Lawlessness has become so endemic in Egypt that the U.S. Embassy this week warned Americans away from visiting the country's famed pyramids. A academic teaching at the American University in Cairo received an email from the embassy warning of "aggressiveness [that] in some cases is closer to criminal conduct... with angry groups of individuals surrounding and pounding on [vehicles]... and in some cases attempting to open the vehicle's doors." The warning lined up with the professor's observations:

So, it's not like I'm easily scared by anything that happens at the Pyramids, that repository for all of Egypt's most villainous swindlers (every nation has some). But in recent months it has become almost unbearable. It feels almost like an openly criminal environment now. The problem is not only "lack of visible security," but in some cases the security are either working with the vendors on their scams, or are sexually harassing female foreigners quite openly, even those who are obviously accompanied by their husbands. In short, if you visit Egypt in the near future, don't even think of going to the Pyramids unless you're on a large organized bus tour. Anything else is a big risk, for now.

The warning, emailed out over the embassy's mailing list, was published the same day as a report documenting hundreds of attacks on journalists in Egypt. Most of the attacks, according to human rights adovactes, are being conducted by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The IRS will not deliver documents requested by top Senate Finance Committee members on the agency's targeting of conservative groups by Friday, committee aides said.

Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the panel's ranking member, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), had asked the IRS for a wide range of information in a May 20 letter - 41 questions in all.

The senators' requests included details of any communication between the IRS and White House officials about the singling out of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status. In the letter, Baucus and Hatch asked for the agency to answer by Friday.
"It's disappointing that the IRS failed to produce any of the documents requested by the committee," the press offices for Baucus and Hatch said in a joint statement. "This is an agency that revolves around making the American taxpayer meet hard deadlines each and every year when they file their taxes, oftentimes penalizing those that are late."

"The IRS needs to do much better," the statement added.

For some, this comes as little surprise. The stated aim of Public Campaign is to target political groups like the conservative non-profits at issue in the IRS scandal. The Campaign says it "is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system."

In light of the reported undue harassment of conservative and Tea Party groups, who were asked inappropriate questions when they applied for tax exemption status, a statement made from CEO of Public Campaign Nick Nyhart carries weight. "There are legitimate questions to be asked about political groups that are hiding behind a 501(c)4 status. It's unfortunate a few bad apples at the IRS will make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias."

A group of anti-abortion activists in Iowa had to promise the Internal Revenue Service it wouldn't picket in front of Planned Parenthood.

Catherine Engelbrecht's family and business in Texas were audited by the government after her voting-rights group sought tax-exempt status from the IRS.

Retired military veteran Mark Drabik of Nebraska became active in and donated to conservative causes, then found the IRS challenging his church donations.

While the developing scandal over the targeting of conservatives by the tax agency has largely focused to date on its scrutiny of groups with words such as "tea party" or "patriot" in their names, these examples suggest the government was looking at a broader array of conservative groups and perhaps individuals. Their collective experiences at a minimum could spread skepticism about the fairness of a powerful agency that should be above reproach and at worst could point to a secret political vendetta within the government against conservatives.

The emerging stories from real people raise questions about whether the IRS scrutiny extended beyond applicants for tax-exempt status and whether individuals who donated to these tax-exempt organizations or to conservative causes also were targeted.

Last December, Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post that the U.S. government was building a new base for the IDF. A highly-placed Israeli source informed me that the location of the secret base was Sdot Micha (also known as Tal Shahar), which already houses Israel's Jericho 3 nuclear missiles. It is located near Beit Shemesh, 15 miles from Jerusalem. The source also informed me that the new facility was to be hardened and underground to withstand a nuclear attack. This means that Israel expects the site to be attacked by Iranian missiles once that country has nuclear capability.

Now, the defense publication Jane's Defense Weekly says that the new base will house Israeli's most advanced anti-missile system, the Arrow 3, which has a 1,500 mile range. It is an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) which is designed to intercept any Iranian missiles that might attack Israel. The article notes there will be four new launchers each containing six "interceptors." Meaning Israel could launch up to 24 Arrow 3′s and use its Arrow 2 arsenal to hit any targets that were missed.

What has one of the most democratic countries of the Middle East, Syria, done to tick off some of its neighbors in the West, the fierce fighters for democracy? The irrationality and unscrupulousness of the approaches Western countries have taken to the Syrian crisis, when the same people who in Europe are considered terrorists are declared «freedom fighters» when it comes to Syria, becomes clearer in light of the economic dimension of the Syrian tragedy. There is every reason to think that by helping destroy its own cultural and historical roots in Syria, Europe is first and foremost fighting for energy resources. And a special role is played by natural gas, which is emerging as the main fuel of the 21st century. The geopolitical problems connected with its production, transportation and use are perhaps more than any other topic on the radar of Western strategists.

For a decade, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has had a tight grip on power. But it suddenly looks to be weakening. Thousands have taken to the streets across the country and the threats to Erdogan's rule are many. His reaction has revealed him to be hopelessly disconnected.

The rooftops of Istanbul can be seen in the background and next to them is a gigantic image of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey's powerful prime minister is watching over the city -- and is also monitoring the work of the political party he controls. At least that seems to be the message of the image, which can be found in a conference room at the headquarters of Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP).

These days, though, Istanbul is producing images that carry a distinctly different meaning -- images of violent protests against the vagaries of Erdogan's rule. And it is beginning to look as though the prime minister, the most powerful leader Turkey has seen since the days of modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, might be losing control.

• Two soldiers admitted offences during tour of Afghanistan
• Given anonymity after judge ruled naming them would risk their life
• Solider X was fined £1,000 after admitting pulling a child's hand to his crotch while saying 'Touch my special place'
• Soldier cleared of disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind and of forcing an Afghan girl to touch him on a separate occasion
• Soldier Y, a serving NCO, has been reduced to the ranks
• Admitted photographing man holding a racist sign that read 'Silly P*ki'

Two disgraced soldiers who abused Afghan civilians will be allowed to stay anonymous because of fears they could become victims of a 'lone wolf' attack like soldier Lee Rigby.

A 22-year-old ex-private was fined £1,000 after admitting pulling a young boy's hand towards his genitals and saying 'Touch my special place'.

His 23-year-old comrade, a serving non-commissioned officer, was demoted in rank after pleading guilty to racially insulting a local man by photographing him holding a sign reading 'Silly Paki'.

But controversially the judge at the court martial today ruled the shamed troops' names should be shrouded in secrecy following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby.

Two Islamic extremists have been charged with allegedly hacking Drummer Rigby, 25, to death with cleavers and knives outside Woolwich barracks in south east London two weeks ago.

Hillary Clinton isn't the only one in their powerful family to be raking in cash on the speakers circuit as former President Bill is scheduled to make a half a million dollars for speaking less than an hour.

President Clinton is being paid $500,000 to speak at Israeli President Shimon Peres' birthday celebration in Israel on June 17.

The fee is being paid by the Jewish National Fund, a non-profit group that will write the check to the former President's charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.

The interests of the two groups align as they are both dedicated to environmental preservation initiatives and global health programs.

Clinton is due to speak at the Peres Academic Center in Rehovot, Israel where a celebration is being held in honor of Peres' 90th birthday in two weeks.

I recently wrote an analysis of the Boston Bombings and the idea that 'actors' were used in place of victims. In that article I made reference to other websites and researchers who had taken up this meme and run with it. Author and researcher Dave McGowan has been cited most often (to me at least) as having made the best case for 'actors'. McGowan has published a multi-part series of articles, all of which rely heavily on photographs to make his case. In this article I'll be looking at the 'evidence' that he presents for the 'actors' theory. Before I begin though, I should explain how and why my approach differs from what appears to be the way McGowan has approached this event.

The short explanation is that my approach employs a sane mind, logic and critical thinking. McGowans' approach employs mostly his imagination possibly fueled by crack cocaine or psychotropic drugs. I also assume he uses some metaphorical surgical gloves and tweezers or similar intangible instruments, because he pulls most of his 'evidence' out of his ass, metaphorically-speaking.

The longer explanation is that, when trying to decide whether a particular conspiracy theory or particular angle on a conspiracy theory is likely to be true or false, my approach is to first look at the plausibility of the theory in question. In terms of the Boston bombings, the idea that 'actors' took the place of real victims is the theory. When I first was forced to consider this theory, it took me about 3 minutes of rumination before it began to make no logical sense whatsoever. I more or less spelled out the lack of logic in my previous article, but it can be summed up as: why would a US intel agency chose to use actor victims at a bombing that is designed to terrify the US population into believing that evil terrorists are out to kill them when they could VERY easily just plant a bomb and let the bomb do what bombs do best, kill and maim people? Why would a US intel agency chose to do this when, if you think about it, it massively complicates the planning of such an operation and greatly increases the chances of the official story falling apart? To date, no one has offered a sensible answer to this question. For his part, at the end of his series of articles on the topic, Dave McGowan suggests that all of the alleged "fakery" is:

a campaign aimed at erasing the line between reality and fantasy - between what is objectively real and what is make-believe. For many years now we have seen a blurring of the line between news and entertainment, as well as, through 'reality' television, a blurring of the line between what is 'real' and what is scripted. We are now entering an age when there will be no dividing line at all between news, scripted entertainment and 'reality' TV. It will all be one and the same. In the new 'reality' we will be living in, nothing will be real and everything will be true.

That's fair enough, but hasn't that already been achieved, to a great extent, with the long list of US/Israeli/British false flag "Muslim terror attacks" over the past 15 years? Isn't the yawning chasm between what most people believe about "Muslim terror attacks", and the likely truth behind them, wide enough that it constitutes an already massive break with reality? What do the PTB have to gain, vis a vis the public, by adding the 'actor victims' element into the mix. If the average person in the street is none the wiser about the presence of 'actors', isn't that functionally the same, from a psy-ops point of view, as if victims were real people and not actors? If people believe the 'actors' to be real victims, what's the point in having actors rather than real victims? Maybe the answer is that US intel agencies have suddenly grown a conscience and an aversion to killing people, hence their use of 'actors'? But the last time I checked, those high-level intel and government types were still a bunch of conscienceless, blood-thirsty, murderous bastards who delight in the suffering of others.

So basically, that's where I was coming from when I began to look at the 'actors' theory. I could find no logical reason for the inclusion of 'actors' and many reasons why they should NOT be used. In addition, I found the alleged evidence for 'actors' at Boston sorely lacking in that it relied on conjecture, supposition and a good measure of imagination, all to make the evidence fit the pre-established theory. Basically, all of the 'actors' theorists seem to have used an "ink blot test" approach to their analysis of the photographic evidence from the Boston bombings.

Note, it wasn't that I was averse to the idea of the Boston bombings being staged by some element of US intel agencies - far from it. I was more or less fully convinced (based on the hard evidence and historical context) that the Boston bombings were a dyed-in-the-wool, false flag "homegrown terrorism attack", designed, like all others, to justify US imperial warmongering and to terrorize the American people into trusting their authorities and looking to them for protection.

So, let's look at some of McGowan's 'evidence':