European Times - A reported willingness by the White House to vote for the creation of a Palestinian state in the UN signals unprecedented trust issues with Netanyahu’s government and will likely exacerbate US-Israeli relations.
US President Barack Obama announced a decision to recognise the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, adding that the US will vote as such in the United Nations, reported the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot.
One of the newspaper’s head commentators, Nahum Barnea, stated that “senior” US officials attribute the president’s latest stance to “the revolutions storming the Arab world.” This coupled with resentment at Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu for failing to take genuine steps towards a settlement with the Palestinians reportedly inspired the president to adopt his latest position.
Barnea expects relations between Washington and Tel Aviv to head down a rather dangerous road, wherein “a US approval for the declaration of a Palestinian state would cause confusion and extreme embarrassment for Israel.”
Obama, according to Barnea’s sources, has “completely lost his trust in Netanyahu” and has not replied to the prime minister’s correspondence which stressed that approval of the latest peace proposal would lead to the collapse of Tel Aviv’s ruling coalition. It also noted that Israel cannot make any “geographical” compromises as this is its strongest playing card.
Obama proposed that Netanyahu provide him with a secret pledge showing the latter’s willingness to withdraw from the West Bank, but Netanyahu refused thereby exacerbating their crisis, Barnea explained.
Israeli security sources reportedly stated that “a UN decision to recognise a state of Palestine would turn the Jewish settlers in the West Bank into outlaws” with regard to international law. Nevertheless, the presence of the Israeli army in the West Bank has been and will continue to be considered a breach of UN resolutions.
Showing posts with label U.S.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S.. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Arab Uprising Funded By U.S.
Tony Cartalucci - As American bombs rain down upon Libya on the premise that Qaddafi was brutalizing indigenous pro-democratic demonstrators, the accusing fingers of Libya, Iran, China, Syria, Belarus, and a growing number of other nations are pointing at Washington for funding and plotting regime change against their respective governments. Either in an act of absolute hubris or to spin emerging evidence that the US indeed has been funding and preparing the ground for the “Arab Spring” for years, New York Times has recently published “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings.”
Essentially throwing these activists under the bus, New York Times exposes that the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, and Entsar Qadhi of Yemen amongst others, received training and financing from the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the Neo-Conservative lined Freedom House.
NGOs: an extension of US foreign policy.
The New York Times goes on to explain that these organizations are in turn funded by the National Endowment for Democracy which receives 100 million USD from Congress while Freedom House receives most of its money from the US State Department. While the New York Times asserts “no one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown,” leaders of groups now admittedly funded and trained by the US are anything but “home grown.” The most prominent example is the April 6 Movement of Egypt led by Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Crisis Group. ElBaradei sitting along side George Soros, Kenneth Adelman, Wesley Clark, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, within a US foreign policy think-tank engenders a considerable amount of “doubt.”
Also conceding involvement is the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), chaired by various Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings Institute alumni. POMED claims that they helped protesters develop skills and to network. Such training has taken place annually under Movements.org starting in 2008 where Egypt’s April 6 movement among many others, learned techniques to subvert their government. Movements.org of course is sponsored by a conglomerate of corporate and government agencies including the US State Department, Google, MTV, the Edelman public relations firm, Facebook, CBS News, MSNBC, Pepsi, and others. Despite the claim that such meddling is “promoting democracy,” looking at the sponsors and war mongering interests involved in this operation, it appears to be more about promoting global military and economic hegemony.
The role of NGOs and the so called “civil society” used to support the unrest is also included in the New York Times piece, as well as the displeasure expressed by Arab leaders berating the US for meddling in their internal affairs. Such accusations have now reach a crescendo with China, Iran, Syria, and Belarus making similar claims.
The New York Times piece ends by describing cables indicating that many activists who became aware of US involvement in funding and directing the movements became disenfranchised. Such activists were “ousted.” Training was conducted outside of target countries, including in Jordan, Morocco, Serbia, and the United States. What the New York Times omits are the similar connections and involvements of corporate special interests steering human rights organizations in support of this operation as well. Such involvement organizations had amply laid the rhetorical groundwork to justify the ever expanding war in Libya.
Of course, one needs only remember the feigned ignorance exhibited by the US State Department, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama, along with the litany of lies purveyed by the mainstream media to see a disingenuous plot in motion. This is because everyone from the US State Department and the corporate owned media had been involved, for years, preparing to bring the “Arab Spring” to fruition. With open admissions now being made by a global corporate-financier mouthpiece like the New York Times, one must consider the serious implications of what may come next.
Behold the circus that is the mainstream media. MSNBC feigns ignorance and confusion over unrest they had been involved in engineering since at least 2008.
Surely this information is going to incite a counterrevolution. In Egypt, suspicion over Mohamed ElBaradei has already seen the interloping globocrat pelted with rocks and his agenda derailed. Many activists truly believed in their cause and risked their lives for the idea that they were fighting not only their own corrupt dictatorships, but the West as well who had been propping them up for years. Such a perception was exasperated during the early stages of the of the uprisings with the West lavishing support on embattled regimes in order to maximize the disenfranchisement of the people. With ongoing operations to seize Libya by force, and to see through similar US backed uprisings in Syria, Yemen, Iran, and even as far as Thailand and China, it will be interesting indeed to see how nation-states tailor their response to what is now clearly foreign funded subversion.
In what manner this realization will manifest itself in is not certain. However, it would be wise for activists, pundits, politicians, and concerned citizens genuinely interested in truth, to think very carefully before making their next move. As George Bush had once attempted to say, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. ”
Ultimately, and upon examining the architects behind this global gambit of deceptive destabilization, we must look past the puppet politicians and the disingenuous liars that presume to give us “the news.” We must see the global corporate-financier empire as the source of the problem and its removal and replacement as the solution.
Essentially throwing these activists under the bus, New York Times exposes that the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, and Entsar Qadhi of Yemen amongst others, received training and financing from the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the Neo-Conservative lined Freedom House.
NGOs: an extension of US foreign policy.
The New York Times goes on to explain that these organizations are in turn funded by the National Endowment for Democracy which receives 100 million USD from Congress while Freedom House receives most of its money from the US State Department. While the New York Times asserts “no one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown,” leaders of groups now admittedly funded and trained by the US are anything but “home grown.” The most prominent example is the April 6 Movement of Egypt led by Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Crisis Group. ElBaradei sitting along side George Soros, Kenneth Adelman, Wesley Clark, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, within a US foreign policy think-tank engenders a considerable amount of “doubt.”
Also conceding involvement is the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), chaired by various Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings Institute alumni. POMED claims that they helped protesters develop skills and to network. Such training has taken place annually under Movements.org starting in 2008 where Egypt’s April 6 movement among many others, learned techniques to subvert their government. Movements.org of course is sponsored by a conglomerate of corporate and government agencies including the US State Department, Google, MTV, the Edelman public relations firm, Facebook, CBS News, MSNBC, Pepsi, and others. Despite the claim that such meddling is “promoting democracy,” looking at the sponsors and war mongering interests involved in this operation, it appears to be more about promoting global military and economic hegemony.
The role of NGOs and the so called “civil society” used to support the unrest is also included in the New York Times piece, as well as the displeasure expressed by Arab leaders berating the US for meddling in their internal affairs. Such accusations have now reach a crescendo with China, Iran, Syria, and Belarus making similar claims.
The New York Times piece ends by describing cables indicating that many activists who became aware of US involvement in funding and directing the movements became disenfranchised. Such activists were “ousted.” Training was conducted outside of target countries, including in Jordan, Morocco, Serbia, and the United States. What the New York Times omits are the similar connections and involvements of corporate special interests steering human rights organizations in support of this operation as well. Such involvement organizations had amply laid the rhetorical groundwork to justify the ever expanding war in Libya.
Of course, one needs only remember the feigned ignorance exhibited by the US State Department, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama, along with the litany of lies purveyed by the mainstream media to see a disingenuous plot in motion. This is because everyone from the US State Department and the corporate owned media had been involved, for years, preparing to bring the “Arab Spring” to fruition. With open admissions now being made by a global corporate-financier mouthpiece like the New York Times, one must consider the serious implications of what may come next.
Behold the circus that is the mainstream media. MSNBC feigns ignorance and confusion over unrest they had been involved in engineering since at least 2008.
Surely this information is going to incite a counterrevolution. In Egypt, suspicion over Mohamed ElBaradei has already seen the interloping globocrat pelted with rocks and his agenda derailed. Many activists truly believed in their cause and risked their lives for the idea that they were fighting not only their own corrupt dictatorships, but the West as well who had been propping them up for years. Such a perception was exasperated during the early stages of the of the uprisings with the West lavishing support on embattled regimes in order to maximize the disenfranchisement of the people. With ongoing operations to seize Libya by force, and to see through similar US backed uprisings in Syria, Yemen, Iran, and even as far as Thailand and China, it will be interesting indeed to see how nation-states tailor their response to what is now clearly foreign funded subversion.
In what manner this realization will manifest itself in is not certain. However, it would be wise for activists, pundits, politicians, and concerned citizens genuinely interested in truth, to think very carefully before making their next move. As George Bush had once attempted to say, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. ”
Ultimately, and upon examining the architects behind this global gambit of deceptive destabilization, we must look past the puppet politicians and the disingenuous liars that presume to give us “the news.” We must see the global corporate-financier empire as the source of the problem and its removal and replacement as the solution.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Gallup: U.S. Underemployment Rises To 20.3% In March
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Daily tracking finds that 20.3% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed in March -- a slight uptick from the relatively flat January and February numbers.
Underemployment in U.S. Workforce, December 2009-March 2010 Monthly Trend
"The underemployed in March became neither more nor less hopeful about finding work soon."
These results are based on March interviews with more than 20,000 adults in the U.S. workforce, aged 18 and older. Gallup classifies respondents as underemployed if they are unemployed or working part-time but wanting full-time work. Gallup employment data are not seasonally adjusted.
A rise in the percentage of part-timers wanting to work full time (from 9.2% to 9.9%) is responsible for the March increase in underemployment. Unemployment saw a slight, but insignificant, decline in March.
Underemployment Components, December 2009-March 2010 Monthly Trend
Underemployed Americans Still Not Hopeful
Despite the Obama administration's March 16 announcement that unemployment would remain high or increase in coming months, the underemployed in March became neither more nor less hopeful about finding work soon. Six in 10 underemployed Americans are not hopeful they will find work or move from part-time to full-time work in the next four weeks. That translates to 12% of the workforce that is both underemployed and not hopeful they will find their desired amount of work. The lack of change suggests that underemployed Americans anticipated long-term difficulties in finding work well before the administration's formal announcement was made.
Hope Among Underemployed for Finding a Job in the Next Four Weeks, January-March 2010 Trend
Bottom Line
As unemployed Americans find part-time, temporary, and seasonal work, the official unemployment rate could decline. However, this does not necessarily mean more Americans are working at their desired capacity. It will continue to be important to track underemployment -- to shed light on the true state of the U.S. workforce, and the millions of Americans who are searching for full-time employment.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 20,504 national adults, who are part of the workforce, aged 18 and older, conducted March 1-31, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 4,164 adults who were underemployed in March, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Underemployment in U.S. Workforce, December 2009-March 2010 Monthly Trend
"The underemployed in March became neither more nor less hopeful about finding work soon."
These results are based on March interviews with more than 20,000 adults in the U.S. workforce, aged 18 and older. Gallup classifies respondents as underemployed if they are unemployed or working part-time but wanting full-time work. Gallup employment data are not seasonally adjusted.
A rise in the percentage of part-timers wanting to work full time (from 9.2% to 9.9%) is responsible for the March increase in underemployment. Unemployment saw a slight, but insignificant, decline in March.
Underemployment Components, December 2009-March 2010 Monthly Trend
Underemployed Americans Still Not Hopeful
Despite the Obama administration's March 16 announcement that unemployment would remain high or increase in coming months, the underemployed in March became neither more nor less hopeful about finding work soon. Six in 10 underemployed Americans are not hopeful they will find work or move from part-time to full-time work in the next four weeks. That translates to 12% of the workforce that is both underemployed and not hopeful they will find their desired amount of work. The lack of change suggests that underemployed Americans anticipated long-term difficulties in finding work well before the administration's formal announcement was made.
Hope Among Underemployed for Finding a Job in the Next Four Weeks, January-March 2010 Trend
Bottom Line
As unemployed Americans find part-time, temporary, and seasonal work, the official unemployment rate could decline. However, this does not necessarily mean more Americans are working at their desired capacity. It will continue to be important to track underemployment -- to shed light on the true state of the U.S. workforce, and the millions of Americans who are searching for full-time employment.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 20,504 national adults, who are part of the workforce, aged 18 and older, conducted March 1-31, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 4,164 adults who were underemployed in March, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
In 2009 Col. Muammar Gaddafi Proposed Nationalizing Libya's Oill
Kurt Nimmo - The Coalition of Globalists are not interested in sheltering the Libyan people from Muammar al- Gaddafi. The no-fly zone and attacks on the Libyan military by NATO and U.S. have nothing to do with democracy and free elections.
It’s about oil – and who owns it.
In 2009, Gaddafi uttered the “N” word – nationalization. Not only for Libya’s oil, but all oil in the region. For the globalists, this made Gaddafi a dangerous mad dog renegade who needed to be replaced.
“The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalization because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously,” he declared. “Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production.”
Predictably, Gaddafi’s pronouncement set off alarm bells at Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany’s Wintershall, Austria’s OMV, Norway’s Statoil, Eni and Canada’s Petro Canada.
The year before, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues, according to a report posted on the Pravda website.
After implementing contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues.
Gaddafi’s plan was reported on by Reuters and the corporate media.
In addition to calling for nationalization, the Libyan leader called for support of his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to Libya’s 5 million citizens.
State bureaucrats, however, rejected the idea because they feared for the loss of their cushy jobs and also feared the wrath of transnational oil corporations and the banks that own them.
Prime Minister al-Baghdadi, Ali al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of Libya’s Central Bank, told Gaddafi the measure would wreck the country’s economy in lead to “capital flight,” in other words the globalists pulling their money out of the country.
“The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy.
The government, however, voted to reject Gaddafi’s plan to turn ownership of the country’s oil over to the people. 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure.
“My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people,” said Gaddafi in response to the rejection.
In 1953, the United States and Britain plotted to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had promised to nationalize the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and give the profits to the Iranian people. Mosaddegh attempted to negotiate with the AIOC, but the company rejected his proposed compromise.
In order to sell a coup, Britain persuaded Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was going over to the Soviets. Then president Truman was cool to the idea, but in 1953, when Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the UK convinced him to a joint coup d’état. The CIA was dispatched to destabilize the country, get rid of Mosaddegh, and install the brutal dictator Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi and his secret police, the SAVAK.
For the mistake of suggesting oil profits be returned to the Libyan people, Muammar al-Gaddafi is now suffering a likewise fate.
It’s about oil – and who owns it.
In 2009, Gaddafi uttered the “N” word – nationalization. Not only for Libya’s oil, but all oil in the region. For the globalists, this made Gaddafi a dangerous mad dog renegade who needed to be replaced.
“The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalization because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously,” he declared. “Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production.”
Predictably, Gaddafi’s pronouncement set off alarm bells at Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany’s Wintershall, Austria’s OMV, Norway’s Statoil, Eni and Canada’s Petro Canada.
The year before, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues, according to a report posted on the Pravda website.
After implementing contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues.
Gaddafi’s plan was reported on by Reuters and the corporate media.
In addition to calling for nationalization, the Libyan leader called for support of his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to Libya’s 5 million citizens.
State bureaucrats, however, rejected the idea because they feared for the loss of their cushy jobs and also feared the wrath of transnational oil corporations and the banks that own them.
Prime Minister al-Baghdadi, Ali al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of Libya’s Central Bank, told Gaddafi the measure would wreck the country’s economy in lead to “capital flight,” in other words the globalists pulling their money out of the country.
“The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy.
The government, however, voted to reject Gaddafi’s plan to turn ownership of the country’s oil over to the people. 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure.
“My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people,” said Gaddafi in response to the rejection.
In 1953, the United States and Britain plotted to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had promised to nationalize the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and give the profits to the Iranian people. Mosaddegh attempted to negotiate with the AIOC, but the company rejected his proposed compromise.
In order to sell a coup, Britain persuaded Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was going over to the Soviets. Then president Truman was cool to the idea, but in 1953, when Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the UK convinced him to a joint coup d’état. The CIA was dispatched to destabilize the country, get rid of Mosaddegh, and install the brutal dictator Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi and his secret police, the SAVAK.
For the mistake of suggesting oil profits be returned to the Libyan people, Muammar al-Gaddafi is now suffering a likewise fate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)