1542-ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? | View Thread

I found this article, by Caleb Maupin of RT, an excellent summary of how the US of A Corporation speaks out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. That’s quite a talent, probably something like a ventriloquist.

If, as a country, “you don’t comply” with that Corporation, it will send in its “trouble causers” and foment a “revolution” in the name of “democracy”… which, of course, is another word for “control by the West (cabal)” of that country.

Caleb Maupin describes many examples of that.

“At this moment, the countries that the US seeks to overthrow and destabilize are all part of an emerging global alliance. They have all declared some measure of economic independence. They have sought to reconstruct the economy to serve themselves, not billionaires in the US and Europe. US leaders… do not care if there is massive public support for such regimes. Any country that refuses to bow before the economic hegemony of the West… is targeted with subversion and attack.
In the New World Order declared by George H.W. Bush in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, no country is allowed to develop independently. The world economy is to be controlled by the billionaires on Wall Street and the London Stock Exchange, and all who demand independence are to be threatened, sanctioned, bombed and destroyed. The bombing of Libya, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Serbia, all served to beat down leaders and regimes that refused to accept economic domination by the United States.
…the will of the people, in every corner of the globe, is for independence and freedom. The global setup of economic domination by Western powers is highly unpopular… the people continue to demand economic independence and national liberation. Leaders like Patrice Lamumba, Mao Zedong, Hugo Chavez, Alexander Lukashenko, Hassan Nasrallah, and Evo Morales continue to emerge, and people continue to rally around them. The prosperity, freedom and happiness offered by those promoting western economic “development” has simply not materialized, and globally, the human race is rejecting the path offered by Wall Street and London.”

——————————————————————————-

US leaders reject democracy, once again
Caleb Maupin, March 25, 2014 23:21

In Crimea, some may be surprised by the US’s blatant rejection of a clear democratic mandate for independence, as leaders in Washington constantly boast of being “defenders of democracy.”

Back in 2003, George W. Bush justified his invasion of Iraq by saying he was “bringing freedom” to Iraq and “removing a dictator.” In 2011, Barack Obama justified sending cruise missiles to Libya by calling Gaddafi a “tyrant.” The US currently gives material support to insurgent groups in Syria, allegedly because Assad is a “dictator.”

Children in the United States, from a very young age, are indoctrinated to believe that the US fights for “freedom” around the world, and enemies of the US are simply those who reject it. The nauseating rhetoric of the US being “the greatest country in the world” is accompanied by a historical mythology that in each military conflict, from the conquest of the Philippines in 1899 to the Cold War, the US government was motivated merely by a desire to “defend” and “spread freedom” and to fight against “dictators” and “oppressors.”

This narrative is simply false. An examination of the world situation shows that the rejection of the popular will of Crimea is nothing new. In numerous instances, the US government has considered popular leaders chosen by democratic elections to be illegitimate and worked to undermine them, and in many other instances, the US backed unpopular and oppressive autocrats.
The 2009 coup in Honduras

In 2009, the Honduran military removed President Manuel Zelaya, who had won in a democratic election. After overthrowing the elected government, Roberto Michilletti, the general who led this violent coup was declared “Congressman for Life.” Since the coup, there has been a campaign of fascist violence in Honduras. Over 30 journalists have been assassinated. Human Rights Watch reports that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender activists are also being exterminated, with 70 of them already targeted and killed.

The coup has resulted in economic horror. The World Bank reports that 59 percent of the country now lives in poverty, with the level of extreme poverty growing each day. Fifty-one percent of the population is unemployed. Honduras now also has the highest murder rate in the entire world.

A couple and their child have breakfast amid the garbage at the municipal rubbish dump, 20 km north of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. (AFP Photo / Orlando Sierra)

The US did not send in cruise missiles to “defend democracy” when Zelaya was overthrown. The response was the opposite.

Zeleya, the democratically-elected president, had dared to align with Bolivia and Venezuela. He had rejected the rule of Wall Street and led Honduras into the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA). When he was violently overthrown, the US embraced the military leaders who did so and has continued to align with them.

What happened in Honduras in 2009 was similar to what the US did in 1973 in Chile. Salvador Allende, a democratically-elected socialist, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup. The fascist regime of Augusto Pinochet was installed, and at least 20,000 left-wing activists were rounded up and summarily executed. All across Latin America, the CIA has carried out coups, overturned governments and installed pro-Wall Street autocrats.
The destabilization of Belarus

Aleksandr Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, is highly popular. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lukashenko refused to sell off Belarus mines, forests, and factories. Eighty percent of Belarus’ economy remains under public ownership. The CIA World Factbook confirms that while unemployment around the world has skyrocketed in recent decades, in Belarus less than 2 percent of the population is unemployed. Lukashenko’s popularity is based on economic populism, standing up for the people, and refusing to allow the plunder of the country.

When Lukashenko was first elected in 1995, he received only a plurality of 45.1 percent of the vote. After his first term in office, when he ran for reelection in 2001, he was voted back into office with 77 percent. Running for his third term in 2006, he received 82 percent of the vote. In the most recent election in 2010, Lukashenko won 79 percent of the vote. Each presidential election in Belarus is surrounded by violence and rioting staged by the anti-government minority in Belarus that is funded by the Western economic powers, and cheered by Western media. The National Endowment for Democracy has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into anti-government groups in Belarus. NGOs have been established. Following the 2010 presidential election, government buildings had their windows smashed. Belarus faces economic sanctions from the European Union.

While Lukashenko is highly popular with the people of Belarus, and has been reelected with large majorities, the US has worked very hard to destabilize Belarus and overthrow him. The fact that Lukashenko is supported by an overwhelming majority of the population has not halted the “defenders of democracy” in Washington from trying to remove him, and calling Belarus “an outpost of tyranny.”
Labeling Chavez and Maduro ‘dictators’

Another example of complete US disregard for democracy has been the treatment given to the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Chavez was elected multiple times. Each of these elections was observed by the United Nations, the Carter Center, and the Organization of American States, who all certified their results as legitimate. Maduro, Chavez’s successor, has also been elected democratically, with over 170 different foreign observers welcomed to Venezuela to oversee the voting process.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (AFP Photo / Leo Ramirez)

In Venezuela, opposition parties not only openly operate, but control most of the TV networks and media. Anti-Chavez and Anti-Maduro rhetoric is constantly spewed from Venezuela’s television and radio stations. Rallies against the government by right-wing groups are everyday occurrences. Venezuela does not have the death penalty, let alone torture, rendition or secret prisons.

Yet somehow, US officials and Western media insist that Chavez was a brutal dictator. John Kerry now speaks of sanctions against Venezuela. No matter how much the Bolivarian forces in Venezuela accommodate the right-wing, US-funded opposition, the Western media and officials in Washington insist on calling them “dictators.”

The Venezuelan public has voted again and again in favor of the popular reforms that began with Chavez, and continue now with Maduro. The Venezuelan public supports the economic empowerment of working people, the changing of capitalist property relations, and the expansion of popular democracy, and has voted to allow the process to continue.

The US government and its allies are unconcerned about the popularity of the Bolivarian movement, or even its continued tolerance of the increasingly violent minority who oppose it. The US openly works to destabilize and overthrow the popular Venezuelan government, and yet somehow declares these efforts to be “democratic.”
Wall Street’s favorite autocrats

While many democratically-elected governments are subverted and threatened by the United States, there are many open unapologetic dictatorships that receive US support. All the tyrants, mass murderers and oppressive dictators who have received US funding and support have received it because they are obedient servants for Wall Street. With their slaughter, they have kept profits flowing to the New York Stock Exchange, and they have murdered those who would direct them otherwise by forming labor unions, establishing measures of economic protection, or demanding basic democratic rights.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. It conducts public beheading and floggings and has absolutely no notion of “civil rights” or “freedom.” Saudi people have no ability to vote against this regime, and there are no elections of any kind taking place in Saudi Arabia. Yet the US sends billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia each year. The blatantly autocratic kingdom is the primary ally of the United States in the Middle East, after Israel.

In South Korea, it is a crime to make certain political statements. Park Jeong-Geun was detained and jailed for tweeting. His tweets were not even meant as political statements but as sarcastic jokes, but he was still locked up. The Unified Progressive Party, the primary opposition party in South Korea, has been shut down, with its leaders sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Yet 28,500 US troops are stationed in South Korea to protect this regime, and it also receives millions of dollars in US aid and support.

The Gulf emirate of Qatar is so autocratic and repressive that it does not just ban opposition parties, but all political parties. People there have none of the “human rights” or “freedom of speech” the US claims to champion. In one example of the autocratic nature of Qatar, a poet named Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami was sentenced to life in prison for “insulting” a leader of the country. In October, his sentence was reduced from life to 15 years. Despite no notion of democracy existing, and life sentences being handed down for political expression, the US still supplies Qatar with millions of dollars each year.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) shakes hands with Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani during a meeting at Wajbah Palace in Doha on June 23, 2013. (AFP Photo / Jacquelyn Martin)

The list of dictators and oppressors who have been funded, armed and supported by the United States is very long. It includes figures like the Shah of Iran, Rios Montt of Guatemala and other monsters who have tortured, murdered and killed.

Francisco Franco, the military dictator of Spain from 1939 to 1975, rode into power with the aid of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and publicly executed numerous people by means of public strangulation. After World War II, he was embraced by the US, who signed the “Pact of Madrid,” promising absolute support to the fascist regime. US military facilities were set up in Spain and US President Richard Nixon toasted Franco, describing him as a “loyal friend and ally of the United States.”

Though anti-Communist rhetoric from US leaders often includes references to “killing fields,” the US even briefly supported Pol Pot in Cambodia, thinking him to be a helpful ally against the Soviet Union and Vietnam.

These historical facts are ignored by the average foreign policy analyst on CNN, Fox or MSNBC, but many people around the world have not forgotten them. Each time Obama, Clinton or Kerry begin to lecture us about the “human rights violations” of some leader around the world, millions of eyes roll in disgust. The US has worked with countless tyrants, oppressors and violators of human rights, and often has made no effort to conceal it.
A global struggle for economic independence

All across the world, countries are throwing off the rule of Wall Street, the London Stock Exchange, the IMF and other institutions of Western imperialist economic power. These countries are not political clones. Some are religious, some are secular, some are capitalist, some are socialist, some are led by Marxist-Leninist parties, others by committed anti-Communists; but all are united in a desire for economic independence.

At this moment, the countries that the US seeks to overthrow and destabilize are all part of an emerging global alliance. They have all declared some measure of economic independence. They have sought to reconstruct the economy to serve themselves, not billionaires in the US and Europe. US leaders, despite their rhetoric, do not care if there is massive public support for such regimes. Any country that refuses to bow before the economic hegemony of the West, whether it is China, Russia, People’s Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe or Belarus, is targeted with subversion and attack.

In the New World Order declared by George H.W. Bush in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, no country is allowed to develop independently. The world economy is to be controlled by the billionaires on Wall Street and the London Stock Exchange, and all who demand independence are to be threatened, sanctioned, bombed and destroyed. The bombing of Libya, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Serbia, all served to beat down leaders and regimes that refused to accept economic domination by the United States.

It is clear, however, that the will of the people, in every corner of the globe, is for independence and freedom. The global setup of economic domination by Western powers is highly unpopular. No matter how many Cruise missiles are fired, sanctions are imposed, or terrorist groups are armed, the people continue to demand economic independence and national liberation. Leaders like Patrice Lamumba, Mao Zedong, Hugo Chavez, Alexander Lukashenko, Hassan Nasrallah, and Evo Morales continue to emerge, and people continue to rally around them. The prosperity, freedom and happiness offered by those promoting western economic “development” has simply not materialized, and globally, the human race is rejecting the path offered by Wall Street and London.

When Obama talked of a direct military attack on Syria, world public opinion pushed him back. Now a new poll from Pew Research shows that the overwhelming majority of people, even within the United States itself, say “we should not get involved” in Ukraine.

The Wall Street-run government of the United States is hostile to the sentiments expressed in popular democratic elections. It’s happy to embrace autocrats and tyrants, because humanity has rejected what they have put forward. Only as the bankers are driven back, and the oppressed countries of the world break free, we will begin to see a greater level of democracy unfold.

All these sanctions aren't worth a grain of sand of the Crimean land that returned to Russia http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/news/es_nalogil_sanktsii_eshche_na_12_chinovnikov_iz_rossii___tusk_1615537 …

7:06 AM - 21 Mar 2014

106 RETWEETS 39 FAVORITES

Putin retaliated with his own sanctions. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that “There should be no doubt: for every hostile attack, we will respond appropriately." That meant bans against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ("Reed"), vocal Russian critic Sen. John McCain, and Speaker of the House John Boehner, along with six others.

Like his counterparts in Moscow, McCain was amused by the sanctions, saying “I guess that means my spring break in Siberia is off, my Gazprom stock is lost, and my secret bank account in Moscow is frozen. Nonetheless, I will never cease my efforts on behalf of the freedom, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.”

Banned Senator Harry Reid had this to say:

President Putin, it's one thing to pick on me, but I wouldn't mess with Mary. @SenLandrieu #SanctionedByPutin

12:29 PM - 20 Mar 2014

Boehner is also wearing his ban proudly:

Proud to be included on a list of those willing to stand against Putin’s aggression http://j.mp/1gCSPCr

11:00 AM - 20 Mar 2014

Russia bans entry to US lawmakers, officials

Russia says it has imposed entry bans on nine U.S. lawmakers and officials in retaliation to Washington’s sanctions over Crimea.

Washington Post @washingtonpost

207 RETWEETS 147 FAVORITES

It seems getting personally sanctioned isn't so much a punishment, as it is a source of bragging rights for lawmakers... on both sides of the divide.

Thus far, none of these sanctions are having any major economic implications for either side, though the fear is there that something worse could be afoot. Kremlin rules have prevented Russian officials from keeping money in overseas investments for some time, according to William Pomerantz of the Woodrow Wilson Center, and therefore they did not (technically and legally) have anything to lose by being barred from the States. The Crimea conflict has affected Russia’s uber-rich — they combined to lose an estimate $6.6 billion dollars in one week, mostly due to failing stocks — but these particular sanctions do not affect their general spending or investments in the United States.

Billionaire New Jersey Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov is one of those billionaires caught between two worlds, as his stock wealth has taken a huge hit in recent weeks, and he's been frustrated in his efforts to transfer the ownership of the team to a Russian-based company, in compliance with Putin's laws. (But in violation of NBA ownership rules.)

While Russia’s wealthiest politicians are technically not allowed to keep investments overseas, a fair amount of Russian money has been invested in the United States economy. Since 2012, one billion dollars in residential real estate in the United States has been purchased by Russian buyers. As long as the sanctions are against government officials, rather than general economic sanctions, Russian money can keep flowing into the United States as usual until further notice.

However, if full blown economic sanctions are issued — and President Obama has threatened to targetRussia's financial, energy, and mining industries — the pain could become very real.

Yes, Russian’s wealthiest will be locked out of their billions in real estate, along with other lucrative United States-based investments. And they might be the only ones able to wield any influence Putin's decision making. But that also cuts of a major source of funding to the American real estate market, too. Similarly, much of Europe and the United States would be affected by hits to Russian-dependent resources, mainly oil and natural gas.

Currently, Russia exports 130 billion cubic meters of gas to the EU, much of it through pipelines that run through Ukraine. A sanction against Russian natural gas would cost the country $70 billion, or roughly 3 percent of their GDP. While this would hurt Russia, it could also potentially crush the nations of the EU, as 30 percent of their energy comes from their Eastern neighbor. Some nations are more heavily dependent than others. For example, 55 percent of Greece’s energy comes directly from Russia.

It isn't just Europe, either. Economic sanctions against Russia would directly impact some of America’s largest companies — namely Morgan Stanley, Chevron, and the most profitable one in the nation, Exxon Mobil.

United States-based Exxon Mobil and Russia’s Rosneft, two of the largest energy companies in the world, have teamed up to tackle oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. This is a $500 billion joint venture, tracing back to 2011, that Exxon will not just be able to walk away from. Additionally, the United States (and everyone else) will be in greater need of oil if they block Russia’s massive energy supply, throwing the entire global market out of whack. This leaves everyone in a giant, greasy pickle.

As Exxon’s former CEO Lee Raymond once notoriously stated, "I’m not a U.S. company, and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S." They are a global behemoth that doesn't take losing business lightly.

AP photo/RIA Novosti, Alexei Druzhinin, pool

In fact, that's current Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson buddying up with Putin when he signed the Rosneft deal back in 2011. The two are partners in one of the most mutually beneficial business relationships in the history of the oil (or any) industry. Exxon drills in Siberia; Rosneft and Exxon have a joint venture to explore the Gulf of Mexico for drilling; and Rosneft was given the option to join Exxon in a Northern Alaskan natural gas stake. It hasn't been upset by the current Crimea crisis, yet, but there's no telling how a punitive sanction could impact the American oil giant.

Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, is none too happy about potential sanctions either, and would likely agree with Raymond’s mentality. While Sechin is a Putin ally, he has expressed frustration that sanctions could end up hurting Western business deals. In the meantime, Sechin has been the target of potential EU sanctions.

But Rosneft is also smart enough to know that their partners don't want sanctions either. Mikhail Leontyev, spokesman for Rosneft, believes that any sanctions against Sechin would be “stupid, petty and obvious sabotage of themselves most of all. I think it will primarily affect Rosneft’s business partners in the West in an extraordinary way." Sechin himself all but threatened to take his business elsewhere (i.e., China, Japan, and other parts of Asia), continuing to sell his oil and make money while Europe suffers.

Morgan Stanley is in an equally oily pickle. The banking giant is in the process of selling their oil trading businessto Rosneft. It's a deal the company desperately wants to make, but the sale to would require specific approval from the United States Committee on Foreign Investment. In the event of U.S. sanctions against Russian energy, or EU sanctions against Sechin specifically, that deal would be sunk.

If oil and natural gas weren’t enough of an issue, economic sanctions would also affect space, as Russia holds a key link to the International Space Station. While McCain may not have been planning any trips to Siberia, any Americans planning on stopping by the ISS will find themselves out of luck, as Russia is “the only country to operate a space shuttle that can take astronauts to the International Space Station." Will the march of science halt in Crimea?

Thus far, none of those truly punitive economic sanctions have been issued, mostly likely because the West knows they have as much to lose their rivals. As long as Russia has such a large stake in the world's oil and natural gas market, and their pipelines continue powering the vast majority of Europe, any true economic damage will surely visit more than just Putin's inner circle. It is expected that the EU and their most Russia-connected countries, such as Germany, will have a very large say in how, and if, sanctions continue to escalate.

This article was originally published at http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/03/russian-sanctions-have-been-pointless-but-the-next-ones-could-hurt-the-us-more/359502/

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 3/27/2014 1:09:39 AM
	Snowden sees 'turning point' in NSA reforms March 25, 2014 5:31 PM President Barack Obama said Tuesday a proposal to have U.S. telephone companies - instead of the NSA - hold onto call record data satisfies public concerns about government being in control of the data. (March 25) Watch video View gallery An undated handout picture received from Channel 4 on December 24, 2013 shows US intelligence leaker … Related Stories White House proposes to end NSA bulk data collection AFP Snowden at SXSW: The NSA is 'setting fire to the future of the Internet' Yahoo News [$$] Consensus Nears to Overhaul NSA Phone Surveillance The Wall Street Journal Snowden: His NSA leaks leave world 'in a more secure place' Christian Science Monitor NSA leaker Snowden says has no regrets for leaks Associated Press Washington (AFP) - Fugitive former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden said Tuesday he sees a "turning point" in the surveillance reform plans unveiled by the White House and Congress. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked documents which provided details of vast US surveillance programs, gave a guarded welcome to a proposal from President Barack Obama to end bulk collection of telephone data. "I believed that if the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance of Americans was known, it would not survive the scrutiny of the courts, the Congress, and the people," Snowden said in a statement released through the American Civil Liberties Union, which is coordinating his legal representation. "The very first open and adversarial court to ever judge these programs has now declared them 'Orwellian' and 'likely unconstitutional,'" the statement said. Snowden also made reference to the "USA Freedom Act," a proposal introduced earlier this year, saying it offered "historic, albeit incomplete reforms." He added that "President Obama has now confirmed that these mass surveillance programs, kept secret from the public and defended out of reflex rather than reason, are in fact unnecessary and should be ended." Snowden said, "This is a turning point, and it marks the beginning of a new effort to reclaim our rights from the NSA and restore the public's seat at the table of government." The White House plan would keep the data outside of government while allowing access for national security reasons, officials said. Key US lawmakers welcomed the proposal, and one group put forward new reform legislation along the same lines, with bipartisan support. Snowden says NSA reforms a 'turning point' The fugitive leaker's response comes after news of proposed changes to spying programs. 'New effort to reclaim our rights'
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 3/27/2014 1:14:53 AM
	Pope replaces German 'bling bishop' after inquiry By NICOLE WINFIELD12 hours ago In this Aug. 29, 2013 file photo the Bishop of Limburg Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst blesses a new Kindergarten in Frankfurt, Germany. Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 permanently removed a German bishop from his Limburg diocese after his 31 million-euro ($43-million) new residence complex caused an uproar among the faithful. Francis had temporarily expelled Monsignor Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst from Limburg in October pending a church inquiry into the affair. The Vatican said Wednesday that the inquiry found that Tebartz-van Elst could no longer exercise his ministry and that Francis had accepted his resignation, which was originally offered Oct. 20. A replacement, Monsignor Manfred Grothe, currently an auxiliary bishop in Paderborn, will take over, the Vatican said, citing a statement from the diocese. It said Tebartz-van Elst would get a new job “at the opportune time. (AP Photo/Michael Probst, Files) View Gallery VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis on Wednesday permanently removed a German bishop from his Limburg diocese after his 31 million-euro ($43-million) new residence complex caused an uproar among the faithful. Related Stories Vatican removes German 'bishop of bling' over luxury home Reuters Pope accepts resignation of Germany's 'bling bishop' AFP Germany's Catholic bishops elect Marx as leaderAssociated Press Retired Pope Benedict critiqued Francis' interviewAssociated Press Pope taps women, victims for sex abuse commission Associated Press Francis had temporarily expelled Monsignor Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst from Limburg in October pending a church inquiry. At the center of the controversy was the price tag for the construction of a new bishop's residence complex and related renovations. Tebartz-van Elst defended the expenditures, saying the bill was actually for 10 projects and there were additional costs because the buildings were under historical protection. But in a country where Martin Luther launched the Reformation five centuries ago in response to what he said were excesses and abuses within the church, the outcry was enormous. The perceived lack of financial transparency also struck a chord since a church tax in Germany brings in billions a year to the German church. The Vatican said Wednesday that the inquiry into the renovation found that Tebartz-van Elst could no longer exercise his ministry in Limburg and that Francis had accepted his resignation, which was originally offered Oct. 20. The Vatican said Monsignor Manfred Grothe, currently an auxiliary bishop in Paderborn, would take over but that Tebartz-van Elst would get a new job "at the opportune time." View gallery In this Oct. 17, 2013 file picture people watch a part of the residence of Franz-Peter Tebartz-van E … It added that the pope hoped that the faithful of Limburg would accept the decision with "docility and willingness to rediscover a climate of charity and reconciliation." In Berlin, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the head of the German Bishops' Conference, told reporters he would do whatever he could to help the Limburg dioceses move on. "For that we will need reconciliation, new trust and the power of prayer," he said. Francis has called on his priests and bishops to be models of sobriety in a church that "is poor and is for the poor." ___ Follow Nicole Winfield at www.twitter.com/nwinfield Related video Pope Francis replaces German 'bling bishop' The fugitive leaker's response comes after news of proposed changes to spying programs. 'New effort to reclaim our rights'
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+0

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 3/27/2014 2:24:23 AM
	Note: While I don't agree with the author's praise of some of the current leaders in the area, the overall scenario depicted in this article, particularly concerning the role of the U.S. in it, looks to me pretty accurate Caleb Maupin, RT, 3-25-14… “US leaders reject democracy, once again” Posted on 2014/03/25by kauilapele I found this article, by Caleb Maupin of RT, an excellent summary of how the US of A Corporation speaks out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. That’s quite a talent, probably something like a ventriloquist. If, as a country, “you don’t comply” with that Corporation, it will send in its “trouble causers” and foment a “revolution” in the name of “democracy”… which, of course, is another word for “control by the West (cabal)” of that country. Caleb Maupin describes many examples of that. “At this moment, the countries that the US seeks to overthrow and destabilize are all part of an emerging global alliance. They have all declared some measure of economic independence. They have sought to reconstruct the economy to serve themselves, not billionaires in the US and Europe. US leaders… do not care if there is massive public support for such regimes. Any country that refuses to bow before the economic hegemony of the West… is targeted with subversion and attack. In the New World Order declared by George H.W. Bush in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, no country is allowed to develop independently. The world economy is to be controlled by the billionaires on Wall Street and the London Stock Exchange, and all who demand independence are to be threatened, sanctioned, bombed and destroyed. The bombing of Libya, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Serbia, all served to beat down leaders and regimes that refused to accept economic domination by the United States. …the will of the people, in every corner of the globe, is for independence and freedom. The global setup of economic domination by Western powers is highly unpopular… the people continue to demand economic independence and national liberation. Leaders like Patrice Lamumba, Mao Zedong, Hugo Chavez, Alexander Lukashenko, Hassan Nasrallah, and Evo Morales continue to emerge, and people continue to rally around them. The prosperity, freedom and happiness offered by those promoting western economic “development” has simply not materialized, and globally, the human race is rejecting the path offered by Wall Street and London.” ——————————————————————————- US leaders reject democracy, once again Caleb Maupin, March 25, 2014 23:21 In Crimea, some may be surprised by the US’s blatant rejection of a clear democratic mandate for independence, as leaders in Washington constantly boast of being “defenders of democracy.” Back in 2003, George W. Bush justified his invasion of Iraq by saying he was “bringing freedom” to Iraq and “removing a dictator.” In 2011, Barack Obama justified sending cruise missiles to Libya by calling Gaddafi a “tyrant.” The US currently gives material support to insurgent groups in Syria, allegedly because Assad is a “dictator.” Children in the United States, from a very young age, are indoctrinated to believe that the US fights for “freedom” around the world, and enemies of the US are simply those who reject it. The nauseating rhetoric of the US being “the greatest country in the world” is accompanied by a historical mythology that in each military conflict, from the conquest of the Philippines in 1899 to the Cold War, the US government was motivated merely by a desire to “defend” and “spread freedom” and to fight against “dictators” and “oppressors.” This narrative is simply false. An examination of the world situation shows that the rejection of the popular will of Crimea is nothing new. In numerous instances, the US government has considered popular leaders chosen by democratic elections to be illegitimate and worked to undermine them, and in many other instances, the US backed unpopular and oppressive autocrats. The 2009 coup in Honduras In 2009, the Honduran military removed President Manuel Zelaya, who had won in a democratic election. After overthrowing the elected government, Roberto Michilletti, the general who led this violent coup was declared “Congressman for Life.” Since the coup, there has been a campaign of fascist violence in Honduras. Over 30 journalists have been assassinated. Human Rights Watch reports that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender activists are also being exterminated, with 70 of them already targeted and killed. The coup has resulted in economic horror. The World Bank reports that 59 percent of the country now lives in poverty, with the level of extreme poverty growing each day. Fifty-one percent of the population is unemployed. Honduras now also has the highest murder rate in the entire world. A couple and their child have breakfast amid the garbage at the municipal rubbish dump, 20 km north of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. (AFP Photo / Orlando Sierra) A couple and their child have breakfast amid the garbage at the municipal rubbish dump, 20 km north of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. (AFP Photo / Orlando Sierra) The US did not send in cruise missiles to “defend democracy” when Zelaya was overthrown. The response was the opposite. Zeleya, the democratically-elected president, had dared to align with Bolivia and Venezuela. He had rejected the rule of Wall Street and led Honduras into the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA). When he was violently overthrown, the US embraced the military leaders who did so and has continued to align with them. What happened in Honduras in 2009 was similar to what the US did in 1973 in Chile. Salvador Allende, a democratically-elected socialist, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup. The fascist regime of Augusto Pinochet was installed, and at least 20,000 left-wing activists were rounded up and summarily executed. All across Latin America, the CIA has carried out coups, overturned governments and installed pro-Wall Street autocrats. The destabilization of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, is highly popular. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lukashenko refused to sell off Belarus mines, forests, and factories. Eighty percent of Belarus’ economy remains under public ownership. The CIA World Factbook confirms that while unemployment around the world has skyrocketed in recent decades, in Belarus less than 2 percent of the population is unemployed. Lukashenko’s popularity is based on economic populism, standing up for the people, and refusing to allow the plunder of the country. When Lukashenko was first elected in 1995, he received only a plurality of 45.1 percent of the vote. After his first term in office, when he ran for reelection in 2001, he was voted back into office with 77 percent. Running for his third term in 2006, he received 82 percent of the vote. In the most recent election in 2010, Lukashenko won 79 percent of the vote. Each presidential election in Belarus is surrounded by violence and rioting staged by the anti-government minority in Belarus that is funded by the Western economic powers, and cheered by Western media. The National Endowment for Democracy has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into anti-government groups in Belarus. NGOs have been established. Following the 2010 presidential election, government buildings had their windows smashed. Belarus faces economic sanctions from the European Union. While Lukashenko is highly popular with the people of Belarus, and has been reelected with large majorities, the US has worked very hard to destabilize Belarus and overthrow him. The fact that Lukashenko is supported by an overwhelming majority of the population has not halted the “defenders of democracy” in Washington from trying to remove him, and calling Belarus “an outpost of tyranny.” Labeling Chavez and Maduro ‘dictators’ Another example of complete US disregard for democracy has been the treatment given to the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Chavez was elected multiple times. Each of these elections was observed by the United Nations, the Carter Center, and the Organization of American States, who all certified their results as legitimate. Maduro, Chavez’s successor, has also been elected democratically, with over 170 different foreign observers welcomed to Venezuela to oversee the voting process. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (AFP Photo / Leo Ramirez) Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (AFP Photo / Leo Ramirez) In Venezuela, opposition parties not only openly operate, but control most of the TV networks and media. Anti-Chavez and Anti-Maduro rhetoric is constantly spewed from Venezuela’s television and radio stations. Rallies against the government by right-wing groups are everyday occurrences. Venezuela does not have the death penalty, let alone torture, rendition or secret prisons. Yet somehow, US officials and Western media insist that Chavez was a brutal dictator. John Kerry now speaks of sanctions against Venezuela. No matter how much the Bolivarian forces in Venezuela accommodate the right-wing, US-funded opposition, the Western media and officials in Washington insist on calling them “dictators.” The Venezuelan public has voted again and again in favor of the popular reforms that began with Chavez, and continue now with Maduro. The Venezuelan public supports the economic empowerment of working people, the changing of capitalist property relations, and the expansion of popular democracy, and has voted to allow the process to continue. The US government and its allies are unconcerned about the popularity of the Bolivarian movement, or even its continued tolerance of the increasingly violent minority who oppose it. The US openly works to destabilize and overthrow the popular Venezuelan government, and yet somehow declares these efforts to be “democratic.” Wall Street’s favorite autocrats While many democratically-elected governments are subverted and threatened by the United States, there are many open unapologetic dictatorships that receive US support. All the tyrants, mass murderers and oppressive dictators who have received US funding and support have received it because they are obedient servants for Wall Street. With their slaughter, they have kept profits flowing to the New York Stock Exchange, and they have murdered those who would direct them otherwise by forming labor unions, establishing measures of economic protection, or demanding basic democratic rights. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. It conducts public beheading and floggings and has absolutely no notion of “civil rights” or “freedom.” Saudi people have no ability to vote against this regime, and there are no elections of any kind taking place in Saudi Arabia. Yet the US sends billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia each year. The blatantly autocratic kingdom is the primary ally of the United States in the Middle East, after Israel. In South Korea, it is a crime to make certain political statements. Park Jeong-Geun was detained and jailed for tweeting. His tweets were not even meant as political statements but as sarcastic jokes, but he was still locked up. The Unified Progressive Party, the primary opposition party in South Korea, has been shut down, with its leaders sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Yet 28,500 US troops are stationed in South Korea to protect this regime, and it also receives millions of dollars in US aid and support. The Gulf emirate of Qatar is so autocratic and repressive that it does not just ban opposition parties, but all political parties. People there have none of the “human rights” or “freedom of speech” the US claims to champion. In one example of the autocratic nature of Qatar, a poet named Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami was sentenced to life in prison for “insulting” a leader of the country. In October, his sentence was reduced from life to 15 years. Despite no notion of democracy existing, and life sentences being handed down for political expression, the US still supplies Qatar with millions of dollars each year. US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) shakes hands with Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani during a meeting at Wajbah Palace in Doha on June 23, 2013. (AFP Photo / Jacquelyn Martin) US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) shakes hands with Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani during a meeting at Wajbah Palace in Doha on June 23, 2013. (AFP Photo / Jacquelyn Martin) The list of dictators and oppressors who have been funded, armed and supported by the United States is very long. It includes figures like the Shah of Iran, Rios Montt of Guatemala and other monsters who have tortured, murdered and killed. Francisco Franco, the military dictator of Spain from 1939 to 1975, rode into power with the aid of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and publicly executed numerous people by means of public strangulation. After World War II, he was embraced by the US, who signed the “Pact of Madrid,” promising absolute support to the fascist regime. US military facilities were set up in Spain and US President Richard Nixon toasted Franco, describing him as a “loyal friend and ally of the United States.” Though anti-Communist rhetoric from US leaders often includes references to “killing fields,” the US even briefly supported Pol Pot in Cambodia, thinking him to be a helpful ally against the Soviet Union and Vietnam. These historical facts are ignored by the average foreign policy analyst on CNN, Fox or MSNBC, but many people around the world have not forgotten them. Each time Obama, Clinton or Kerry begin to lecture us about the “human rights violations” of some leader around the world, millions of eyes roll in disgust. The US has worked with countless tyrants, oppressors and violators of human rights, and often has made no effort to conceal it. A global struggle for economic independence All across the world, countries are throwing off the rule of Wall Street, the London Stock Exchange, the IMF and other institutions of Western imperialist economic power. These countries are not political clones. Some are religious, some are secular, some are capitalist, some are socialist, some are led by Marxist-Leninist parties, others by committed anti-Communists; but all are united in a desire for economic independence. At this moment, the countries that the US seeks to overthrow and destabilize are all part of an emerging global alliance. They have all declared some measure of economic independence. They have sought to reconstruct the economy to serve themselves, not billionaires in the US and Europe. US leaders, despite their rhetoric, do not care if there is massive public support for such regimes. Any country that refuses to bow before the economic hegemony of the West, whether it is China, Russia, People’s Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe or Belarus, is targeted with subversion and attack. In the New World Order declared by George H.W. Bush in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, no country is allowed to develop independently. The world economy is to be controlled by the billionaires on Wall Street and the London Stock Exchange, and all who demand independence are to be threatened, sanctioned, bombed and destroyed. The bombing of Libya, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Serbia, all served to beat down leaders and regimes that refused to accept economic domination by the United States. It is clear, however, that the will of the people, in every corner of the globe, is for independence and freedom. The global setup of economic domination by Western powers is highly unpopular. No matter how many Cruise missiles are fired, sanctions are imposed, or terrorist groups are armed, the people continue to demand economic independence and national liberation. Leaders like Patrice Lamumba, Mao Zedong, Hugo Chavez, Alexander Lukashenko, Hassan Nasrallah, and Evo Morales continue to emerge, and people continue to rally around them. The prosperity, freedom and happiness offered by those promoting western economic “development” has simply not materialized, and globally, the human race is rejecting the path offered by Wall Street and London. When Obama talked of a direct military attack on Syria, world public opinion pushed him back. Now a new poll from Pew Research shows that the overwhelming majority of people, even within the United States itself, say “we should not get involved” in Ukraine. The Wall Street-run government of the United States is hostile to the sentiments expressed in popular democratic elections. It’s happy to embrace autocrats and tyrants, because humanity has rejected what they have put forward. Only as the bankers are driven back, and the oppressed countries of the world break free, we will begin to see a greater level of democracy unfold.
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 3/27/2014 10:20:01 AM
	Russian Sanctions Have Been Pointless, but the Next Ones Could Hurt the U.S. More By Polly MosendzMarch 25, 2014 3:33 PM Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the United States has been issuing a series of retaliatory sanctions, all against particular Russian individuals. Moscow has responded in kind, with for tit-for-tat restrictions on American lawmakers. While they serve as useful shows of diplomatic strength, they have been largely toothless. Perhaps that's because if more restrictions come, they could be just as bad for the West as they are for Russians. The original U.S.-led sanctions were against 11 executives and politicians — specifically, Vladimir Putin’s innermost circle — a development that most Russian politicians found vaguely amusing. A Russian official joked, "So what if I can’t get a visa to the United States? I didn’t want to go there anyway." Amidst criticism from the EU and other nations, the U.S. Treasury has updated their sanctions list, bumping it up to twenty Russian officials. The sanctions include sixteen government officials, including Putin’s chief of staff, Sergie Ivanov; the speaker of the State Duma, Sergey Naryshkin; and Viktor Ozerov, chairman of the security and defense committee of the parliament’s upper house. The Treasury has also prevented United States banks and individuals from doing business with Bank Rossiya, as the bank is associated with Putin's inner circle. Still, no actual trade sanctions were issued against the country as a whole. RELATED: Air Pollution Now Linked to One out of Every Eight Deaths in the World The European Union also joined in, sanctioning a total 33 officials, banning visas and freezing assets. Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, was unfazed: Dmitry Rogozin @DRogozin Follow All these sanctions aren't worth a grain of sand of the Crimean land that returned to Russia http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/news/es_nalogil_sanktsii_eshche_na_12_chinovnikov_iz_rossii___tusk_1615537 … 7:06 AM - 21 Mar 2014 106 RETWEETS 39 FAVORITES Putin retaliated with his own sanctions. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that “There should be no doubt: for every hostile attack, we will respond appropriately." That meant bans against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ("Reed"), vocal Russian critic Sen. John McCain, and Speaker of the House John Boehner, along with six others. Like his counterparts in Moscow, McCain was amused by the sanctions, saying “I guess that means my spring break in Siberia is off, my Gazprom stock is lost, and my secret bank account in Moscow is frozen. Nonetheless, I will never cease my efforts on behalf of the freedom, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.” Banned Senator Harry Reid had this to say: Senator Harry Reid ✔ @SenatorReid Follow President Putin, it's one thing to pick on me, but I wouldn't mess with Mary. @SenLandrieu #SanctionedByPutin 12:29 PM - 20 Mar 2014 179 RETWEETS 81 FAVORITES Boehner is also wearing his ban proudly: Speaker John Boehner ✔ @SpeakerBoehner Follow Proud to be included on a list of those willing to stand against Putin’s aggression http://j.mp/1gCSPCr 11:00 AM - 20 Mar 2014 Russia bans entry to US lawmakers, officials Russia says it has imposed entry bans on nine U.S. lawmakers and officials in retaliation to Washington’s sanctions over Crimea. Washington Post @washingtonpost 207 RETWEETS 147 FAVORITES It seems getting personally sanctioned isn't so much a punishment, as it is a source of bragging rights for lawmakers... on both sides of the divide. RELATED: Chinese Families Demand Answers, Evidence From Malaysia Over MH370 Thus far, none of these sanctions are having any major economic implications for either side, though the fear is there that something worse could be afoot. Kremlin rules have prevented Russian officials from keeping money in overseas investments for some time, according to William Pomerantz of the Woodrow Wilson Center, and therefore they did not (technically and legally) have anything to lose by being barred from the States. The Crimea conflict has affected Russia’s uber-rich — they combined to lose an estimate $6.6 billion dollars in one week, mostly due to failing stocks — but these particular sanctions do not affect their general spending or investments in the United States. Billionaire New Jersey Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov is one of those billionaires caught between two worlds, as his stock wealth has taken a huge hit in recent weeks, and he's been frustrated in his efforts to transfer the ownership of the team to a Russian-based company, in compliance with Putin's laws. (But in violation of NBA ownership rules.) RELATED: Australia Temporarily Suspends Search As Airline Echoes Belief That MH370 Crashed While Russia’s wealthiest politicians are technically not allowed to keep investments overseas, a fair amount of Russian money has been invested in the United States economy. Since 2012, one billion dollars in residential real estate in the United States has been purchased by Russian buyers. As long as the sanctions are against government officials, rather than general economic sanctions, Russian money can keep flowing into the United States as usual until further notice. However, if full blown economic sanctions are issued — and President Obama has threatened to targetRussia's financial, energy, and mining industries — the pain could become very real. Yes, Russian’s wealthiest will be locked out of their billions in real estate, along with other lucrative United States-based investments. And they might be the only ones able to wield any influence Putin's decision making. But that also cuts of a major source of funding to the American real estate market, too. Similarly, much of Europe and the United States would be affected by hits to Russian-dependent resources, mainly oil and natural gas. RELATED: After Kicking Out Russia, the G8 Is Now The G7 Currently, Russia exports 130 billion cubic meters of gas to the EU, much of it through pipelines that run through Ukraine. A sanction against Russian natural gas would cost the country $70 billion, or roughly 3 percent of their GDP. While this would hurt Russia, it could also potentially crush the nations of the EU, as 30 percent of their energy comes from their Eastern neighbor. Some nations are more heavily dependent than others. For example, 55 percent of Greece’s energy comes directly from Russia. It isn't just Europe, either. Economic sanctions against Russia would directly impact some of America’s largest companies — namely Morgan Stanley, Chevron, and the most profitable one in the nation, Exxon Mobil. United States-based Exxon Mobil and Russia’s Rosneft, two of the largest energy companies in the world, have teamed up to tackle oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. This is a $500 billion joint venture, tracing back to 2011, that Exxon will not just be able to walk away from. Additionally, the United States (and everyone else) will be in greater need of oil if they block Russia’s massive energy supply, throwing the entire global market out of whack. This leaves everyone in a giant, greasy pickle. As Exxon’s former CEO Lee Raymond once notoriously stated, "I’m not a U.S. company, and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S." They are a global behemoth that doesn't take losing business lightly. AP photo/RIA Novosti, Alexei Druzhinin, pool In fact, that's current Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson buddying up with Putin when he signed the Rosneft deal back in 2011. The two are partners in one of the most mutually beneficial business relationships in the history of the oil (or any) industry. Exxon drills in Siberia; Rosneft and Exxon have a joint venture to explore the Gulf of Mexico for drilling; and Rosneft was given the option to join Exxon in a Northern Alaskan natural gas stake. It hasn't been upset by the current Crimea crisis, yet, but there's no telling how a punitive sanction could impact the American oil giant. Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, is none too happy about potential sanctions either, and would likely agree with Raymond’s mentality. While Sechin is a Putin ally, he has expressed frustration that sanctions could end up hurting Western business deals. In the meantime, Sechin has been the target of potential EU sanctions. But Rosneft is also smart enough to know that their partners don't want sanctions either. Mikhail Leontyev, spokesman for Rosneft, believes that any sanctions against Sechin would be “stupid, petty and obvious sabotage of themselves most of all. I think it will primarily affect Rosneft’s business partners in the West in an extraordinary way." Sechin himself all but threatened to take his business elsewhere (i.e., China, Japan, and other parts of Asia), continuing to sell his oil and make money while Europe suffers. Morgan Stanley is in an equally oily pickle. The banking giant is in the process of selling their oil trading businessto Rosneft. It's a deal the company desperately wants to make, but the sale to would require specific approval from the United States Committee on Foreign Investment. In the event of U.S. sanctions against Russian energy, or EU sanctions against Sechin specifically, that deal would be sunk. If oil and natural gas weren’t enough of an issue, economic sanctions would also affect space, as Russia holds a key link to the International Space Station. While McCain may not have been planning any trips to Siberia, any Americans planning on stopping by the ISS will find themselves out of luck, as Russia is “the only country to operate a space shuttle that can take astronauts to the International Space Station." Will the march of science halt in Crimea? Thus far, none of those truly punitive economic sanctions have been issued, mostly likely because the West knows they have as much to lose their rivals. As long as Russia has such a large stake in the world's oil and natural gas market, and their pipelines continue powering the vast majority of Europe, any true economic damage will surely visit more than just Putin's inner circle. It is expected that the EU and their most Russia-connected countries, such as Germany, will have a very large say in how, and if, sanctions continue to escalate. This article was originally published at http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/03/russian-sanctions-have-been-pointless-but-the-next-ones-could-hurt-the-us-more/359502/
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Menu

Forums

Snowden sees 'turning point' in NSA reforms

Pope replaces German 'bling bishop' after inquiry

The Truthseeker (3-23-14): Media ‘staged’ Syria [and Iraq, and Ukraine, and...]… attack[s]

Caleb Maupin, RT, 3-25-14… “US leaders reject democracy, once again”

Russian Sanctions Have Been Pointless, but the Next Ones Could Hurt the U.S. More

Russia bans entry to US lawmakers, officials

Menu

Forums

Snowden sees 'turning point' in NSA reforms

Related Stories

Pope replaces German 'bling bishop' after inquiry

Related Stories

The Truthseeker (3-23-14): Media ‘staged’ Syria [and Iraq, and Ukraine, and...]… attack[s]

Caleb Maupin, RT, 3-25-14… “​US leaders reject democracy, once again”

Russian Sanctions Have Been Pointless, but the Next Ones Could Hurt the U.S. More

Russia bans entry to US lawmakers, officials

Caleb Maupin, RT, 3-25-14… “US leaders reject democracy, once again”