic set of photos that were there but 'not there'.  But there's no magic shell castings -- of shells that 'might fit into' an AK-47?  State Department and FBI involvement? Blackwater mercenaries taking the fall for the government?  

The entire thing sounds like crap to me and I wouldn't believe anything presented, but I'm sure a patriotic jury will believe anything set before them.

GAZA - Disarmament of Hamas

Kerry: Truce Deal 'Must Lead to the Disarmament of Hamas' US, EU, UN pressure builds to accept internationally-mediated truce deal, despite heavy rocket fire on Israel. By AFP and Arutz Sheva Staff First Publish: 7/28/2014, 8:19 PM US Secretary of State John Kerry Monday said that international efforts to reach agreement on a truce between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza must lead to the disarmament of Hamas. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183443

Somehow I can't see Hamas agreeing to disarmament, and I've only just begun watching politics.

GAZA - John Kerry - Outrageous Proposition

Krauthammer: Kerry is undermining Israeli-Gaza peace talks Published July 28, 2014 ... Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and a Fox News contributor, said Kerry has caused "wreckage" by intervening. ... Kerry spent Saturday in Paris meeting with several European diplomats and the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey, who are negotiating on behalf of Hamas, hoping to establish an immediate cease fire in the ongoing conflict. Krauthammer said Kerry returned from the negotiations as essentially Hamas’ lawyer, and the plan Kerry supported “would have given Hamas all of its demands.” "(Kerry) hands Israel a proposition that is so outrageous that the cabinet votes 19-0 against it," he said. "Israeli cabinets have never voted 19-0 on whether the sun rises in the east. It was unbelievable." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/28/krauthammer-kerry-is-undermining-israeli-gaza-peace-talks/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

John Kerry the 'Hamas lawyer'?  

I don't think so.

Kerry's 'outrageous' proposal plays right into Israeli hands.  

It's a round of High Fives.

UK - Cameron - EU Migrants & Benefits Reforms

July 29, 2014 12:18 am David Cameron to halve time that EU migrants can claim benefits By George Parker and Helen Warrell David Cameron will announce plans on Tuesday to halve the time that European migrants can claim British benefits, in a drive to stop what he claims is welfare tourism. Mr Cameron will say that from November migrant workers will only be allowed to claim benefits for a maximum of three months, compared with the current six month limit. New rules also require migrants to wait three months before they can claim benefits. ... Downing Street insists that the new rules are compliant with EU law and go with the grain of reforms being pursued in other countries including Germany and France. However, neither Paris nor Berlin support Mr Cameron’s ambition to reform free movement rights generally. ... The UK’s stance on immigration has prompted criticisms from Brussels, with Viviane Reding, EU justice commissioner, suggesting this year that the UK’s immigration debate was “emotional and populist”. She added that discussions in Westminster often ignored the fact that the UK was the biggest exporter of people to the rest of the EU. The UK government has been unable to produce evidence of benefit tourism and has been criticised for not collecting adequate data. A European Commission report published last year found that when all unemployment benefits were totalled, the UK was the only EU member state where there were fewer beneficiaries among migrants – of whom 1 per cent were claiming – than among nationals, where the figure was 4 per cent. [What of other benefits?] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c737e1b6-1676-11e4-a5c7-00144feabdc0.html

The joys of EU membership.

US - 'Partnerships' - NATO - Trade - US Imperialism - War - Death for Profit

"Monday, 28 July 2014 16:52 Another Way To Police the World Written by John F. McManus Another Way To Police the World On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement. After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.” Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations — with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders. Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the United States is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want the United States committed to being their defender. What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO. The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense. A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP). Just as NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the United States with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it. John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission." Source - The New American - here. More like 'another way to pillage the world'. No chance of US foregoing any of the joys of 'partnership', or abandoning NATO or any of the tools that serve corporate American interests. So if corporate America goes to war; heed the call and die for global corporate profits.

World's Worst Job

World's Worst Job Press Secretary   White House press secretary Jay Carney