Puppet Masters
That particular image of Dzhokhar is not representative of the face of terrorism, and certainly not the face of the terrorism that struck the Boston area on April 15th and the following days. I therefore also find myself agreeing with the decision of 'tactical photographer' Sgt. Murphy of the Boston police who, in an effort to "show the true face of terrorism", released three images of the badly injured Dzhokhar crawling out of the boat, sniper rifle dot trained on his head.
This, indeed, is the true face of modern-day 'terrorism':
Milk rations were halved for years at residential schools across the country.
Essential vitamins were kept from people who needed them.
Dental services were withheld because gum health was a measuring tool for scientists and dental care would distort research.
For over a decade, aboriginal children and adults were unknowingly subjected to nutritional experiments by Canadian government bureaucrats.
This disturbing look into government policy toward aboriginals after World War II comes to light in recently published historical research.
When Canadian researchers went to a number of northern Manitoba reserves in 1942 they found rampant malnourishment. But instead of recommending increased federal support to improve the health of hundreds of aboriginals suffering from a collapsing fur trade and already limited government aid, they decided against it. Nutritionally deprived aboriginals would be the perfect test subjects, researchers thought.

Edward Snowden along with Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks (left) at a press conference in Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow.
Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, posted by WikiLeaks:
Friday July 12, 15:00 UTC
Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone's communications at any time. That is the power to change people's fates.
It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice - that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.
I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
The Houston Chronicle reports the bill's passage would mean that nearly all of the abortion clinics in Texas would close because they would not be able to afford to transform into official ambulatory surgical centers. The bill would restrict abortions to being performed only in clinics that have this designation.
The few abortion clinics that would stay open would be the ones that already function as ambulatory surgical centers. It does not seem to be a coincidence that Perry's sister just so happens to work at a company that is already considered to be an ambulatory surgical center. She stands to profit handsomely from the bill being signed into law.
Campaigners demand Dr Kelly's inquest, as his right under British law, to examine all the evidence, including the fresh evidence.
The coroner 'speaks for the dead to protect the living.' Campaigners demand due process of British law and transparency, for the clear establishment of truth and justice.
All single, unexplained deaths require an inquest under British law. Dr Kelly's unexplained death, according to many centuries of British law, should have been examined in a proper coronial inquest, with the option of a jury, the power to subpoena witnesses, testimony given under oath, with cross-examination and the requirement to establish suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

Holding a single flower each, two protesters wearing black hoods and orange jumpsuits take part in a demonstration in front of the White House.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has dealt a terrible blow to Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and the other activists and journalists suing to prevent the indefinite military detention of American citizens.
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 would allow the military to detain indefinitely persons who are deemed to consort with terrorists or those who commit "belligerent acts" against the United States. Journalists, whose job it is to do just that, would undoubtedly qualify, Hedges has argued.
The plaintiffs have had successes and setbacks in court.
Here is what Hedges wrote after Wednesday's decision:
This is quite distressing. It means there is no recourse now either within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of government to halt the steady assault on our civil liberties and most basic Constitutional rights. It means that the state can use the military, overturning over two centuries of domestic law, to use troops on the streets to seize U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers. States that accrue to themselves this kind of power, history has shown, will use it. We will appeal, but the Supreme Court is not required to hear our appeal. It is a black day for those who care about liberty.

James "Jamie" Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The myth of Chase as the finance sector's one upstanding rock of rectitude reached its zenith in July of 2009 with an embarrassingly hagiographic piece in the New York Times entitled, "In Washington, One Bank Chief Still Holds Sway." In that one, the paper breathlessly praised Jamie Dimon for emerging from "the disgrace of his industry" to become Barack Obama's "favorite banker."
Chase and Jamie Dimon kept that rep for a good long time. As late as 2011, Dimon's name was being floated around Washington very seriously as a potential replacement for Tim Geithner's Treasury Secretary post. Even when Dimon showed up on the Hill last year to testify (read: obfuscate) about the infamous "London Whale" episode, Senators on the banking committee - who, as writer George Zornick noted, had collected a cumulative $522,088 in donations from Chase - slobbered all over Dimon and shelved the important London Whale matter to ask the great genius's advice on how to fix the economy.
Well, there's some more news about the "good bank" - Chase is about to pay yet another ginormous settlement for cheating and stealing from the public. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will fine Chase "close to $1 billion" for manipulating energy prices in Enron-esque fashion in Michigan and California. The story is interesting in itself - and we'll write more about it later - but for now, it's just the fact of yet another massive settlement for this bank that's so interesting.
The clip below is from a 2007 AKBank convention in Instanbul, Turkey held right before the annual Bilderberg Meeting which took place there that same year. In it, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, (as well as member of the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bohemian Grove among others) Henry Kissinger can be seen giving the following speech:
In the Middle East, we live in a different world. The nations do not represent historic entities in the same sense that European nations did. Turkey of course does, and Iran in a considerable extent does. But in the region in between, the borders were drawn by the victors of World War I on the basis largely of what would facilitate their influence. So therefore, the identities of these countries, and of their borders, can be challenged more easily.Clearly Kissinger is saying that, because many Middle Eastern countries do not have what appears to be in his view the 'historical significance' of older countries, they are wide open for attack, regime change and re-ordering.
What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system, and they're trying to regroup it to a radical Islamic fundamentalists kind.
The big banks have committed massive crimes and manipulated virtually every market.
The failure to prosecute fraud is preventing a sustainable economic recovery.
As such, prosecuting Wall Street fraud is arguably an issue of national security.
The government is collecting everything ... and spying on just about everything we do.
We are passionately opposed to mass surveillance. But - if the government is doing so - why can't it gather info on the crimes of the big banks ... so we can prosecute them?
There are many reasons for this. Take for example institutional sources that contribute to this trend. The World Bank, for interest, oversees "loans" to developing nations. But by creating long-term indebtedness, these struggling counties end up owing at least $600 billion dollars in interest on loans whose principals have, in essence, already been paid off in actual dollars.
These usorious interest rates end up in the hands of the bankers and the shareholders of the financial institutions that are inter-related with the World Bank through the nations that govern it, particularly the United States which calls the shots. Criticisms of the World Bank focus on how it creates financial conditions that result in debt dependency of the nations that borrow from it, therfore negatively impacting the economic prospects of the vast majority of its residents.












