TBR News June 18, 2014

Jun 18 2014

The Voice of the White House


Washington, D.C. June 16, 2014: “An interesting bit of input.

The US has developed a methodology whereby a plane can be taken off a radar screen. Also, there is the methodology for actually controlling the aircraft in-flight.

Who has done this?

Our DoD has done this and recently did some experimenting with it in Europe and got caught.

They tried it out earlier on that Malaysian plane that suddenly vanished because the US has extensive satellite, and other, controls in that immediate area (because of the PRC)

The actual goal is to be able to send a hidden drone crashing into Vladimir Putin’s plane without getting the blame.

The second would be to nail Edward Snowden.

Both of these individuals are hated by Obama who is determined to get rid of one, or better, both of them but without any blame attached.

I do not understand the technology involved and it is too prolix to fish it out and send it on but my source(s) on this are impeccable.


And on the other side, where facts are irrevelant, we have such bizarre stories bespangling the Internet as this classic psycho-babble about the 9/11 attacks:


International Citizens’ Inquiry Into 9/11 – Toronto, Canada, 2004

Updated list of speakers


There’s an updated list of speakers for the conference up now at the www.911inquiry.org web site.

Among invited and confirmed presenters are:

-Michael C. Ruppert, (journalist/author) From The Wilderness.

-Thierry Meyssan, author – 9/11: The Big Lie; The Frightening Fraud; Pentagate.

-Professor Walter Davis, September 11th and the Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity.

-Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics University of Ottawa, Author – War and Globalization, The Truth Behind September 11; The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order.

-Carol Brouillet, 9/11 activist/organizer International Inquiry Into 9/11, Phase 1.

-Thomas K. Kimmel Jr., former naval officer, retired FBI agent, and grandson of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel—the scapegoated Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 Attacks compared.



 I think it is obvious that mini nukes were used to bring down the three WTC towers. There were no planes crashing into anything. What millions watched was a TV show. The real planes were highjacked electronically, flown out over the Atlantic and detonated. No fuss, no muss. The Pentagon was hit by a shaped charge that was set up inside the area that was vacant and being renovated. The entire operation was conducted by the White House with elements in the CIA and the U.S. military with help from the Israelis (who imagine they are going to take over the world). Maybe they will. The lesson for all of us is these people need to be put out of business, right now, today. It is straight jackets in padded cells for them, or really bad things are going to happen to all of us.


 The Americans were scammed into believing that mini nukes were planted in WTC1 and 2 on 9/11 because the Pentagon was hit by a missile carrying a nuclear warhead which did not explode. I’m not even sure whether there were any planes hitting the WTC – the TV coverage would appear to be a complete computer fabrication

 As a result, the Americans demolished WTC1 and 2 as the mini nukes would cause less destruction if the explosions were at ground level rather than high up in the skyscrapers.


 The nukes which were to be used for the demolition of the WTC complex were stored under WTC 7. Building 7 had to be destroyed so nobody would find the underground railway system used for delivering the nukes to WTC 1 and 2.


But we know now, and scientists have proven it, that the alleged planes were augmented by Tesla Energy Rays beamed at the buildings from a secret site located in New Jersey and controlled by units of the Hidden Hand, led by the notorious Dr. Melbourne Fong….





Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at henry@henrymakow.com



Fomenting a Revolution: Extreme Acts of Greed Against the American People


June 16, 2014

by Paul Buchheit

Common Dreams


Examples of extreme inequality are becoming easier to find. Progressive leaders have us thinking about revolution. If a revolution is to take place, Americans — especially young Americans— need to know the facts, and they need to know how they’re getting cheated, and they need to get angry. The following should help.


1. $1,000,000,000,000,000 in Sales. Not One Cent for Sales Tax


The trading volume on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) reached an incomprehensible $1 quadrillion in notional value in 2012. That’s a thousand trillion dollars. In comparison, the entire U.S. GDP is $17 trillion.


On that quadrillion dollars of sales CME imposes transfer fees, contract fees, brokerage fees, Globex fees, clearing fees, and contract surcharges, many of them on both the buyer’s and seller’s side. As a result, the company had a profit margin higher than any of the top 100 companies in the nation from 2008 to 2010, and it’s gotten even higher since then.


But not a penny in sales tax for the taxpayers who provide publicly-funded infrastructure, technology, systems of law, and security to help them process billions of financial transactions.


Instead — incredibly — CME complained that its taxes were too high, and they demanded and received an $85 million tax break from the State of Illinois.


2. A Single Tax-Avoider Made More Money in 2013 Than ALL the Emergency Responders in the U.S.


Warren Buffett watched his net worth grow by $12 billion in one year, much more than the $8.3 billion our country spends on almost a quarter-million Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics.


Meanwhile, his company, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t been paying its taxes. According to the New York Post, “the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.” A review of Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report confirms that despite profits of almost $29 billion in 2013, a $395 million refund was claimed, while $57 billion in federal taxes remain deferred on the company’s balance sheet.


Berkshire Hathaway does report an income tax expense. But all of it, in the company’s own words, is hypothetical.


3. Walmart: $13,000 per U.S. Employee Taken in Profits, $4,000 per U.S. Employee Taken from Taxpayers


It gets worse. In addition to Walmart’s $19 billion in U.S. profits last year, the four Walton siblings together made about $29 billion from their personal investments. That’s over $33,000 per U.S. employee in profits and family stock gains. Yet they pay their 1.4 million American employees so little that the average Walmart worker depends on about $4,000 per year in taxpayer assistance, for food stamps and other safety net programs.


How does Walmart spend its profits? Instead of providing a living wage for its workers, company management spent $7.6 billion, or about $5,000 per U.S. employee, on stock buybacks, in order to further boost the value of their stock holdings.


4. U.S. Wealth Grew by $25 Trillion in the Recovery, but 90 Percent of Us Got NONE of It


U.S. wealth grew from $47 trillion to $72 trillion in the four years after the recession, largely as a reflection of continued American productivity. In other words, a full one-third of the total wealth in the U.S. in 2013 was generated since 2009. But the richest 10% took all of it.


That’s $6 trillion per year in new wealth for the rich. In contrast, the total annual cost of ‘entitlements’ and the safety net is less than $2 trillion.


One consequence of this redistribution of wealth is that more money has been transferred from minorities to prosperous white Americans. The richest 1% took 95 percent of the gain. Less than two out of every hundred individuals in the richest 1% are black.



5. Extreme Fees: Nickeled and Dimed until the Retirement Fund is Almost Gone


The one- to two-percent fees don’t seem like much, but savvy financial minds know better. It has been estimated that the average underserved household spends $2,412 each year just on interest and fees for alternative financial services. Food stamp recipients have to pay companies like JP Morgan to process their benefits. The unemployed are getting their benefits through banks who issue fee-laden debit cards instead of cash. And it’s not just low-income households paying the fees. A two-earner household with median incomes will pay an average of over $150,000 in 401(k) fees over their lifetimes.


The fees are not only draining us individually, but also at the levels of local and state government. Los Angeles last year spent more on Wall Street fees than it did on its streets. In Detroit, financial expenses might approach a half billion dollars, in a city where homeowners can barely afford the water services. Chicago may end up paying Morgan Stanley $9.58 billion for a $1.15 billion parking meter deal. And in Rhode Island, it has been projected that the state will pay $2.1 billion in fees to hedge funds, private-equity funds and venture-capital funds over twenty years, the same amount the state will be taking from workers by freezing their cost of living adjustments.




All these issues have solutions: a wealth tax for (1) and (4) above; a minimum wage increase for (2); a speculation tax for (3); public banks and Post Office banks for (5).


But the best solution may be another American Revolution.



Goldman Sachs: Too Big To Rein In?  Has Goldman Sachs retained its financial power and political clout?


June 17, 2014

by Robert Weissman

Al-Jazeera English


            On June 11, Goldman Sachs agreed to pay $67m to settle a suit charging the firm and others with colluding to drive down the price of takeovers.


For another firm, paying out tens of millions of dollars to resolve allegations of collusion might provoke an existential crisis. Not for Goldman. The firm did not admit to any wrongdoing and said in a statement: “We’re pleased to put the matter behind us.”


That seems to sum up how Goldman would like to handle everything related to its role in politics and markets over the last two decades. The rest of us shouldn’t be too ready to do so.


To be sure, Goldman Sachs is not solely or even primarily responsible for the 2008 financial crash and the ensuing, worldwide Great Recession. There’s plenty of blame to go around.


But as the leading firm on Wall Street before the crash, as the company most entangled in high-level policymaking, as an innovator of overly complicated and socially destructive trading products and schemes, as an orchestrator of financial deregulation, as an enterprise with tentacles extending so far that it has been accused of manipulating aluminum markets, Goldman Sachs surely deserves plenty of blame.


Not for nothing did columnist Matt Taibbi famously call the firm “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”.


Wall Street has a long list of malefactions for which it must answer. As both the leading firm on Wall Street and a perpetrator of so many abuses, Goldman Sachs can fairly be treated as a stand-in for Wall Street overall. Consider:


•The revolving door: The US government’s failure to control Wall Street was due in large part to the fact that Wall Street executives had their hands on the levers of government power. Political contributions and lobbying made a huge difference (totaling more than $5bn in the decade preceding the crash), but the most important factor was that former Wall Street executives filled top government positions – advancing deregulation, going light on enforcement and shaping policy to accelerate the over-financialisation of the economy. Former Goldman employees were pervasive in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations – and most notably, filled the key position of US treasury secretary during the Clinton (Robert Rubin) and Bush (Hank Paulson) administrations.

•The drive for deregulation: As treasury secretary, Robert Rubin played a crucial role in stomping on efforts by Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Brooksley Born to regulate financial derivatives. As Goldman CEO, Hank Paulson led the successful investment bank push to overturn a Securities and Exchange rule that limited how much investment banks could rely on borrowed money – a key move that enabled much more reckless activity.

•Market complexity: Goldman has been a key innovator and exploiter of the most complicated and complex financial products – the kinds of financial products about which boosters often claim miraculous returns or social benefits, but which typically are revealed over time to be dangerous for both investors and the stability of the financial system.

•Market concentration: Financial firms have extended their reach far into the real economy, often swamping legitimate trading in, say, commodities, with financially-driven schemes that distort the workings of important markets. One notable example includes aluminum, where the New York Times has reported on an “industrial dance [that] has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange”. Goldman purchased one of the largest storehouses of aluminum in the US, holding a quarter of the aluminum on the market. To comply with rules that forbid aluminum from sitting unmoved in a warehouse, Goldman simply moved it between warehouses. Holding the metal drives up prices – by about a tenth of a cent for every aluminum can, according to the New York Times – and made a mint for Goldman.

•Too-big-to-fail subsidy: Like other giant banks, Goldman benefits from the implicit guarantee of a bailout in the event its viability is threatened.The Dodd-Frank Act included many important reforms, but Goldman remains too big to fail. In the wake of the financial crisis, Goldman was aided by a $10bn infusion from the US government, along with access to super-cheap loans from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. Gaining coverage under the government’s protective umbrella required Goldman to convert itself, in legal terms, from an independent investment bank into a bank holding company, a manoeuvre remarkably performed in just a matter of days.

•Duplicity and betrayal of clients: There’s little question that Goldman and its executives looked out for themselves during the high-flying days of the 1990s and 2000s. Less clear is how well Goldman serviced its clients. Most famously, the firm paid the Securities and Exchange Commission $550m to settle charges that it duped investors in selling them the wrong side of a housing bet with the firm and investor, John Paulson. Goldman sold bets on a package of mortgage loans that Paulson thought would fail, without disclosing Paulson’s role.

•Criminal immunity: For all of its shenanigans, no criminal charges have been brought against Goldman or its executives. Nor have any criminal charges been brought against any other leading Wall Street bank or executives for illegalities in the run up to the financial crash. Perhaps this is because no crimes were committed. But perhaps it’s because prosecutors have been frightened about bringing criminal charges against firms they have deemed “too big to jail”.


Over the last few decades Goldman has become emblematic of the problem. Wall Street firms have grown too big, and Wall Street has taken over too much of our economy and gained too much influence in and over our government. The financial services sector is supposed to serve the rest of the economy, not the other way around. And the government must control Big Finance, not the other way around.


Four years after the passage of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, many of its key features have yet to be implemented -the delay itself is due to the ongoing political power of Wall Street. But neither the Street nor Goldman have the same political juice they did before the crash, and there is some evidence that Goldman and the financial sector are slowly retreating to a more manageable size. The trend lines are not yet clear, however.


What should be clear is that we cannot “put the matter behind us”. Banks wrecked the economy once – forcing millions out of their homes, throwing tens of millions out of their jobs, throwing entire nations into crisis – and they will do it again, unless we take steps to prevent it.


Saker scorecard for the US “lukewarm war” on Russia – strategic and tactical levels


June 16, 2014

by Saker


First, I have to explain the title: “A scorecard for US war on Russia”: what we are witnessing today is beyond any doubt a US war on Russia, except that it that is is neither quite “cold” nor “hot”: it’s tepid, lukewarm. Not for the people dying of course, but by it’s choice of methods. It is not a Cold War because people are dying, because tanks, artillery and airpower is being used on a daily basis now, but it is not a Hot War either, because while people in the Ukraine are being killed, the real target of this war is, of course, Russia. In other words, this is not a Russian-Ukrainian war, nor is it a US-Ukrainian war, it is a US-Russian war, fought in the Ukraine with “Hot War” methods, but whose real target are not the murdered people in the Ukraine but Russia as a country and a civilizational project. I think that it is crucial to state that to make a correct analysis of what is going on.

Strategic level analysis

            The USA has no special interests in the Ukraine at all. The only reason why Uncle Sam got so heavily involved is the (totally mistaken) belief – expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton – that “without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower” and that “Putin is trying to recreate the Soviet Union”. Since a reborn USSR would be the single major threat to the US domination of the planet, the US shall spare no effort into making sure that the Ukraine not only breaks away from Russia, but turns into a US colonial protectorate like Poland or Lithuania: rabidly anti-Russian, administered by the EU and controlled by NATO. Of course, the “prize of prizes” would have been Crimea with Sevastopol as a base for the USN and a fantastic “unsinkable carrier” to project US subversive efforts throughout southern Russia, the Caucasus and even the Middle- East. Alas, Putin’s lightening fast action in Crimea completely foiled this part of the plan: instead of getting the entire Ukraine including its crown jewel, Crimea, the AngloZionists were left in full control of West-Central Ukraine (aka “Banderastan”) and an uprising in East-Central Ukraine (aka “Novorossia). However, Uncle Sam also walked away with some real successes: not only was the democratically elected President Yanukovich “regime-changed”, the secession of Crimea and the uprising in the Donbass made the “more or less election” of a pro-US puppet like Poroshenko finally possible. So far so good, but remember, this is not about the Ukraine at all, this is about Russia and only Russia. So the relevant question is not whether the US succeeded in putting a puppet regime in power, but what good it does to the AngloZionist Empire to have Poroshenko in power in Kiev. The answer to that is, of course, very little, if any.

            Again, to understand the US position you have to stop thinking like a rational and mentally sane person, and try to think like an imperialistic maniac hell-bent on world domination who sincerely sees Russia at the #1 obstacle to the realization of this goal. Such a maniac will ask himself a basic question: how much, if at all, is Russia weakened by the current situation in the Ukraine? And, again, the obvious answer is only marginally. Here is how a hypothetical US “1% deep-stater” will think about Russia’s current position:

            They got Crimea, so all our hopes about the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and the Middle-East are gone. In fact, now that Crimea is fully Russia, it is the Russian position in the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and even the Middle-East which has become stronger, much stronger in fact. Worse, by chopping off the Crimea from the rest of the Ukraine, the Russikies have not only created a very dangerous precedent, they have deeply destabilized the richest and best educated part of the Ukraine – the Donbass – leaving us with the a poor, phenomenally corrupt basically broke “Banderastan” to run. Worse, if we did not have our various CIA run death-squads (“Maindanites”, “Right Sector”, “National Guard”, “soccer hooligans”, etc.) then Poroshenko would probably last less than 1 month in power anyway, especially with the accursed Russikes about to turn off the gas spigot if the Ukies don’t come up with a payment plan they cannot afford anyway. The only thing our symbolic pseudo-sanctions against Russia have achieved so far was to push the Russkies to do what they should have done a decade ago: to lower their dependence on the US-controlled banking system, to sever their ties with the Ukie military-industrial complex and to push the Russian business community towards seeking stronger ties with Asia.

            The bottom line is that at least so far the AngloZionist Empire has failed to secure any strategic objective. Russia is as powerful as ever, arguably even more powerful than before the crisis began.

            What about the association agreement with the EU then? It means nothing to the Americans. All that agreement would really achieve would be to further impoverish the rump-Ukraine and create a bloody mess for the EU. Yes, for Russia this would mean maybe two to three years of minor headaches (dealing with illegal immigrants, finding new suppliers, etc.) but nothing truly meaningful. And since it was the EU the broke the Ukraine, they now own it, but then since it is the US which own the EU to begin with, you might as well say that the US now owns what is left of the Ukraine. Hardly a coveted prize…

            There is only one way for the AngloZionists to turn defeat into victory and that way is most obviously to pull Russia into an overt military intervention in the Donbass. An overt Russian military intervention in the Donbass would achieve all the following goals:

Create a fantastic justification for the continued existence of NATO.

Create a fantastic justification for a new Cold War in Europe which would strengthen the US grip on the Old Continent.

Create a fantastic justification for an increase in military spending for all NATO states.

Create a fantastic scapegoat upon which to blame upcoming economic collapse of Banderastan.

Create a fantastic opportunity to demonize Russia and Putin personally.

Create a perfect justification for the CIA to initiate another Operation Cyclone, this time in Novorossia.

Create a great way to show the US public opinion that Obama is a tough, “war President”, with “hair on his chest” and who can show the Russkies who is boss thereby overturning the image of a flaccid and incompetent loser which Obama presently “enjoys”.

Make the Russians pay for the failed war in Syria.

Show all the BRICS countries that nobody can defy Uncle Sam

Re-vitalize the currently comatose and desperate (CIA-controlled) “liberal” opposition in Russia.

Needless to say, seen this time from the point of view of Russia, all of the above are crucial reasons to avoid being sucked into an overt military intervention in the Ukraine. However, non-intervention by itself is hardly a “policy” and it cannot constitute a strategic goal. So let us now look at the strategic goals of Russia.

            Initially, Russia wanted something rather basic: an independent, more or less neutral, but prosperous Ukraine. Not because Russians are inherently just so nice and compassionate, but because the best thing for Russia is to have a prosperous neighbor for which she hold no responsibility but with which she can built mutually beneficial economic ties. Yes, sure, Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities, and the so-called Ukraine is an invention – no such state of nation ever existed before – and it is true that the “Small Russia” (in the meaning of “Core” or “Central” Russia) is the cradle of the Russian civilization, but these are all things of the past. Nowadays, if the Ukies want to call themselves something other than “Russians”, and if they want to try to re-invent themselves a culture ex nihilo – let them. Who cares really? It’s their loss: instead being a part of one of the (relatively) ancient nations and cultures in history they chose to become, well, who knows what? But who cares, it’s their right after all. Their “arguments” might not get much traction with most Russians, especially the educated ones, but this is hardly a reason for conflict. Over the past two decades there never has been a movement of any relevance in Russia to oppose the Ukrainian independence. Basically, most Russians did not give a damn and, frankly, they were right.

            But, again, we need to remember that this is not a Russian-Ukrainian problem. It is a US-Russian problem. And for the USA, the kind of independent and more or less prosperous Ukraine which Russia would have been happy to have as a neighbor was absolutely unacceptable. If Russia wanted a “Ukrainian Finland”, the USA wanted a “Ukrainian Poland”. That is something which Russia cannot allow to happen. So, in strategic terms, the three key strategic goals for Russia are, by order of importance:

To prevent the creation of a “Banderastan” on Russia’s borders

To avoid being sucked into an overt military intervention

To protect the people of Novorossia

Two comments about these goals:

            First, you will notice that if the choice comes down to an overt military intervention and the creation of a Banderastan on the western border of Russia a military intervention is preferable, at least in my opinion. I have no way of knowing whether the folks in the Kremlin would agree with me or not, but my sense is that that would if only because of the long-term consequences of having a Banderastsan along over 2’000km of its western border and less than 500km from downtown Moscow. So make no mistake – Russia will intervene militarily in Novorossia if there is absolutely no other choice. Even if that means a risk of war with NATO. Even if that means a war with NATO. For Russia, this is not an elective conflict, but an existential threat and there is a national consensus on that.

            Second, there is the issue of human rights and the plight of the people of Novorossia.

            Considering how many of us have become disillusioned with our fellow human being and cynics about any and all politicians, I won’t even go into the “brother nations” argument, nor will I claim that Putin, Lavrov or anybody else in the Kremlin sincerely cares about the atrocities committed against what are, of course, really fellow Russians who happened to live in what is called “the Ukraine” because of Soviet internal administrative borders. I personally am convinced that Putin and Lavrov really do care – but I will not use that personal belief of mine as an argument. I will use only a fully pragmatic argument which is fully compatible with the hypothesis that the folks in the Kremlin care only about their own narrow self-interest. And the argument is this:

            There is a lot of pent-up rage and outrage in Russia. Unlike the western MSM, the Russian media is full of daily reports about the atrocities committed by the Ukie death squads. Day after day after day the Russians see neo-Nazi thugs marching around Kiev, Odessa and other cities with neo-Nazi symbols, they see the bombed out houses of Slaviansk and Kramatorsk, they see the endless interviews with maimed civilians and terrified refugees. Day after day after day the most famous Russian journalists and reporters openly pour out their scorn and disgust for the lying bastards of the junta in Kiev, the the West’s endless double-standards, on the fact that there is apparently no such crime or action which the West would not approve of as long as it is committed by neo-Nazis and against Russians. So whether Putin, Lavrov & Co. are bleeding hearts or cynical politicians makes no difference at all: they cannot, repeat, cannot, ignore the atrocities committed by the Ukie death-squads in Novorossia. So far, Putin’s ratings are sky high (in the 80% range), but this can change, rapidly if events get out of hands. Furthermore, while the current three official “opposition” parties are more or less a joke (LDPR and Just Russia will fall in line if/when needed, the Communists are really a lame joke), there are other parties being formed right now who have a huge political potential, such as Starikov’s “Great Fatherland Party”. And Putin is acutely aware that the only real danger to his rule comes not from the completely tiny discredited “liberal” “non-system” opposition parties (no more than 1%-3% of popular support) or from the hopelessly antiquated and clueless “official” or “system” opposition parties, but from the “next generation” young, dynamic and visionary parties lead not by clowns, but by very sharp young men like Starikov (don’t judge all Russian Communists by the likes of Zyuganov!). And, remember, Putin did promise to intervene and protect the people of Novorossia if a real bloodbath begins there. So this is why I do believe that protecting the people of Novorossia (point #3 above) is crucial even if we assume that Putin would be willing to betray and sacrifice the Russian population of the Donbass (which, again, I personally do not believe!).

            At this point the Russian policy becomes, I think, clear: to covertly support the resistance movement of Novorossia without yielding any proof of intervention which could be used by the AngloZionists to demonize Russia (they already do that, but with very little credibility in the public opinion).

            Now that we have identified the strategic goals of both sides, we can look at the methods (tactics) they are using to achieve them.

            Tactical level analysis

            On the US side the plan is simple: to provoke Russia in every possible way. So far these have include (in no special order):

Recognition of an illegal regime which came to power with violence.

Support for a neo-Nazi regime.

Massive anti-Russian propaganda.

Limitless amount of double-standards.

Repeated kidnapping of fully accredited journalists.

Whitewashing of massacres (Odessa, Mariupol).

Support for armed assaults on opposition politicians (Tsarev).

Murder of political opponents (murdered Communists Party members).

Attacks on political parties (torched Communist Party offices).

Illegal use of cluster bombs on civilians.

Illegal use of White Phosphorus on civilians.

Use of heavy weapons against entire towns.

Assault and murder of opposition journalists

Attacks on the Russian Embassy in Kiev

Overt glorification of Stepan Bandera by Ukie officials

Blocking by the AngloZionists of Russian UNSC Resolution condemning the attack on its embassy

Denial of anti-Jewish hatred amongst the Ukie nationalists

Invention of anti-Jewish feelings in Novorossia

Car-bombing of Novorossian officials

Probable use of gas in the Odessa massacre

Creation of a hysterically russophobic campaign in the MSM

Attempts at imposing sanctions on Russia

Covert sending by NATO countries of fixed and rotary wing aircraft

Covert use of several hundred western mercenaries (Academi)

Massacres of wounded soldiers in a hospital

Sniper killing of random civilians

Systematic rejection of any negotiations with the people of Novorossia

Almost systematic rejection of any negotiation with Russia

Systematic violation of any agreement reached with Russia

Bombing of churches and hospitals (just happened in the last 24 hours)

Refusal to provide real escape corridors for trapped civilians

Illegal cutting-off of water supplies to Crimea (now provided from Russia courtesy of the corps of Russian military engineers)

This is not a full list, of course, just those events which first came to my mind. Connecting the dots here is easy: to provoke Russia at all costs. Well, provoke it does. Does that achieve anything else? Specifically, if we take a more “macro” point of view and ask ourselves this: if we accept that the Ukie goal of war in Novorossia is to get the Russians to intervene and if we accept that the Russian goal is to stay out, and if we finally accept that the crucial factor which will eventually decide of the outcome is the ability of the Novorossians to defend themselves without overt Russian intervention – then who does the tactical scorecard look?

            From my point of view – one of an ex-military analyst – I would say that I am extremely unimpressed by the junta’s performance so far.

            The junta’s death squads have used all the means at their disposal to try to terrorize the people of Novorossia: they began with baseball bats, then knives, then guns, they assault-rifles, then machine guns, then heavy machine guns, then mortars, then heavy mortars, then regular artillery, then multiple rocket launchers, then attack helicopters, then attack aircraft, then cluster munitions, now even white phosphorus. And what did they achieve in military terms:

1) they are more or less holding an airport and one hill near Slaviansk/Kramatorsk
2) they have taken Krasnyi Liman (and committed a massacre in its hospital)
3) they apparently have 1000 or so men surrounded in the Lugansk airport

That’s it. They could not even take Slaviansk! This is with force ratios anywhere between 5:1 to 100:1, with heavy firepower, armor and total air supremacy. Sub-pathetic, really…

            And, in the process, they have lost hundreds of soldiers who defected to the other side – often with weapons – they have gotten a huge number of their own conscripts killed, one group of senior “Alpha” officers was caught and several paratrooper recon units were made prisoner (the latest one yesterday). In Lugansk Ukie forces appear surrounded and the latest shooting down of an Il-76 by the NDF air defense forces was part of a desperate attempt of the junta to free these forces or, at least, to resupply them. In fact, there are all the signs of a desperate movement by land of Ukrainian armor and infantry to break through these units some of which, according to unconfirmed reports, have already switched sides.

            As for the Novorossian Defense Forces (NDF), they now clearly have a solid air-defense network up and running, they seem to have plenty of weapons (even though they still lack some specific types) and most, but not all, of these weapons are truly trophy weapons taken from the Ukies (such as the 3 T-64 tanks recently shown in the news). The initial trickle of volunteers has slowly but steadily become larger (including volunteers from Russia proper) and the NDF is now clearly enjoying some fancy systems which could have only have been provided by Russia (electronic warfare, advanced anti-air systems, etc.). Yes, there are lots of Ukie tanks around Luganks, but as late as this morning a senior NDF officer in the area has said that “we can hold them for at least several months”. Finally, and for the very first time, there are signs that the NDF are mounting offensive operations.

            I am basing all of the above on admittedly partial information, but to me all the signs are clear and point to one and only one reality: the Ukie offensive is going absolutely nowhere and unless Uncle Sam comes up with a dramatic way of changing the face of the battle, Novorossia will probably withstand the Ukie assault without over Russian intervention.

            (Temporary) conclusion:

            So far, I see the strategic-level scorecard for the AnlgoZionist as a complete failure. As for the tactical-level scorecard, it is probably too early to call, but I would say that it looks like the Empire is headed for a complete defeat. Of course, these are temporary conclusions and I don’t want to sound like Dubya with his notorious “Mission accomplished”. But I think that for all of us who get sick in their stomachs each time we hear of the latest Ukie atrocity it is important to keep in mind that so far the neo-Nazis and their AngloZionist masters are losing and that there is no reason to suspect that this trend will somehow reverse itself in the foreseeable future.

            We have to also always keep in mind that “lukewarm” as it may be, this is a major war of planetary importance because as Dugin correctly points it is the future of Russia, and therefore of all of Eurasia, which is being decided. Russian parity (I would even argue superiority) in strategic nuclear weapons have made a hot war impossible (at least for a rational actor), but that does not mean that both sides are not engaged in this apparently “lukewarm” war with every bit of energy and power they got! What we are witnessing today is nothing short of a major struggle for survival between the AngloZionist Empire and the “Eurasian project” (for lack of a better word) centered around Russia and China and their attempt to replace the old order by new, multi-polar, dollar-independent, militarily balanced one. Hegemony vs collective security for the entire planet is what is at stake. This is why every time we listen to the latest reports out of Novorossia we have to constantly keep in mind that in reality this is a US-Russian war over the future international order of the planet and not an “ethnic civil war”.

            As you know, I have been living with a knot in my stomach for weeks now, and with each additional report about the neo-Nazi atrocities committed against the people of Novorossia I get more desperate, more angry and more frustrated. And I have to admit that if the Russians finally openly intervene and beat the crap out of the Ukie death squads (which won’t last 24 hours against a real military force) I won’t be able to contain myself – I will open a bottle of champagne and dance with my wife across the house. But I also know that the right thing to do is keep our “eyes on the prize” and let this abomination I called “Banderstan” self-destruct without any over Russian help. The latest attack on the Russian embassy in Kiev is not only an outrageous violation of the Vienna Convention, it is also a fantastic admission of impotence, of powerlessness, of irrelevance really. Think of it, a crowd of neo-Nazi thugs overturns a few cars and tosses eggs and stones at an embassy building in downtown Kiev and all the Ukie authorities can do is to order the cops to move out of the way and to send the deputy Foreign Minister to express his support for the crowd. “Слава Україні – Героям Слава” (glory to the Ukraine – to the Heroes Glory!) indeed – some heroic Ukie nationalism at work, there is an “operation” the Ukies can be proud of, something to add to the pantheon of Ukrainian national pride.

            [They are as pathetic as they are disgusting, of course. I really wonder how any putative “sane Ukrainian” can live without dying of a combination of shame and self-disgust. But then, that ain’t my problem, thank God.]

            There is probably more of that sickening Ukie mix of atrocities and buffoonery on the way. Normal civilized people cannot imagine the kind of stuff that these hate-filled psychopaths can come up with. Frankly, I would not put it past them to try an air or missile strike on, say, a kindergarten in Crimea or even in Belgorod. They could also kidnap a delivery man for a Russian company still operating in Kiev or heroically massacre of minibus with an Aeroflot crew on the way to the airport. Whatever! We have to accept the inevitability of such actions because this is all this junta can do – they simply have no civilized diplomatic, commercial, military or other means to prevail against Russia and their own people. But always always keep this in mind: with each such action the Ukies are confessing to their own impotence while digging their own grave.

            So even if “ще не вмерла україна” (“the Ukraine is not dead yet” – from the Ukie “national anthem” with words copied from the Polish one and a melody composed by [what else?] a Uniat priest), it’s days are counted and, as doctors like to say, the prognosis is poor.

            The Saker


What We’ve Lost Since 9/11

Taking down the First Amendment in post-constitutional America


June 16, 2014

by Peter Van Buren




America has entered its third great era: the post-constitutional one. In the first, in the colonial years, a unitary executive, the King of England, ruled without checks and balances, allowing no freedom of speech, due process, or privacy when it came to protecting his power.


In the second, the principles of the Enlightenment and an armed rebellion were used to push back the king’s abuses. The result was a new country and a new constitution with a Bill of Rights expressly meant to check the government’s power. Now, we are wading into the shallow waters of a third era, a time when that government is abandoning the basic ideas that saw our nation through centuries of challenges far more daunting than terrorism. Those ideas — enshrined in the Bill of Rights — are disarmingly concise. Think of them as the haiku of a genuine people’s government.


Deeper, darker waters lie ahead and we seem drawn down into them. For here there be monsters.


The Powers of a Police State Denied


America in its pre-constitutional days may seem eerily familiar even to casual readers of current events. We lived then under the control of a king. (Think now: the imperial presidency.) That king was a powerful, unitary executive who ruled at a distance. His goal was simple: to use his power over “his” American colonies to draw the maximum financial gain while suppressing any dissent that might endanger his control.


In those years, protest was dangerous. Speech could indeed make you the enemy of the government. Journalism could be a crime if you didn’t write in support of those in power. A citizen needed to watch what he said, for there were spies everywhere, including fellow colonists hoping for a few crumbs from the king’s table. Laws could be brutal and punishments swift as well as extra-judicial. In extreme cases, troops shot down those simply assembling to speak out.


Among the many offenses against liberty in pre-constitutional America, one pivotal event, the Stamp Act of 1765, stands out. To enforce the taxes imposed by the Act, the king’s men used “writs of assistance” that allowed them to burst into any home or business, with or without suspicion of wrongdoing. American privacy was violated and property ransacked, often simply as a warning of the king’s power. Some colonist was then undoubtedly the first American to mutter, “But if I have nothing to hide, why should I be afraid?” He soon learned that when a population is categorically treated as a potential enemy, everyone has something to hide if the government claims they do.


The Stamp Act and the flood of kingly offenses that followed created in those who founded the United States a profound suspicion of what an unchecked government could do, and a sense that power and freedom are not likely to coexist comfortably in a democracy. A balancing mechanism was required. In addition to the body of the Constitution outlining what the new nation’s government could do, needed was an accounting of what it could not do. The answer was the Bill of Rights.


The Bill’s preamble explained the matter this way: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the government’s] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.” Thomas Jefferson commented separately, “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”


In other words, the Bill of Rights was written to make sure that the new government would not replicate the abuses of power of the old one. Each amendment spoke directly to a specific offense committed by the king. Their purpose collectively was to lay out what the government could never take away. Knowing first-hand the dangers of a police state and unchecked power, those who wrote the Constitution wanted to be clear: never again.


It needs to be said that those imperfect men were very much of their era. They were right about much, but desperately wrong about other things. They addressed “humanity,” but ignored the rights of women and Native Americans. Above all, they did not abolish the institution of slavery, our nation’s Original Sin. It would take many years, and much blood, to begin to rectify those mistakes.


Still, for more than two centuries, the meaning of the Bill of Rights was generally expanded, though — especially in wartime — it sometimes temporarily contracted. Yet the basic principles that guided America were sustained despite civil war, world wars, depressions, and endless challenges. Then, one September morning, our Post-Constitutional era began amid falling towers and empty skies. What have we lost since? More than we imagine. A look at the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, tells the tale.


The First Amendment


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”


The First Amendment was meant to make one thing indisputably clear: free speech was the basis for a government of the people. Without a free press, as well as the ability to openly gather, debate, protest, and criticize, how would the people be able to judge their government’s adherence to the other rights? How could people vote knowledgeably if they didn’t know what was being done in their name by their government? An informed citizenry, Thomas Jefferson stated, was “a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”


That was how it was seen long ago. In Post-Constitutional America, however, the government strives to “control the message,” to actively thwart efforts to maintain a citizenry informed about what’s done in its name, a concept that these days seems as quaint as Jefferson’s powdered wig. There are far too many examples of the post-9/11 erosion of the First Amendment to list here. Let’s just look at a few important ones that tell the tale of what we have lost since 9/11.


(Lack of) Freedom of Information


In 1966, an idea for keeping Americans better informed on the workings of their government was hatched: the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Strengthened in 1974, it began with the premise that, except for some obvious categories (like serious national security matters and personal information), the position of the government should be: everything it does is available to the public. Like the Bill of Rights, which made specific the limits of government, FOIA began with a presumption that it was the government’s duty to make information available — and quickly — to the people, unless a convincing case could be made otherwise. The default position of the FOIA switch was set to ON.


Three decades later, the FOIA system works far differently. Agencies are generally loath to release documents of any sort and instead put their efforts into creating roadblocks to legitimate requests. Some still require signatures on paper. (The State Department notes, “Requests for personal information cannot be submitted electronically and should be submitted by mail.”) Others demand hyper-detailed information like the precise dates and titles of documents whose dates and titles may be classified and unavailable. The NSA simply denies almost all FOIA requests out of hand, absent a court order.


Most federal agencies now regard the deadline mandated for a response as the time period to send out a “request received” note. They tend to assign only a few staff members to processing requests, leading to near-endless delays. At the State Department, most FOIA work is done on a part-time basis by retirees. The CIA won’t directly release electronic versions of documents. Even when a request is fulfilled, “free” copying is often denied and reproduction costs exaggerated.


In some cases, the requested records have a way of disappearing or are simply removed. The ACLU’s experience when it filed an FOIA-style request with the Sarasota police department on its use of the cell phone surveillance tool Stingray could be considered typical. The morning the ACLU was to review the files, Federal Marshals arrived and physically took possession of them, claiming they had deputized the local cops and made the files federal property. An ACLU spokesperson noted that, in other cases, federal authorities have invoked the Homeland Security Act to prevent the release of records.


John Young, who runs the web site Cryptome and is a steadfast FOIA requester, stated, “Stonewalling, delay, brush-off, lying are normal. It is a delusion for ordinary requesters and a bitch of a challenge for professionals. Churning has become a way of life for FOIA, costly as hell for little results.”


Sealed Lips and the Whistleblower


All government agencies have regulations requiring employees to obtain permission before speaking to the representatives of the people — that is, journalists. The U.S. Intelligence Community has among the most restrictive of these policies, banning employees and contractors completely from talking with the media without prior authorization. Even speaking about unclassified information is a no-no that may cost you your job. A government ever more in lockdown mode has created what one journalist calls a “culture where censorship is the norm.”


So who does speak to Americans about their government? Growing hordes of spokespeople, communications staff, trained PR crews, and those anonymous “senior officials” who pop up so regularly in news articles in major papers.


With the government obsessively seeking to hide or spin what it does, in-the-sunlight contact barred, and those inside locked behind an iron curtain of secrecy, the whistleblower has become the paradigmatic figure of the era. Not surprisingly, anyone who blows a whistle has, in these years, come under fierce attack.


Pick a case: Tom Drake exposing early NSA efforts to turn its spy tools on Americans, Edward Snowden proving that the government has us under constant surveillance, Chelsea Manning documenting war crimes in Iraq and sleazy diplomacy everywhere, John Kiriakou acknowledging torture by his former employer the CIA, or Robert MacLean revealing Transportation Safety Administration malfeasance. In each instance, the threat of jail was quick to surface. The nuclear option against such truthtellers is the Espionage Act, a law that offended the Constitution when implemented in the midst of World War I. It has been resurrected by the Obama administration as a blunt “wartime” tool for silencing and punishing whistleblowers.


The Obama administration has already charged six people under that act for allegedly mishandling classified information. Even Richard Nixon only invoked it once, in a failed prosecution against Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.


Indeed, the very word “espionage” couldn’t be stranger in the context of these cases. None of those charged spied. None sought to aid an enemy or make money selling secrets. No matter. In Post-Constitutional America, the powers-that-be stand ready to twist language in whatever Orwellian direction is necessary to bridge the gap between reality and the king’s needs. In the Espionage Act case of State Department contractor Stephen Kim, a judge departed from previous precedent, ruling that the prosecution need not even show that the information leaked to a Fox news reporter from a CIA report on North Korea could damage U.S. national security or benefit a foreign power. It could still be a part of an “espionage” charge.


A final question might be: How could a law designed almost 100 years ago to stop German spies in wartime have become a tool to silence the few Americans willing to risk everything to exercise their First Amendment rights? When did free speech become a crime?


Self-Censorship and the Press


Each person charged under the Espionage Act in these years was primarily a source for a journalist. The writers of the Bill of Rights chose to include the term “press” in the First Amendment, specifically carving out a special place for journalists in our democracy. The press was necessary to question government officials directly, comment on their actions, and inform the citizenry about what its government was doing. Sadly, as the Obama administration is moving ever more fiercely against those who might reveal its acts or documents, the bulk of the media have acquiesced. Glenn Greenwald said it plainly: too many journalists have gone into a self-censoring mode, practicing “obsequious journalism.”


For example, a survey of reporters showed “the percentage of U.S. journalists endorsing the occasional use of ‘confidential business or government documents without authorization,’ dropped significantly from 81.8% in 1992 to 57.7% in 2013.” About 40% of American journalists would not have published documents like those Edward Snowden revealed.


And the same has been true of the management of newspapers. In mid-2004, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau uncovered George W. Bush’s illegal warrantless eavesdropping program, but the New York Times held the story for 15 months, until after Bush’s reelection. Executives at the Times were told by administration officials that if they ran the story, they’d be helping terrorists. They accepted that. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times similarly gave in to the NSA and suppressed a story on government wiretaps of Americans.


Government Efforts to Stop Journalists


Reporters need sources. Increasingly, the government is classifying just about any document it produces — 92 million documents in 2011 alone. Its intelligence agencies have even classified reports about the over-classification of documents.  As a result, journalistic sources are often pressed into discussing, at great personal risk, classified information. Forcing a reporter to reveal such sources discourages future whistleblowing.


In one of the first of a series of attempts to make journalists reveal their sources, former Fox News reporter Mike Levine stated that the Justice Department persuaded a federal grand jury to subpoena him in January 2011. The demand was that he reveal his sources for a 2009 story about Somali-Americans who were secretly indicted in Minneapolis for joining an al-Qaeda-linked group in Somalia. Levine fought the order and the Department of Justice finally dropped it without comment in April 2012. Call it a failed test case.


According to Washington lawyer Abbe Lowell, who defended Stephen Kim, significant amounts of time have been spent by the Department of Justice in the search for a legal rationale for indicting journalists for their participation in exposing classified documents. A crucial test case is James Risen’s 2006 book, State of War, which had an anonymously sourced chapter on a failed CIA operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. When Risen, citing the First Amendment, refused to identify his source or testify in the trial of the former CIA officer accused of being that source, the government sought to imprison him. He responded that the “Obama administration… wants to use this case and others like it to intimidate reporters and whistleblowers. But I am appealing to the Supreme Court because it is too dangerous to allow the government to conduct national security policy completely in the dark.”


In June 2014, the Supreme Court refused to take Risen’s case on appeal, essentially ratifying a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that the First Amendment didn’t protect a reporter from being forced to testify about “criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in.” That decision makes clear that a reporter receiving classified information from a source is part of the crime of “leaking.”


Risen has said he will go to prison rather than testify. It is possible that, having secured the precedent-setting right to send Risen to jail, the government will bring the suspected leaker to trial without calling on him. Attorney General Eric Holder recently hinted that his Justice Department might take that path — a break for Risen himself, but not for reporters more generally who now know that they can be jailed for refusing to divulge a source without hope of recourse to the Supreme Court.


The Descent Into Post-Constitutionalism


As with the King of England once upon a time, many of the things the government now does have been approved in secret, sometimes in secret courts according to a secret body of law. Sometimes, they were even approved openly by Congress. In constitutional America, the actions of the executive and the laws passed by Congress were only legal when they did not conflict with the underlying constitutional principles of our democracy. Not any more. “Law” made in secret, including pretzeled legal interpretations by the Justice Department for the White House, opened the way, for instance, to the use of torture on prisoners and in the Obama years to the drone assassination of Americans. Because such “legalities” remain officially classified, they are, of course, doubly difficult to challenge.


But can’t we count on the usual pendulum swings in American life to change this? There were indeed notable moments in American history when parts of the Constitution were put aside, but none are truly comparable to our current situation. The Civil War lasted five years, with Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus limited in geography and robustly contested. The World War II Japanese internment camps closed after three years and the persecuted were a sub-set of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast. Senator McCarthy’s notorious career as a communist-hunter lasted four years and ended in shame.


Almost 13 years after the 9/11 attacks, it remains “wartime.” For the war on terror, the driver, excuse, and raison d’être for the tattering of the Bill of Rights, there is no end in sight. Recently retired NSA head Keith Alexander is typical of key figures in the national security state when he claims that despite, well, everything, the country is at greater risk today than ever before. These days, wartime is forever, which means that a government working ever more in secret has ever more latitude to decide which rights in which form applied in what manner are still inalienable.


The usual critical history of our descent into a post-constitutional state goes something like this: in the panic after the 9/11 attacks, under the leadership of Vice President Dick Cheney with the support of President George W. Bush, a cabal of top government officials pushed through legal-lite measures to (as they liked to say) “take the gloves off” and allow kidnapping, torture, illegal surveillance, and offshore imprisonment along with indefinite detention without charges or trial.


Barack Obama, elected on a series of (false) promises to roll back the worst of the Bush-era crimes, while rejecting torture and closing America’s overseas “black sites,” still pushed the process forward in his own way. He expanded executive power, emphasized drone assassinations (including against American citizens), gave amnesty to torturers, increased government secrecy, targeted whistleblowers, and heightened surveillance. In other words, two successive administrations lied, performed legal acrobatics, and bullied their way toward a kind of absolute power that hasn’t been seen since the days of King George. That’s the common narrative and, while not wrong, it is incomplete.


Missing Are the People


One key factor remains missing in such a version of post-9/11 events in America: the people. Even today, 45% of Americans, when polled on the subject, agree that torture is “sometimes necessary and acceptable to gain information that may protect the public.” Americans as a group seem unsure about whether the NSA’s global and domestic surveillance is justified, and many remain convinced that Edward Snowden and the journalists who published his material are criminals. The most common meme related to whistleblowers is still “patriot or traitor?” and toward the war on terror, “security or freedom?”


It’s not that Americans are incorrect to be fearful and feel in need of protection. The main thing we need to protect ourselves against, however, is not the modest domestic threat from terrorists, but a new king, a unitary executive that has taken the law for its own, aided and abetted by the courts, supported by a powerful national security state, and unopposed by a riven and weakened Congress. Without a strong Bill of Rights to protect us — indeed, secure us — from the dangers of our own government, we will have gone full-circle to a Post-Constitutional America that shares much in common with the pre-constitutional British colonies.


Yet there is no widespread, mainstream movement of opposition to what the government has been doing. It seems, in fact, that many Americans are willing to accept, perhaps even welcome out of fear, the death of the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time.


We are the first to see, in however shadowy form, the outlines of what a Post-Constitutional America might look like. We could be the last who might be able to stop it.



Racist graffiti was written on a house occupied by two Nigerian men in Belfast in August 2013; racist attacks have increased in the city in 2014. Photograph: Stephen Barnes/Demotix/Corbis


Nigerian family gives up new home in Belfast after racist protestIncident comes after report finds up to three race-related incidents reported daily in Northern Ireland



June 18, 2014

by Henry McDonald, Ireland correspondent



A Nigerian man whose home was subjected this week to a racist protest in Belfast said the incident was “like a flashback” to an attempted racial assault on him three years earlier.


Michael Abiona has been forced to give up the house he was allocated in the Knocknagoney area of East Belfast after racists turned up on his doorstep on Tuesday.


Five people including a woman held up banners with the slogans “Houses 4 Local People” and “We need Homes 2” on them.


Abiona said he would not now move into the Northern Ireland Housing Executive home – the region’s public housing authority – because he feared for his three year old son’s safety.


He told the Guardian on Wednesday that when confronted by the demonstrators outside the house it was “like a flashback” to an attack on him my youth in 2011.


“This also took place in East Belfast and it involved teenage boys throwing stones and bottles at me as I passed by in the street. They then chased me down the street carrying iron rods and threatened me.


“Only for a good neighbour who saw what was going on and came out to take me inside his house, and stand up to these youths I would have been badly beaten up or worse,” he said.


He said he is now considering moving out of East Belfast altogether following this latest incident. “I have to think of the safety of my young son in staying here,” he said.


“I am just worried about the atmosphere after this latest incident. The people protesting told me it was nothing to do with racism but I asked them why, if they have a grievance about housing in the area, are they picking on me?


“It might be indirect racism at best but it was very much direct intimidation. I tried to tell them that I am not the one who judges who gets a house and who does not. Actually they knew nothing about or the fact that I have lived in Belfast for four years and the UK for eight. ”


Abiona stressed that he wanted to stay in Northern Ireland and was recently heartened by the thousands that turned up in Belfast last month to protest against the recent upsurge in racist attacks and intimidation.


“Seeing those thousands in the streets of Belfast city centre proved how many good, fair people are out there in Northern Ireland. I might not be able to stay in East Belfast, I have to talk to my son’s mother about this and think about it but I don’t want to leave Northern Ireland if I can.”


He works alongside the Northern Ireland Council For Ethnic Minorities who on Monday launched a comprehensive report on racism and race-hate crimes across Northern Ireland.


The NICEM report found that there are now up to 3 race-hate incidents being reported to the police every day since the start of 2014.


East Belfast MP Naomi Long said she was disgusted by this latest racial incident in her constituency. Long said those behind the posters did not represent East Belfast.


The MP for the centrist Alliance Party added: “This sort of behaviour has no place in our community and does nothing but send out the message that East Belfast is unwelcoming, when we know the opposite is true. I hope the experience has not traumatised this poor family, who should be free to live where they wish without intimidation.


“Any right-thinking person will condemn this blatantly racist behaviour and I have no doubt the vast majority of residents in the area will be sickened by it. Rather than Mr Abiona and his family, it is this kind of vile behaviour that should be unwelcome in our society.”


Racism in Northern Ireland: up to three race-related incidents reported dailyReport also finds 12 out of reported 14,000 race hate crimes in region over last five years resulted in successful prosecutions


June 17, 2014

by Henry McDonald, Ireland correspondent



Up to three race-related incidents are now being reported to the police in Northern Ireland every single day, a new study of racism in the region has found.


But only 12 out of a reported 14,000 race hate crimes in Northern Ireland over the last five years have resulted in successful prosecutions, according to a report backed by the power-sharing administration in Belfast.


Despite an increase in racist attacks in the first six months of this year, so far the police clear-up rate for race hate crimes is just over 8% of incidents reported between January and April 2014, the report reveals.


The annual Human Rights and Racial Equality Benchmarking Report 2013/2014, released on Tuesday, points out that there were 982 racist incidents in 2013-14 while there were 750 such incidents in 2012-2013.


The report’s authors also reveal the nature of the attacks, mainly concentrated in the Greater Belfast area, since the start of 2014. These include:


• January 2014: four vehicles were burned out across North Belfast with Slovakian, Afghan and Polish families targeted by arsonists. In two cases households were forced to flee in order to protect their children.


• March 2014: a Polish family living on the Rathcoole estate on the northern outskirts of Belfast were terrorised out of their home by a loyalist gang who broke their windows and used a pipe bomb to destroy a car beside the property.


• May 2014: a Romanian cyclist has excrement thrown at him while travelling along Newtownards Road in east Belfast. In the same area a Jamaican family in the north of the city are attacked.


• June 2014: Two Pakistani men flee their home in north Belfast after first their windows were smashed and later the following day, the pair were physically attacked outside the property.


The survey, which was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Council For Ethnic Minorities (Nicem), also found that racism has supplanted traditional sectarianism as the main reason for employees being harassed, bullied or threatened in the region’s workplaces.


It noted that over the last five years 75% of all complaints about harassment in the office, shop or factory to the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland are related to racial abuse and intimidation.


Yet while over the last year Northern Ireland has become one of the worst hot spots for racist crimes and race-hate linked incidents, the authors of the report say that the region is home to only 1% of all the non-EU/European Economic Area migrants who have come into the UK.


As well as giving a wide ranging picture of racist abuse, intimidation and discrimination against immigrants, the report also assesses the status of the Irish Traveller community in Northern Ireland. The report’s authors note that 92% of Traveller children leave school in the region without any qualifications.


Overall, in local schools, the report reveals that 75% of children from ethnic minority groups experience derogatory racist name calling and that 42% of minority ethnic 16-year-old students had been “a victim of racist bullying or harassment in their school”.


Nicem’s director, Patrick Yu, said the 104-page report was “very timely” given the recent spate of high-profile racist attacks and the furore over Pastor John McConnell’s outburst against Islam, which embroiled the first minister, Peter Robinson, in alleged anti-Muslim remarks. Both the first minister and McConnell apologised for their comments, with Robinson issuing his apology on the steps of Belfast Islamic Centre last month.


Yu said that the report “highlights deficiencies and underlying gaps in the protection of ethnic minorities in NI across all the key policy areas. Such deficiencies must be rectified if we are to tackle the underlying inequalities and prejudices that causes hate crime in Northern Ireland.”


He called on the coalition at Stormont to publish its racial equality strategy in the light of this report and its findings. Yu said the strategy must be implemented because this report “maps all the current racial inequalities in Northern Ireland that breach international human rights standards”.


According to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, the devolved government’s anti-racism strategy will be published shorty.


In response to the latest spike in racist violence and intimidation, most of it but not all concentrated in loyalist working-class ares, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has launched Operation Reiner. The PSNI said that since May there have been 13 arrests in connection with race-related incidents in the Greater Belfast area.



No responses yet

Leave a Reply