Friday, February 27, 2015

US Propaganda Driving Situation Toward War

Washington has destroyed trust between nuclear powers, thus raising the specter of war

What is the purpose behind Washington’s cause and misrepresentation of the Ukraine conflict?
Ambassador Jack Matlock made an important speech at the National Press Club on February 11. Matlock served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union during 1987-91. In his speech he describes how President Reagan won the trust of the Soviet leadership in order to bring to an end the Cold War and its risk of nuclear armageddon. 
Reagan’s meeting with Gorbachev did not rely on position papers written by staff. It relied on a hand-written memo by Reagan himself that stressed respect for the Soviet leadership and a clear realization that negotiation must not expect the Soviet leaders to do something that is not in the true interest of their country. The way to end the conflict, Reagan wrote, is to cooperate toward a common goal. Matlock said that Reagan refused to personalize disagreements or to speak derogatorily of any Soviet leader.
Matlock makes the point that Reagan’s successors have done a thorough job of destroying this trust. In the last two years the destruction of trust has been total.
How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington violates the word of President George H.W. Bush and takes NATO into Eastern Europe and places military bases on Russia’s border?
How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington pulls out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and places Anti-Ballistic Missiles on Russia’s border?
How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington overthrows in a coup the elected government of Ukraine and installs a puppet regime that immediately expresses hostility toward Russia and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and destroys Soviet war memorials commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of Ukraine from Nazi Germany?
How can the Russian government trust Washington when the President of Russia is called every name in the book, including “the new Hitler,” and gratuitously accused of every sort of crime and personal failing?
Washington and its neoconservative monsters have destroyed trust with demonization and blame of Russia for violence in Ukraine for which Washington is responsible.
Washington has forced Europe to impose economic sanctions on Russia that are based entirely on lies and false accusations. The Russians know this. They recognize the blatant hostility, the blatant lies, the never-ending crude propaganda, the hypocritical double-standards, the push toward war.
Simultaneously China is experiencing hostile encirclement with Washington’s “pivot to Asia.”
By destroying trust, Washington has resurrected the threat of nuclear armageddon. Washington’s destruction of trust between nuclear powers is the crime of the century.
On February 24, I held accountable Alexander J. Motyl and the Council on Foreign Relations for publishing on February 5 a large collection of blatant lies in order to create a false reality with which to demonize the Russian government. I observed that the publication of ignorant nonsense in what is supposed to be a respectable foreign policy journal indicated the degradation of the Western political and media elite.
I did not think things could get any worse, but one day later I came across Andrew S. Weiss’ article in the Wall Street Journal. 
Weiss’ article is the most amazing collection of misrepresentations imaginable. It is impossible to believe that the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment could possible be so totally misinformed. The false reality that Weiss creates precludes any diplomatic resolution of the conflict that Washington has created with Russia.
What is the explanation for Weiss’ misrepresentations of Putin, the origin of the conflict and the cause of its continuation?
Recalling the confession of Udo Ulfkotte, an editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that he published under his name articles handed to him by the CIA and that the entire European press does the same, was Weiss handed the disinformation by the CIA, or by Victoria Nuland, or is the answer simply that Weiss worked on Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council, the State Department and the Defense Department and is one of Washington’s propaganda operatives currently operating out of a think-tank?
The more important question is: What is the purpose behind Washington’s cause and misrepresentation of the conflict? Was the destruction of trust between nuclear powers intentional or a consequence of other purposes? Is Washington simply using its ability to control explanations in order to cover up its involvement in the overthrow of a democratically elected government, an outcome that has gone bad? Or is the answer merely that Washington is peeved that it failed to get its hands on Russia’s Black Sea naval base in Crimea and has had to give up, at least for now, on getting Russia out of the Mediterranean and out of the Russian naval base at Tartus, Syria?
As I explained today to an international conference hosted by institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the prevention of “the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere” with sufficient resources and power to be able to serve as a check on unilateral action by Washington.
When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed in their “first objective” and were now faced with a check on unilateral action. The attack on Russia instantly began. The $5 billion Washington had spent funding NGOs in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians produced the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. Washington imposed a puppet government that instantly employed violent words and deeds against the Russian population, resulting in the secession of Crimea and the formation of other break-away provinces.
With English as the world language and the compliant media or presstitutes in Washington’s service, Washington has been able to control the explanation, blame Putin for the crisis, and force Europe to breakup its economic and political relations with Russia by imposing economic sanctions.
In a vain and failed attempt to keep the US as the Uni-power capable of dictating to the world, the neoconservatives have recklessly and irresponsibly resurrected the threat of nuclear armageddon. The neoconservative dominance of US foreign policy makes impossible any restoration of trust. Washington’s propaganda is driving the situation toward war. As neither Washington nor the Russian/Chinese alliance can afford to lose the war, the war will be nuclear. Any survivors will be doomed by nuclear winter.
The entire world must quickly become aware of the danger and confront the evil regime that the neoconservatives–the Sauron of our world–have created in Washington. To do otherwise is to risk life on earth.
This article originally appeared on Reprinted with permission from the author.

Mirrored from

Monday, February 23, 2015

The Case For Disarming The Police

Something worth thinking about as the police go rogue in this country.

The Case For Disarming The Police 

February 22, 2015 7:15 pm

In a nation where approximately one third of the population owns guns, it might sound strange to argue that police officers should not “police” the community while being armed. After all, the Second Amendment does protect the rights of citizens to keep or “own” and bear or “carry” firearms. The Supreme Court, which is charged with interpreting the Constitution, has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment applies to individual self-defense, and was never intended as a provision related to hunting or the military.

But here’s the catch… there was no such thing as police officers when the Constitution was written. Seriously.

That might surprise some who assume that human beings would have torn each other – and society – apart at the seams without constant police patrols. But the reality is that the first concept for community policing originated in the United Kingdom in 1812, crafted by Sir Robert Peel.

Peel’s concepts were not implemented throughout the U.K. all at once. It wasn’t until the late 1820s that London implemented community policing. It was still some time before the concept would make its way to the United States.

Today, nearly all of the “safeguards” that Peel insisted must be kept in place for police abuse not to arise have fallen by the wayside. Police no longer come from the communities they serve in most cases. Cops are often out of uniform and in unmarked vehicles while performing their duties. Peel said this was a recipe for disaster.

But discussing the specifics of Peel’s ideas and model for community police takes us away from the underlying point that when the Constitution granted the right to own and carry arms for self-defense to the people, the Founding Fathers had no concept of armed men “policing” the community in an “offensive” (some might say “proactive”) manner and arresting for misdemeanors as agents of the State.

In many countries around the globe, police officers do not carry guns while policing. The nature of the job is very different than simply going about your business as a citizen – armed, and defending yourself if need be. The role of the community police officer is to… police.

Policing is not defensive in nature, it is offensive. The Constitution never had a word to say about someone – let alone an agent of the State – having the right to be armed in the course of policing citizens “proactively” or offensively. The idea simply had no precedent for the Founding Fathers to conceive of such a model. All indications are that if they knew of such a concept, they would have opposed it for application on American streets.

Today, in Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are still unarmed while on patrol. That doesn’t mean they are disarmed entirely, but while on patrol, in the performance of offensive duties of policing, they do not have weapons on them.

“The practice is rooted in tradition and the belief that arming the police with guns engenders more gun violence than it prevents,” GuĂ°mundur Oddsson, an assistant professor of sociology at Northern Michigan University, said in an interview with The Washington Post.

In Iceland, one third of citizens are armed. But the police are unarmed. To Icelanders, it makes perfect sense for citizens to be armed for self-defense. Defense is defense. But police officers are out on the streets patrolling, engaging people, and some might even suggest “looking for trouble.” In Iceland it does not make a bit of sense to citizens that people engaged in such duties should be armed.

In 2013, Iceland saw the first police shooting of a citizen in their history. This is in spite of the fact that the nation is the 15th most armed nation in the world per capita. You might not have thought of Iceland as being a very high crime region… and you’d be right. In spite of having an unarmed police force patrolling the streets, and having a highly armed populace, crime is extremely low in Iceland.

“Iceland’s low crime rates are rooted in the country’s small, homogenous, egalitarian and tightly knit society,” sociologist Oddsson explained.

Richard Wright, a criminology professor at Georgia State University, recalled “once, during a presentation, an Icelandic police officer kept referring to ‘poor people with problems’ — and it took me a while before I realized that she was talking about offenders. She considered every citizen precious because ‘we are so few and there is so much to do,’ she said.”

In New Zealand, there are also large numbers of armed citizens, yet the police are unarmed there too. One professor told the Washington Post that “it’s more dangerous to be a farmer than an unarmed police officer.”

“Only a dozen or so senior police officers nationwide are rostered to wear a handgun on any given shift,” Philip Alpers, Associate Professor at the Sydney School of Public Health explained.

Oddsson commented on the idea of disarming American police, suggesting that “any attempts to roll back the militarization of the American police would need to be accompanied by policies that increase economic and racial equality and legitimate opportunity for advancement for the poor.”

Maybe Oddsson is right in saying that simply disarming the police “cold turkey” wouldn’t be a good idea. But whatever your position on how quickly we disarm the police, this is clearly a discussion that we should be having in our communities. Instead of talking about how many bullets the people need in their magazines, perhaps we should be asking why agents of the State are patrolling our streets with guns in the first place?

(Article by M. David)
Mirrored from: Counter Current News

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Keep Paying Through the Nose, Eureka

You can demand equal enforcement of the law where the guilty are sanctioned equally or you can grant privileged impunity to the criminal where everyone "pays through the nose" equally. It's your choice. You can pay in more innocent lives or you can pay in money.

Case in point is what the Times-Standard printed in today's paper (Saturday 21, 2015) about the Eureka Police killing of Tommy McClain by Will Houston:  McClain’s parents to file suit against Eureka, police after fatal shooting. 
The family of the 22-year-old Eureka man fatally shot by a Eureka police officer last year is planning to file a $10 million claim for a wrongful death lawsuit next week in federal court against the city of Eureka and involved police officers.

Thomas McClain was shot three times by Officer Stephen Linfoot in the front yard of his residence on the 1600 block of Allard Avenue during the early morning hours of Sept. 17. The incident began after a passing police officer saw McClain pull out what was later determined to be a black Walther PPQ replica BB gun from his waistband, cycle the cylinder, and place it back in his waistband, Eureka Police Chief Andrew Mills said during an October press conference.

When EPD Sgt. Brian Stephens told McClain he knew he had a gun and stated he would shoot him if he reached for it, McClain dropped his hands and grabbed for the gun “for unknown reasons,” Mills said at the press conference. Officer Linfoot fired seven shots, with three bullets striking McClain in the head, buttocks, and once in the arm, also piercing through his chest. McClain was taken to St. Joseph Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The replica BB handgun was found to be unloaded at the time of McClain’s death. Following a two-month investigation by the multi-agency Humboldt County Critical Incident Response Team, the shooting was deemed a justified homicide by the county District Attorney’s Office in November, with no charges being filed against the officers.

“We only charge criminal cases if there is evidence that leads us to believe that a crime was committed,” then-District Attorney Paul Gallegos said on Nov. 21. “There was evidence of a terrible loss to this family, but not that a crime was committed — not every loss is a crime.”

McClain’s family has been open about their mistrust of the county’s investigation, and hired Woodland Hills attorney Dale Galipo to file a lawsuit. The suit is being filed against the city of Eureka, Linfoot, Stephens and other unnamed officers, according to a press release from Galipo’s office.

“I think the family, based on the information they have, they feel that this shooting was unjustified, but they are also concerned about the national problem we have now with police officers using destructive force,” Galipo said. “It’s very important for them that they get justice for their son. They don’t want to see this happen to someone else’s son. That’s their main motivation going forward with this lawsuit. They’re hoping that there will be some accountability for the officer or officers.”

Mills said he had no comment and that he had not been notified that any lawsuit had been filed as of Friday afternoon. Eureka City Attorney Cyndy Day-Wilson was out of the office on Friday and was unavailable for comment.

A press release issued by Galipo’s office states the lawsuit filed by McClain’s parents, Jeanne Barragan and Lance McClain, seeks $10 million dollars in monetary damages.

“Although witnesses claim that more than one officer may have fired during the incident, at this time this office can only confirm that Officer Linfoot discharged his weapon,” the release states. “At the time of the shooting, Thomas McClain had his hands up and did not pose an immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury to any person.”

A six-member Community Shooting Review Board that was created by Mills to determine whether Eureka police officers had acted within the police department’s policies in the fatal have determined unanimously that the officers had acted within the department’s policies, Mills said during a Eureka City Council meeting this Tuesday. The board included 4th Ward Councilwoman Melinda Ciarabellini, 2nd Ward Councilwoman Linda Atkins, the now retired Humboldt County Coroner Dave Parris, Police Officers Association President Josh Siipola, attorney Elan Firpo and EPD Cpt. Steve Watson.

Galipo has a history in Eureka, being one of two attorneys who helped the family of 26-year-old Martin Frederick Cotton II win a more than $4.5 million civil jury verdict in a wrongful death case against the city of Eureka in 2011.

Cotton died on Aug. 9, 2007, of a subdural hematoma just hours after being involved in several altercations at the Eureka Rescue Mission, the last of which involved EPD officers. Cotton died after he was found breathing shallowly in a holding cell in the Humboldt County jail.

Galipo said his office plans to file a claim this coming Monday, with the city and the officers being given 45 days to either accept or reject the claims. Should they reject the claims or not respond to them within 45 days, Galipo said they can file a federal lawsuit.

“As soon as they reject the claim, we can file the federal lawsuit,” he said. “... 99.9 percent of the time, they reject the claim.”

Will Houston can be reached at 707-441-0504.  [Emphasis mine.]
 It is worth noting that what EPD Sgt. Brian Stephens said he told McClain, "he knew he had a gun" was NOT true. He did not have a gun, he had a toy. So, Stephens did not know or see a gun at the time he says he made the statement. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude Stephen's statement, "for unknown reasons he dropped his hands and grabbed for the gun," is a lie. Dropping one's hands is not the same thing as "reaching" for grabbing for something that is not there. He couldn't grab for a gun. He did not have one. Whatever those cops "thought" was meaningless to reality. Dropping one's hands for a non-existent weapon is NOT a threat to anyone. Pulling a toy from his waistband and actually pointing it at someone as if to shoot them is as different matter. Killing someone, shooting them, for doing what you are told, to take the gun out of your waistband and place it on the ground, is murder.

Additionally, it should be noted from previous Times-Standard reporting, Linfoot was not present when Stephens says he made his threat to Tommy McClain. Moreover, it was NOT Brian Stephens that shot Tommy McClain, therefore, his statement about the "gun" is irrelevant regarding the justification of the shooting. Chief Andrew Mill's ever-changing accounts of what ostensibly took place flat doesn't hold up under objective scrutiny.

The REAL crime, however, is the one the District Attorney Paul Gallegos committed when he grant the Eureka Police Department blanket impunity for murder. Brian Stephens and Stephen Linfoot et. al.'s crimes were, more pointedly, committed against the Tommy McClain family. Paul Gallego's crime is most pointedly committed against the people that live and work in Eureka. He has effectively imposed a regime of wanton impunity that grants license to mob rule.

There is additional information on Facebook's Justice for Tommy McClain.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

The Joke Is On Eureka

If the killing of Thomas McClain on September 17, 2014, is legally justified according to the Eureka Police Departments' procedures and "policies," (whatever the hell they are) as determined by Police Chief Andrew Mill's handpicked so-called "citizen shooting review board," then everyone confronted by any Eureka police officer, in particular Stephen Linfoot, is in mortal danger.

The actual reality is that the only threat Tommy McClain posed was a hallucination in Stephen Linfoot's mind. To legally justify such an atrocious action is criminal. Chief Mills efforts to produce "transparency" based upon the people appointed to the "six-member board" might as well be close family members of those involved in the shooting. This statement, "The key to forming the Community Shooting Review Board was transparency, Mills said, to let the community know that those outside the department were reviewing the incident" for the public's benefit is laughable.

As far as the issue of transparency is concerned, all Jessie Faulkner offered in the Times-Standard newspaper is for everyone to just take their word for it, no crime was committed. The article in the paper (Wednesday, February 18, 2015): Police chief presents plans to council to make department more responsive reveals that Chief Mills has "plans" for a seven-member "advisory board" to "provide input on all police department issues." Those people, "nominated by the City Council and community" and then "selected by the mayor, city manager and police chief" should make everyone in Eureka sleep better at night, I know it will me. The "qualifying criteria includes objectivity." We all know what that means - objectivity. Got to be an ex-cop or a close family member. (Online link)

How are they going to deal with the psychosis that plagues this police force? Maybe, after two or three more innocent people are gunned down because one of these scared shitless cops had a psychotic revelation from God that the person was a threat, people in this town will demand someone that is sincere and honest to enforce the law. Until then, the joke, deadly joke, is on all you people, Eureka.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Will the Real Tuluwat Rot Please Stand UP

[UPDATE :: February 23, 2015]

The latest ration of pablum: "THE FULL MEDIA BLACKOUT ON THE ORIGINAL $10 MILLION DOLLAR CLAIM AGAINST EUREKA CONTINUES" - While timely, this joke of a paper tiger roars again, i.e., blows its own horn, they chide the new D.A. Maggie Fleming and a fictional local media (Thad G., Ryan B., Hank S., Dan S.) over the Daren Borges incident, they fail to ask about her intentions regarding the Tommy McClain murder. Just because Paul Gallegos betrayed the people of Humboldt County doesn't give her the right to do the same. It is the people that need to be protected, not the police. But then this "Rot" mirrors the general public's self-absorbed cowardice.

Sooner or later the truth reveals itself about the corrupt, lawless, denigrating, vicious, evil and deviate people as they attack the very foundations of what they claim to champion.

This rot cries and whines about the ineptitude and inefficiencies of the new Eureka Police Chief Andrew Mills and then they write this slanderous crap attacking the City and their attorney. I don't know the Squires or Cindy Day-Wilson from Adam. What I do know is you don't advocate for lawful government, business and the common people while at the sametime preach for a police state and a government to act against business and people's rights to live and do business peacefully and profitably in this community. The City of Eureka has a history of legalized gangster thuggery and these blogger slumlords want to enforce more.

This group, whoever the hell they are, are proven to be without any credible legitimacy whatsoever. They are nothing more than a bunch of vicious and vile hate-mongers and terrorist headhunters going after anyone and everyone they perceive weak and vulnerable, and that doesn't think or believe and live the way they want. It really goes against my grain to post their vile, filthy garbage on this blog, but the proof is in the reading.



cyndy day wilson
The State Bar of California: Cyndy Day-Wilson – #135045 Current Status: This member is active and may practice law in California. Really?
Floyd and Betty Squires have been doing battle with the city of Eureka for decades they are seasoned veterans. City Councils, Managers, Police Chiefs and City Attorney come and go and apparently so does any institutional memory about how to successfully go after Floyd and Betty Squires and the many illegal slums that they own.
The Examiner certainly applauds the City moving against Floyd and all of his properties; In fact its way over due. To ignore the lessons of past attempts and lost court battles with the Squires is folly.
We pointed out in our post “Eureka takes a good first step, but……….”
Simply evicting the residents without well prepared and executed plan to re-house them was counterproductive. Well, it was not only counterproductive, but sets up a path for the Squires’ to strike back at the city. No doubt using the same bottom feed lawyer Bradford Floyd they always use.
The failure here seems to us to be the usual very weak link at the City again; the incompetent City Attorney spewing out consistently bad legal advice and strategy. We’ll have to wait and see how the numerous claims against the City regarding this eviction will play out. Whatever the case, Eureka will have to pay for another one of its City Attorney’s bad calls.
Remember the Late councilperson Lance Madsen’s, dying-declaration?
On June 13th last year the Examiner said : “Time to show The Eureka City Attorney the emergency exit!”

Thursday, February 5, 2015

The ugly truth about Israel's actions in Gaza

Getting the head of the UN panel fired won't change the outcome of its probe into possible war crimes committed in Gaza — unless his replacement is either a racist or a liar.

What a huge diplomatic achievement: Israel has succeeded in getting the Canadian law professor William Schabas to resign from his post as head of a UN inquiry panel into potential war crimes in Gaza.

Through persistent surveillance, Israel’s intelligence and propaganda branches revealed that Schabas had once received a $1,300 fee from the PLO. Conclusion: he sold his soul to the devil. The ref sucks. Q.E.D.

One needs a great deal of chutzpah and arrogance to dig anew into the pasts of Israel’s critics in an effort to assassinate their character, as in the case of Richard Goldstone, merely because they dared to criticize the state. As far as Israel is concerned, the fate of anyone who criticizes the country is sealed. He’s an anti-Semite, anti-Israeli, greedy or driven by ulterior motives.

In Israel’s eyes there’s no such thing as conscientious individuals who are genuinely and truly shocked by its acts, even without being paid $1,300 from the PLO. As far as Israel is concerned, there are no justice-seeking people of law, or simply decent ordinary people, who were aghast at what it did in the Gaza Strip last summer. If they were shaken – they’re either anti-Semites, or receive money from the PLO. There’s no other possibility.

But the truth is just the opposite. Those who weren’t shocked deserve to be condemned, have their character assassinated and their past scrutinized. They either live in blindness, denial and repression, or their moral standards are fundamentally distorted and flawed.

It was impossible not to be appalled by what the Israel Defense Forces did in Gaza last summer — unless you’re a propagandist, a liar or a racist. In any case, it’s impossible to support Israel in view of what it is doing to the Palestinians. Nor is there a way to be an international law expert and sympathize with what Israel is doing. Schabas’ sin is that he doesn’t. He should be proud of it.

Only an inquiry panel for the Anti-Defamation League, the Micronesian government or Habayit Hayehudi party would not have castigated the IDF’s rampage in the Gaza Strip, which was more brutal and savage than any of its previous rampages. A B’Tselem report released last week (“Black Flag: the legal and moral implications of attacking residential buildings in the Gaza Strip, summer 2014”) recounted what had so rapidly been forgotten: war crimes.

B’Tselem investigated 70 cases of bombarding residential buildings, in which 606 people were killed in their homes or near them, over 70 percent of them children, women and elderly people. The mind boggles. The most moral army in its most immoral spectacle yet, with the missiles aimed at buildings’ rooftops and all its “warnings.”

The victims’ blood is crying out. But not in Israel. Here the propaganda and media have done their job. In the election campaign there’s no mention of the most important event in the outgoing government’s term. Even the opposition dares not mention it. The Zionist Camp knows it would have done the same (“in the war on terror there’s no coalition and opposition,” Isaac Herzog said last week).

Even the fate of 20,000 people who still remain homeless, about half a year after the bombardment, in Gaza’s winter, is of no concern to anyone here. They’re Palestinians. Besides, they fired Qassam rockets and hid in residential buildings and only Hamas is to blame. And all the buildings that were bombed – they were Hamas outposts and situation rooms, and all the people killed were terrorists or children of terrorists.

Soon the report of the panel without Schabas will be released. It won’t be “balanced,” as Israeli propaganda is demanding, because the situation is far from being balanced. The five Israeli citizens and 67 soldiers who were killed will likely be mentioned in it, as will the thousands of rockets fired at Israelis. But even with the panel’s new, “balanced” head, the report will mention that in the summer of 2014 Israel committed atrocities beyond all proportion in the Gaza Strip. There’s just no other fair way to describe it.

Gideon Levy tweets at @levy_haaretz