[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Share on Google+

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 2/8/2017 11:23:21 PM
	Amnesty International “Human Slaughterhouse” Report Lacks Evidence, Credibility, Reeks Of State Department Propaganda FEBRUARY 8, 2017 By Brandon Turbeville In yet another act of “convenient” timing, Amnesty International has released a bombshell report alleging the execution by hanging of 13,000 Syrian prisoners by the Syrian government from 2011-2015. The report, “Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings And Extermination At Saydnaya Prison, Syria,” which contains rather detailed descriptions of torture, rape, and execution as well as other horrific activity has no doubt caught the attention of many people, even those who have followed the events transpiring in Syria for the last six years. However, there is one important aspect of the report that Amnesty International lacks . . . evidence. While the report, at first glance, might sound convincing, an adequate reading of the text reveals it to be yet another Western propaganda piece designed to demonize the Assad government shortly before important talks take place in Switzerland. The report contains the right buzzwords such as “extermination campaign” and reads like a story recounting Nazi concentration camps so as to jog the ever-present memory of the Holocaust, thus causing the reader to subconsciously and consciously associate the Nazi slaughter of the Jews with the alleged Assad execution of 13,000 prisoners. Still, while we must give credit to good writing, we must point out that good writing with no evidence is just a piece of fiction. Below are a number of reasons to question the report and, as a result, another list of reasons to question the integrity of Amnesty International. The Timing Of The Report The report has been released conveniently two weeks before talks are set to begin in Switzerland between the Syrian government and the so-called opposition. This is no accident. Already, suit-wearing terrorists are crying that the Syria Peace talks scheduled in two weeks must address the report and the accusations. This “convenient” timing brings to mind the now infamous “Caesar” report produced and paraded around Western media as fact but which, in reality, was nothing more than Qatari-sponsored propaganda. The Numbers First, it is important to take a look at the numbers cited by Amnesty International. While the Western media is doing its best to raise the numbers even higher, citing “at least 13,000,” we shall examine the 13,000 claims themselves. In fact, the numbers are not 13,000, they are somewhere between 5,000 and 13,000, a variance of 8,000. Indeed, while 5,000 alone might seem like a large number, a margin of error that is larger than half of the highest estimate is highly questionable. It is also important to point out that these numbers are merely an estimate. Take a look at the “Executive Summary,” where the report states, From December 2015 to December 2016, Amnesty International researched the patterns, sequence and scale of violations carried out at Saydnaya Military Prison (Saydnaya). In the course of this investigation, the organization interviewed 31 men who were detained at Saydnaya, four prison officials or guards who previously worked at Saydnaya, three former Syrian judges, three doctors who worked at Tishreen Military Hospital, four Syrian lawyers, 17 international and national experts on detention in Syria and 22 family members of people who were or still are detained at Saydnaya. … On the basis of evidence from people who worked within the prison authorities at Saydnaya and witness testimony from detainees, Amnesty International estimates that between 5,000 and 13,000 people were extrajudicially executed at Saydnaya between September 2011 and December 2015. So where are these numbers coming from? First, the “raw data” is coming from two witnesses total. Even the “raw data” is an estimate from the alleged “witnesses.” Even the extrapolation from that “raw data” is itself an estimate. Look at how the report explains the mechanism for determining how many people have been killed: People who worked within the prison authorities at Saydnaya told Amnesty International that extrajudicial executions related to the crisis in Syria first began in September 2011. Since that time, the frequency with which they have been carried out has varied and increased. For the first four months, it was usual for between seven and 20 people to be executed every 10-15 days. For the following 11 months, between 20 and 50 people were executed once a week, usually on Monday nights. For the subsequent six months, groups of between 20 and 50 people were executed once or twice a week, usually on Monday and/or Wednesday nights. Witness testimony from detainees suggests that the executions were conducted at a similar – or even higher – rate at least until December 2015. Assuming that the death rate remained the same as the preceding period, Amnesty International estimates that between 5,000 and 13,000 people were extrajudicially executed at Saydnaya between September 2011 and December 2015. . . . . . These estimates were based on the following calculations. If between seven and 20 were killed every 10-15 days from September to December 2011, the total figure would be between 56 people and 240 people for that period. If between 20 and 50 were killed every week between January and November 2012, the total figure would be between 880 and 2,200 for that period. If between 20 and 50 people were killed in 222 execution sessions (assuming the executions were carried out twice a week twice a month and once a week once a month) between December 2012 and December 2015, the total figure would be between 4,400 and 11,100 for that period. These calculations produce a minimum figure of 5,336, rounded down to the nearest thousand as 5,000, and 13,540, rounded down to the nearest thousand as 13,000. Notice the variances of the numbers (between x and y) as well as the language demonstrating lack of anything concrete; i.e. “suggests,” “once or twice a week,” and “assuming.” In another section of the report, it states, Former detainees from the red building at Saydnaya provided Amnesty International with the names of 59 individuals who they witnessed being taken from their cells in the afternoon, being told that they were being transferred to civilian prisons in Syria. The evidence contained in this report strongly suggests that in fact, these individuals were extrajudicially executed. . . . . . Former prison guards and a former prison official from Saydnaya also provided Amnesty International with the names of 36 detainees who had been extrajudicially executed in Saydnaya since 2011. These 95 individuals are the only ones Amnesty is able to name. So with the report down from 13,000 to 95, it should be pointed out that the ability to name does not equal proof of execution. Even with all its “witnesses,” there was very little evidence about these individuals (only 1-2% of the total numbers claimed by the report) having been allegedly executed. Indeed, in its section “Documented Deaths,” Amnesty is forced to admit that the numbers of deaths cannot be proven but the organization still attempts to pad their numbers with deaths which are not from execution. The report states, the exact number of deaths in Saydnaya is impossible to specify. However, the Syrian Network for Human Rights has verified and shared with Amnesty International the names of 375 individuals who have died in Saydnaya as a result of torture and other ill-treatment between March 2011 and October 2016. Of these, 317 were civilians at the time of their arrest, 39 were members of the Syrian military and 19 were members of non-state armed groups. In the course of the research for this report, Amnesty International obtained the names of 36 additional individuals who died as a result of torture and other ill-treatment in Saydnaya. These names were provided to Amnesty International by former detainees who witnessed the deaths in their cells. Notice also the source of much of the information – the Syrian Network For Human Rights. The Sources Of The Report So who are these alleged “witnesses” and sources behind the report to begin with? For starters, very few interviews were actually conducted in Syria and those that were, were conducted remotely by Skype or telephone. Some were conducted in Lebanon, Jordan, Europe, and the United States. Most, however, were conducted in southern Turkey, the home base of ISIS and related terrorist factions being facilitated by Erdogan’s government and funneled into Syria. Interestingly enough, since Amnesty International has wisely been barred from entering Syria by the government, the organization admits that it does not have access to government-held territory, hinting that it very well might have access to terrorist-held areas. The report states that, Given that Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from entering the country and has consequently not had access to government-controlled areas since 2011, the majority of these interviews were carried out in southern Turkey, the majority of these interviews took place in person in southern Turkey. The remaining interviews were conducted by telephone or through other remote means with interviewees still in Syria, or with individuals based in Lebanon, Jordan, European countries and the USA. The report mentions how it came to find the individuals it interviewed for the report. It states that it was put in contact with the relevant alleged “victims” or former “perpetrators” by various international NGOs like “Urnammu for Justice and Human Rights, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, and the Syrian Institute for Justice and Accountability,” all organizations that have profoundly misrepresented the facts on the ground, the opinions and voices of the Syrian people, and who have supported terrorists by acting as ISIS, al-Qaeda, FSA, etc. propaganda organs. Syrian Network For Human Rights (SNHR) is a notoriously shady organization which many believe to be associated with British Intelligence. As Moon of Alabama writes, SNHR is known for rather ridiculous claims about casualties caused by various sides of the conflict. It is not know what SNHR qualifies as civilians – do these include armed civil militia? But note that none of the mostly civilians SNHR claims to have died in the prison are said to have been executed. How is it possible that a organization frequently quoted in the media as detailed source of casualties in Syria has no record of the 5,000 to 13,000 Amnesty claims were executed? Good question. One last time, it is imperative that we point out that the Amnesty International report is based on interviews conducted with individuals all over the world who claim to have been victims and perpetrators who are mostly outside of Syria or located in terrorist havens. These individuals were recommended to Amnesty International via three NGOs who are notoriously biased, anti-Assad, pro-terrorist, and potentially wings of intelligence operations. Nowhere in the report is there any attempt to provide a different view or contrary opinion. All information is represented as fact. Sound legit? Not to me. The “Witness” Testimony Is Not Convincing In Moon of Alabama’s analysis, some important criticism is leveled at the accuracy of the “witness” testimony. The website writes, I will not go into the details of witness statements on which the report is build. They seem at least exaggerated and are not verifiable at all. In the end it is pure hearsay on which Amnesty sets it conclusions. One example from page 25: “Hamid”, a former military officer when he was arrested in 2012, recalled the sounds he heard at night during an execution: “There was a sound of something being pulled out – like a piece of wood, I’m not sure – and then you would hear the sound of them being strangled… If you put your ears on the floor, you could hear the sound of a kind of gurgling. This would last around 10 minutes… We were sleeping on top of the sound of people choking to death. This was normal for me then.” A court might accept ‘sound of “I’m not sure” “kind of gurgling” noise through concrete’ as proof that a shower was running somewhere. But as proof of executions? Of all the witnesses Amnesty says it interviewed only two, a former prison official and a former judge, who describe actual executions (page 25). From the wording of their statements it is unclear if they have witnessed any hangings themselves or just describe something they have been told of. Amnesty Maligns The Grand Mufti and Tries To Represent A Sectarian Syria The military court procedures described in the report have one glaringly ridiculous flaw that should stand out immediately to anyone who has even a passing understanding of Syrian society and culture. The report attempts to claim that the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, is involved in the approval of orders to execute prisoners. On page 19 it says that “The judgement is sent by military post to the Grand Mufti of Syria and to either the Minister of Defence or the Chief of Staff of the Army, who are deputized to sign for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and who specify the date of the execution.” Yet the report seems to forget two things. First, the Grand Mufti is a well-known moderate who has repeatedly called for peace throughout the conflict. In fact, the position of Grand Mufti is civil only and only pronounces judgement in matters related to certain members of the Sunni faith, similar (although not identical) to a Bishop in the Catholic religion. It would be vastly out of character and vastly contradictory for the Grand Mufti to take part in such activities. It would also be out of character for the Syrian government to consult a Grand Mufti or any religious leader in regards to its war policy. After all, hasn’t Western media portrayed Assad as a sectarian Alawite? So why is he deferring to the Sunni Grand Mufti? Regardless, the report misses one glaringly obvious fact: Syria is a secular society. Perhaps Amnesty International’s “experts” are ignorant or perhaps they simply believe the Western public is so gullible that such details do not matter but, unlike prehistoric states like Saudi Arabia, Syria is a government of civil law, not the religious. Another possibility is that Amnesty’s witnesses, so closely aligned with the “opposition,” are unaware of how secular societies work, being so used to having religious authorities governing every aspect of life, that they unwittingly included jihadist culture into their depiction of Syrian policy. We might never know the answer but we do know that the representation of Syrian culture provided by Amnesty is inaccurate to say the least. The Satellite Images Another source provoking questions about the veracity of the report are the satellite images purportedly showing mass graves near South Damascus. But the images clearly do not show mass graves. They show an expansion of a cemetery, exactly what one would expect in a cemetery near a major city in a country that has experienced such horrific warfare. These photos are grasping at straws to say the least. The Nature Of Amnesty International In his excellent article, “Amnesty International Is US State Department Propaganda,” Tony Cartalucci reveals the nature of Amnesty’s funding, which comes from both Western governments, international foundations and color revolution operations such as the infamous George Soros’ Open Society. Cartalucci writes, That Amnesty is supporting the US State Department’s agenda should be no surprise, it is run literally by the US State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, Suzanne Nossel. . . . . . . Mistakenly considered by many as the final word on human rights worldwide, it might surprise people to know that Amnesty International is in fact one of the greatest obstacles to real human rights advocacy on Earth. In its most recent 2012 annual report (page 4, .pdf), Amnesty reiterates one of the biggest lies it routinely tells: “Amnesty International is funded mainly by its membership and public donations. No funds are sought or accepted from governments for investigating and campaigning against human rights abuses. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion.” This is categorically false. Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests. . . . . . Finding financial information on Amnesty International’s website is made purposefully difficult – specifically to protect the myth that the organization is “independent.” Like any organized criminal operation, Amnesty separates compromising financial ties through a series of legal maneuvers and shell organizations. Upon Amnesty’s website it states: “The work carried out through Amnesty International’s International Secretariat is organised into two legal entities, in compliance with United Kingdom law. These are Amnesty International Limited (“AIL”) and Amnesty International Charity Limited (“AICL”). Amnesty International Limited undertakes charitable activities on behalf of Amnesty International Charity Limited, a registered charity.” And it is there, at Amnesty International Limited, where ties to both governments and corporate-financier interests are kept. On page 11 of Amnesty International Limited’s 2011 Report and Financial Statement (.pdf) it states (emphasis added): “The Directors are pleased to acknowledge the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Oak Foundation, Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Programme, Mauro Tunes and American Jewish World Service. The UK Department for International Development (Governance and Transparency Fund) continued to fund a four year human rights education project in Africa. The European Commission (EuropeAid)generously awarded a multi-year grant towards Amnesty International’s human rights education work in Europe.” Clearly then, Amnesty does take money from both governments and corporate-financier interests, one of the most notorious of which, Open Society, is headed by convicted financial criminal George Soros. In March, 2012, it was reported that a Bloomberg’s report, “Soros Loses Case Against French Insider-Trading Conviction,” indicated that an appeal based on a “human rights” violation against Wall Street speculator George Soros had been rejected by the “European Court of Human Rights.” Soros, whose Open Society also funds Human Rights Watch and a myriad of other “human rights” advocates, literally attempted to use the West’s human rights racket to defend himself against charges of financial fraud in perhaps the most transparent illustration of just how this racket operates. Soros, who was convicted and fined for insider trading in 2002 regarding French bank Société Générale shares he bought in 1988, has built an empire out of obfuscating global criminal activity with the cause of “human rights.” His support, as well as that of the British and European governments, of Amnesty International aims solely at expanding this obfuscating. Cartalucci also reveals the nature of the AI “leadership.” He writes, Amnesty’s leadership is also telling of its true agenda. Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, for instance was drawn directly from the US State Department – again, utterly contradicting Amnesty’s claims of being “independent” of governments and corporate interests. Nossel continued promoting US foreign policy, but simply behind a podium with a new logo, Amnesty International’s logo, attached to it. Amnesty International’s website specifically mentions Nossel’s role behind US State Department-backed UN resolutions regarding Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cote d’Ivoire. . . . . . A glance at AmnestyUSA.org reveals that each and every front the US State Department is currently working on and has prioritized is also coincidentally prioritized by Amnesty International. This includes rallies and campaigns to support US State Department-funded Russian opposition groups (currently fixated on “Pussy Riot“), undermining the Syrian government, toppling thegovernment of Belarus, and supporting the Wall Street-London created Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (still called by its British Imperial nomenclature of “Burma” by Suu Kyi herself). Conclusion The Amnesty International report is, at best, a faulty and poorly produced distortion of some disturbing reports from dubious sources, exaggerated for the purposes of demonizing Assad and the Syrian government. It simply cannot be believed and has no credibility whatsoever. The lack of understanding of Syrian culture, the straws being grasped when it comes to the satellite photos, dubious NGO influence, terrorist-linked sources, and lack of credible “witnesses” as well as the fact that virtually “evidence” being produced rests on these incredible “witnesses” all serve the purpose of destroying AI’s own propaganda before it can even get off the ground. Amnesty International may now officially join the ranks of Human Rights Watch in the running for which NGO and “human rights” organization can produce the most ridiculous yet effective propaganda against the Syrian government. Indeed, Amnesty International has long been known as a State Department propaganda organ designed to attack fake and even sometimes real human rights abuses of target governments. This new report has virtually no evidence to back up its claims and, until it can produce real verifiable evidence, the report itself must be disregarded. This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link. Image Credit: TruthStreamMedia.com (activistpost.com)
	"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? 2/9/2017 10:48:57 AM
	As Tensions With Iran Escalate, US Launches Major War Game Just 50 Miles Off The Iranian Coast FEBRUARY 8, 2017 By Melissa Dykes In the past two weeks, President Trump has made it pretty clear that he intends to go to war with Iran. Here are five signs right now — But there are many more. Case in point, after that video was put up, not only did Trump send out the following Tweet — Follow Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how "kind" President Obama was to them. Not me! 6:28 AM - 3 Feb 2017 64,850 Retweets 174,474 likes But Trump’s new Pentagon chief General Mattis also gave a press conference where he declared Iran to be “the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” That was last week. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s administration is actively working to “drive a wedge between Iran and Russia.” So yeah, all that and it hasn’t even been three weeks yet… Now Breitbart is exclusively reporting (not much of a shock there considering their former executive chair is now White House Chief Strategist) that 17 ships from the US, UK, Australia, and France chose last week — while the Trump Administration was threatening Iran left and right of all weeks — to launch a major war game just 50 miles from the Iranian coast. The exercise was called “Unified Trident”… and supposedly it was planned two months ago, but the timing sure was swell as it just so happened to coincide with Trump and his administration putting Iran “on notice” and slapping the country with fresh sanctions. What a “coincidence” huh? A British Navy Commander went on record that this had nothing to do with sabre-rattling: “It’s not a show of force to the Iranians at all,” the exercise’s logistical planner, British Royal Navy Lt. Cmdr. Ant Wallace, told the journalists aboard the HMS Ocean on the first day of the exercise. “The reason we’re doing this exercise, and I’ll stress this over and over again, is because it’s easier to do here than it would be anywhere else … The fact that it’s in the Arabian Gulf is coincidental, really,” he said. Really. Do you believe him? P.S.: But the exercise featured two fictitious regional rivals, Redland (RL) and Grunland (GL), which bore close resemblances to Iran and the U.S. Gee… Ya don’t say… Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Melissa Dykes of The Daily Sheeple. Image Credit: Centcom.mil (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tim Comerford) (activistpost.com)
	"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? 2/9/2017 11:04:43 AM
	In one Texas city where refugees are welcomed, immigration ban sows fear and confusion Holly Bailey National Correspondent Yahoo NewsFebruary 8, 2017 Evelyn Lyles, a longtime volunteer with Amarillo’s refugee community, poses inside a community center she established at the Astoria Park Apartments. (Photo: Holly Bailey/Yahoo News) AMARILLO, Texas — Evelyn Lyles has been retired for four years, but she’s never worked harder. Up before dawn, she tries to leave her house most days around 7 a.m., driving her old Toyota Corolla across town to the Astoria Park Apartments, where she spends most of the daylight hours checking in on the people she lovingly refers to as her “family.” They are refugees from all over the world who have landed in this remote town in the sweeping plains of the Texas panhandle seeking to forge a new life from the often chaotic one they left behind: men and women and children from far-flung places that Lyles has never seen, such as Burma, Somalia and Iraq. She is not the first face they see when they step off the plane in Amarillo, but weeks later, when resettlement agencies leave them to adapt to life in a new land on their own, Miss Evelyn, as the 65-year-old retired schoolteacher is known, becomes their most important friend. Along with helping them practice English and learn their way around a foreign land, Lyles assists scores of families with little, but consequential, things like making doctor’s appointments and filling out job applications. She teaches mothers who have never used a stove how to bake birthday cakes, and she helps the kids with their math and vocabulary words. She tutors families about American history and culture as they pursue citizenship. She helps them with the overwhelming task of starting over. “If you see a need, in my eyes, you should step up and fill it, and that’s what I am doing,” Lyles explained during a rare break between appointments a few days ago. “God expects us to reach out to our neighbors, whether they are our color or not.” Besides, she added, “unless you are an American Indian, we are all descendants of someone who came here. All of us. …We were all refugees at some point.” Lyles is a shepherd for refugees in what would seem to be an unlikely place. Amarillo is firmly Donald Trump country, an unwavering bastion of bright red in a safely Republican state known for its anti-immigrant politicians. Yet for the last several years, Texas has led the country in refugee resettlement. Roughly 7,800 arrived in the state alone last year, many landing in big cities like Dallas, Houston and Austin, according to State Department data. Amarillo has become the state’s leading safe haven, accepting nearly 400 refugees alone in 2016 — the most per capita of any city in Texas. Participants take the Oath of Citizenship to become U.S. citizens in June 2014 at the United States District Court in Corpus Christi, Texas. (Rachel Denny Clow/Corpus Christi Caller-Times/AP) Last year, as Trump regularly railed against refugees as a potential terrorism risk, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced that the state would no longer play the middleman in helping the federal government dole out money to local resettlement agencies, arguing that refugees were a potential “security threat” to the state — a symbolic but largely meaningless maneuver that did not stop the flow of new immigrants. Even amid the incendiary rhetoric often aimed at refugees, Amarillo’s new arrivals have generated little public outrage. They have been largely greeted with open arms by local officials, community groups and dozens of churches in town that have made it their ministry to help the refugees build new lives in America. But that mission has been upended in recent days after President Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order aimed at slowing the flow of foreigners entering the United States. The most controversial part of the order, which blocked arrivals from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees, has been temporarily suspended amid federal court challenges. But the other parts of the order remain intact, including Trump’s decision to reduce the number of resettlements this year to 50,000 from the 110,000 that originally had been planned. The order has already had an impact on Amarillo, forcing six people who had been en route to the city after years of vetting to turn around. And many dozens more who had been scheduled to arrive in coming weeks are now in limbo. That includes the husband of a young mother from Burma who arrived with her 18-month-old son in Amarillo on Jan. 26. After years of background checks and interviews, the mother and son were the last family to arrive before Trump’s order took effect. Her husband had been scheduled to follow in coming weeks, but now, it’s unsure when or if the family members will ever be reunited. “It’s heartbreaking,” said Natalie Lowe, an area director with the Refugee Services of Texas, one of two nonprofit resettlement groups that work with refugees coming into Amarillo and have been assisting that family and many others. “These people have been waiting and suffering for years. They have been vetted and screened more strongly than any other traveler that comes into this country, and now, just as they were on the brink of finally getting here, they are pushed into the unknown.” Trump’s move has caused handwringing among people here who voted for him and generally support his efforts to keep the country safe but are vexed by his approach to refugees. As in other cities, many of the people working here to help resettle refugees are affiliated with churches and other religious groups that see helping refugees as a key part of their ministry. A local pastor, who declined to be named because he didn’t want to get publicly caught up in the controversy, said he and others in his congregation were stunned and upset by Trump’s move, which he described as “not what Jesus would do.” “Let’s have strict security, but to turn away people who have been screened, who have been persecuted and need our help, it doesn’t feel right,” the pastor said. A Somali community center in Cactus, Texas, home to many newly arrived refugees. (Photo: Holly Bailey/Yahoo News) Lyles, who perhaps understands more than anyone here what refugees have gone through in order to claim a new life in this country, did not vote for Trump but says she supports him now as her duty as an American. She has tried to avoid the political debate over refugees, but she admitted that the new president’s actions have made it hard. “He’s really diligent right now, trying to worry about terrorism or somebody that’s coming in that’s got a radical viewpoint. … He’s trying to be protective of our country, and after all, (people) did vote for him for that reason,” Lyles said, speaking carefully, like the special-education teacher and diagnostician she used to be. But she suggested that Trump didn’t fully understand the issue and had gone too far. She dismissed his criticism that the refugees hadn’t been properly screened, pointing to a family she knew that had undergone screening for more than five years before they were allowed into the country. She said none of the people she has worked with in the 14 years she has been volunteering with refugees in Amarillo have been “unsafe.” And she worried about the policy’s impact on not only America’s reputation as a welcoming country but also on Amarillo, a town she said has been deeply enriched by its new diversity. “We call America the melting pot (because we) welcomed all these different cultures, and it’s enriched our country,” Lyles said. “I never saw anywhere where it says we are suddenly going to stop immigration at the year 2017. … That’s not who we are.” Even to those who live here, Amarillo’s role in accepting refugees is an unexpected one. With a population of roughly 196,000, the town is so remote from other parts of Texas (Dallas is a six-hour drive; Austin is7 1/2) that residents here have long mused about Amarillo and other panhandle cities seceding to form their own state. It’s a town that remains defined by its rich history as a cattle town. Cattle feedlots dot the landscape on the roads leading into town, supplying meatpacking plants that are the region’s biggest employers and provide roughly a quarter of the nation’s beef. More here
	"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? 2/9/2017 2:00:17 PM
	From immigration to the Dakota Access pipeline, Seattle takes the lead in resisting the Trump agenda Christopher Wilson Editor Yahoo NewsFebruary 8, 2017 Mayor Ed Murray of Seattle addresses the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle in October 2016. (Photo: Ted S. Warren/AP Photo) As the cities — or at least the mayors — of blue America vie for the mantle of resistance to the Trump administration’s domestic, foreign, environmental and labor policies, Seattle seized an early lead with a decision Tuesday to stop doing business with Wells Fargo over the bank’s role in funding the Dakota Access pipeline. Mayor Ed Murray has already defied President Trump’s threat to withhold aid to “sanctuary cities,” having vowed he will oppose it even if it costs “every single penny” in federal funds. “We will not be intimidated by the authoritarian message coming from this administration,” Murray proclaimed at a press conference in January, referring to Trump’s plans to restrict immigration and crack down on undocumented immigrants. The Dakota Access pipeline, which was shelved by the Obama administration but has been revived by Trump, has been a flashpoint for environmentalists and Native American activists for years. Wells Fargo is one of a dozen banks that are lenders to the project, and had already been targeted last year by the city, which canceled a planned $100 million bond issue over news that the bank had been bilking retail customers for years, resulting in $190 million in fines. The unanimous vote by the City Council on Tuesday means that the city’s operating accounts, which handle around $3 billion a year, will have to find a new home when the contract with Wells Fargo expires in late 2018. “You have been a city setting the example to the world, and I look to you to do that now,”said Olivia One Feather of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. “When big cities such as this do the right thing, it sparks hope in the world.” Olivia One Feather, center, of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, in Seattle on Feb. 7, salutes its City Council’s vote to divest from Wells Fargo for lending to the Dakota Access pipeline project and for other business practices. Wells Fargo manages more than $3 billion of Seattle’s operating account. (Elaine Thompson/AP Photo) Studies have pegged Seattle as one of the most liberal cities in the United States, in a state that gave Trump only 38.1 percent of the vote in November. It is represented by two Democratic senators in Washington and is the home of such progressive companies as Starbucks, Microsoft and Amazon, as well as Nordstrom, the department store company the president attacked Wednesday on Twitter for dropping his daughter Ivanka’s clothing line. Another large local employer, Boeing, the country’s leading exporter, has had a rocky relationship with the Trump administration over foreign trade issues and the cost of a replacement plane for Air Force One. Some of the legislation rolled out in the area almost reads like a wish list for Democrats nationwide. In 2012, voters in the state approved both same-sex marriage and the use of recreational marijuana. As far back as 2003, Seattle voters moved to make policing adults using marijuana the lowest priority for area law enforcement, essentially decriminalizing weed. In 2015, Seattle began the process to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2020. The state of Washington followed suit in November, passing a ballot initiative that would raise the state minimum wage to $13.50 by the same year. And Seattle residents voted last year to increase property and sales taxes in order to fund an expansion of mass transit in the area. But the politics of immigration have galvanized the city like few other issues. Murray, a long-time state legislator, who was elected in 2013, has also said that he plans to maintain Seattle’s status as a so-called sanctuary city, ignoring the White House executive order targeting undocumented immigrants. Washington was one of two states bringing a lawsuit that won a temporary restraining order against the president’s Muslim immigration ban, and the attorney general who filed the stay, Bob Ferguson, is a Seattle native. James Robart, the federal judge who ruled in favor of the state, is another Seattle native whose chambers are located in the city. The Space Needle and Mount Rainier pictured at dusk in Seattle, on March 12, 2014. (Photo: Jason Redmond/Reuters) While a recent Atlantic article highlighted the difficulties some liberal cities have had with state decisions overriding city-level legislation, Seattle’s policies should be in the relative clear, even though most of the eastern portion of the state leans Republican. Their governor and the state house are both Democratic, mitigating the GOP’s small edge in the state Senate. (A ballot initiative that would have either cut the state sales tax or made it more difficult for the state Legislature to raise taxes passed in 2015 but was subsequently struck down by the state Supreme Court.) In a press conference last month, Murray said that he had instructed departments to prepare budget cuts in case the approximately $75 million of federal funding in the city’s $5 billion budget was pulled. “It’s important to remember that the courts have clearly said that you cannot punish or coerce a jurisdiction by taking away their money,” said Murray. “It also says if there is not a nexus or connection between the program you’re trying to enforce and the funds, you can’t cut those funds.” Murray did say that $10 million in federal law enforcement funding could be vulnerable, because it could be directly tied to any refusal to enforce federal immigration laws. But he vowed he would not cooperate with the administration on what he views as civil rights issues. “The language in the executive order affecting sanctuary cities talks about giving the immigration police complete authority as an individual to decide if there is cause to detain somebody,” Murray said. “I can’t compromise on that issue. That is police authority like we have never seen in this country.” (Yahoo News)
	"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? 2/9/2017 2:31:00 PM
	Trump Administration Apparently Heading For War As Iran Dumps U.S. Dollar FEBRUARY 8, 2017 By Brandon Turbeville While many were hoping against all odds that a Trump administration would live up to some of its campaign rhetoric and begin to back away from imperialistic foreign adventures, it seems those hopes are being dashed by the day as Trump and his team are giving every indication that they are moving toward war with Iran. Even on the campaign trail, Trump expressed irrational anti-Iran sentiment suggesting that the Iran nuclear deal signed with the Obama administration was “terrible” and that the United States was essentially forced to pay Iran not to build a bomb. Of course, this rhetoric was nothing but fantasy since the only losers in the deal were the Iranians, who were never in violation of any international provisions against nuclear proliferation, did not have a nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapons program, or even the ability to create one. In reality, Iran never should have had to sign any deal with the world’s self-appointed guard dog. Still, Trump represented the release of Iran’s frozen assets as extortion (against the United States no less). For those who are unaware, the money that was allegedly “paid” to Iran was actually Iranian money the United States had frozen in the past as a result of prior fits of war hysteria. This anti-Iran policy came to the forefront a week ago when National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, rabid anti-Iran warmonger, gave a surprise performance of typical Western war froth in front of the cameras about the “emboldened” Iran and the danger it presents to America and its allies. He also suggested that Iran has not been “thankful” to the United States for apparently not invading them as it has done to Iran’s neighbors and allies over the past sixteen years. Flynn stated that the United States is officially “putting Iran on notice.” Thus, it seems that the United States is setting its sights on the next piece of the geopolitical puzzle before the ultimate goal of Russia and world hegemony is to be recognized. Flynn stated, Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East. The recent ballistic missile launch is also in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” These are just the latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened U.S. and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea. In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region. Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region. The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms. The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk. President Trump has severely criticized the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama Administration, as well as the United Nations – as being weak and ineffective. Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened. As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice. Flynn cited only two justifications for his threat, neither of which are logical or anything but unproven allegations. First, Flynn attributed an alleged attempted missile attack on U.S. Naval ships parked off the coast of Yemen supposedly committed by Houthi Rebels. Second, Flynn argues that a recent ballistic missile test conducted by Iran violates the P5+1 and United Nations backed nuclear deal. Flynn claimed that Iran has recently become “emboldened” because the Obama administration, the same administration which forced Iran to decimate their nuclear power program at the barrel of a gun, was “weak and ineffective.” “In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region,” Flynn stated. Translation: Iran’s existence and refusal to knuckle under to foreign dictates represents a threat to the impunity of Saudi Arabia and Israel. In regards to Flynn’s statements, it is important to note that the Iranophobic warmonger leaves out a number of points. First, Flynn lays the blame of Houthi missile attacks at the feet of Iran because, according to him, Iran somehow controls the Houthis or, at the very least, supports them. While it would be naïve to believe that the Houthis are receiving no support from outside forces, the fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is doing so. Indeed, the alleged missile attacks themselves are highly questionable, with some believing that they were actually a false flag on the part of the United States in order to justify a bombing campaign in Yemen on a flimsy basis of self-defense. This basis is flimsy because the United States does, after all, have its ships right off the coast of Yemen and it is supporting the Saudi war of aggression. Second, if the Iranians are now guilty because of unproven claims of support for Houthi rebels who are themselves only acting in self-defense against a brutal and horrific Saudi campaign of terror, murder, and starvation against the people of Yemen, then the United States is officially complicit in the beheading of young children, rape, torture, starvation, and cannibalism as a result of their support for “moderate” terrorists in Syria. Of course, the latter statement is actually true since it is the United States who funds, trains, supplies, and directs the terrorist proxies in Syria to this day. Not only that, even if the Houthis did fire on American boats, it must be remembered that the United States is aiding the country who is invading theirs and thus makes itself a reasonable military target when stationed so close to Yemeni shores. Still, one must pay attention to the logic: “We supported a country in a war of aggression against a rag tag group of rebels and those rebels attempted (possibly) to fight back. Therefore, we must threaten a third party whom we cannot even prove supports the rebels.” In regards to the ballistic missile test, the new aggression is being based upon tests conducted by Iran over the weekend on a medium-range ballistic missile. Yet, for all the browbeating of the United States since the Iranian nuclear deal was signed, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 does not prohibit Iran from testing a missile or a ballistic missile. There is a provision which “calls on” Iran not to undertake any activity that relates to ballistic missiles but “calling on” and “prohibiting” are two different things. As Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute writes, “There are no specific provisions in the nuclear deal that explicitly prevent Iran from testing a missile.” Who Is Michael Flynn? Flynn has been so anti-Iran in the past that his subordinates were both confused and alarmed. In 2012, after the Benghazi attack, Flynn began demanding that those under his command at the Defense Intelligence Agency immediately produce evidence that Iran was behind the attack. If that kind of frantic framing of false intelligence sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered a similar intelligence agency initiative in the wake of 9/11 in order to blame Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Flynn was even fired from the DIA in 2014 for being too anti-Iran even for the Obama administration, a truly amazing feat in its own right. “Adding together President Trump’s call to the Saudi king, where they discussed Iran’s “destabilizing” actions, and a pre-emptive war authorization bill languishing in the US House, the current danger of a US strike on Iran is just an accident — or a false flag – away,” writes McAdams. Flynn was head of the DIA at the time when the now famous memo was produced explaining the fact that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Gulf States as well as the United States were supporting terrorism in Syria and Iraq and that Russia, Syria, and Iran were fighting it. The memo also described the plan and support for creating a “salafist principality” in the east of Syria and West of Iraq, the precise location where ISIS created its caliphate. For this reason, Flynn cannot claim ignorance as to whom is actually supporting terrorism and who is fighting it. The Path To Persia The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes. The plan involves the description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both. Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads, …any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal. Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but by entirely rational players. Still, they move forward with a number of options for attacking Iran. It should thus be obvious to anyone reading this report that the US, NATO, and Israel are uninterested in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian destruction. “The so-called “Iran deal,” introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with,” writes Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report. The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states, The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) The question of the Israeli role in the possible attack against Iran is also mentioned by Brookings. In fact, in the chapter entitled, “Allowing or Encouraging An Israeli Military Strike,” Brookings not only outlines a potential strategy but essentially admits that the US-Israeli tension being hyped in the Western media is nothing more than a farce. It says, ..the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives). Why Iran? There are a number of reasons why the United States and the NATO imperial army would like to see Iran destroyed over the coming years. Geopolitical reasons are, of course, front and center. On one level, the Israeli connection stands as one obvious reason the United States has maintained an anti-Iran posture for nearly two decades. Iran not only stands as a regional opponent to the whims and aims of the Israeli settler state, but it also bankrolls and supports one of the greatest forces of opposition to Israel directly due to its close proximity and the militia’s military prowess. Indeed, Israel was humiliated by Hezbollah in front of the world in 2006. Thus, if Iran is destroyed, Hezbollah goes with it and two of Israel’s biggest and most effective opponents disappear from the game board. The United States also sees Iran as an opponent due to Iran’s resistance to the Anglo-American insistence on global hegemony of its “Western” system of financial and corporate overseers in a plantation owned by a world oligarchy. Iran stands in opposition to the Western system because it refuses to engage in a system private central banking as well as corporate and private financier domination of its society and culture. Maintaining its own national bank has long been a source of irritation for Wall Street and City of London vampires eager to sink their fangs into the blood supply of every nation on earth. In addition, Iran has recently announced that it will be dropping the U.S. dollar for some other currency or basket of currencies beginning March 21, a sure sign that a Western war of aggression is most definitely on the horizon. Iran also remains a close Russian ally and the last domino that needs to fall before the great Anglo-American army can march forward directly into Russia and break the largest country in the world into “manageable” parts.[1] Once Iran is destroyed, Russia will be largely isolated and left to face the NATO alliance which has been slowly surrounding Russia over the last two decades. Conclusion So far, the Iranian response has been marked by unwise mirror bans of American travelers, an entrenchment and reassertion of national sovereignty, and a much more serious announcement that Iran will dump the U.S. dollar. While Iran would have been much better suited to respond to the Trump travel ban in the same way the Russians responded to Obama’s idiotic expulsion of Russian diplomats, it seems American sabre rattling will do nothing now but encourage Iran’s population to possibly look toward more “hardliners” in terms of elected government. By hardliners, we mean politicians who campaign on an Anti-American platform and who take a more stern approach to foreign affairs. After all, those who have argued that the United States can be reasoned with are slowly being proven wrong. The question then becomes whether or not the collision course the United States wants to set out on becomes a path Iran unwittingly follows. The Trump Administration’s false labeling of Iran as the biggest sponsor of terrorism, ignoring the fact that Iran is one of the most important players in the fight against ISIS and Sunni Islamic extremism in the Middle East as well as the fact that American ally Saudi Arabia is perhaps the biggest purveyor of terrorism in the world, tells everyone what we need to know going forward – the plan to destroy Iran is marching forward without a hitch in another example of seamless transition. Lastly, for the Trump apologists, we would ask “Does the possibility that Trump has no control over his own military and foreign policy seem like a more palatable option?” At this point, having a President opposed to war is largely meaningless if he cannot do anything to stop it. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric throughout the political campaign was clearly anti-Iranian of the fanatical variety so the possibility that Trump is actually anti-war, at least in terms of Iran, is extremely unlikely. In fact, it is so unlikely as to no longer warrant consideration. That being said, we must immediately begin to mobilize to oppose the Trump administration war posturing towards Iran and do whatever we can to prevent the current situation from shifting towards an actual physical war. Whatever positive elements of the Trump administration there may be must be prevailed upon to stop this madness. At the same time, we must be prepared to demonstrate, oppose, strike, and otherwise refuse to participate in anymore imperialistic wars should that agenda actually take shape. Aside from the obvious moral issues of bombing and destroying a nation of innocent people for a geopolitical agenda, war with Iran is a step toward war with Russia and World War Three and, at the very least, another vast waste of American treasure and the lives of military service personnel. It must be stopped at all costs. [1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 202. This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link. (activistpost)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Like us on Facebook!