• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1602
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
      Международные организации36
      • Показать ещё
      Издания25
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы245
      • Показать ещё
      Люди10
      • Показать ещё
      Разное8
      • Показать ещё
L'Oréal Group
17 ноября, 11:38

«Роснефть» выбыла из тройки самых привлекательных работодателей в России

«Роснефть» выбыла из тройки самых привлекательных работодателей в России. Об этом свидетельствуют данные компании Universum, занимающейся исследованиями в сфере брендинга работодателя, ...

25 мая, 13:51

Российские студенты назвали лучших работодателей

Компания Universum обнародовала рейтинг самых привлекательных работодателей в России, составленный на основе опроса, в котором приняли участие свыше 25 тысяч студентов различных отечественных вузов. Первые места в списке заняли «Газпром», «Газпром нефть», Google и «Яндекс», передает РБК. Главным условием для будущих работников является стабильность компании-нанимателя, а наиболее привлекательными отраслями для них стали государственный сектор (18%), IT (16%), а также медиа и реклама (15%). Среди студентов, которые изучают бизнес и «инжиниринг/естественные науки», первое место по популярности среди возможных вариантов трудоустройства занял «Газпром». Кроме того, будущие бизнесмены отдавали предпочтение Google, «Газпром нефти», «Роснефти» и BMW Group. Среди студентов, специализирующихся на IT-сфере, наибольшей популярностью пользуется компания Google, однако опрошенные признались, что скорее отправят резюме в отечественную компанию «Яндекс», чем туда. Студенты со специализацией «гуманитарные науки/образование» предпочитают Google, «Газпром», «Яндекс», L’Oréal Group и Microsoft. При этом, судя по итогам опроса, после окончания вуза и трудоустройства российские студенты рассчитывают зарабатывать в среднем 65 тысяч рублей (мужчины) и 53 тысячи рублей (женщины). Последние, как сочли в Universum, более реалистично оценивают ситуацию на рынке труда и потребности работодателей, а также в большей степени готовы работать «на перспективу» и накапливать опыт. Средний возраст респондентов составил 21,8 года.

25 мая, 10:41

Опубликован рейтинг самых привлекательных работодателей для студентов

Компания Universum представила ежегодный рейтинг «Самые привлекательные работодатели России 2016». В опросе участвовали 25 тыс. российских студентов из 93 вузов по всей стране. В первой тройке работодателей — «Газпром», Google, «Роснефть». В топ-10 вошли BMW Group, «Сбербанк», Microsoft, McKinsey&Company, EY, L'Oréal Group, Volkswagen.В 2011 году в рейтинге первые три строчки занимали «Газпром», ЛУКОЙЛ и «Сбербанк». Отмечалось, что в отличие от россиян, для западных студентов идеальные работодатели — те, которые известны своим творческим подходом: Google, Apple, L`Oreal, LVMH. Российских студентов больше привлекает в работодателях финансовая сила и стабильность, сделали вывод в исследовательской компании.Подробнее о рейтинге читайте в материале «Ъ» «Российские студенты предпочитают инновациям финансовую стабильность».

Выбор редакции
19 сентября 2013, 03:50

Rebel-on-Rebel Violence Seizes Syria

Across northern and eastern Syria, units of the jihadist group known as ISIS, or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, are seizing territory from Western-backed Free Syrian Army rebels.

Выбор редакции
19 сентября 2013, 00:33

Russia to provide evidence 'implicating Syrian rebels in chemical attacks'

Sergei Lavrov says he will give evidence to United Nations security council, and describes UN report as biasedThe Russian foreign minister has said he will give the United Nations security council evidence that implicates Syrian rebels in a chemical attack.Sergei Lavrov described a UN report that concluded that the nerve agent sarin was used on the outskirts of Damascus on 21 August as one-sided and biased.He said he will give the security council the evidence, which is being supplied by Syrian officials but which he has not seen as yet.The UN report on the chemical attack did not specifically blame either side in the country's bitter civil war but led to conclusions from the international community that forces loyal to president Bashar al-Assad were responsible.Following the criticism from Russia, the UN said the findings of the report are "indisputable".Lavrov said there was plenty of evidence that pointed to rebel involvement in chemical attacks."We will discuss all this in the security council, together with the report which was submitted by UN experts and which confirms that chemical weapons were used. We will have to find out who did it," he said.Earlier, Lavrov's deputy Sergei Ryabkov said an initial UN security council resolution supporting a deal for Syria to scrap its chemical arms should be limited to that purpose, suggesting Moscow would oppose any threat of force.Speaking in Damascus after meeting Assad, Ryabkov also criticised the UN's report.He accused the investigators of all but ignoring evidence presented by the Syrian government that he said supported rebel culpability."We are disappointed that there is no due attention paid to this evidence in the report which the [UN] group presented in New York earlier this week," he told reporters in Damascus in televised remarks."One cannot be as one-sided and as flawed as we have seen, laying the full [blame for the] incident in Ghouta upon the Syrian government," he said.He said the report was limited in scope and reiterated Russian calls for further investigation that would include accounts from sources including the internet and government evidence of alleged chemical arms use in the days after 12 August.The US-Russia deal, reached on Saturday, calls for Syria to account fully for its chemical weapons within a week and for the removal and destruction of the entire arsenal by mid-2014.Diplomats from the permanent UN security council members – Russia, the United States, Britain, France and China – began talks on Tuesday on a resolution intended to support the deal.Diplomats have said initial western drafts called for giving Syria an ultimatum to give up its chemical weapons or face "necessary measures".Ryabkov said the resolution should support an expected decision by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' executive council setting out procedures for dealing with the chemical weapons "and nothing more than that" beyond providing an element of security for OPCW activity in Syria.SyriaArab and Middle East unrestMiddle East and North AfricaChemical weaponsRussiaEurope theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds 

18 сентября 2013, 21:41

White House Counsel To Leave At End Of 2013, Politico Reports

Whether or not it is an indication of potential legal troubles over Obama's horizon is unclear, but as Politico reports, the White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, a Georgetown Law graduate who assumed office on June 30, 2011, "has told President Obama she plans to leave by the end of the year" and a search for her replacement has begun. In itself this does not appear to be a novel development: 'Ruemmler had planned to leave at the end of 2012 – and had found a place to live in New York, where she planned to practice – but stayed at the behest of the boss. Ruemmler, known as a blunt, lawyer’s lawyer, was deputy to the previous White House counsel, Bob Bauer, and succeeded him in June of 2011. She came into the White House with close ties to John Brennan and Dennis McDonough from her time at DOJ, where she was principal associate deputy attorney general. Earlier in her career, she prosecuted Enron’s Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. When you walk into her West Wing office, you see the framed headline: “GUILTY.”" It appears that Ruemmler had encountered "recent criticism over her decision not to inform Obama that the IRS had looked into the political activity of nonprofit groups, primarily conservative organizations. Lanny Davis, who served as counsel to Bill Clinton, published an op-ed in The Hill calling on her to resign over the imbroglio." On Wednesday, Davis praised Ruemmler as “an extremely well-regarded and outstanding lawyer,” but also argued that “the White House counsel has to have primarily political and media skills to match legal skills.” In a subsequent article, Politico muses on who may be Ruemmler's succesor: Ron Klain, the former chief of staff to vice presidents Joe Biden and Al Gore, is one of the small set of Washington superlawyers garnering buzz as possible candidates to succeed Kathryn Ruemmler as President Barack Obama’s White House counsel... Though White House aides declined to comment on potential successors, Klain, now the president of Case Holdings, and Jeh Johnson, the former top lawyer at the Pentagon, were both mentioned by sources familiar with the tiny universe of elite Washington political lawyers. Johnson and Klain both declined to comment for this story. Klain, 52, worked in the counsel’s office early in the Clinton administration before becoming Attorney General Janet Reno’s chief of staff and later Gore’s top aide. His role fighting for Gore in the Florida recount in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election was popularized by actor Kevin Spacey in an HBO movie. When Biden became vice president, he tapped Klain — his former counsel in the Senate — to lead the staff. Oh well, Saul Goodman is always available: And now, back to watching the next key action by the people who really run the country, and the world, the central planners from the Marriner Eccles building.        

Выбор редакции
17 сентября 2013, 19:48

Syria crisis: deadly bomb blast hits Turkish border crossing

Car bomb explodes on Syrian side of Bab al-Hawa crossing, killing at least seven people and wounding 20A car bomb exploded on the Syrian side of the main Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey on Tuesday, killing at least seven people and wounding 20, the Turkish news agency Dogan said. The explosion occurred at a roadblock manned by hardline Islamist fighters at the entrance of the rebel-held crossing, several hundred metres from the Turkish side, activists said. The wounded were rushed to Turkish hospitals. Dogan reported seven people killed – a figure unconfirmed by the Turkish foreign ministry. Pictures taken by activists at the scene showed several burnt and mangled cars. "The casualties are all civilians, people queuing to cross," activist Omar Aref said. No specific group has claimed responsibility for the attack. Suspects include forces loyal to Assad, although tensions have been rising between hardline Islamist groups linked to al-Qaida and more moderate rebel forces, leading to sporadic clashes and killings. The explosion in Bab al-Hawa took place a day after Turkish forces shot down a Syrian helicopter in Turkish airspace. The Syrian army accused the Turkish government, which backs the uprising against Assad, of attempting to escalate tensions along the border. Government air strikes resumed over the weekend, as Washington and Moscow agreed a deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria Video from Lebanon's news channel al-Manar showed soldiers touring empty tunnels in Shabaa dug by rebels, who used them to transport men and arms while under air and artillery attack. Rebels in Damascus say they are regrouping and rethinking their strategies now a foreign strike appears unlikely.SyriaTurkeyMiddle East and North Africa theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds     

Выбор редакции
17 сентября 2013, 02:35

Half Of Syrian Rebels Are Jihadists Fighting For Al Qaeda-Linked Groups, British Defense Study Finds

Until now, there was mostly speculation and conjecture that among the Syrian "rebel" parties assisted by the Obama administration and the west in their attempt to overthrow Assad, are various groups either supported or comprising of factions consisting of Al Qaeda, Jihadists and other extremist Islamic group. That speculation is now fact according to extracts from a British defense study published in Monday's Daily Telegraph, according to which Jihadists and members of hardline Islamist groups make up almost half of forces fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. As AFP reported, the analysis by defense consultancy IHS Jane's, due to be published in full later this week, puts the number of rebel forces at around 100,000. And half of this number are combatants on an ideological crusade against the west, who are partially or fully affiliated with Al Qaeda, and who will always seek a sponsor when carrying out whatever military operation is most profitable at any given moment. With Made In The USA weapons that is. The good news: internal splintering and lack of cohesion has resulted into these fighters splitting into as many as 1,000 bands since violence flared two years ago, the study concluded. Which is also the bad news: as Putin warned in his Op-Ed, various mercenary groups armed with Western weapons can now, or at any point in the future, find a new source of funding, if and when Saudi and Qatari interest in the conflict wanes, and use these same weapons against the very source of aid: the US itself, ultimately resulting in the same snafu that converted Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" into the most wanted man in America. More from AFP: Of the rebel forces, IHS Jane's estimates that around 10,000 are jihadists fighting for groups linked to Al-Qaeda and another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists, who differ from jihadists in that they are concentrated only on the Syrian conflict, and not on the global Islamist fight. "The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict," Charles Lister, author of the analysis, told the British newspaper. "The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out. "If the West looks as though it is not interested in removing Assad, moderate Islamists are also likely to be pushed further towards extremists," he warned. The study is based on interviews with militants and on intelligence estimates. So the next time Obama takes the podium and makes the case for accelerating the aiding and arming of such mercenary "rebels" who are nothing more than ideological jihadists, perhaps someone can ask how long before US weapons are used against US citizens on US soil? This should also explain why the administration is so very much against using "boots on the ground" - after all why put American soldiers' lives in jeopardy when you can get Al Qaeda to do your fighting for you. If only until they turn on you, of course.        

Выбор редакции
16 сентября 2013, 10:00

Doctors to warn that Syria's healthcare system is at 'breaking point'

Open letter says Syria is suffering because of attacks on hospitals and 15,000 doctors have fled the countryA group of 55 doctors and medical professionals, including three Nobel Prize winners, will warn this week that Syria's healthcare system is "at breaking point" because of attacks on hospitals, staff being attacked, imprisoned or fleeing the country, and humanitarian organisations being denied access to patients.In an open letter to the Lancet, to be published on Friday, they say that large parts of Syria are completely cut off from any form of medical assistance. The signatories, who span five continents, cite figures suggesting 469 health workers are currently imprisoned and about 15,000 doctors have fled the country. In Syria's largest city, Aleppo, there are just 36 physicians, compared to 5,000 before the civil war began, they say."We are appalled by the lack of access to healthcare for affected civilians, and by the deliberate targeting of medical facilities and personnel," the letter says. "It is our professional, ethical, and moral duty to provide treatment and care to anyone in need. When we cannot do so personally, we are obliged to speak out in support of those risking their lives to provide life-saving assistance."The signatories, although from countries with widely differing views on responsibility for the crisis in Syria, including Russia, China, Brazil, US, and the UK, argue together that the current focus on military intervention, in the wake of the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs last month, should not detract from the need to help the victims of the conflict.According to the World Health Organisation, 37% of Syrian hospitals have been destroyed and a further 20% severely damaged.The signatories say women are giving birth with no medical assistance, life-saving surgery is being carried out without anaesthetic, children are not being vaccinated and victims of sexual violence have nowhere to turn to. Horrific injuries are going untended while people with chronic illnesses, including cancer, are not receiving any care, according to the letter.There has already been a measles epidemic sweeping through some districts of northern Syria, an alarming increase in cases of acute diarrhoea and an outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis, a severe infectious skin disease that can cause serious disability."To alleviate the effect on civilians of this conflict and of the deliberate attacks on the healthcare system, and to support our medical colleagues, we call on the Syrian government and all armed parties to refrain from attacking hospitals, ambulances, medical facilities and supplies, health professionals and patients," the signatories say.They demand access to treatment for patients and for perpetrators of attacks to be held accountable. The letter says governments supporting the opposing sides in the civil war should use their influence to stop the attacks and the UN and international donors must do more to increase support to Syrian medical networks.Signatories include the 2008 and 2011 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Dr Harald zur Hausen, from Germany, and Jules Hoffmann from France, and the former director-general of the World Health Organisation, Gro Harlem Brundtland.While a deal struck on Saturday to disarm President Bashar al-Assad's regime of its chemical weapons has, for now, averted the prospect of western military intervention, which some humanitarian groups have warned would make the situation worse, there was no sign on Sunday that it will help bring about a resolution to the two-and-a-half-year conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people.SyriaMiddle East and North AfricaHealthHospitalsDoctorsWorld Health OrganisationNobel prizesHaroon Siddique theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds     

13 сентября 2013, 01:01

Syria crisis: Kerry cautiously optimistic over chemical weapons surrender

Secretary of state begins Geneva talks with Russian counterpart and says: 'We do believe there is a way to get this done'The US secretary of state, John Kerry, on Thursday expressed cautious optimism that a deal could be reached to guarantee the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, as he began talks on the issue in Geneva with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.Appearing alongside Lavrov, shortly after the beginning of two days of negotiations, Kerry acknowledged that expectations were high but said: "We do believe there is a way to get this done."As the talks got under way in Geneva, the United Nations announced that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad had signed a legislative decree making his country party to the chemical weapons convention."In their letter, the Syrian authorities have expressed their commitment to observe the obligations entailed by the convention even before its entry into force for Syria," a UN spokesperson said. "Given recent events, he hopes that the current talks in Geneva will lead to speedy agreement on a way forward which will be endorsed and assisted by the international community."Kerry insisted that the threat of military action against Syria, over a chemical weapons attack in the country on 21 August, remained an option. He also rejected Assad's suggestion that he would have 30 days, under the standard terms of the chemical weapons treaty, to declare his stockpiles.  "We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved," Kerry said. "And the words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough."The joint press conference between Kerry and Lavrov marked the start of an uncomfortable alliance between the US and Russia, after the two countries unexpectedly converged around a proposal to disarm Syria of its chemical stockpiles. Delegations of Russian and American technical experts are in the Swiss capital to discuss the mechanics of the disarmament plan, which would involve Syria identifying the locations of its stockpiles and handing over control to the international community. Washington is seeking to shift responsibility for the success of any weapons destruction programme to Moscow. US officials argue that the plans for dealing with Syria's chemical weapons were put forward by Russia, and says its "prestige" is now at stake. "This is not a game. It has to be real," Kerry said in Geneva.Earlier on Thursday, Assad told Russian television Syria would submit documents to the UN for an agreement governing the handover of its chemical arsenal. "Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision," Interfax said, quoting the state-run Rossiya-24 channel's yet-to-be-aired interview.The White House and State Department both indicated on Thursday that the US was treating Assad's promise with scepticism. In Geneva, Kerry said: "It is too early to tell whether these efforts will succeed, but the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of the civil war are obviously immense. But despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts, and only with the compliance of the Assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done."A senior state department official accompanying the Kerry delegation said the US and Russia both had technical expertise in chemical weapons destruction because of the two-decade process – which is still ongoing – to destroy cold war-era stockpiles. "We also have experience in doing destruction of chemical weapons in the face of a resistant environment," the official said. "That is Iraq in the 1990s. And we have recent and ongoing experience, successful experience, in the case of a cooperative government. That is Libya, which we expect within the next few months will complete the destruction of its stockpiles left over from the previous regime." The senior official spoke on the condition of anonymity, as occurs routinely in US administration briefings. Kerry said Syrian weapons destruction would need to be credible, comprehensive, verifiable and implemented quickly, and added that there would need to be "consequences" for Assad if he did not comply with his obligations. He did not specify whether such consequences would involve the use of force against Syria. However, he also said that the credible threat of military action had forced Syria into conceding that it possessed chemical weapons and agreeing to their destruction, and maintained that the threat of strikes remained. Lavrov said that the securing of Syria's chemical weapons "will make unnecessary any strike against the Syrian Arab Republic".After Kerry spoke, Lavrorv appeared to admonish him for making political comments. "Diplomacy likes silence," Lavrov said. Kerry did not hear the translation and asked for it to be repeated. Lavrov said in English: "It's okay, John." Kerry laughed and replied: "You want me to take your word for it. It's a little early for that."Aside from the jokes, Kerry adopted softer language than has recently been used by the Obama administration, saying only that "force might be necessary" to deter Assad from using his weapons if the diplomatic route failed.The question over whether force could be authorised, in the event that Syria did not comply with chemical weapons actions, is at the centre of negotiations at the UN in New York, where a possible resolution is being drafted. Lavrov added that Russia's position on Syria had been laid out in president Vladimir Putin's op-ed article in the New York Times. "I am convinced that all of you have read this article," Lavrov said.In the article, Putin welcomed the new diplomatic initiative over Syria but condemned a US tendency toward unilateral "brute force" and sharply criticised America's belief in its own "exceptionalism". The article caused consternation in Washington.The Republican senator John McCain said the article was "an insult to the intelligence of every American", while the Democratic chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, Robert Menendez, said of reading the piece: "I almost wanted to vomit."The US administration chose more diplomatic language. A State Department deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said the time had come for Putin to "put forward actions now, not just words".The White House spokesman Jay Carney said: "The important thing is that both in his op-ed and in his statements and actions, president Putin has invested his credibility in the transfer of Assad's chemical weapons."He added: "[Nevertheless] there's a great irony in the placement of an op-ed like this because it reflects the truly exceptional tradition in this country of freedom of expression – something on the decrease in the last dozen or so years in Russia."Carney said the White House would not tolerate any delay by the Syrian government and would continue to provide military assistance to rebel groups throughout the process.United StatesSyriaChemical weaponsMiddle East and North AfricaUnited NationsUS foreign policyObama administrationJohn KerryRussiaVladimir PutinBashar al-AssadArab and Middle East unrestDan RobertsPaul Lewis theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds     

13 сентября 2013, 00:58

Monsanto faces another Supreme Court challenge

Rady Ananda Activist Post The latest group to challenge Monsanto is heading to the US Supreme Court, this time to seek a covenant not to sue when their crops become genetically contaminated. The Organic Growers and Seed Traders Assn., et al. filed their petition for writ of certiorari on Sept. 5, appealing a lower court ruling that determined that Monsanto’s website and court statements promising not to sue rendered OSGATA’s action moot. As discussed in Monsanto can still sue farmers for GMO contamination event, Monsanto promised not to sue only if one percent or less of the crops or seeds were contaminated, not a very likely scenario, as the OSGATA plaintiffs reasoned in their Supreme Court petition:  However, Petitioners risk being contaminated in amounts much greater than 1%, and thus remain compelled to forgo full use of their land and adopt genetic testing of their seed supplies in order to avoid being accused of patent infringement by Respondents. Jim Gerritsen, an organic seed farmer in Maine and President of OSGATA, said, “We don’t think it’s fair that Monsanto can trespass onto our farm, contaminate and ruin our crops and then sue us for infringing on their patent rights.” Since 2011, OSGATA has led a suite of plaintiffs representing 300,000 individuals and 4,500 farms. They also seek to overturn Monsanto’s patents as invalid on the grounds they cause more harm than good. Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation and lead counsel for plaintiffs, explains the patent challenge:  Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered seed are invalid because they don’t meet the ‘usefulness’ requirement of patent law. Evidence cited in the plaintiffs’ court filings proves that genetically engineered seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically engineered seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false. google_ad_client = "pub-1897954795849722"; /* 468x60, created 6/30/10 */ google_ad_slot = "8230781418"; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60;  Therefore, “Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents are all invalid.” A growing body of evidence continues to show that biotech crops require more pesticides than regular crops, after the first few years, because weeds and insects develop resistance. Most recently: University of Washington research scientist Charles Benbrook measured pesticide use since the advent of GM crops, and found that overall pesticide use was 20% higher for the past 16 years than it would have been had farmers not used GM seeds. Pest resistance is so profound now that superweeds are the main topic of study at this week’s American Chemical Society convention, and at last year’s Superweed Summit hosted by the National Academy of Sciences. Numerous studies warn of the impact on animals, including humans, after being exposed to spray. Of course, biotech and their enabling regulators know this, or they wouldn’t wear biohazard suits into the field. The only valid use for transgenic crops is biotech profits. When weighed against all the harm wrought by GM crops, any reasonable and uncorrupted mind would invalidate the patents. If plaintiffs win this claim, all transgenic patents may be invalidated. But, not only will the suit be heard by a Supreme Court stacked with Monsanto lackeys, as we saw in the Geertson Seed case, it’s also being heard in a federal landscape devoted to corporate profits at the expense of everyone else, including the environment. Late last night, the House of Representatives passed a three-month extension for the Monsanto Protection Act, or formally, the Farmer Assurance Provision, which Obama signed into law earlier this year. The Senate is expected to follow along. This rider permits the USDA to override judicial authority and allow the planting of genetically modified seeds, despite any court order to the contrary. Such a law destroys the independent balance among our three branches of government, representing a power grab by the legislative branch to thwart the will of the judicial branch. It does not seem likely the High Court, along with Congress and the Administration, will do anything but promote Monsanto’s profits. No doubt, though, we should support pursuing all legal remedies available to us. Rady Ananda is the creator of Food Freedom News and COTO Report, Rady Ananda's work has appeared in several online and print publications, including four books. With a B.S. in Natural Resources from Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture, Rady tweets @geobear7 and @RadysRant . 

12 сентября 2013, 23:51

Danish chef pours donated cash into rebuild of Somali's bombed cafe

Copenhagen cook René Redzepi raises appeal funds for Ahmed Jama, owner of Mogadishu Village eatery blasted by IslamistsTwo more different restaurants are hard to imagine. Noma in Copenhagen, Denmark, is an oak-floored oasis of calm and elegance that has thrice been ranked the world's best. The Village in war-torn Mogadishu, Somalia, is a humbler affair and has just been attacked by Islamist militants, with a suicide attacker and car bomb killing at least 18 people.Yet the community of chefs is strong. René Redzepi, the celebrated founder of Noma, was so shocked at the latest outrage that he launched a fundraising drive to help Somali Ahmed Jama rebuild his establishment. In just four days it has raised €12,000 (£10,090), with donations coming from around the world."He's a cook who has a bigger mission than any of us," Redzepi said. "We all cook for ourselves but he has a bigger agenda. We're from Scandinavia where our struggles are not worth mentioning compared to the things he has to deal with."Jama, who studied catering in Solihull, West Midlands, also owns a Somali restaurant called the Village in Hammersmith, west London. He returned to Mogadishu to demonstrate the country could change for the better and opened the Village in 2008. More recently, he opened a $100-a-night beachside hotel.Redzepi first read about Jama in the Guardian last year and invited him to speak at Noma's recent Mad Symposium food festival where his talk was called War zone cuisine: bringing back peace and life to Mogadishu.Via a Somali interpreter, Jama told the gathering of chefs, cooks and farmers: "In 2008 I decided to open a restaurant in Mogadishu and my fellow Somalis in London thought I was crazy: 'how could I open a restaurant in a dangerous area like Mogadishu?' But when I opened the restaurant I made an opportunity for employing many young people and they were very happy, and have attracted many people to come and eat at my restaurant."Jama won over his audience. Redzepi said: "He talked about his decision to leave the safety net of Europe and address the negative perceptions of Somalia. It was a really touching, inspiring story and he did it in a way that wasn't trying to get sympathy. That's why it was so crazy to read the headline about a guy we'd just spent four days with."Two weeks after the symposium, the Village was attacked for the third time in its history by al-Shabaab, a group linked to al-Qaida. Jama survived, having stepped outside five minutes before the bombings, and vowed to rebuild once again.Redzepi expressed admiration for the Somalian's resolve. "It's close to my heart. I totally get him and his dedication to the table. What he fights for is not Michelin stars or being on some list, but a totally different level of dedication."It's mind boggling that he hasn't quit after being bombed so many times. Most people in that situation would have."He set up an appeal fund, tweeting on Monday: "Guys, lets help out chef Ahmed in Somalia rebuild." It attracted donations from nearly a hundred people from countries including the US, Australia, Britain, Denmark and Lebanon, ranging from €10 to €1,000. "We all said we want to help people. That genuine compassion is what makes the world tick."Since al-Shabaab was driven out two years ago there has been some progress in Mogadishu. A president and parliament have been elected, foreign embassies including the British have reopened and events such as TEDxMogadishu have been staged. But in June the rebel group attacked the main UN compound, killing at least 22, and recently Médecins Sans Frontières announced it was pulling out of Somalia after 22 years.On Wednesday, more than 160 Muslim scholars issued a fatwa against al-Shabaab and called on the government to defend its citizens. The scholars said "it was forbidden that anyone join al-Shabaab" as its extreme interpretation of Islam was damaging to the reputation of Muslims.DenmarkSomaliaEuropeChefsDavid Smith theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds 

12 сентября 2013, 22:30

Syria takes UN step to surrender chemical weapons as US keeps up pressure

Secretary of state John Kerry discusses US-Russia talks in Geneva and says: 'This is not a game. It has to be real'Syria took the first formal step towards surrendering its chemical weapons on Thursday, sending the United Nations an application to join the international convention prohibiting the production and use of such arms.The UN secretary general's office confirmed receipt of the letter, hours after the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, had admitted the existence of the arsenal for the first time, and said he was ready to transfer it to international control.At the same time, talks between the US and Russia on how to implement the transfer got under way in Geneva. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said at a news conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, that both sides were serious about the negotiations despite some differences over the plan. But he warned: "This is not a game. It has to be real."With its letter to the UN, Syria was poised to become the the 190th member of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), leaving a small group of nations outside the treaty: Israel, Burma, Angola, Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan. Syrian membership will take effect 30 days after the delivery of the letter. After that Syria would be legally committed to ridding itself of its chemical arsenal.However, in a Russian television interview, Assad also appeared to put conditions on Syria's chemical disarmament, saying the US would have to reciprocate by ceasing military threats against his government and the arming of "terrorists".Assad's comments emphasised the significant diplomatic obstacles facing US and Russian diplomats and chemical weapons experts as they began meetings in Geneva to discuss Moscow's plan to disarm the Syrian government. According to the Russian Kommersant newspaper, the plan would involve four stages: Syria would sign the CWC, then declare its stockpile and production facilities, invite weapons inspectors in, and cooperate with them in drawing up a plan to destroy the stockpile.That arsenal, according to a French intelligence estimate this month, amounts to more than 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents and precursors, including mustard gas as well as sarin and VX nerve agents.Speaking in Geneva, Kerry acknowledged that there would be "immense technical challenges" in implementing the plan. But he told Lavrov: "We are serious, as you are, about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations." He repeated Washington's position that there had to be "consequences" if Syria failed to follow through on its commitments and said that US military assets would remain in place.In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Wednesday night, Russian president Vladimir Putin restated Moscow's claim that the chemical attacks in Damascus on 21 August which triggered the current global crisis were the work of rebel forces, but he did not cite evidence.A UN investigation into the attack is expected to produce a report early next week. The Foreign Policy online magazine quoted a senior western official as saying the report, by Swedish scientist Åke Sellström, would include a "wealth" of evidence pointing at the culpability of the Assad regime. American officials said that they would insist on a brisk timetable to ensure the plan did not become a time-buying ploy.While the diplomats talked in Geneva, the US and Russia continued to build up their naval forces in the Mediterranean. Russia has dispatched a "carrier killer" missile cruiser and other ships to the eastern Mediterranean, in its largest naval deployment since Soviet times.The destroyer Smetlivy left a naval base in Sevastopol, Ukraine, on Tuesday, on a mission to the Syrian coast, a military source told the state news agency Interfax on Thursday. The source said the Smetlivy would travel to the Mediterranean with the amphibious assault ship Nikolai Filchenkov, which left Novorossiysk on Monday carrying unidentified supplies for the Damascus government. The missile cruiser Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet, is also on its way to the Syrian coast to lead the Russian force there. The ship is reportedly known as a "carrier-killer" because it is outfitted with Vulkan missiles, which are designed to destroy large ships.The former Democratic US senator Sam Nunn, who is one of the world's leading arms-control campaigners, said the disarmament process would have a chance of succeeding only if the Syrian army is in charge of the arsenal."We hope that the Syrian army is in control. The US government believes it is. The Russians disagree. If the Russians are right and some of the rebels have control, the nightmare's just started," said Nunn, speaking to The Guardian in Brussels.United StatesSyriaChemical weaponsUnited NationsMiddle East and North AfricaRussiaJohn KerryBashar al-AssadVladimir PutinUS militaryUS foreign policyJulian BorgerAlec LuhnIan Traynor theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds     

12 сентября 2013, 20:45

CIA and US State Dept. Sending Weapons and Supplies to Syrian Rebels: Report

Madison Ruppert Activist Post The U.S. government has been delivering weapons, vehicles, sophisticated communications gear and advanced combat medical kits for two weeks via the CIA and State Department, according to a Washington Post report. However, the CIA has played a significant role in arming the rebels for quite some time now as even The New York Times reported in June 2012. The US government has been assisting in the arming of the rebels in other ways as well. There were also reports in August of U.S., Israeli and Jordanian commandos operating on Syrian soil with the rebels. The latest Post report cites unnamed U.S. officials and Syrian figures who say that the CIA’s arms shipments have been “streaming into the country over the past two weeks.” Separate State Department deliveries include the vehicles and other critical equipment. The arms shipments are reportedly “limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked,” but it is impossible to independently verify this claim.  google_ad_client = "pub-1897954795849722"; /* 468x60, created 6/30/10 */ google_ad_slot = "8230781418"; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60;  The Post points out that the Obama administration said that they would “increase aid to Syrian rebels” months ago, though they noted that efforts were hindered due to logistical issues and “officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists.” However, in April it was reported that a $123 million military aid package was to be given to the rebels by the U.S. and in February the U.S. pledged $60 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels. The lethal aid is reportedly being provided to fighters under the command of Gen. Salim Idriss, commander of the Supreme Military Council, according to anonymous officials. Idriss was one of the rebels that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) met with when he secretly entered Syria in May. Interestingly, Idriss noted in the past that Jabhat al-Nusra has more resources and a tactical ground advantage. Jabhat al-Nusra is made up of the same “jihadists” feared by officials. Idriss also said that the al-Nusra fighters are some of the bravest ever. The Post reports that the U.S. has already earmarked $26.6 million in aid for the Supreme Military Council on top of “a $250 million effort to support moderate factions of the Syrian opposition.” That effort includes building up basic infrastructure in order to counter the influence of groups like Jabhat al-Nusra which are delivering services to the communities that come under rebel control. U.S. officials claim that they are confident that it is “possible to limit aid to select rebel units in a battlefield where thousands of fighters share al-Qaeda’s ideology,” according to the Post. How they actually know where the aid is going goes unexplained. After all, the “moderate” rebels openly defend Jabhat al-Nusra and those like them, with the leader of the U.S.-recognized Syrian National Coalition saying in 2012, “No group fighting Assad should be considered a terrorist organization.” I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. I am also available for interviews on radio, television or any other format. Please email me at [email protected] support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store. This article first appeared at End the Lie. 

12 сентября 2013, 16:29

US-born 'jihadist rapper' Omar Hammami reportedly killed in Somalia

Militant also known as Abu Mansoor al-Amriki was on FBI's most wanted list with $5m reward for his captureA rapping jihadist from Alabama who ascended the ranks of Somalia's al-Qaida-linked militant group and was on the FBI's most wanted list with a $5m (£3.2m) reward for his capture was reportedly killed on Thursday in an ambush ordered by the militant group's leader.Omar Hammami, a native of Daphne, Alabama, who was known as Abu Mansoor al-Amriki, or "the American", died in southern Somalia following several months on the run after a falling out with al-Shabaab's top leader, the militants said.Reports of Hammami's death crop up every few months in Somalia, only for him to resurface a short while later. But a US terrorism expert who closely follows the inner workings of al-Shabaab said he thought the current reports of the death were accurate."I think it's very likely true based on the sources I am seeing," said JM Berger, who runs the website Intelwire.com.Militants did not immediately present proof of Hammami's death.A member of al-Shabaab who gave his name as Sheik Abu Mohammed told the Associated Press that Hammami was killed in an ambush in Somalia's southern Bay region. Some of Mohammed's associates carried out the killing, he said.Along with Adam Gadahn in Pakistan – a former Osama bin Laden spokesman – Hammami was one of the two most notorious Americans in jihad groups. He grew up in Daphne, a community of 20,000 outside Mobile, the son of a Christian mother and a Syrian-born Muslim father.His YouTube videos that featured him rapping and his presence on Twitter made him one of the most recognisable and studied US foreign fighters. The US put Hammami on its most wanted terrorist list in March and offered a $5m reward for information leading to his capture.US prosecutors had charged Hammami with providing material support to terrorists.Hammami moved from Alabama to Somalia and joined al-Shabaab in about 2006. He fought alongside al-Shabaab for years until they had a falling out amid signs of increasing tension between Somali and foreign fighters in the group. He first expressed fear for his life in a web video in March 2012 that publicised his rift with al-Shabaab.The first serious attempt on his life was made in April."Just been shot in neck by shabaab assassin. not critical yet," Hammami tweeted after the April attack. He later wrote on Twitter that the leader of al-Shabaab was sending in forces from multiple directions. "we are few but we might get back up. abu zubayr has gone mad. he's starting a civil war," Hammami posted.Hammami accused al-Shabaab's leaders of living extravagant lifestyles with the taxes fighters collected from Somali residents. Another Hammami grievance was that the Somali militant leaders sidelined foreign militants inside al-Shabaab and were concerned only about fighting in Somalia, not globally.The leader of al-Shabaab, Mukhtar Abu Zubeyr, is also known as Godane.Berger said Hammami had been "a thorn in the side of al-Shabaab" for more than two years and "one of the few surviving dissenters after Godane's bloody purge over the summer".Militants in Somalia have long hosted foreign fighters in the country. US officials say al-Shabaab, which has been around since about 2006, counts several hundred foreign fighters among its ranks, including several dozen Somali-Americans from Minnesota.Al-Shabaab and al-Qaida announced a formal merger in February 2012, but the Somali militant group maintained a reputation as being hostile to foreign fighters."Hammami brought a lot of unwelcome outside scrutiny on Shabaab from the international jihadist community. His story will likely be a case study on what can go wrong when westerners join jihadist movements," Berger said.SomaliaMiddle East and North AfricaAfricaUnited States theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds     

12 сентября 2013, 02:52

Are The Real Enemies In Syria Or Washington?

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog, “Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”–Sun Tzu, The Art of War The definition of what makes an “enemy” may vary from person to person. But I would say that, generally, an enemy is one who has an active ability to do irreparable harm to you or your essential values. He is motivated by destruction, the destruction of all that you hold dear. He is capable and unrelenting. He is a legitimate threat. He will not compromise. He will not waver. He will do anything to wound you. He will not stop. He is possessed. Americans have spent the better part of a century being told who their enemies are with very little explanation or substantiation. We have blindly rallied around our patriotic prerogative without knowing the root cause of the conflict or the nature of the target we are told to annihilate. We have been suckered into war after war, conjured by international interests in order to lure us into accepting greater centralization and concentrated globalism. As a culture, I’m sorry to say, we have been used. We are a tool of unmitigated doom. We are the loaded gun in the hand of the devil. This paradigm has done irreparable harm to our standing in the eyes of the peoples of the world. But until recently, it has done very little harm to us as a society. We have allowed ourselves to be used like a bloody club, but we have not yet felt the true pain or the true cost. We have been insulated from consequence. However, this comfortable situation is quickly coming to an end. When one applies the above definition of “the enemy” to Syria, one comes away with very little satisfaction. The Syrian government poses absolutely no immediate threat to the United States. In fact, the civil war that now rages within its borders has been completely fabricated by our own government. The insurgency has been funded, armed, trained and ultimately directed by the U.S. intelligence community. Without U.S. subversion, the civil war in Syria would not exist. So, the question arises: If Syria is not the real enemy, who is? I point back to the core issue. That is to say, I would examine who pose a legitimate threat to our country and our principles. The Syrian government under Bashar Assad clearly has no capability to threaten our freedom, our economic stability, our social stability, or our defensive capabilities. There is, though, a group of people out there who do, in fact, pose a significant threat to the American way of life on every conceivable level. These people do not live on the other side of the world. They do not wear foreign garb or speak another language. Most of them do not have pigmented skin or Asian features. They look just like you and I, and they live in Washington D.C. If the so-called “debate” over a possible military strike in Syria has done anything, it has certainly brought the American public’s true enemies frothing to the surface like so much sewage. Men who posed as liberal proponents of peace not long ago now salivate over the prospect of bloodshed. Men who once posed as fiscal conservatives now clamor for more Federal funding to drive the U.S. war machine. Men who claimed to represent the citizenry now ignore all calls for reason by the public in the pursuit of global dominance. I have warned of the considerable dangers of a war in Syria for years — long before most people knew or cared about the Assad regime. Being in this position has allowed me to view the escalating crisis with a considerable amount of objectivity. In the midst of so much chaos and confusion, if you know who stands to gain and who stands to lose, the progression of events becomes transparent, and the strategy of the actual enemy emerges. So what have I observed so far? If you want to know who has malicious intent toward our Constitutional values, simply move your eyes away from the Mideast and focus on our own capital. The ill will toward liberty held by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties is obvious in the Congressional support of the banker bailouts, the Patriot Acts, the National Defense Authorization Act, the President’s domestic assassination directives, the hands-off approach to National Security Agency mass surveillance, etc. But even beyond these litmus tests, the Syrian debate has unveiled numerous enemies of the American people within our own government. The catastrophe inherent in a Syrian strike is at least partially known to most of the public. We are fully aware that there will be blowback from any new strike in the Mideast (limited or unlimited), economically as well as internationally. So if the average American with little political experience understands the consequences of such an action, the average politician should be more than educated on the dangers. Any representative who blatantly ignores the calamity ahead is either very stupid or has an agenda. I find it fascinating that politicians and bureaucrats from both sides of the aisle are now coming out of the woodwork to cheerlead alongside each other for war and the state. For those who are predominantly preoccupied with Barack Obama as the source of all our ills, I would gladly point out that Republican leader and House Speaker John Boehner has also thrown his support behind a Syrian strike, even before the U.N. investigative report on Syrian chemical weapons use has been released. In the meantime, self-proclaimed Republican stalwarts like John McCain (R-Ariz.) have argued that Obama’s “limited strike” response is “not enough.” This is the same man, by the way, who has been instrumental in the monetary and military support of Al Qaeda in Syria.  McCain has recently called for avid pursuit of the new Russian proposal for chemical disarmament in Syria, not because he wants to find a peaceful solution to the situation, but because he believes the deal can be used as a bargaining chip to convince Congress to VOTE FOR military force, in order to "keep pressure on Assad". Secretary of State John Kerry, who not long ago ran for President on the platform of being an anti-war Democrat, now regularly begs the American people to back further war based on the same dubious evidence for which he once criticized the George W. Bush Administration. In fact, Kerry has made it clear that even if Congress votes “no” against a strike, he believes Obama has the right to set one in motion anyway. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), the man who openly admits in mainstream interviews that he believes the President has the right to indefinitely detain or assassinate American citizens without trial or oversight, has loudly indicated his support for a war on Syria. His criticisms parallel McCain’s in that he believes the Obama Administration should have attacked without Congressional approval or should commit to an all-out military shift into the region.  That is to say, he believes the goal of the White House should be invasion and regime change, not just disarmament.  Graham consistently fear mongers in the mainstream media, often warning that without a hard, immediate strike against Syria, catastrophe will befall Israel, and chemical and nuclear weapons will rain on America. All I have to say to Graham is, if chemical or nuclear weapons are used against the American people, it will be because the establishment ALLOWED it to happen — just as it has allowed numerous attacks in the past to occur in order to facilitate pretext for a larger war. (The Gulf of Tonkin is a fitting example considering the many similarities between the Syrian debacle and Vietnam, the only difference being that this time the establishment is throwing its support on the side of the insurgency, rather than the prevailing government). For those out there in the movement who are hoping for reason and logic to prevail during a Congressional debate on the Syrian issue, I would suggest that they do not hold their breath. This vote was decided before Obama ever allowed it to go to the Hill. The vote has been cast. The debate is a sideshow designed to make the American people feel as if their system of government still functions as it should. Remember, no Congress in the history of the United States has ever refused the request of a President to make war. The more than 150 Congressmen who demanded a vote on the Syrian crisis did so because they wanted to be included in the process, not because they necessarily opposed a war. That leaves nearly 300 representatives who had NO PROBLEM whatsoever with Obama attacking Syria unilaterally without any checks or balances. The Senate panel that initiated the voting process on the strike plan passed the initiative 10-7. I have no doubt that Obama has the votes to confirm the use of force, even with all the talk of uncertainty in evidence or planning. The Russian offer of organizing chemical disarmament has barely made a dent in the White House's war rhetoric, as was evident in Barack Obama's address to the nation yesterday.  When asked in an interview with NBC if he has made up his mind whether or not he will forge ahead with military action if Congress votes his proposal down, Obama stated: "It's fair to say that I haven't decided..." Putting on the airs of a Roman Emperor, Obama's thumb remains in the neutral position over the gladiator pit of Syria, but as he clearly points out, he can give the thumbs down anytime he chooses.  If anything, the White House and the elitist machine are simply using the next few weeks (the approximate time being discussed for chemical disarmament) to establish further precedent, or conjure new atrocities, in order to garner a minimal public backing for violent action in the region. And, let's not forget our friendly enemies in the mainstream media.  The MSM is in rare form the past week, fabricating numerous arguments as to why the average American "just doesn't get the Syrian situation".  The latest disinformation campaigns seem to be revolving around generating alternative motivations for a strike - Obama's "red line" was crossed and we must strike in order to save face amongst our allies. A refusal to strike Syria will "embolden Iran" and lead them to use their own WMD's in terrorist acts (WMD's which are still not proven to exist). And my favorite argument:  That refusing to strike would mean "abandoning" the Syrian rebels in their war on Assad.  You know, the same rebels permeated with psychopathic Al Qaeda operatives that our government trained and funded. The mainstream media steamroller is barreling forward, searching for ANY talking point that will hook the American populace into rationalizing an attack.  I have to say, I don't think I've ever seen so many pencil-necked weaklings call for so much blood.  The strategy seems to be an attempt to shift America's attention away from the alleged chemical attack alone, and discombobulate us with multiple sales pitches of death in case Congressional support turns sour (which I doubt). But let’s say Obama does not get his Congressional approval; as stated earlier his office has asserted on numerous occasions that he has the authority to trigger war regardless. A “no” vote in Washington means nothing today due to war powers granted after 9/11. The probable scenario, though, is the most common scenario. Congress will likely authorize the “use of limited military force” without directly declaring war on the Assad regime. This is exactly what Congress did in the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no evidence of an Al Qaeda support structure and no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but war exploded nonetheless. Congress gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he saw fit, and I believe Congress will do the same for Obama. America is being set up to look like the bad guy or the fool, but why? Our political leadership is devoted to the ideology of globalization, not sovereignty or U.S prosperity. A Syrian strike places the United States in tremendous peril, the likes of which have not been seen since the Cuban missile crisis. Syria itself is a vacuum of suffocating calamity; a black hole swirling in a void of economic and sociological interdependency. Where the United States enters, so follows Iran, so follows Israel, so follows Saudi Arabia, so follows Lebanon, so follows Jordan, so follows Egypt, so follows Russia, so follows China and on and on. In my analysis of Syria over the years, I have exposed this domino effect of war as well as the possible calamities of an economic chain reaction. Escalating conflict in Syria will eventually lead to the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the collapse of the U.S. financial system. Knowing that this is the ultimate result of a strike in the region, many people would ask WHY the White House and so many prominent figures in Congress would be so hell-bent on setting such wheels in motion. I would stand back from the chaos and ask what I always ask: Who gains the most from the disaster? The demise of American currency dominance and the degradation of the American spirit do indeed benefit a select few. For the most part, central banks and globalists have taken a hands-off approach to the Syrian debacle. Perhaps that’s because doing so makes it easier for them to survey the inevitable collapse from a distance and swoop in later as our “saviors,” ready to rebuild the world according to their own ideals. Having a debased and desperate U.S. populace certainly makes the transition to total globalization and centralization much easier. My original query was: Who is the real enemy? No matter what happens in the coming months and years, never forget that question. Who poses the greatest threat to our freedom: Syria or the political ghouls trying to convince us to decimate Syria? Who claims the power to take everything we have? Who claims the power to take our liberty and our lives at a whim? Who claims the power to kill innocents in our name? Who disregards the checks and balances of Constitutionalism at every turn? Who truly threatens our future and the future of our children? Do not be distracted by stories of foreign monsters far away when the real monsters lurk so quietly under your bed.  Even if we can find a successful strategy to pressure Congress into avoiding a Syrian conflict, I say remain vigilant. America is one global hiccup away from oblivion. And if this is what the establishment wants, they will find a way to make it happen. The threat of continuous U.S. catastrophe will only end when the poison is removed from our very veins, and that process of purification begins with the removal of the criminal political structures and banking structures in Washington.        

12 сентября 2013, 02:47

Are The Real Enemies In Syria Or Washington?

Brandon Smith Activist Post Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate. –Sun Tzu, The Art of WarThe definition of what makes an “enemy” may vary from person to person. But I would say that, generally, an enemy is one who has an active ability to do irreparable harm to you or your essential values. He is motivated by destruction, the destruction of all that you hold dear. He is capable and unrelenting. He is a legitimate threat. He will not compromise. He will not waver. He will do anything to wound you. He will not stop. He is possessed. Americans have spent the better part of a century being told who their enemies are with very little explanation or substantiation. We have blindly rallied around our patriotic prerogative without knowing the root cause of the conflict or the nature of the target we are told to annihilate. We have been suckered into war after war, conjured by international interests in order to lure us into accepting greater centralization and concentrated globalism. As a culture, I’m sorry to say, we have been used. We are a tool of unmitigated doom. We are the loaded gun in the hand of the devil. This paradigm has done irreparable harm to our standing in the eyes of the peoples of the world. But until recently, it has done very little harm to us as a society. We have allowed ourselves to be used like a bloody club, but we have not yet felt the true pain or the true cost. We have been insulated from consequence. However, this comfortable situation is quickly coming to an end. When one applies the above definition of “the enemy” to Syria, one comes away with very little satisfaction. The Syrian government poses absolutely no immediate threat to the United States. In fact, the civil war that now rages within its borders has been completely fabricated by our own government. The insurgency has been funded, armed, trained and ultimately directed by the U.S. intelligence community. Without U.S. subversion, the civil war in Syria would not exist.  google_ad_client = "pub-1897954795849722"; /* 468x60, created 6/30/10 */ google_ad_slot = "8230781418"; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60;  So, the question arises: If Syria is not the real enemy, who is? I point back to the core issue. That is to say, I would examine who pose a legitimate threat to our country and our principles. The Syrian government under Bashar Assad clearly has no capability to threaten our freedom, our economic stability, our social stability, or our defensive capabilities. There is, though, a group of people out there who do, in fact, pose a significant threat to the American way of life on every conceivable level. These people do not live on the other side of the world. They do not wear foreign garb or speak another language. Most of them do not have pigmented skin or Asian features. They look just like you and I, and they live in Washington D.C. If the so-called “debate” over a possible military strike in Syria has done anything, it has certainly brought the American public’s true enemies frothing to the surface like so much sewage. Men who posed as liberal proponents of peace not long ago now salivate over the prospect of bloodshed. Men who once posed as fiscal conservatives now clamor for more Federal funding to drive the U.S. war machine. Men who claimed to represent the citizenry now ignore all calls for reason by the public in the pursuit of global dominance. I have warned of the considerable dangers of a war in Syria for years — long before most people knew or cared about the Assad regime. Being in this position has allowed me to view the escalating crisis with a considerable amount of objectivity. In the midst of so much chaos and confusion, if you know who stands to gain and who stands to lose, the progression of events becomes transparent, and the strategy of the actual enemy emerges. So what have I observed so far? If you want to know who has malicious intent toward our Constitutional values, simply move your eyes away from the Mideast and focus on our own capital. The ill will toward liberty held by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties is obvious in the Congressional support of the banker bailouts, the Patriot Acts, the National Defense Authorization Act, the President’s domestic assassination directives, the hands-off approach to National Security Agency mass surveillance, etc. But even beyond these litmus tests, the Syrian debate has unveiled numerous enemies of the American people within our own government. The catastrophe inherent in a Syrian strike is at least partially known to most of the public. We are fully aware that there will be blowback from any new strike in the Mideast (limited or unlimited), economically as well as internationally. So if the average American with little political experience understands the consequences of such an action, the average politician should be more than educated on the dangers. Any representative who blatantly ignores the calamity ahead is either very stupid or has an agenda. I find it fascinating that politicians and bureaucrats from both sides of the aisle are now coming out of the woodwork to cheerlead alongside each other for war and the state. For those who are predominantly preoccupied with Barack Obama as the source of all our ills, I would gladly point out that Republican leader and House Speaker John Boehner has also thrown his support behind a Syrian strike, even before the U.N. investigative report on Syrian chemical weapons use has been released. In the meantime, self-proclaimed Republican stalwarts like John McCain (R-Ariz.) have argued that Obama’s “limited strike” response is “not enough.” This is the same man, by the way, who has been instrumental in the monetary and military support of Al Qaeda in Syria. McCain has recently called for avid pursuit of the new Russian proposal for chemical disarmament in Syria, not because he wants to find a peaceful solution to the situation, but because he believes the deal can be used as a bargaining chip to convince Congress to VOTE FOR military force, in order to "keep pressure on Assad". Secretary of State John Kerry, who not long ago ran for President on the platform of being an anti-war Democrat, now regularly begs the American people to back further war based on the same dubious evidence for which he once criticized the George W. Bush Administration. In fact, Kerry has made it clear that even if Congress votes “no” against a strike, he believes Obama has the right to set one in motion anyway. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), the man who openly admits in mainstream interviews that he believes the President has the right to indefinitely detain or assassinate American citizens without trial or oversight, has loudly indicated his support for a war on Syria. His criticisms parallel McCain’s in that he believes the Obama Administration should have attacked without Congressional approval or should commit to an all-out military shift into the region. That is to say, he believes the goal of the White House should be invasion and regime change, not just disarmament. Graham consistently fear mongers in the mainstream media, often warning that without a hard, immediate strike against Syria, catastrophe will befall Israel, and chemical andnuclear weapons will rain on America. All I have to say to Graham is, if chemical or nuclear weapons are used against the American people, it will be because the establishment ALLOWED it to happen — just as it has allowed numerous attacks in the past to occur in order to facilitate pretext for a larger war. (The Gulf of Tonkin is a fitting example considering the many similarities between the Syrian debacle and Vietnam, the only difference being that this time the establishment is throwing its support on the side of the insurgency, rather than the prevailing government). For those out there in the movement who are hoping for reason and logic to prevail during a Congressional debate on the Syrian issue, I would suggest that they do not hold their breath. This vote was decided before Obama ever allowed it to go to the Hill. The vote has been cast. The debate is a sideshow designed to make the American people feel as if their system of government still functions as it should. Remember, no Congress in the history of the United States has ever refused the request of a President to make war. The more than 150 Congressmen who demanded a vote on the Syrian crisis did so because they wanted to be included in the process, not because they necessarily opposed a war. That leaves nearly 300 representatives who had NO PROBLEM whatsoever with Obama attacking Syria unilaterally without any checks or balances. The Senate panel that initiated the voting process on the strike plan passed the initiative 10-7. I have no doubt that Obama has the votes to confirm the use of force, even with all the talk of uncertainty in evidence or planning. The Russian offer of organizing chemical disarmament has barely made a dent in the White House's war rhetoric, as was evident in Barack Obama's address to the nation yesterday. When asked in an interview with NBC if he has made up his mind whether or not he will forge ahead with military action if Congress votes his proposal down, Obama stated: "It's fair to say that I haven't decided..." Putting on the airs of a Roman Emperor, Obama's thumb remains in the neutral position over the gladiator pit of Syria, but as he clearly points out, he can give the thumbs down anytime he chooses. If anything, the White House and the elitist machine are simply using the next few weeks (the approximate time being discussed for chemical disarmament) to establish further precedent, or conjure new atrocities, in order to garner a minimal public backing for violent action in the region. And, let's not forget our friendly enemies in the mainstream media. The MSM is in rare form the past week, fabricating numerous arguments as to why the average American "just doesn't get the Syrian situation". The latest disinformation campaigns seem to be revolving around generating alternative motivations for a strike - Obama's "red line" was crossed and we must strike in order to save face amongst our allies. A refusal to strike Syria will "embolden Iran" and lead them to use their own WMD's in terrorist acts (WMD's which are still not proven to exist). And my favorite argument: That refusing to strike would mean "abandoning" the Syrian rebelsin their war on Assad. You know, the same rebels permeated with psychopathic Al Qaeda operatives that our government trained and funded. The mainstream media steamroller is barreling forward, searching for ANY talking point that will hook the American populace into rationalizing an attack. I have to say, I don't think I've ever seen so many pencil-necked weaklings call for so much blood. The strategy seems to be an attempt to shift America's attention away from the alleged chemical attack alone, and discombobulate us with multiple sales pitches of death in case Congressional support turns sour (which I doubt). But let’s say Obama does not get his Congressional approval; as stated earlier his office has asserted on numerous occasions that he has the authority to trigger war regardless. A “no” vote in Washington means nothing today due to war powers granted after 9/11. The probable scenario, though, is the most common scenario. Congress will likely authorize the “use of limited military force” without directly declaring war on the Assad regime. This is exactly what Congress did in the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no evidence of an Al Qaeda support structure and no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but war exploded nonetheless. Congress gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he saw fit, and I believe Congress will do the same for Obama. America is being set up to look like the bad guy or the fool, but why? Our political leadership is devoted to the ideology of globalization, not sovereignty or U.S prosperity. A Syrian strike places the United States in tremendous peril, the likes of which have not been seen since the Cuban missile crisis. Syria itself is a vacuum of suffocating calamity; a black hole swirling in a void of economic and sociological interdependency. Where the United States enters, so follows Iran, so follows Israel, so follows Saudi Arabia, so follows Lebanon, so follows Jordan, so follows Egypt, so follows Russia, so follows China and on and on. In my analysis of Syria over the years, I have exposed this domino effect of war as well as the possible calamities of an economic chain reaction. Escalating conflict in Syria will eventually lead to the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the collapse of the U.S. financial system. Knowing that this is the ultimate result of a strike in the region, many people would ask WHYthe White House and so many prominent figures in Congress would be so hell-bent on setting such wheels in motion. I would stand back from the chaos and ask what I always ask: Who gains the most from the disaster? The demise of American currency dominance and the degradation of the American spirit do indeed benefit a select few. For the most part, central banks and globalists have taken a hands-off approach to the Syrian debacle. Perhaps that’s because doing so makes it easier for them to survey the inevitable collapse from a distance and swoop in later as our “saviors,” ready to rebuild the world according to their own ideals. Having a debased and desperate U.S. populace certainly makes the transition to total globalization and centralization much easier. My original query was: Who is the real enemy? No matter what happens in the coming months and years, never forget that question. Who poses the greatest threat to our freedom: Syria or the political ghouls trying to convince us to decimate Syria? Who claims the power to take everything we have? Who claims the power to take our liberty and our lives at a whim? Who claims the power to kill innocents in our name? Who disregards the checks and balances of Constitutionalism at every turn? Who truly threatens our future and the future of our children? Do not be distracted by stories of foreign monsters far away when the real monsters lurk so quietly under your bed. Even if we can find a successful strategy to pressure Congress into avoiding a Syrian conflict, I say remain vigilant. America is one global hiccup away from oblivion. And if this is what the establishment wants, they will find a way to make it happen. The threat of continuous U.S. catastrophe will only end when the poison is removed from our very veins, and that process of purification begins with the removal of the criminal political structures and banking structures in Washington. You can contact Brandon Smith at: [email protected] is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. 

Выбор редакции
11 сентября 2013, 03:52

Media Buries Syria Comments on U.S. Partnership with Al Qaeda

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton Activist Post This is just one example of how our mainstream media constantly censors information and spins or buries the truth.  This article on MSNBC changed its headline from “Syria: US strikes would help those who ‘blew up World Trade Center’” to “Obama on Russia’s Syria chemical weapons proposal: ‘Take it with a grain of salt’".  And that is how the game is played, folks. The media outlet purposefully buried information about Syria’s Foreign Minister asking why America’s president wants to help out the same exact al Qaeda terrorists that supposedly carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks that devastated America and sunk it into the police state it has become.  google_ad_client = "pub-1897954795849722"; /* 468x60, created 6/30/10 */ google_ad_slot = "8230781418"; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60;  “We are asking ourselves how Obama can … support those who in their time blew up the World Trade Center in New York,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said during a press conference with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. Surely mainstream outlets like MSNBC must realize that they have been all-too-complicit in forcing the idea down our throats for the last twelve years that al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks that ended in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, not to mention culminating in the Department of Homeland Security takeover, the guilty-until-proven-innocent Transportation Security Administration grope downs at airports, the National Defense Authorization Act that basically nullifies parts of our Constitution in claiming Americans suspected of terrorism can be detained indefinitely without official charge or trial, and the creation of supposedly Constitution-free zones 100 miles in from our nation’s borders. To turn around at this late hour and try to rally people behind President Obama that America needs to aid that same terrorist group that propelled our country down a black well of tyranny in 2001 in Syria in 2013 because it fits the White House’s international agenda at the moment is incomprehensible and morally reprehensible at the very least. Aaron and Melissa created TruthstreamMedia.com, where this first appeared, as an outlet to examine the news, place it in a broader context, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, grasp the underlying factors, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free... 

10 сентября 2013, 22:32

Syria pledges to sign chemical weapons treaty and reveal scale of stockpile

Assad government offers measure as Russia and western powers wrangle at UN over necessity of military threatSyria said on Tuesday night it would sign an international chemical weapons treaty and admit the scale of its chemical weapons stockpile for the first time.The foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said his country would halt production of chemical arms, disclose the location of its existing arsenal and allow access to UN inspectors in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.Joining the convention implied a commitment to destroy the poison gases and nerve agents thought to be in Syria's possession, but a battle was looming at the UN over whether the timetable for Syrian disarmament should be enforced by the threat of military action.The US, Britain and France are preparing a hard-edged security council resolution backed by the possible use of force. Russia is proposing a much milder non-binding council declaration. As both sides manoeuvred for tactical advantage, Russia first summoned an emergency council meeting for 4pm on Tuesday then abruptly cancelled it.Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, insisted the disarmament process would work "only if the US and those who support it on this issue pledge to renounce the use of force, because it is difficult to make any country – Syria or any other country in the world – unilaterally disarm if there is military action against it under consideration".Russia proposes to work with the Assad regime and the UN secretariat to lay out a "workable, precise and concrete" disarmament plan with a timetable but no enforcement mechanism.After a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, admitted: "As I understood, the Russians at this stage were not necessarily enthusiastic – and I'm using a euphemism – to put all that into the framework of a UN binding resolution."The US, UK and France all stressed that they would not allow Russia or Damascus to play for time. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, told a hearing of the House of Representatives armed services committee that the US was waiting for details of the Russian proposal, "but we're not waiting for long".He said: "President Obama will take a hard look at it. But it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable. We have to show Syria, Russia and the world we are not going to fall for stalling tactics."US officials later said that Kerry would meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Thursday for further talks. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Lavrov and Kerry spoke by telephone and the two "agreed to continue contacts, including the possibility of holding a personal meeting in the coming days."David Cameron delivered the same message in Westminster, saying the UK did not want the Russian disarmament proposal to be "some delaying tactic, some ruse to buy time for a regime that must act on chemical weapons".Referring to the planned UN resolution, the prime minister said "there would have to be consequences" if it wasn't done.However, the western powers' tough rhetoric is weakened by the lack of enthusiasm at home for military action. Parliament has ruled out British involvement in punitive strikes, and Barack Obama faces stiff resistance in Congress."I think there is a high risk of another car crash at the security council," said Richard Gowan of the centre for international co-operation at New York University. "It will be very, very difficult for Obama to accept a resolution that doesn't involve a threat to Assad. Putin is daring him to walk away from the UN and go back to Washington, knowing he can't count on support there. The Russians hope that when he's faced with that trap he will climb down."The White House abandoned its earlier plan to seek open-ended authorisation for punitive air strikes in response to the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons in a civilian massacre in eastern Damascus on 21 August. Instead, the Obama administration was working with a bipartisan group of eight senators to craft a new resolution that would set a deadline for Syrian co-operation with the UN on disarmament, and authorise the use of force if that deadline was broken.The Senate suspended plans to vote on military authorisation after meeting with Obama to discuss the proposed Russian deal. The majority leader, Harry Reid, said "it's important we do this well, not quickly" but called on Syria to show that its offer to hand over chemical weapons to international observers was "not a ploy".A fellow Democrat, Joe Manchin, who has opposed military action, said he was heartened by the meeting and said he would pursue a separate resolution giving the Syrians time to comply.On Tuesday Human Rights Watch said evidence from the massacre of civilians in eastern Damascus last month strongly suggested the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attacks.The report based its conclusions on testimony from witnesses and medical staff as well analysis of the armaments used, which HRW said were of a type used only by the Syrian military. The effect on the victims pointed to a nerve agent, "most likely sarin".It said it was impossible so far to give an exact death toll, but noted that the estimate in just one district was over 700 and that Médecins Sans Frontières had reported that at least 3,600 people were treated for symptoms consistent with exposure to neurotoxins.SyriaUnited NationsChemical weaponsRussiaMiddle East and North AfricaEuropeUnited StatesFranceForeign policyUS foreign policyJulian BorgerDan RobertsSpencer AckermanNicholas Watt theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds 

10 сентября 2013, 02:06

US to destroy ivory stocks in effort to stop illegal elephant poaching

White House to crush 6m tons of seized ivory as it tries to elevate wildlife trafficking to an urgent national security concernThe Obama administration said on Monday it would destroy all 6m tons of its stocks of seized ivory – potentially millions in contraband – stepping up efforts to crush an illegal trade that has brought wild elephants to the brink of extinction.The ivory destruction, announced at a White House event addressed by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, was part of a broader effort by the administration on Monday to elevate wildlife trafficking from narrow conservation interest to urgent national security concern.Destroying the ivory would signal that Obama was committed to stopping illegal trafficking in wildlife that has devastated species such as elephants and rhinos, and is a growing security threat, officials told the audience."Rising demand for ivory is fuelling a renewed and horrific slaughter of elephants in Africa, threatening remaining populations across the continent," the interior secretary, Sally Jewell, said. "We will continue to work aggressively … to disrupt and prosecute criminals who traffic in ivory, and we encourage other nations to join us in that effort."The destruction – which officials said would be public – was scheduled to take place on 8 October, officials said.Jewell also announced a new advisory council, made up of former administration officials, conservation and business leaders, to help guide the crackdown on the criminal poaching syndicates.Obama has given growing prominence to the dangers posed by wildlife trafficking over the last year amid an explosion of the illegal trade.Jewell said wildlife trafficking had doubled over the past five years into a global trade worth $10bn. Poaching of elephants had risen by a factor of eight in Tanzania. Killing of rhinos for their horns had gone up by a factor of 50, Jewell said.State Department officials now openly refer to wildlife trafficking as a national security crisis.As many as 35,000 African elephants were killed for their tusks last year. That amounted to 96 elephant killed every day, Clinton said."At this rate, African forest elephants will be extinct within 10 years," said Clinton.The profits from the illegal ivory trade were also fuelling extremist groups, including affiliates of al-Qaida in Somalia, she said.A zero-tolerance strategy was the only way to stop wildlife trafficking, Clinton said."You can't be a little bit OK with buying ivory goods, because that opens the floodgates. Therefore we are doing everything we can to stop the trafficking, stop the demand and stop the killing," Clinton said.Most of the demand for trafficked ivory was from Asia, but there are also American buyers. The owners of two Manhattan jewellery shops were convicted last year of selling ivory trinkets.Conservation groups said America's decision to destroy its ivory stocks would hurt the contraband market.A number of other countries – including the Philippines – have also destroyed their stocks of seized ivory.The Philippines crushed 15m tons of seized ivory beneath industrial rollers earlier this year.The stockpiles of contraband ivory were seen as a "time bomb" by conservation groups, creating confusion about governments' seriousness to ban the ivory trade, and keeping prices high for trafficked goods.Officials said the seized US ivory included raw tusks and carved ivory intercepted by the authorities over the past 25 years.The administration was also thinking of introducing harsher penalties for wildlife trafficking."I think the penalties are not significant enough for wildlife trafficking," said David Hayes, a former interior official who was named to the advisory council on Monday."We are not creating the kind of disincentive for wildlife trafficking that this problem deserves."WildlifeAnimalsConservationUnited StatesUS foreign policySuzanne Goldenberg theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds