Stephen Lendman

On July 6, Bibi and Obama met privately for 79 minutes, Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Jay Bookman calling it "empty theatre, actors going through the motions of pretending to pretend, (when, in fact, there's) no willingness or political ability within Israel to withdraw from settlements (or) create a viable Palestinian state, (nor is there) stomach in Washington" to endorse an equitable agreement. "I can't recall a time when I have been more cynical about peace prospects there, and the prettily staged theatrics in Washington" only harden that view.

Not for New York Times writers Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mark Lander headlining, "US and Israel Shift Attention to Peace Process," saying:

They "articulated a timetable for peace negotiations (reflecting) a palpable shift in the administration's approach to a relationship that has been rife with tension" since Obama took office. In fact, for decades, Israeli-Washington relations have been rock-solid, including under Obama and the current Congress, the powerful Israeli Lobby assuring it stays that way.

Haaretz writers Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya were also upbeat, headlining "Obama-Netanyahu summit focuses on warm relations, avoids settlements," saying:

They "radiate(d) a sense of friendship and the absence of any crisis in relations between the two leaders," Obama calling "the bond between (the two nations) unbreakable," Bibi "emerg(ing) from the White House meeting in high spirits."

His sources said no pressure was exerted on settlement issues, both sides avoiding the topic, focusing instead on handshakes, photo-ops, and post-meeting comments - customary disingenuous boilerplate, Obama calling Netanyahu a "man of peace," Bibi saying the president is "a great leader (and) a great friend of Israel...."

More »

Stephen Lendman

An earlier article about the National Labor Committee's (NLC) work explained what's repeated below, relevant to this article.

NLC puts "a human face on the global economy," saying in its mission statement that:

"Transnational corporations (TNCs) now roam the world to find the cheapest and most vulnerable workers." They're mostly young women in poor countries like China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Haiti, and many others working up to 14 or more hours a day for sub-poverty wages under horrific conditions.

Because TNCs are unaccountable, a dehumanized global workforce is ruthlessly exploited, denied their civil liberties, a living wage, and the right to work in dignity in healthy safe environments. NLC conducts "popular campaigns based on (its) original research to promote worker rights and pressure companies to end human and labor abuses. (It) views worker rights in the global economy as indivisible and inalienable human rights and (believes) now is the time to secure them for all on the planet."

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

Article 24 states:

"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."

More »

Joshua Holland

Last month, the Supreme Court exposed Americans to jail sentences of up to 15 years just for giving advice to groups the U.S. government considers untouchable. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the court ruled that the USA Patriot Act's expanded definition of “material support” for “foreign terrorist organizations” passes Constitutional muster. The broad wording of the statute not only makes it a crime to support violent activities, but also prohibits Americans from offering "services" or "training, expert advice or assistance" to any entity designated as a terrorist group.

Providing weapons, materials or know-how that might help terrorists commit violent acts has long been a crime, but it was only with the rushed passage of the Patriot Act just weeks following the 9/11 attacks that “expert advice or assistance” was added to the definition of “material support.”

The Constitution offers Americans the freedom of speech and association. There are only a few exceptions -- you don’t have a right to associate with people conducting a criminal act, and your freedom of speech doesn’t extend to "fighting words," inciting a riot or other forms of speech that might lead to violence.

In criminalizing non-violent speech, the ruling is anathema to our system of constitutional government. In this article I’ll demonstrate just how easy it is to violate the Patriot Act by giving some peaceful advice to a few of the 45 groups the State Department has designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

More »

Alex Lantier

L'écoeurement populaire s'accroît concernant des révélations selon lesquelles, tandis qu'ils exigent d'énormes coupes sociales de la classe ouvrière, des représentants français haut placés ont reçu de l'argent de la milliardaire Liliane Bettencourt et l'ont aidée à frauder le fisc. La fortune de Bettencourt, 87 ans, s'élevant à 17 milliards d'euros, principalement en avoirs du géant des cosmétiques l'Oréal, fait d'elle la femme la plus riche de France.

Il y a quelques jours, le site Internet d'information Mediapart publiait des entretiens impliquant le président Nicolas Sarkozy dans l'affaire Bettencourt. Mediapart avait interviewé Claire T., ancienne comptable de Bettencourt, et actuellement entendue par la Justice, après qu'elle eut témoigné auprès de la police la nuit précédente.

Le témoignage de la comptable suggère que Bettencourt a illégalement financé la campagne électorale de Sarkozy. Ceci risque de miner la position politique de Sarkozy dans la classe dirigeante et rende difficile pour lui d'effectuer les coupes exigées par les marchés financiers et l'establishment politique. La cote de popularité de Sarkozy est au plus bas dans les sondages à 26 pour cent.

Claire T. a expliqué qu'elle retirait 50.000 euros par semaine des comptes de Bettencourt: « Une partie servait à payer des médecins, des coiffeurs, du petit personnel,etc. Et une autre, c'était pour les politiques... Dédé, [le mari décédé de Liliane, André Bettencourt] arrosait large. Chacun venait toucher son enveloppe. Certaines atteignaient même parfois 100.000, voire 200.000 euros. »

Un jour, a-t-elle expliqué, le conseiller financier de Bettencourt Patrice de Maistre lui avait demandé de retirer une somme inhabituellement importante de 150.000 €. A la question de savoir pourquoi cette somme était nécessaire, de Maistre avait répondu: « Mais enfin, c'est pour financer la campagne présidentielle de Sarkozy ! Je dois donner de l'argent à celui qui s'occupe du financement de la campagne, Eric Woerth. Et 50.000 euros, ce n'est pas suffisant. »

More »

Matthew Nasuti

America’s last chance to prevail against the Taliban depends on a sound strategy and a unified, competent civilian/military command structure. The current State Department effort is fractured by having Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry, “Special” Representative/Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke and Deputy Secretary of State Jacob J. Lew sharing authority over Afghanistan.

This author, in 2009, called for Karl Eikenberry to be replaced as he is gloomy and orthodox. More importantly, he does not support President Obama’s current counterinsurgency strategy. President Obama has four reasons to replace Eikenberry:

1. The U.S. Embassy, in 2009, decided to open “show” consulates in Mazar-e Sharif and Herat instead of complementing the military strategy by focusing on opening a consulate in the heart of Taliban territory - Afghanistan’s second largest city, Kandahar. Other countries have consulates in Kandahar; they are not afraid of the Taliban. In contrast, Eikenberry’s decisions radiate fear of the Taliban and confusion over President Obama’s strategy.

2. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, in 2010, created negative publicity for the United States when it decided to hire controversial Blackwater/Xe to provide security for the unnecessary Mazar-e Sharif and Herat consulates. Ambassador Eikenberry will not admit that the consulates are a mistake and he has no qualms about compounding his mistakes.

3. The ArmorGroup security guard sex and alcohol scandal at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, in September 2009, was a major public relations embarrassment for which no U.S. Embassy officials have yet to be held accountable.

4. The U.S. Embassy announced that it will complete its civilian “surge” by January 1, 2011. On that date, it will finally have all its personnel in-place for the expanded effort that President Obama announced in January 2009. This surge (more accurately a trickle) of well under a thousand civilian experts has been a half-hearted and lackluster effort that is hurting the war effort.

More »