The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently released a report on the top 10 “anti-Israel” organizations affecting the mainstream discourse in the United States. We are pleased to announce that If Americans Knew is in this elite group of principled organizations.
Despite its alleged mission “to secure justice and fair treatment to all” the ADL (sometimes pointedly referred to as “the Arab Defamation League”) has a record of supporting Israel’s most egregious human rights violations and extremist leaders and of attacking anyone who speaks up on behalf of Palestinian rights. It recently joined the bigots who opposed the building of a New York Muslim Community Center and has a history of illegal spying against American citizens.
We are pleased that the ADL has noticed that If Americans Knew is influencing the debate on Israel, that our materials are widely circulated, and that Alison Weir is a frequent speaker at campuses and elsewhere around the country. And we are proud to be in such good company.
As the ADL acknowledges in its report, the paradigm is shifting — more and more Americans are paying attention, receptive to factual information, and willing to work for justice. Please help us continue to help build this powerful movement for justice.
(As you know, criticism of Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism. While our organization is focused on Israel-Palestine, we oppose injustice and discrimination wherever it is found and whoever the perpetrator. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case for the ADL.)
(NaturalNews) Eighty-five percent of beverages marketed to children contain levels of lead high enough to require a warning under
California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, popularly known as Prop. 65.
The nonprofit Environmental Law
Foundation used previously published studies to evaluate which kinds of food products were most likely to contain lead, then used an
Environmental Protection Agency-certified lab to test 146 products from these categories that are specifically marketed for children. In
addition to juices, products tested included fruit cocktail mixes, packaged peaches and pears, and baby food.
A full 125 of the products tested -- more than 85 percent -- contained more
than the 0.5 microgram threshold beyond which Prop. 65 requires a "clear and reasonable" warning on the packaging.
The FDA classifies
lead exposures up to 6 micrograms per day as tolerable, but the American Academy of
Pediatrics has warned that no "safe level" of lead exposure exists, in part because
the heavy metal accumulates in the body over the course of a lifetime.
"Lead exposure among children is a particular concern because their developing bodies absorb lead
at a higher rate and because children are particularly sensitive to lead's toxic effects,
including decreased I.Q.," said Dr. Barbara G. Callahan of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Lead damages the central nervous
system, including the brain, and can produce anemia, behavioral problems, learning disabilities and hearing loss.
The products found
to be contaminated included Earth's Best Organics Apple Juice, Trader Joe's Certified Organic Apple Juice (pasteurized), Del Monte 100% Juice
Fruit Cocktail, Safeway Diced Peaches in Light Syrup, and S&W Sun Pears Premium. A full list is available at http://www.envirolaw.org/documents/....
The Environmental Law Foundation has sent a letter to the producers of the
contaminated products, as well as to California law enforcement, asking for compliance with Prop. 65.
That Ahmadinejad could attract this sort of popular response in Ardabil is particularly noteworthy. According to the official
results of the Islamic Republic's June 12, 2009 presidential election, Ahmadinejad won a majority of the votes cast in two of Iran's
Azeri-majority provinces, Ardabil and East Azerbaijan. His chief opponent in the election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, won the majority of the
votes cast in the third, West Azerbaijan. Many Western critics of the election pointed to these outcomes as clear evidence of fraud.
How could Ahmadinejad have won two of the three Azeri-majority provinces against Mousavi, who is ethnically Azeri? Among the more
absurd observations that Karim Sadjadpour has made about Iranian politics during the past year and a half was his observation that this was
about as plausible as John McCain winning the African-American vote in his 2008 presidential contest against Barack Obama.
But that kind of fact-free analysis ignores Ahmadinejad's long, personal history in Iran's Azeri-majority regions. Ahmadinejad was a
provincial official in West Azerbaijan early in his career and served as governor of Ardabil during 1993-1997. In the second round of
the Islamic Republic's 2005 presidential election, a run-off contest between Ahmadinejad and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,
Ahmadinejad won substantial majorities of the votes cast in all three Azeri-majority provinces. In 2009, Ahmadinejad's margin of
victory in Ardabil and East Azerbaijan was smaller than in 2005, and he narrowly lost the popular vote in West Azerbaijan (Ahmadinejad's
percentage of the vote there was roughly 47 percent).
Thus, the official results indicate that Mousavi attracted a higher percentage of the vote in Azeri-majority areas (and also in
Baluchistan) than he did across the country as a whole. But the results also indicate that Ahmadinejad retained a significant level of
popular support in Azeri-majority areas. The reception he received in Ardabil a few days ago would seem to confirm that reading.
By arguing that Ahmadinejad has a substantial base of genuine popular support we do not mean to imply that he does not face opposition.
We judge Ahmadinejad to be, in his political context, a uniquely effective populist leader. But he is also a deeply polarizing
figure. That part of the Iranian body politic which dislikes Ahmadinejad seems really to dislike him. Nevertheless, the
available evidence indicates that popular support for Ahmadinejad is greater than dedicated opposition to him. And, of course, the vast
majority of those who might be counted among Ahmadinejad's political opponents have no interest in undermining the Islamic Republic's
fundamental integrity and stability.
Unfortunately, Western media coverage of/commentary about Iranian politics seems unable, for the most part, to take account of inputs from
sources outside of north Tehran and expatriate supporters of the Green Movement. As part of our work on www.RaceForIran.com over the past year, we have tried to highlight instances where
high-profile Western media outlets seemed to abandon normal standards of journalistic rigor and perhaps even integrity in their coverage of
Iranian issues. For example, we critiqued a number of stories by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times along these lines (see here and here). In our critique, we identified specific
instances in which Ms. Fathi sought to pass off un-sourced assertions as factual claims. In other instances, Ms. Fathi sourced apparent
claims of fact only to opposition or other anti-Islamic Republic websites, but without identifying those sources as such. In one
instance, we even found that Ms. Fathi's link to a particular website did not substantiate the claim for which she was using it as a source.
And, in an especially egregious lapse, Ms. Fathi neglected to inform her readers that the "Kurdish rebel group" to which five
Kurdish activists executed in Iran had belonged -- PJAK -- had been formally designated by the Obama Administration as a terrorist organization. (The five Kurdish activists were
executed as a consequence of having been convicted of criminal charges stemming from their alleged participation in lethal terrorist attacks
inside Iran.) After we wrote about these agenda-driven lapses in journalistic professionalism, we noticed more of an effort to have Ms.
Fathi's stories source particular points in a more credible, or at least transparent, way. Then, we noticed that the New York
Times was no longer running her "reporting" on Iran from her outpost in Toronto and we thought that might represent a real
step towards accountability. But, instead, she has been rewarded for her past performance with the opportunity to spend the 2010-2011
academic year at Harvard University as a Nieman Fellow.
But the problem, of course, goes well beyond one journalist at one newspaper. That was affirmed for us by a story this week by the Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson's coverage of Iranian
politics over the last year and a half has regularly exhibited deficiencies in adherence to normal standards of journalistic professionalism
similar to those observed in Ms. Fathi's work, prompted by a similarly "pro-Green" outlook. Just last week, Peterson offered
his own take on Ahmadinejad's Lebanese trip, entitled, "Ahmadinejad Visit to Lebanon Brings Little Rapture Back Home." In his article this week, about the visit
of the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Qom, Mr. Peterson ignores the crowds that turned out to support Khamenei
(for video of the mass crowds in Qom for Khamenei, see below) and focuses instead on a sourcesless claim that "Iran's senior clerics
were divided by the June 12, 2009, presidential vote, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was anointed president for a second term amid credible
charges of fraud."
Perhaps we should count it as progress of a sort -- and possibly even a marginal indicator of our impact -- that Mr. Peterson now depicts
assertions that the June 2009 election was fraudulent as "credible charges of fraud." But Mr. Peterson offers absolutely no
substantiation for this depiction. What are the charges of fraud? Who made these "credible charges of fraud"? And
what, exactly, made their charges credible?
For those who care about objective assessments of the available evidence, there is no better place to look than two papers written by
regular readers of www.RaceForIran.com: Eric Brill (see here); and Reza Esfandiari and Yousef Bozorgmehr (see here). Unless one can refute the
analyses presented in these two papers, then there are no "credible charges of fraud" regarding the June 2009 presidential
election. There is only agenda-driven assertion.
Regrettably, agenda-driven "journalism" continues to distort discussions of Iran-related issues in the United States and other
Western countries, helping perpetuate dysfunctional policies toward the Islamic Republic which should have been discredited and discarded
Flynt Leverett directs the Iran Project at the New America Foundation, where he is also a Senior Research Fellow.
Additionally, he teaches at Pennsylvania State University’s School of International Affairs. Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of
Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy. She is also Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow
at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. This article was first published in The Race for Iran on 20 October 2010 under a Creative Commons license.
9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying
Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?
The ongoing censorship and libel of Citizen Investigation Team by 911blogger has been closely examined by the staff of the "fiercely independent" newspaper The Rock Creek Free Press (RCFP) in a new article titled "Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?".
[Piers Brendon is a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge University. His most recent book is The Decline and Fall of the
British Empire 1781?1997.]
Among the gifts brought by Lord Macartney, who came to Beijing in 1793 on a historic embassy intended to open China to British merchants, was
a map of the world, which the Emperor Ch'ien-lung found unacceptable because the Middle Kingdom was represented on it as too small and not in
the middle. As it happened, Macartney's compatriots had already established their own cartographical supremacy. During the eighteenth century
Greenwich was adopted as the prime meridian of longitude, a convention internationally ratified in 1884, and imperial maps using Mercator's
projection made Britain seem greater than it really was. Toward the end of the Second World War, American writers such as Nicholas John
Spykman and Neil MacNeil urged that their country's dominant geopolitical power should be recognized by redrawing maps of the world to put
the United States at the center.
Today, the question arises with increasing urgency: Is China set to occupy pride of place in the global picture as it had famously done in
the time of Marco Polo?
The waking of the Asian giant, which was dormant for so long but has just overtaken Japan as the second-largest economy on the planet, is one
of the most astonishing developments of the modern age. Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward in 1958, an attempt to collectivize agriculture which
resulted in a famine that killed some 25 million people, appeared to show what might be expected from a Marxist dictatorship. Yet twenty
years later, then?leader of China Deng Xiaoping initiated a ?second revolution? which realized the vast potential of what was, at the time,
one of the poorest and most undeveloped countries in the world.
Deng moved carefully, crossing the river by feeling for the stones.? In an extraordinary balancing act, which Mikhail Gorbachev was quite
unable to emulate in Russia, he permitted capitalist free enterprise while keeping a Communist grip on political power. The result was annual
growth rates of nearly 10 percent over the next three decades. China's share of global exports rose from 1.8 percent in 1980 to about 9
percent in 2010, usurping Germany's top position in this league. It is projected to reach 12 percent by 2014, making the most populous
country on earth the new workshop of the world.
The figures boggle the mind: The Chinese make nearly three-fifths of the world's clothing, two-thirds of its shoes and four-fifths of its
toys. China produces more cars than any other country, 13.79 million in 2009, as compared with Japan's 7.93 million and America's 5.7
million. Using more steel and cement than anyone else, China also has more miles of high-speed railway line. It makes nearly 70 percent of
the world's photocopiers, DVD players and microwave ovens. And it has leapfrogged the United States as the largest exporter of information
technology?computers, mobile phones, digital cameras and so on. Not only have the Chinese just become the greatest consumers of energy, but
they are spending billions of dollars on the creation of green technology and renewable sources of power?between 2008 and 2009 they doubled
their wind-turbine capacity.
This year, according to the International Monetary Fund, China's GDP will reach $5.36 trillion, slightly more than that of Japan. Of course,
this is well below the U.S. figure of $14.79 trillion, but China's economy is expected to overtake that of America, its largest overseas
market, before 2030. Worse still for the United States, its trade deficit with the People's Republic reached a record $268 billion in 2008.
By mid-2009, China owned nearly 27 percent of America's staggering $3.5 trillion foreign-held public debt. Thus the two nations, so alien
politically and culturally, are locked together in an unprecedented, and what seems to be an inextricable, economic embrace.
How will it all end? Is it to be a spider-like clinch followed by a poisonous bite? Or is it to be a fruitful union in which each party
learns to love the other? Will China attempt to translate its economic strength into military might and challenge the dominance of the
world's sole superpower? Since we can't foresee the future, what answers does the past suggest? Not straight answers, unfortunately, for
Clio, the muse of history and the only guide we've got, is about as lucid as the Delphic oracle...
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your
Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Southeast Asia: West Completes Plans For Asian NATO
In keeping with the global trend manifested in other strategically vital areas of the world,
the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – a consortium of all major Western military (including
nuclear) powers and former colonial empires – are increasing their military presence in Southeast Asia with special emphasis on the
geopolitically critical Strait of Malacca.
The latter is one of the world’s most important shipping lanes and major strategic chokepoints.
In an opinion piece The Times of London granted to George Robertson and Paddy Ashdown – the first a former NATO secretary general
and current Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, the other a past intelligence officer and the West’s viceroy in Bosnia at the beginning of
the decade who nearly reprised the role in Afghanistan two years ago – in June of 2008 which in part rued the fact that “For the
first time in more than 200 years we are moving into a world not wholly dominated by the West.” 
In fact for the first time in half a millennium the founding members of NATO in Europe and North America are confronted with a planet not
largely or entirely under their control.
With the elimination of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its network of allies around the world a generation ago, the prospect
of the West reestablishing uncontested worldwide domination appeared a more viable option than it had at any time since the First World War.
Much as the British Empire had done earlier in positioning its navy and its military outposts overlooking maritime access points to
monitor and control vital shipping lanes and to block adversaries’ transit of military personnel and materiel, the West now
collectively envisions regaining lost advantages and gaining new ones in areas of the world previously inaccessible to its military
Southeast Asia is one such case. Divided during the colonial epoch between Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (with the
U.S. supplanting the last-named in the Philippines in 1898), it has a combined population of approximately 600 million, two-thirds that of
the Western Hemisphere and almost three-quarters that of Europe.
The Strait of Malacca runs for 600 miles between Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore to the east and the Indonesian island of Sumatra to the
west. According to the United Nations International Maritime Organization, at least 50,000 ships pass through the strait annually,
transporting 30 percent of the goods traded in the world including oil from the Persian Gulf to major East Asian nations like China, Japan
and South Korea. As many as 20 million barrels of oil a day pass through the Strait of Malacca, an amount that will only increase with the
further advance of the Asian Century.
When the U.S. went to war against Iraq in 1991, notwithstanding claims concerning Kuwait’s territorial integrity and fictitious
accusations of infants being torn from incubators in the country’s capital, one of the major objectives was to demonstrate to a new
unipolar world that Washington had its hand on the global oil spigot. That it controlled the flow of Persian Gulf oil north and west to
Europe and east to Asia, especially to the four nations that import the most oil next to the United States: Japan, China, South Korea and
India. The first three receive Persian Gulf oil primarily by tankers passing through the Strait of Malacca.
The U.S. Department of Energy has provided a comprehensive yet concise blueprint for the Pentagon to act on:
“Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. They are a critical part of global energy security due to the
high volume of oil traded through their narrow straits. The Strait of Hormuz leading out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca
linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans are two of the world’s most strategic chokepoints. Other important passages include: Bab el-Mandab
which connects the Arabian Sea with the Red Sea; the Panama Canal and the Panama Pipeline connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; the
Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline linking the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea; and the Turkish/Bosporus Straits joining the Black Sea and the
Caspian Sea region to the Mediterranean Sea.” 
The U.S. has moved its military into the Black Sea and Central Asia as well as into the Persian Gulf, and two years ago the Pentagon
inaugurated U.S. Africa Command primarily to secure oil supplies and transport in Africa’s Gulf of Guinea and in the Horn of Africa.
The Strait of Malacca is the main channel connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. On its southeastern end it flows into the
South China Sea where the natural resource-rich Paracel and Spratly island groups are contested between China on the one hand and several
members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the other. The Spratly Islands are claimed in part by ASEAN member states
Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam as well as Taiwan. The Paracel Islands were seized by China in a naval battle with South
Vietnam in 1974.
The U.S. deployed the USS George Washington nuclear-powered supercarrier and the USS John S. McCain destroyer to the South China Sea in
August for the first joint military exercise ever conducted by the U.S. and (unified) Vietnam, three weeks after Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said while attending the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in the Vietnamese capital that “The United States…has a
national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South
China Sea,” adding “The United States is a Pacific nation, and we are committed to being an active partner with ASEAN.”
Clinton’s trip to Hanoi was preceded by visits to the capitals of Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Korea, all three Asian nations
solidly in the U.S. military orbit. While in the last country she traveled to the Demilitarized Zone separating South from North Korea with
Pentagon chief Robert Gates, in the first such joint visit by U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of
the start of the Korean War (which led to war with China within three months).
Four days after Clinton left Seoul the U.S. launched the Invincible Spirit joint war games in the East Sea/Sea of Japan with South Korea,
the following month the latest of annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises with 30,000 American and 56,000 South Korean troops, and
in September anti-submarine drills in the Yellow Sea. 
Reflecting on Clinton’s statements at July’s ASEAN summit, Malaysian-based journalist and analyst Kazi Mahmoud wrote:
“Washington is using the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional group for a bigger military purpose and this
strategy is becoming clear to observers due to the U.S. push for greater influence in Asia.
By reaching out to nations like Vietnam, Laos and even Myanmar (Burma) as it has lately – ASEAN consists of Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam – “The United States is fomenting a long-term
strategy to contain both China and Russia in Southeast Asia….Before the Afghan war, the Americans could count on Thailand, Singapore,
Malaysia and Indonesia along with Brunei in the region. Today the U.S. has Vietnam and Cambodia on its side.” (In July U.S. Pacific
Command and U.S. Army Pacific led the Angkor Sentinel 2010 multinational exercises in Cambodia.)
Furthermore, Washington’s recruitment of ASEAN nations, initially over territorial disputes with China, will lead to
“turn[ing] ASEAN into a…military corps to fight for American causes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and surely Georgia and North
Korea….Once the U.S. has achieved such goals, it will control the Malacca Straits and the seaways of the region.” 
Non-ASEAN nations Taiwan, with which the U.S. formalized a $6.4 billion arms deal earlier this year , is involved in a Spratly Islands
territorial dispute with China and Japan is at loggerheads with China over what it calls the Senkaku Islands and China the Diaoyu Islands in
the East China Sea.
On October 11 U.S. Defense Secretary Gates met with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa at the ASEAN defense ministers’
meeting in Hanoi, and the “defense chiefs agreed in their talks…that their countries will jointly respond in line with a
bilateral security pact toward stability in areas in the East China Sea covering the Senkaku Islands that came into the spotlight in disputes
between Japan and China….” 
The pact in question is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States signed in 1960, comparable to
mutual military assistance arrangements the Pentagon has with Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand in the
Asia-Pacific region. “It is also developing a strong strategic relationship with Vietnam, of all places. It is also working hard on
Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which have indicated they want to get closer to Washington.” 
During the Shangri-La Dialogue defense ministers’ meeting in Singapore this June Gates stated: “My government’s
overriding obligation to allies, partners and the region is to reaffirm America’s security commitments in the region.” 
Singapore and, since July, Malaysia are official Troop Contributing Countries for NATO’s war in Afghanistan. In June Malaysia and
Thailand joined this year’s version of the annual U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises, the largest in the world (with
20,000 troops, 34 ships, five submarines and over 100 aircraft this year), hosted by the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. RIMPAC 2010 marked the
two Southeast Asian nations’ first participation in the war games. Other nations involved were the U.S., Australia, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and South Korea.
In addition to occupying Afghanistan with 152,000 U.S. and NATO troops, building an Afghan army and air force under the West’s
command, and integrating Pakistan in joint commissions with the U.S. and NATO , Washington is also consolidating a strategic military
partnership with India. Last October the U.S. Army participated in the latest and largest of Yudh Abhyas (training for war) war games held
since 2004 with its Indian counterpart. Exercise Yudh Abhyas 2009 featured 1,000 troops, the U.S.’s Javelin anti-tank missile system and the
first deployment of American Stryker armored combat vehicles outside the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters. 
The U.S. has also been holding annual naval exercises codenamed Malabar with the world’s second most populous country and in the
past four years has broadened them into a multinational format with the inclusion of Canada, Australia, Japan and Singapore.
Malabar 2007 was conducted in the Bay of Bengal, immediately north of the Strait of Malacca, and included 25 warships from five nations:
The U.S., India, Australia, Japan and Singapore.
This September 28 India and Japan held their first army-to-army talks in New Delhi which “aimed at reviewing the present status of
engagements, military cooperation and military security issues….” Japan thus became the ninth country with which the Indian Army
has a bilateral dialogue, joining the U.S., Britain, France, Australia, Bangladesh, Israel, Malaysia and Singapore. At the same time the
Indian Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Naik, was on a “three-day goodwill visit” to Japan to meet with his Japanese
counterpart, Air Self-Defense Force chief of staff General Kenichiro Hokazono. 
On October 14 the Pentagon launched the latest bilateral Amphibious Landing Exercise (PHIBLEX) and Cooperation Afloat Readiness and
Training (CARAT) in the Philippines, with over 3,000 U.S. troops and six ships and aircraft involved.
If a recurrence of the 1974 Battle of the Paracel Islands or the 1988 Chinese-Vietnamese clash over the Spratly Islands erupts between
China and other claimants, the U.S. is poised to intervene.
On October 13 South Korea for the first time hosted an exercise of the U.S.-formed Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) naval
interdiction operation, launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 with initial emphasis on Asia but which in the interim has assumed a
global scope. 
To end on October 22, it involves the participation of 14 nations including the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and Japan, which are
contributing a guided missile destroyer, maritime patrol planes and anti-submarine helicopters.
Six years ago Admiral Thomas Fargo, at the time head of U.S. Pacific Command, promoted a Regional Maritime Security Initiative which was
described as “grow[ing] out of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)” and designed to “deploy US marines with high-speed
boats to guard the Malacca Straits….”  Both Indonesia and Malaysia objected to the plan to station American military forces
off their coasts.
In January of 2009 NATO announced plans for the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1), part of the NATO Response Force of up to 25,000
troops designed for global missions, to engage in “a six-month deployment to the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean” and
to travel “through areas such as the Strait of Malacca, Java and the South China sea, an area of the world that is not frequented by
NATO fleets.”  The Indian Ocean, which the Pentagon divides between its Central Command, Africa Command and Pacific Command, is now
also being patrolled by NATO warships. 
The SNMG1, which was the first NATO naval group to circumnavigate the African continent two years before, was diverted to the Gulf of Aden
for NATO’s Operation Allied Provider begun in April of 2009 and succeeded in August with the still active Operation Ocean Shield. Also
last April, the NATO naval group, with warships from Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, arrived in Karachi, Pakistan “to
conduct a two-day joint naval exercise with the Pakistan Navy in the North Arabian Sea”  en route to Singapore. According to the
Alliance, “The deployment of warships in South East Asia demonstrates the high value NATO places on its relationship with other
partners across the globe….” 
Just as the U.S. has reactivated Cold War-era military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region in the first decade of this century,  so
have its main NATO allies.
Shortly after Washington deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln nuclear-powered supercarrier with “F/A-18C Hornet, F/A-18E/F super Hornet,
C-2A Greyhound, MH-60R Seahawk and MH-60S Seahawk helicopters and other fighter jets”  to the Port Klang Cruise Centre in Malaysia
this month, the defense ministers of the United Kingdom-initiated Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) collective – whose members are
Britain, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore – met in the capital of Singapore for the 13th FPDA Defence Chiefs’ Conference.
“The Defence Chiefs…issued the FPDA Exercise Concept Directive during the conference.
“The directive aims to guide the development of future FPDA exercises and activities to strengthen interoperability and interactions
between the armed forces of the five member countries.
“It also aims to further enhance the FPDA’s capacity in conducting conventional and non-conventional operations….” 
The five defense chiefs then left Singapore to attend the opening ceremony of Exercise Bersama Padu 2010 at the Butterworth Airbase in the
Malaysian state of Penang on October 15.
The military exercise continues to October 29 and includes “13 ships and 63 aircraft from the five FPDA countries working together
in a multi-threat environment.” 
The FPDA was set up in 1971, at the height of the Cold War, and along with similar military groups – NATO most prominently –
has not only continued but expanded in the post-Cold War period.
According to the Australian Department of Defence, Bersama Padu 2010, “is a three-week exercise [commenced on October 11] designed
to enhance regional security in the area.
“The exercise, which is part of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA), will take place at various locations across the Malaysian
Peninsula as well as the South China Sea.” It includes four Australian warships and eight F/A-18 multirole fighter jets. Australian
Lieutenant General Mark Evans, Chief of Joint Operations, said “the FPDA countries shared a common interest in the security and
stability of the region, and the exercise would enhance the interoperability of the combined air, ground and naval forces of member
All five FPDA members are engaged in NATO’s war in Afghanistan as part of a historically unprecedented exercise in warfighting
interoperability with some 45 other nations. Britain has the second largest amount of troops assigned to NATO’s International Security
Assistance Force, an estimated 9,500, and Australia the most of any non-NATO member state, 1,550. 
Afghanistan is the training ground for a global expeditionary NATO. And for a rapidly emerging Asian NATO, one which is being prepared to confront China in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
1) The Times, June 12, 2008
2) U.S. Energy Information Administration
19) Bernama, October 8, 2010
20) Government of Singapore, October 14, 2010
22) Australian Government
Department of Defence
October 11, 2010
23) Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army
Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
WHY IS A STRAFED LIFE RAFT FROM THE USS LIBERTY IN AN ISRAELI MUSEUM
Attack on the USS Liberty by Israel an Offense to All Americans
By Jim Condit Jr., Candidate for Congress, Ohio 8th District Constitution Party
for Veterans Today
Is it possible to break the censorship NOW around the attack on the USS Liberty in 1968, and its implications today? Yes. Utilizing the
little known Reasonable Access Law, I, as a congressional candidate, have been airing radio ads over major talk show stations in the Midwest
since October 8th, 2010.
Editor’s note: Jim Condit is the only candidate for ANY public office in the United States standing up
for the crew of the USS Liberty.
Phil Tourney, in his new book, “What I Saw That Day”, documents his horrific experiences when Israel deliberately attacked the USS
Liberty in June, 1967, killing 34 brave US Sailors, and wounding 174.
Israel tried to sink the Liberty, blame Egypt, and trick the US into attacking the Arab world. But our sailors radioed that ISRAEL was
attacking them. They kept the ship afloat and foiled the plot.
Evidence indicates that pro-Israeli traitors also engineered the 911 attacks against the USA; to trick us into fighting wars for them and
accepting police state measures here at home. This same group is using Obama to attempt a Communist takeover of our country.
This is Jim Condit Jr. Phil Tourney himself is my guest Sunday night at 10 PM on 55krc. That’s 10 PM, Sunday on, 55krc.
Shock Therapy for the Tea Party at TheRestOfTheStory2010.com
END OF TEXT OF RADIO AD
You can hear the radio ad at our website, www.TheRestOfTheStory2010.com – and there you can
help us air these ads. We are also able to air Sunday night radio shows for one hour at 10 PM eastern time on WKRC (550 AM), which carries
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Anyone in the world can listen to our live shows with Phil Tourney by going to www.55krc.com at 10 PM
eastern on Sunday night. Our remaining shows as of this date will run on October 24th and October 31st.
Veterans Today editor Gordon Duff will be appearing on the radio show with Phil Tourney on October 31st.
Consider these following reasons why this strategy is so powerful:
A little known law, the
Reasonable Access Law, requires stations to carry the radio ads of congressional candidates on FCC-licensed stations without alteration or
censorship. This law was passed by Congress in the 1970s, and was upheld by the courts in Becker vs. the FCC in 1996.
At night, between midnight and 5 AM EST, WLW (700 AM) is one of those “Clear Channel” stations that gets to turn its power up, allowing
them to reach 38 states and half of Canada. This is the time slot for the American Truckin’ Network, which attracts truckers
nationwide. Through 700 WLW in these overnight hours — we have a tremendous chance to make the attack on the USS Liberty a household
world amongst truckers in 38 states and half of Canada.
During the day, WLW reaches 150,000 to 300,000 people in their cars and homes between noon and 6 PM.
By the way, I am running for Congress against Republican incumbent John Boehner and his democratic opponent in the 8th
District of Ohio. Congressmen Boehner refuses to initiate a proper inquiry into the attack on the USS Liberty. He shares this shameful
distinction with all major congressional leaders and all US Presidents since 1968.
Based on this “pilot program” in 2010, I hope to recruit 70 to 90 Americans to run as a congressional candidate in each of the major
media centers in this country in 2012. This dynamic strategy could reach 30 million people by then.
Needless to say the USS Liberty is a sensitive issue. I am 1/4th Italian – and Sicilian Italian at that. Just as only a tiny
fraction of Italians were in the Mafia, so only a tiny fraction of Jews are driving the Zionist organizations that are a major part of the
impetus behind so many problems today. It was not anti-Italian to try and break the evil influence of the Mafia several decades ago. And it
is not anti-Semitic to try and break the evil influence of the Zionists organizations today.
400 people going to www.TheRestOfTheStory2010.com and donating $25 to our radio ads
campaign for the USS Liberty would help us achieve saturation advertising in an important part of the Midwest during the last 7 days of this
Working together, we can make the attack on the USS Liberty and its implications a topic of discussion in households all over the USA.
This will provide a springboard for Americans to understand and reevaluate what is happening in our world today. Remember the USS