Welcome to The Truth News.Info

Hope you enjoy your visit!

How's this for an interesting science experiment?

Now what are you going to do?

Don't know how much any of you use your microwave but I offer this for your consideration. Definitely food for thought. (excuse the pun)

Microwaved Water - See What It Does To Plants

Below is a science fair project. In it she took filtered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boiling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling in a microwave. Then after cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difference in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by microwave. As it turned out, even she was amazed at the difference.

I have known for years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to worry about, It's how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not recognize it. So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these "Safe" appliances. What about the nurse in Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed them when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it's safe. Never mind then, keep using them. Ask your Doctor I am sure they will say it's safe too. Proof is in the pictures of living plants dying. Remember You are also Living. Take Care.


Prepared By: William P. Kopp A. R. E. C.. Research Operations TO61-7R10/10- 77F05


Ten Reasons to Throw out your Microwave Oven From the conclusions of the Swiss, Russian and German scientific clinical studies, we can no longer ignore the microwave oven sitting in our kitchens. Based on this research, we will conclude this article with the following:

1). Continually eating food processed from a microwave oven causes long term - permanent - brain damage by "shorting out" electrical impulses in the brain [de-polarizing or de-magnetizing the brain tissue].

2). The human body cannot metabolize [break down] the unknown by-products created in microwaved food..

3). Male and female hormone production is shut down and/or altered by continually eating microwaved foods.

4). The effects of microwaved food by-products are residual [long term, permanent] within the human body.

5). Minerals, vitamins, and nutrients of all microwaved food is reduced or altered so that the human body gets little or no benefit, or the human body absorbs altered compounds that cannot be broken down.

6). The minerals in vegetables are altered into cancerous free radicals when cooked in microwave ovens.

7). Microwaved foods cause stomach and intestinal cancerous growths [tumors]. This may explain the rapidly increased rate of colon cancer in America ...

8). The prolonged eating of microwaved foods causes cancerous cells to increase in human blood.

9). Continual ingestion of microwaved food causes immune system deficiencies through lymph gland and blood serum alterations.

10). Eating microwaved food causes loss of memory, concentration, emotional instability, and a decrease of intelligence.

Have you tossed out your microwave oven yet?

After you throw out your microwave you can use a toaster oven as a replacement. It works well for most and is nearly as quick.

A convection oven is even better, as it cooks faster and more evenly and browns beautifully, too. (Convection ovens are inexpensive, and have a fan that distributes the heat more evenly. Almost as fast as a microwave, and lots safer!)



Monsanto sees "right time" for GMO wheat

Six years after shelving an earlier biotech wheat product in the face of stiff market resistance, Monsanto still sees a need for circumspection, but believes building acceptance and a need for increased food production makes the wheat seed market potentially lucrative over the long term.

Currently there is no biotech wheat on the market because of consumer and food industry opposition, but Monsanto sees attitudes changing.

Full story here.


USA is ready to kill for Ghana's oil - Pratt


15 November 2010

The Managing Editor of the Insight newspaper claims that there is a grand conspiracy by the United States of America to gain control of the country’s oil resource through the establishment of its Military base. He has also in same breath alleged that the New Patriotic Party is rooting for the American oil company KOSMOS, and asserts that the opposition party is more concerned with the crumps which will fall from the table of KOSMOS/Exxon Mobil and the US State Dept deal than the interest of Ghana.

Mr. Kwesi Pratt contends that the NPP and other groups are in support of KOSMOS’ decision not to sell off its stake in the Jubilee field to a Ghanaian company.

According to him, despite repeated assurances from the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) that it is interesting in buying the 23% stake of KOSMOS’ share in the Jubilee field; it is obdurate in selling rather to an America company.

“KOSMOS itself says we want out, we want to sell. The Ghana National Petroleum Corporation says we want to buy it; KOSMOS says we’ll not sell to Ghana; we will only sell to another American company. The whole of the US establishment is mounting monumental pressure on our government to cave in to US demands. Christian Council is quiet, Bar Association is quiet, and New Patriotic Party is supporting KOSMOS against Ghana. I mean this is incredible. You cannot believe it; it is incredible. KOSMOS has violated the laws of Ghana with impunity.”

Contributing to a panel discussion on Radio Gold’s Alhaji and Alhaji political programme, Mr. Pratt alleged that in order to promote its interest, KOSMOS distributed free of charge to interested parties, seismic data that the country through the GNPC spent over 300m dollars in collecting

“This matter is raised and the very people who are making noise about the oil revenue, K.T. Hammond, New Patriotic Party, all these World Bank and IMF funded so-called NGOs are supporting KOSMOS in this against the people of Ghana; and they are the same people making noises about oil revenue. I mean it’s incredible,” he fumed.

The outspoken socialist further claimed that there is a grand conspiracy by the “Western powers, especially the United States of America to gain control over the country’s oil resource.” Citing the Dick Cheney Report on America’s Strategic Interest in West Africa Oil, Mr. Pratt, who called for vigilance on the part of Ghanaians since the US was ready to “kill and destroy” to seize Ghana’s oil by setting up its Military bases, also asked Ghanaians to ensure that the oil stays in the country for the benefit of everyone, ‘especially the disadvantaged’.

“…and don’t make a mistake, military bases are not established for the purpose of organizing picnics. Military bases are established for the purpose of killing and destroying not organizing picnics. So what the US is telling us is that, they are ready to kill, maim and destroy in order to control our resources…And our churches, our Bar association, our so-called elders in society are quibbling about whether we should put our money in the Bank or spend it. They are not thinking about how to take control of the resource. They are thinking about what to do with the crumps which will fall from the table of KOSMOS/Exxon Mobil and the State Dept in the USA….The first and most important thing…is to ensure that the oil belongs to us; we control it, and utilize it in the interest of our people, especially the disadvantaged,” he posited.


America’s Devolution Into Dictatorship

November 10, 2010


By Paul Craig Roberts 

The United States Department of Justice (sic) routinely charges and convicts innocents with bogus and concocted  crimes that are not even on the statutes book. The distinguished defense attorney and civil libertarian, Harvey A. Silverglate, published a book last yearThree Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, which conclusively proves that today in "freedom and democracy" America we have punishment without crime.

This same Justice (sic) Department, which routinely frames and railroads the innocent,  argued in Federal Court on November 8 that the US government, if approved by the president, could murder anyone it wishes, citizens or noncitizens, at will.  All that is required is that the government declare, without evidence, charges, trial, jury conviction or any of the due process required by the US Constitution, that the government suspects the murdered person or persons to be a "threat."

The US Justice (sic) Department even told US Federal District Court Judge John Bates that the US judiciary, formerly a co-equal branch of government, has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to stick its nose into President "Change" Obama’s decision to assassinate Americans. The unaccountability of the president’s decision to murder people is, the US Justice (sic) Department declared, one of "the very core powers of the president as commander in chief."

The argument by the Justice (sic) Department that the executive branch has unreviewable authority to kill Americans, whom the executive branch has unilaterally, without presenting evidence, determined to pose a threat, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center For Constitutional Rights.

The outcome of the case will determine whether the neoconservative and Israeli stooge, president George W. Bush, was correct when he said that the US Constitution was nothing but a "scrap of paper".

It is my opinion that the American people and the US Constitution haven’t much chance of winning this case. The Republican Federalist Society has succeeded in appointing  many federal district, appeals and supreme court judges, who believe that the powers of the executive branch are superior to the powers of the legislature and judiciary.

The Founding Fathers of our country declared unequivocally that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were co-equal, However,  the Republican brownshirts who comprise the Federalist Society have implanted the society’s demonic ideology in the federal bench and Justice (sic) Department.

Today the erroneous belief is widespread that the executive branch is supreme and that the other branches of government are less than equal.

If Americans have a greater enemy than neoconservatives, that enemy is the Federalist Society, a collection of incipient Nazis.

Disagree with me as you will, but now let’s look at this development from another perspective. I am old enough to remember the Nixon years, and I was a presidential appointee, confirmed by the US senate, in the Reagan administration. For those of you too young to know and those who are too old to remember, President Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment simply because Nixon lied about when he learned about the burglary of the Watergate office of the Democratic party.

Nixon lied about when he learned of the burglary, because he knew that the Washington Post would make an issue of the burglary, if he launched an investigation, to defeat  his re-election.  The military/security complex and the black ops groups in the US government were angry at Nixon for smoothing US-China relations. The Washington Post, long regarded as a CIA asset, hid behind its "liberal" image to bring Nixon down. Woodward and Bernstein wrote thriller-type reports of midnight meetings with "deep throat" in dangerous parking garages to get the scoop on the date of Nixon’s knowledge of the meaningless burglary.

Let’s assume that I have it all wrong. The fact remains that Nixon was driven from office because of the Watergate burglary.  No one was harmed. Nixon did not kill anyone or claim the right to kill, without proof or accountability, American citizens.  If the dastardly President Nixon had a Justice (sic) Department like the present one, he simply would have declared Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post to be a threat and murdered them by merely exercising the power that the Obama administration is claiming.

Nixon might be too far in the past for most Americans, so let’s look at Ronald Reagan.

The neoconservatives’ Iran/Contra scandal almost brought down President Reagan. It is unclear whether President Reagan knew about the neocon operation and, if he did, whether he was kept in the loop. But all of this aside, what do you think would have been President Reagan’s fate if he, or his Justice (sic) Department, had declared that Reagan had the power as commander in chief to murder anyone he considered to be a threat?

Instantly, the media would have been in an uproar, law schools and university faculties would have been in an uproar, the Democrats would have been demanding Reagan’s impeachment, and his impeachment would have occurred with the speed of light.

Today in Amerika, approximately 25 years later, the ACLU has to go to federal court in order to attempt to affirm that "if the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

In reply, the Justice (sic) Department told the court that murdering American citizens is a "political question" that is not subject to judicial review. The "freedom and democracy" government then invoked the "state secrets privilege" and declared that the case against the government’s power to commit murder must be dismissed in order to avoid "the disclosure of sensitive information"

If the Obama Regime wins this case, the US will have become a dictatorship.

As far as I can tell, the "liberal media" and most Americans do not care. Indeed, conservative Republicans are cheering it on.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington;  Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.


PTech 9/11, Global Warming Meltdown, Crashing Morgan - Sunday Update

Corbett Report


US Demands Tehran to Supply Gasoline to American Forces in Region



TEHRAN (FNA)- Washington has asked Tehran to supply gasoline to its forces deployed in the region, an Iranian official announced on Monday, reminding that the US has made the demand while it has recently passed a legislation to boycott global fuel supplies to Iran.

"A country which was the main actor behind fuel sanctions against Iran has now stretched its needy hand to Iran to purchase gasoline for its military forces in the region," Iran's Deputy Welfare and Social Security Minister Ali Yousefpour said.

He said the demand indicates the weakness and failure of Washington in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reiterated that such failures show the astonishing demise of the so-called superpower in the world.

Iran increased its gasoline production after the United States and the European Union started approving their own unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program, mostly targeting the country's energy and banking sectors, including a US boycott of gasoline supplies to Iran.

After the UN Security Council ratified a sanctions resolution against Iran on June 9, the US Senate passed a legislation to expand sanctions on foreign companies that invest in Iran's energy sector and those foreign companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran or help develop its refining capacity.

The bill, which later received the approval of the House of Representatives, said companies that continue to sell gasoline and other refined oil products to Iran would be banned from receiving Energy Department contracts to deliver crude to the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill was then signed into law by US President Barack Obama.

But Iran's self-sufficiency in gasoline production made Washington's plots fall flat. Iran boosted gasoline production so much that in September 2010, the country started exporting gasoline.

"The first shipment of Iran's gasoline has been exported," Manager of International Affairs at the National Iranian Oil Company Ali Asqar Arshi announced at the time.

Also in the same month, Iranian Oil Minister Massoud Mir-Kazzemi announced that the country has increased domestic gasoline production to 66mln liters per day, meaning that Iran no more needs foreign imports.

Iran has increased its gasoline production by 50 percentage points to become self-sufficient in the sector, Mir-Kazzemi said at the time.

Iran's daily gasoline production increased from 44 million to over 66 million litters, which means Tehran no longer has to import gasoline, he added.

Also, an Iranian oil official announced in October that the country can still boost its gasoline production capacity by activating the potential production lines existing in different parts of the country.




November 2, 2010

Meet Jay Sandak, a maverick spy with a penchant for the good life. In this novel, Sandak accepts an assignment from his former employer, the CIA. In twenty years, water will be the new oil. Wars will be fought over fresh water supplies.

"Doctor Baumgartner." This female voice--one-part nasal, two parts whine--grated my left eardrum.

"Is Joy Baumgartner there?" I inquired.

"This is Joy." Her voice sounded anything but joy.

"Emil Rubitski suggested I phone you to..."

"You want to talk about China, right?"

"Yeah, I..."

"My consulting rates are two hundred and fifty dollars per hour."

"I thought we might have lunch," I said, "and..."

"It's the same."

"I see. How about if I take you to lunch to figure out what it is you know that's worth two hundred and fifty dollars an hour?"

"How long a lunch?"

"A couple hours.'

"It'll be five hundred dollars."

"Whoa. What if we only talk about China for an hour?"

"What else would we have to talk about?"

"The weather?"

"Read it in the paper," said the un-playful Baumgartner.

"All right, I'm in for one hour. Can you come to my office?"

"Where is it?"

"Near Mexico Ave. Near AU."

"Fine, but it'll cost you an hour travel time."

"Jesus, what are you, a lawyer?"

"That's exactly the point," whined Baumgartner. "Lawyers charge for their expertise. They run a meter. I'm an expert on China. You want to learn what I know about China. Why shouldn't I run a meter?"

"Don't you folks at CSS generally like to share your expertise?"

"For the purpose of promoting CSS, yes. In general, no. Are you a potential contributor to our programs?"

"Absolutely. Me and Morton Levi."


"You work for Morton Levi?" asked Baumgartner.

"With Morton Levi."

"Hmm. I suppose that qualifies. Okay, lunch tomorrow. The Palm. One o'clock. I have another call waiting." She disconnected me.

I utilized the dial tone to phone Emil Rubitski.

"This Baumgartner, Emil. Is she a ball-buster or what?"

"You think I don't know this?" said Rubitski. "The first rule new fellows learn when they arrive at this Center is, Don't Turn Your Back On Joy."

I chuckled.

"No joke," snapped Emil. "It's a known fact that she keeps a loaded pistol in her purse."

Baumgartner wasn't at the Palm at one o'clock. I stooled myself at the bar, Beefeater, olives.

Eight minutes later, the maitre d' pointed me out to a short rotund woman with tussled blonde hair, betrayed by dark-brown eyebrows.

"Hi, doc," I said. "I'm Jay."

Baumgartner sized me up. "Let's sit at a table," she said before turning on the maitre d'. "A good table at the front."

"Of course."

I followed the brazen Baumgartner to a good table.

"I'd like to meet Morton," Baumgartner announced, rearing her rump. "If you're working for him, and it involves China, and you want my knowledge and expertise, I should meet directly with him. I only operate at the highest level."

A waiter passed.

"Vodka tonic," snapped Baumgartner. "Slice of lime, not lemon." She turned to me. "When will you introduce me to Morton?"

"I didn't know we'd graduated from if to when."

"Without him," said Baumgartner, "we're back to two hundred and fifty dollars an hour."

"Plus lunch?" The Palm wasn't cheap.

She didn't even smile. "We're already here."

"So we are. Tell you what, if I don't get you in to see Morton, I'll pay your fee."

Baumgartner shook her head. "You pay. If I meet Morton, I refund you."

"Will you take American Express?"

"No. But I'll take a personal check." This was supposed to be a compromise.

"I don't have my checkbook here. Will you invoice me?"

Baumgartner glanced at the menu and pushed it aside. "What exactly is it Morton wants to know about China?"

"I'm interested in princelings," I said. "Specifically, Yao Li."

"Yao Li has no testicles." Baumgartner spat this with matter-of-fact delight.

"Do you mean that metaphorically?"

"No, I mean it physically. When Yao Li was at Shanghai Textile University during the Cultural Revolution, he got beaten up by his classmates. They pounded on his testicles. The Doctors had to remove them to prevent hemorrhaging. Surgical castration." Baumgartner smiled for the first time, as if castration was her prescription for men in general. "I have it on high authority that Yao Li drinks a daily brew of cow dung and lizard skin to compensate for lost masculinity. He carries a steel ball--the size of a golf-ball--wherever he goes. He grips it to strengthen his fingers. When he gets into brawls, he smashes his steel ball against the skulls of his opponents." Baumgartner sipped a vodka tonic, set before her by the waiter, who now hovered for an order. Baumgartner waved him away. "We're not ready." She returned to me. "Yao Li has a vengeful streak, a characteristic he got from his father, Yao Lo, China's intelligence chief. You did know that, didn't you?"

I nodded.

"His father's nickname within the inner Council of Leaders is Trickman."

"Does the son, Yao Li, have a nickname?"

Baumgartner regarded me with a school-marmish contempt. "Are you interested in substance or gossip?"

"You're the one who brought up nicknames."

"Dickhead," snapped Baumgartner.

"Excuse me?"

"That's Yao Li's nickname: Dickhead. As I was saying before you interrupted, Yao Li has a vengeful personality. When he became powerful, he used his influence to confiscate Shanghai Textile University's campus and relegate them to several ramshackle buildings near the airport."

The waiter tiptoed back for an order.

"I want the two-pound lobster," said Baumgartner.

"Crab cakes," said I.

The waiter beat it.

"Trickman and Dickhead have their own private security force of Kazaks, a mountain tribe of Turko-Mongol origin. They are warriors, descended from the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. It was the Kazaks who--with fixed bayonets--put down the student rebellions. Trickman takes the view that his generation sacrificed the lives of twenty million comrades to conquer China. Anyone who wants to take it from them--or their children, or their children's children--has to lay down twenty million lives. Trickman has devised a new strategy for Chinese domination of the world."

I waited for Baumgartner to say water.

"Money," said Baumgartner. "Trickman's favorite saying is Money oils civil society. Trickman spent a whole career in intelligence, posing as a banker in Britain, Germany, and Switzerland. He decided that money is the route to power, not tanks. Trickman concluded that if Hitler had had Wall Street, the Nazis would have won World War II." Baumgartner paused. "The Chinese secretly admire Hitler's sense of destiny. Trickman's new strategy is to connect to high finance. That's why Hong Kong--just the way it is, a capitalist financial center--is so important to them. But the real key to Trickman's financial strategy is people. Think about it: China possesses the cheapest, largest labor pool in the world. One billion workers. A quarter of this planet's population! Have you noticed that more than half of almost everything you see in the malls these days is made in China? China has become an economic force simply because it has turned five-sixths of its one-point-two billion population into a slave labor force. Foreign capital is flowing into China to exploit labor, encouraged by China's two hundred million-member elite. Our media would have us believe that because of this new connection to the West, China will evolve into a free market economy. Dumb bastards. It won't. What we're looking at is national socialism, Chinese-style. It was the late Deng Xiaoping who originally conceived China's economic reform. He shrewdly forged an alliance between the Chinese Communist Party and sixty million Chinese who reside outside of China, mostly throughout Asia--the lords of the Pacific Rim, as they are known. It is the money-management skill of these Chinese expatriates, these Pacific lords, that perpetuates oppression in China. Human rights? They don't exist--except for fifty million Communist party members and their one hundred and fifty million relatives. It is in China's national economic interest to oppress its dissidents and peasants and keep a billion people confined to laboring for the world while the pay-offs go to the oppressors."

Anger flashed in Baumgartner's eyes. She took this whole situation personally.

"Through its billion-person labor force," she continued, "and now through Hong Kong, China intends to manipulate world money. In so doing, it has embarked on a policy to make corporate America--who they perceive as the real government of the United States--to become dependent on cheap Chinese labor. Meanwhile, the expatriate Chinese, with their liquid cash, are strategizing corporate takeovers in the US."

"If what you say is true..." I started.

"It's true." Baumgartner narrowed her plucked eyebrows at me.

"Why isn't our government doing anything to counter this policy?"

"Counter this policy?" Baumgartner rolled her eyes. "Our elected government loves this policy!"


"Why indeed." Joy snorted contemptuously. "A few reporters are onto this, but the mainstream media continues to stick to press releases, or they're turning a blind eye. The reason why is this: old-fashioned deal-making. The president's financial supporters are cutting amazing business deals with the Chinese. You see what's happening here? The Chinese are playing our own so-called revolving door system against us. And, to this end, they're using their corrupt underground to help them."


Baumgartner nodded vehemently. "Remember how our CIA teamed up with the mafia to try to overthrow Castro? Trickman is doing the same thing. He has recruited the Triad, China's notorious criminal underground."

"To do what?"

"Export contraband into the United States. Drugs and guns."

I'd forgotten, until this movement, what Samantha Wakefield of SIS had told me about Chinese gunrunning through Scrogg Island. I filed a mental note to nudge Pikestaff about that. Then I remembered Johnny Wang. "Do you know the name Johnny Wang?" I posed.

"Do I," spat Baumgartner, obviously disgusted by all she knew--or her inability to do anything about it. "Johnny Wang is a mobster. And he's also Yao Li's constant companion. Johnny Wang is homosexual. He and the castrated Yao Li are lovers."

My appetite departed as crab cakes arrived.

Baumgartner dug into her lobster, cracking and crunching and sucking each appendage. "Money, not gunpowder. That's the new Chinese weapon of choice." She pushed her plate aside. All that was left of the lobster was a shell and two beady eyes. "Our country is for sale," hissed Baumgartner. "Literally. US soil. Do you have any idea how fast Chinese communities proliferate?"

I shrugged. "Not really."

"Ha! Check out San Francisco. No, fly up to Manhattan and see how Chinatown has expanded into Little Italy. Pretty soon, Little Italy won't exist. The Italians can't afford the new rents, so the Chinese scoop up everything. They multiply and spread out. If anyone brings this to the surface, they're categorized as bigots. So in the interest of political correctness, no one says a word. But don't think because they're achieving their objectives with financial clout that they've renounced military might. Sure, they're smuggling their surplus guns into the US for baoli..."


"Chinese for keep the profit. They're lining their own pockets and promoting gangland violence and moral decline in our cities. Back to my point: they've embarked on a major hi-tech military build-up. For the first time, China is building aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers! These are offensive, not defensive weaponry. They're buying fighter planes from Russia. They're designing a new class of nuclear ballistic submarine. And they're building intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. Why doesn't anybody in this town ask why? Because they're all cashing in, one way or another, that's why. Even the people in government. Once they see how much the private sector is making off China, they quit government and go into business as brokers--the revolving door at high speed. The Chinese are building a war machine that will soon equal our own, with money they're getting from us. Money they get from forcing their fourteen-dollar-a-month labor pool to mass produce GI Joe and Barbie dolls. I'm not kidding. GI Joe is now made in China. Barbie, too. Our toy industry has moved to China. Ninety-five percent of everything you find in Toys-R-Us is manufactured by the Chinese, paid for in dollars. And they're using those revenues--our dollars--not to enrich their workers, but to build long-range nuclear missiles."

"What about the princelings?" I asked.

"Ah, the new generation of spoiled brats, born with silver chop sticks up their ass?" Baumgartner belched. "They've never had to fight or sacrifice for anything. They haven't had to suffer like their parents or grandparents. And they're all educated in the West. Do you see the irony here? We teach these princelings everything we know about stocks and bonds and securities and big money. Then they take what they learn back to China and use it against us! Not only do we encourage them to study here, we give them scholarships!"

"Yao Li went to Harvard, right?"

"Ha! That's what he wants the world to believe. Yao Li did a summer session at Harvard. That's another trick. Summer sessions at Ivy League colleges are easy to gain admission into--you just sign up and write a check. So they come over for a summer, take a couple of classes and claim they went to Harvard or Yale or Princeton. They use this to open doors throughout Asia--and even here in the United States. Yao Li tells everyone he went to Harvard on the basis of one summer-session course in business law, which he didn't even complete. He spent most of the time getting drunk in Cambridge. But don't believe me. Ask the woman confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life because Yao Li crashed his BMW convertible into her Honda. He was drunk. She was seventeen, very talented, and had her whole life ahead of her..." Baumgartner trailed off, clenching her teeth. "The State Department covered it up and the Chinese Embassy shanghaied Yao Li back to China. That's the reason he didn't finish summer-school." She paused. "I'd kill him with my bare hands."

"Why do you take this so personally?" I asked.

"It is personal." Baumgartner's eyes darkened, nostrils flaring. "The young girl Yao Li crippled is my sister."


Only in America do steel framed structures collapse due to fire. Aren't we special!

Shanghai Fire High Rise Building at least 42 people killed 15.11.10


China’s hawks demand cold war on the US

Michael Sheridan, Far East Correspondent

February 7, 2010


MORE than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and America are heading for a new “cold war”.

The finding came after battles over Taiwan, Tibet, trade, climate change, internet freedom and human rights which have poisoned relations in the three months since President Barack Obama made a fruitless visit to Beijing.

According to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak.

In China’s eyes, the American response — which includes a pledge by Obama to get tougher on trade — is a reaction against its rising power.

Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”.

An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949.

“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference.

He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.”

Officially, China has reacted by threatening sanctions against American companies selling arms to Taiwan and cancelling military visits.

But Chinese analysts think the leadership, riding a wave of patriotism as the year of the tiger dawns, may go further.

“This time China must punish the US,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a naval officer. “We must make them hurt.” A major-general in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Luo Yuan, told a television audience that more missiles would be deployed against Taiwan. And a PLA strategist, Colonel Meng Xianging, said China would “qualitatively upgrade” its military over the next 10 years to force a showdown “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US”.

Chinese indignation was compounded when the White House said Obama would meet the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, in the next few weeks.

“When someone spits on you, you have to get back,” said Huang Xiangyang, a commentator in the China Daily newspaper, usually seen as a showcase for moderate opinion.

An internal publication at the elite Qinghua University last week predicted the strains would get worse because “core interests” were at risk. It said battles over exports, technology transfer, copyright piracy and the value of China’s currency, the yuan, would be fierce.

As a crescendo of strident nationalistic rhetoric swirls through the Chinese media and blogosphere, American officials seem baffled by what has gone wrong and how fast it has happened.

During Obama’s visit, the US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, claimed relations were “really at an all-time high in terms of the bilateral atmosphere ... a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory”, according to an official transcript.

The ambassador must have been the only person at his embassy to think so, said a diplomat close to the talks.

“The truth was that the atmosphere was cold and intransigent when the president went to Beijing yet his China team went on pretending that everything was fine,” the diplomat said.

In reality, Chinese officials argued over every item of protocol, rigged a town hall meeting with a pre-selected audience, censored the only interview Obama gave to a Chinese newspaper and forbade the Americans to use their own helicopters to fly him to the Great Wall.

President Hu Jintao refused to give an inch on Obama’s plea to raise the value of the Chinese currency, while his vague promises of co-operation on climate change led the Americans to blunder into a fiasco at the Copenhagen summit three weeks later.

Diplomats say they have been told that there was “frigid” personal chemistry between Obama and the Chinese president, with none of the superficial friendship struck up by previous leaders of the two nations.

Yet after their meeting Obama’s China adviser, Jeff Bader, said: “It’s been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives we set ourselves.”

Then came Copenhagen, where Obama virtually had to force his way with his bodyguards into a conference room where the urbane Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, was trying to strike a deal behind his back.

The Americans were also livid at what they saw as deliberate Chinese attempts to humiliate the president by sending lower-level officials to deal with him.

“They thought Obama was weak and they were testing him,” said a European diplomat based in China.

In Beijing, some diplomats even claim to detect a condescending attitude towards Obama, noting that Yang Jiechi, the foreign minister, prides himself on knowing the Bush dynasty and others among America’s traditional white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elite.

But there are a few voices urging caution on Chinese public opinion. “China will look unreal if it behaves aggressively and competes for global leadership,” wrote Wang Yusheng, a retired diplomat, in the China Daily.

He warned that China was not as rich or as powerful as America or Japan and therefore such a move could be “hazardous”.

It is not clear whether anyone in Beijing is listening.


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

- Trailer

Please join and support vince at: http://www.indiegogo.com/bush

Famed Charles Manson prosecutor and three time #1 New York Times bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi stars in this most powerful, explosive, and thought-provoking documentary.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq. Bugliosi sets forth the legal architecture and incontrovertible evidence that President Bush took this nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses—a war that has not only caused the deaths of American soldiers but also over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; cost the United States over one trillion dollars thus far with no end in sight; and alienated many American allies in the Western world.

As a prosecutor who is dedicated to seeking justice, Bugliosi, in his inimitable style, delivers a non-partisan argument, free from party lines and instead based upon hard facts and pure objectivity.

A searing indictment of the President and his administration, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder also outlines a legally credible pathway to holding our highest government officials accountable for their actions, thereby creating a framework for future occupants of the oval office.

Vincent Bugliosi calls for the United States of America to return to the great nation it once was and can be again. He believes the first step to achieving this goal is to bring those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.


Rep. Boehner Rejects Pelosi’s Corrupt Example:

Will Fly Commercial, Not Military

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

November 12, 2010

Rep. John Boehner announced this week that he will fly commercial to and from Ohio instead of using military aircraft if he officially becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives in January. This would be an abrupt change from the corrupt and disrespectful example set by Speaker Pelosi.

Here’s the scoop according to Fox News:

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday that he will not use the military jet provided to current Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fly from D.C. to his home district each week, but will board the same airlines as everybody else.

Pelosi had claimed after she became speaker in 2007 that a military aircraft was offered to her in light of position as second in line to the presidency. But Boehner said he’s not so concerned.

“I’ve talked to our security folks about the security involved in my new role. Over the last 20 years I’ve flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft and will continue to do that,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

Here’s the statement I offered to the press on the matter:

At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules apply to the rest of us but not to them. Rep. Boehner is sending the right signal by promising to do what most other Americans do for business travel – fly commercial.

Judicial Watch blew the whistle on Speaker Pelosi’s shocking abuse of military luxury travel. We are glad that Rep. Boehner will not follow Pelosi’s corrupt example. Rep. Boehner’s decision is wonderful news. Members of the U.S. military and taxpayers will be grateful. The next step is to curtail the use of military luxury travel for other members of Congress. In the meantime, Judicial Watch is proud to have exposed and to have helped end this abuse of our nation’s military.

Indeed, our investigations team has been relentlessly in pursuit of documents that shed light on this scandal. Our tenacity has led to reform. Let’s just take a quick moment to review some of the key evidence we compiled against Pelosi:

  • Judicial Watch obtained internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft for herself and her family as well as the speaker’s 11th hour cancellations and changes.

    Here’s just one sample email from an obviously frustrated Defense Department official responding to Pelosi’s repeated requests for military aircraft: “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi’s team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?...[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’...” The email also notes that Pelosi’s office had, “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

  • Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrated the Speaker was using U.S. Air Force aircraft as her own personal party planes. Overall, the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

    For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Baileys Irish Cream, Maker’s Mark whisky, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.

  • Judicial Watch also uncovered documents indicating that the Defense Department was colluding with Members of Congress and staff, including Speaker Pelosi, in responding to military travel FOIA requests filed by JW and other organizations. In one case, a Defense Department official sent a CD with all of the “Pelosi related travel docs” to the Speaker’s office before releasing them to the public. Why were congressional offices getting the chance to preview documents before they were released to the American people? We’re still waiting for an answer.

We’ll keep an eye on the new Speaker of the House. Judicial Watch is nonpartisan and we’re prepared to take on Republican abuses when they take over the House. But let’s hope Boehner’s decision to end Air Pelosi is a positive sign of things to come in the new Congress regarding ethics.


The Mythical United States of America: Rushing into Backwardness

by Prof. John Kozy

Global Research, November 11, 2010

The mythical United States of America so highly lauded exists nowhere. It is a Shangri-la. The Preamble of the Constitution makes perfectly clear what kind of nation the United States was meant to be. What exists today fulfills none of those goals. Some have argued that the nation was a fraud from day one. Whether accurate or not, what is clear is that it most certainly was quickly murdered by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who wrote the decision known as Marbury v. Madison. Since that day, the Court has replicated England's seventeenth century political economy absent only the monarchy. Today's United States of America is a seventeenth century nation adorned with twenty first century trinkets, many deadly. Instead of being as it claims "the leader of the free world," it is a backward authoritarian pre-enlightenment reactionary regime.

Because my OED is inaccessible at the moment, I cannot specify exactly when the word 'philanthropy,' which etymologically means "love of mankind," came to be applied to the donating of money to build self aggrandizing enterprises. But alas, it has! People seem to have a way of twisting meanings in ways that make the malevolent appear benevolent. And so, enterprises of all kinds have been funded by such 'philanthropy.'

For instance, Carnegie Mellon University was founded by Andrew Carnegie, Andrew W. and Richard B. Mellon; Cornell University was founded by Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White; Purdue University was founded by John Purdue; Rice University was founded by William Marsh Rice; Stanford University was founded by Leland Stanford and his wife. There are hundreds more.

There are museums, too (The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, The Amon Carter Museum of American Art, The Kimbell Art Museum, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, The Whitney Museum of American Art and many more), concert halls (Louise M. Davies Symphony Hall, Carnegie Hall, Avery Fisher Hall, The Eastman Theatre, Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center to name just a few), Opera Houses (The Nancy Lee and Perry R. Bass Performance Hall, The Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, The Peabody Opera House, The Margot and Bill Winspear Opera House, The BAM Howard Gilman Opera House), innumerable charitable foundations and buildings built for public use such a libraries.

Although it is difficult to deny some merit to most of these enterprises, it is also difficult to even imagine that when Christ said, "love thy neighbor as thyself," he was advocating the kind of love philanthropy has come to express. But belittling philanthropy is not the intent of this piece. These examples are intended solely to lay the basis for an exposition of some contrasts and to draw some revealing conclusions from them.

First of all, the kind of giving described above is not the only kind of giving that has become prevalent. During last week's midterm electioneering, unspecified amounts of money were donated anonymously to Political Action Committees in an attempt to influence the electoral process. What distinguishes this group of donors from those above is the anonymity. The benefactors, in the first group, like the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, have no qualms about putting their names on their projects. (I suspect that more often than not, they insist upon it.) But not the donors in the second group.

Why? I suspect a principle lies behind the difference: People do not hide that in which they take pride! The benefactors in the first group are proud of their giving, they want it made known to all, they want to be remembered for it. So why wouldn't the "benefactors" in the second group be equally proud of their beneficence? Are they merely cowards who lack the courage of their convictions? Or are they ashamed of what they are doing? Are they hiding their shame behind their anonymity? In either case, they cannot be judged kindly.

Anonymity, however, is just one manifestation of a deeper and growing tendency in American society?the trend toward more and more secrecy, and no one, to my knowledge, has revealed the ultimate, disastrous consequences of this tendency.

Recently, Sir John Sawers, the head of Britain?s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, devoted much of a 30-minute address to the central role of secrecy in maintaining security. ?Secrecy", he said, "is not a dirty word. Secrecy is not there as a cover-up. Secrecy plays a crucial part in keeping Britain safe and secure. If our operations and methods become public, they won?t work.?

Alas, Sir John is obviously not a master of the King's English. Secrecy is by definition a cover-up. But Sir John doesn't mean cover-up in the simple sense of hidden; he wants to claim that nothing unseemly or objectionable is being covered up. Unfortunately, that claim is impossible to verify and, if accepted, must be accepted on trust. If someone claims s/he did nothing wrong, the what and how of it must be revealed. How else could it be shown? Yet Sir John claims that the what and how of it must be kept secret.

Consider the claim that the universe contains absolutely undetectable attributes. The sentence appears to make perfectly good sense, but it doesn't. How could the claim ever be given a truth value? All one can really do upon hearing or reading it is shrug one's shoulders. The sentence has no content. The claim that secrets are not cover-ups is similar. To know that what is secret is not a cover-up, the secret must be revealed, but by definition alone, a secret cannot be revealed and be a secret. Such claims are entirely meaningless.

So why should anyone trust the pronouncements of governments and their agents anyhow? That they lie has been demonstrated over and over again in history. In reality, all that the secrecy actually does is arouse suspicion; secrecy leads people to distrust their governments. It also leads nations to distrust each other, and a world in which nations distrust each other is unstable, dangerous, and primed for disaster.

Governmental secrecy also annuls any trappings of democracy that a nation may exhibit. Even a perfectly rational citizenry would be unable to make rational judgments on matters of policy that are kept from it by secrecy. How can anyone be expected to make a rational judgment about something s/he is unaware of? Rational thinking requires premises that are factual. Without that knowledge, the electoral process is a mere formal, meaningless exercise. The people may be told that they are sovereign, but they do not even play a meaningful role in the process. The trappings of democracy do not make a nation democratic. Only transparently revealed truth and honesty do.

Most people assume that the American government is paralyzed by ideological intransigence. The assumption is that our political class has taken the attitude, "my way or no way." But another possibility exists. Perhaps those who truly hold power, those who like things the way they are and want to contravene any change, immediately corrupt or isolate all newly elected officials and all of the ideological rhetoric that is heard is merely theater played to give people the impression that the politicians care. How else can anyone explain how everything stays the same after election after election calls for change? How else can the Congress continue to act as it always has in the face of decades of approval ratings in the lowest quartile? How else can anyone explain why Congress after Congress is a do nothing Congress? Is it because American elections are totally fraudulent? Is it  because the Congress has a secret master who functions behind the electoral system?  

The mythical United States of America so highly lauded exists nowhere. It is a Shangri-la. The Preamble of the Constitution makes perfectly clear what kind of nation the United States was meant to be. Read it! What exists today fulfills none of those goals.

Some have argued that the nation was a fraud from day one, that the convention that drafted the Constitution was comprised of colonial elite who set out to create a nation that protected their privileges. The facts cited by those making the claim are accurate; the reasoning is often strained. Yet the claim cannot easily be refuted.

Even if the nation was not stillborn, it most certainly was quickly murdered. The dastardly deed took place on February 24, 1803. The killer was John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who wrote the decision known as Marbury v. Madison, which is not only absurdly argued but treacherous on two accounts. First, Marshall takes the position that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" which results in the Court's becoming the sole Constitutional authority subject to no review. Since that day, the Court has ruled the United States of America as a judicial oligarchy. Second, the decision provides the Court with a paradigm on which it could base clearly and obviously unjust decisions. Marshall agreed that Marbury was entitled to relief but refused to provide it. That is clearly unjust; yet the Constitution clearly says that one of the nation's purposes is to "establish justice."

Even though Marshall's argument is absurd, no one but Jefferson challenged it. He writes, "the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." It is clearly contradictory to say on the one hand that the Court has the duty to "say what the law is" and then say that the Court is constrained from providing Marbury with the relief he is entitled to because the written Constitution doesn't give the Court the authority to grant it. The written Constitution doesn't give the Court the authority to "say what the law is" either. Yet no one pointed out that if it were the Court's duty to say "what the law is," legislatures are superfluous. So Marshall on this day, murdered the Republic.

Why no one but Jefferson cared is curious. Was it, indeed, because the colonial elite who had taken control of the government never really fully supported the Constitution's republican principles? We will never know. But before the Constitution was ratified, the colonies were rife with political tracts both in favor of and against its ratification. The Federalist Papers are the most well known of these and were apparently written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. All three were alive when Marshall's opinion was issued; yet none wrote a single tract in opposition to Marshall's action. How strange!

Yet, the result is obvious. What John Marshall did was reproduce England's seventeenth century political economy absent only the monarchy, and the courts have promoted and maintained this abomination ever since. Today's United States of America is a seventeenth century nation adorned with twenty first century trinkets, many deadly. Instead of being as it claims "the leader of the free world," it is a backward authoritarian pre-enlightenment reactionary regime. That people is the big secret! It dare not be revealed.

In early modern Europe the state was organized to fight more and more intense wars which requirs professional armies and leads national governments into perennial debt. Some claim that the need to fight bigger and bigger wars created the state as we know it. Diplomacy was carried on by nations in secret from opponents, adversaries, and their own peoples. Although not yet known as such, Realpolitik characterized the age. Politics and diplomacy were based primarily on considerations of power and national interests, not ideals, morals, or principles. Balancing the power of authoritarian nations was said to be necessary to keep the peace, but it never did. How does this description of seventeenth century Europe differ from a description of the world's condition today? What is different?

Calling the United States a backward authoritarian pre-enlightenment reactionary nation may seem harsh, but how else can anyone explain, no less justify, the American willingness to overthrow democratically elected governments, support right-wing dictatorships, and become a willing partner with the most corrupt nations on earth? No nation steeped in the principles of democracy would engage in such practices.

So what do advocates of this seventeenth century realpolitik hope to achieve? To what end is this policy being pursued? Three hundred years of history has shown that it will never bring peace or security. Going to war to preserve the peace is absurd; anyone who advocates such nonsense should be ridiculed into hiding.

People, remember this. Empires upon which it was said that the sun never set disintegrated in plain daylight. All the king's horses and all the king's men could not bind them together. So I propose that everyone ask an Englishman this question: What of value does todays ordinary Englishman possess that s/he would not have possessed had the Empire never existed? When you learn the answer to that question you will realize how all the resources and lives lost to create and attempt to hold the Empire were totally wasted. And that is what always happens to the resources and people expended in empire building.

People, secrecy is an abomination. People do not hide that in which they take pride! When governments keep secrets, they're hiding shameful, immoral, or illegal acts. War is the opposite of peace and cannot secure it. Secrecy breeds distrust, suspicion, and conflict; they are not ways of winning friends and influencing people. Realpolitik is really Vilepolitik. Until the welfare of human beings everywhere rather than the welfare of institutions becomes the goal of human activity, the people will never be anything but canon and factory fodder to be sacrificed for absolutely nothing worthwhile.

So it's time, past time, way past time to close the door on seventeenth century authoritarian government.    

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage.


Israel is breaking all international conventions

- Al-Hariri

15 November, 2010


Israel is the main reason why the peace process in the Middle East failed, insists Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Saad Al-Hariri.

RT: Do you think that a resolution of the political crisis in Iraq will have a positive impact on Lebanon and lead to a resolution of the political crisis there as well?

Saad Hariri: I think that the main problem here is that the key issue is ignored – I mean about fair peace for everybody. In 1991, there was a peace conference in Madrid; then there was also the Arab Summit Conference in Beirut, where the participants came up with the Arab Peace Initiative. But now the peace process is being destroyed by different amendments which will lead us to nowhere. The principles behind the resolutions – which were supported by everyone – demand that Israel should follow the resolutions. There would be no need now to talk about arms and other problems, had this peace process not been buried in the 1990s. We face many difficulties today, because Israel denies Palestinians their legal rights, refuses to return the Golan Heights to Syria; the Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba and Ghajar – to Lebanon. But the Arab Peace Initiative was adopted. Why is Israel doing that? The international community has an obligation here. It needs to know that we can only solve problems in the region through a fair peace for all.

RT: Do you think Israel is responsible for the deadlock in the peace process?

SH: Not only is it responsible, Israel is the main reason why the process failed. Netanyahu’s government is not able, nor is it willing, to continue with the peace process.

RT: What role could Russia place in promoting the peace process in the Middle East?

SH: Russia participated in the Madrid conference and is part of this process. It is also part of the ‘quartet’, mediating in the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Therefore I think Russia could play a very important role. It has many friends in the Arab world. We need to use our relations with Russia in order to communicate the Arab stance on things to the international community, because it is very unnerving to see the injustice done by Israel to Palestinians, as well as to Lebanon and Syria. We can no longer ignore this. Israel is trying to impose its own agenda and keeps seizing land daily. Unfortunately, the world is not doing anything about it. This is unacceptable in all aspects – international, human and religious. It goes against the Geneva Convention and any other regulations. Israel is breaking all international conventions.

RT: Everybody knows that your relationship with Russian leaders is very good. What key issues will you discuss during your visit to Russia?

SH: Politically, relations with Russia are very important to us. We would like these relations to be economically beneficial as well. We would also like to find out how Russia could assist Lebanon in equipping our army and security forces. In this respect, we are going to propose some ideas to our Russian friends. We have been promised certain assistance, and Lebanon is ready to work out a plan for purchasing Russian weapons. Lebanon has purchased arms from Russia in the past, and now we are trying to figure out if we could get some discount on weapons for the Lebanese Army and security forces.

RT: And what about jets?

SH: We will study the issue during our visit. Our pilots are going through training, and hopefully this visit will be a successful end to what our President has started.

RT: In what areas can we expect agreements to be signed with Russia?

SH: We’re considering signing an agreement on culture, and between our countries’ ministries of justice.We hope that agreements in other areas will be studied properly, especially those concerning armaments for the Lebanese Army.

RT: Russia maintains its position regarding the [UN] international tribunal [on the killing of former Prime Minister Hariri] and fully supports it, what is your standpoint on this position?

SH: It is a natural position, since Russia is driven by the idea of justice and has never abandoned it; and that is why we are grateful to Russia for this position which we consider to be natural, because Russia supports Lebanon; not only in the matters related to the international tribunal, but also in everything Lebanon had to go through over the past decades, with all the wars, in 2006 and earlier. Russia has always been on Lebanon’s side.

RT: What kind of relationship do you have with the Syrian government now?

SH: We've got wonderful relations. We keep up contact. Our ministers keep in touch with their Syrian counterparts. I hope that the gap between us will get smaller. We want to develop a special relationship with Syria. It will be beneficial for us in terms of politics, security, economic and social policy. We are constantly working on maintaining this kind of relationship, which is made up of the political relations between the two countries, economic ties, as well as relations between the governments.

RT: You’re visiting Iran at the end of the month, what will your talks be about there?

SH: The time of the visit is not defined yet. We hope that it will take place, and that we’ll cover all issues on the agenda in our talks. I was open about talking to Iran’s President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad during his visit to Beirut. We cooperate with Iran in a number of areas.In the energy sector, they are giving us large incentives in order to enter our market. We cooperate in politics, too, and our position there is that any country has a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We hope that our entire region will be a nuclear-free zone. In terms of peaceful initiatives, we consider ourselves to be part of the League of Arab States, and we shall never support anyone opposing the international community. Lebanon is an independent state, we have our place in the world, and we shall protect it based on these principles. We have certain disagreements with Iran on some issues, but we are in complete agreement with them on a number of others.

RT: The Lebanese government is currently in a tough situation caused by the so-called ‘false witnesses’ in the Hariri assassination investigation. How are you going to resolve it?

SH: I wouldn’t call it a tough situation. We all agreed that this issue is important, and that the Cabinet must address it. Today, the debate is around the question which body of authority should be appointed to consider the case. Due to certain political reasons, some members are suggesting that it should go to the Council of Justice (Supreme Court) while we believe a regular court is a preferable option. The Cabinet ministers are discussing this issue, and we shall achieve the decision that will satisfy all parties. My opinion is that this issue should be passed on from the Cabinet to a regular court where these false witnesses will be tried.

RT: Why aren’t you willing to satisfy the opposition’s requirements to step back from the Special Tribunal in order to keep the peace in the country and avoid turmoil?

SH: We have created the government which initially was a national unity government with no such concept as pro-government or opposition forces. We must be united. It would be a political mistake for anyone to consider themselves to be part of the opposition while being part of the government. That’s number one. Number two is that there are indeed concerns about the Special Tribunal, but I think that it would be wrong to talk about this under current circumstances. It all requires a sobriety and dialogue. People need to calm down and act sensibly. Fighting leads us nowhere. At the end of the day, we all have to live together in our country and keep up the dialogue. If, God forbid, we develop different views then the country will have a problem with that; we must get back to the negotiating table. The country requires peace, and that’s the most important thing. Yes, we indeed still have some disagreements, but is it really the way out? There must be peace, otherwise there’s no way to achieve positive results in dialogue. How can an emotional person be in dialogue with other people? I keep saying it all the time that we need to calm down. The Lebanese people need an opportunity to live a peaceful life, because people are tired of all the discord. And we must do everything to achieve it.

RT: Some think that if pressure on you on the part of the opposition builds up, you will have to resign. Is that possible?

SH: I haven't felt much pressure on me, and I think that pressure is being put on other people, rather than on me. As for resignation, I was elected by the Lebanese people. The majority expressed their trust in me, so that we could form a government. I became Prime Minister thanks to the support of the majority and I am set to continue working together with everybody.

Click Here To Comment