Washington wants control over all former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries.
It wants pro-Western governance replacing sovereign Russian independence.
It’s part of its longstanding world dominance agenda. It wants all challengers eliminated.
On Monday, Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko met in Minsk. It was their first official bilateral meeting.
They discussed relevant geopolitical issues. Key is resolving Southeastern Ukraine’s ongoing conflict.
Putin urges doing it peacefully. Poroshenko’s continues war without mercy. He deplores democracy.
He wants freedom fighting self-defense forces crushed. He wants unchallenged hardline rule.
He lied saying his visit was “to stop the bloodshed and to start the process of finding a political compromise. The interests of the people of Donbass should and will be taken into account.”
His actions speak louder than words. Peace is an executive decision away.
He can make it by calling off his dogs. He can choose diplomacy over confrontation.
He can order a ceasefire. He can do so straightaway. He can meet face-to-face with Southeastern Ukrainian leaders. He can respect their democratic credentials. He can listen to their demands.
Washington supports and encourages his dirty war. Its February coup helped elevate him to power.
He’s a billionaire war criminal. He’s anti-democratic, fascist, neoliberal, belligerent and lawless.
He’s opposite what Ukrainians deserve. He OK’d war without mercy. He did so straightaway in office.
He’s beholden to Western interests. Behind the scenes, Washington pulls the strings. He supports its anti-Russian policy.
Monday talks went nowhere. It didn’t surprise. Ukraine’s coup-appointed prime minister Aseniy Yatsenyuk called bilateral ones with Putin fruitless.
He called NATO “our partner. We expect the Western countries and NATO to provide practical assistance,” he said.
“We also expect decisions to be made at the (September 4-5) NATO summit” in Wales.
Putin’s worldview is polar opposite Poroshenkno’s. His Minsk’s speech stressed Russian respect for inviolable national sovereignty.
“Russia has always respected the sovereign choice of any nation to organize its political life and make all sorts of unions, both military and economic, and we will continue to do so,” he said.
“However, we hope that this will not be detrimental to other participants in international communication, and not at our cost.”
He believes crisis conditions “can’t be resolved by further escalation of the military scenario, without considering the best interests of the southeastern regions of the country, without a peace dialogue with their representatives.”
“(W)e are ready to have an exchange on (Ukraine’s) critical situation…which, I am certain, cannot be resolved…without a peaceful dialogue with these regions’ representatives.”
Talks produced no significant breakthroughs. They weren’t expected. Not when Washington sabotaged them without even attending.
Not when it prioritizes Russia bashing. Not when it considers Putin public enemy No. 1.
Not when it chooses confrontation over peaceful conflict resolution. Not when it wants Russia marginalized, weakened, isolated, contained and co-opted.
Not when it wants pro-Western governance replacing its sovereign independence. Not when it risks war to achieve it.
Putin pledged all-out efforts for peace. It “must be launched as soon as possible,” he stressed.
He acts in good faith. He wants to build trust. At the same time, it’s not Moscow’s prerogative to propose ceasefire terms between Kiev and Southeastern self-defense forces.
“We didn’t substantively discuss that, and we, Russia, can’t substantively discuss the conditions for a ceasefire, or agreements between Kiev, Donetsk and Luhansk, ” he stressed.
“That’s not our business. It’s up to Ukraine itself. Certain agreements were reached, he added.
He discussed the urgency of providing Lugansk and Donetsk with humanitarian aid.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expects Russia to send another convoy this week. He suggested more may follow.
Dire conditions demand it. Many lives are at stake. It remains to be seen if Kiev will obstruct and delay like last time.
Given how often it falsely accuses Russia of directly aiding Southeastern Ukraine freedom fighters, it’s hard imagining things will go smoothly.
On Monday, Ukrainian NSDC Information-Analytical Center spokesman Andriy Lysenko said:
“Yesterday, violation of the airspace of Ukraine was recorded by the army aviation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the area of the settlement of Chervony Chaban, Kherson region, where three helicopters of the Russian Federation flew up to 500 meters from the territory of Crimea to the mainland of Ukraine.”
He accused Moscow of spying. At the same time, Yatsenyuk ludicrously said Russia wants Ukraine “fully cut” off from energy supplies.
“We know about (Russia’s) plans…to cut transit in winter – even for the EU member countries,” he said.
He accused Moscow of “global military and global energy security” benefitting Russia at the expense of Ukraine.
He lied claiming “Ukrainian border guards were shelled with unguided rockets from two Mi-24 combat helicopters of the Russian Armed Forces.”
Four border guards were killed and three wounded, he added. Maybe Ukrainian forces killed their own. Maybe self-defense forces deserve credit.
On Wednesday, Lysenko said Russian soldiers illegally crossed Ukraine’s border in armored vehicles and a truck not far from where 10 others were detained on Monday.
Videos were released. They showed men in so-called “camouflage” clothing. Ukraine’s Defense Minister Valeriy Heletey’s Facebook’s post lied, saying:
“Officially, they are on military exercises in various corners of Russia. In reality they are involved in military aggression against Ukraine.”
Areas of the Russian/Ukrainian border aren’t clearly demarcated. Nationals on both sides often cross over unwittingly.
Ukrainian soldiers did so recently. They’ve done it before. Russian authorities send them home without incident.
According to a Russian defense source:
“The servicemen in question were indeed patrolling the Russian-Ukrainian border.”
“They had probably crossed it by mistake through an area which wasn’t manned.”
“As far as we know, there was no resistance during their arrest.”
Putin hadn’t yet received an official Defense Ministry report. “From what I heard,” he said, “they patrolled the border so could have ended up on Ukrainian territory” by mistake.
“But they crossed to us, too, Ukrainian soldiers in armored vehicles. And no problems arose.” Putin hopes Kiev will reciprocate in kind.
If Moscow’s intent was hostile, large numbers of heavily armed forces would have invaded. Nothing of the kind happened.
Western media Big Lies followed. The New York Times said “camouflage(d) (men) identified themselves as members of a Russian airborne division who had been sent into Ukraine in unmarked vehicles.”
“Analysis by Western officials indicates that Russia is orchestrating a multipronged offensive against Ukrainian forces.”
Moscow is “trying to help separatists in eastern Ukraine break the siege of Luhansk…and open a corridor to…Donetsk.”
Fact: Throughout months of conflict, Russia has been discretely neutral.
Fact: No evidence whatever suggests it’s helping Southeastern Ukrainian self-defense forces.
Fact: None shows it’s supplying them weapons and munitions.
Fact: None indicates Russian forces are involved.
Fact: Moscow has gone all-out for peaceful conflict resolution.
Fact: Kiev wages dirty war.
Fact: Washington supports and encourages it.
Fact: Moscow’s involvement sticks to diplomacy and delivering urgently needed humanitarian aid.
Fact: Claims otherwise are false. They stoke conflict in lieu of attempts to resolve it responsibly.
A same day NYT editorial featured Big Lies. It unjustifiably accused Russia of “pretending that it is not in the fray.”
Moscow “blithely denies it is involved in the fighting at all, despite incontrovertible evidence that it is, and seems prepared to stoke the fires until Kiev accepts a political arrangement that would give the eastern regions a veto over any moves toward the West.”
“Mr. Poroshenko is right to avoid an unconditional cease-fire at this time.”
His “challenge…and the West(‘s) is how to persuade Mr. Putin that Russia cannot impose it will on Ukraine through economic and military pressures…”
Fact: Times editors repeatedly turn truth on its head.
Fact: Spurious accusations falsely accuse Moscow of involvement in Southeastern Ukraine fighting.
Fact: Verifiable proof is absent.
Fact: None exists.
Fact: Times editors know it.
Fact: They “blithely” claim otherwise.
Fact: In Minsk, Putin was clear and unequivocal.
Fact: Russia respects Ukrainian sovereignty.
Fact: Putin won’t interfere in its internal affairs.
Fact: “It’s not Moscow’s prerogative to propose ceasefire terms between Kiev and Southeastern self-defense forces,” he said.
Fact: He hasn’t and won’t.
Don’t expect Times editors to explain. Big Lies substitute for accurate reporting and analysis.
Times editors are on the wrong side of history. Western leaders must support Ukraine, they insist.
They should pile on more “sanctions against Russian businesses and financial institutions…”
Endorsing Poroshenko’s opposition to ceasefire shows Times support for premeditated Ukrainian aggression.
It doesn’t surprise. When America wages war or plans one, Times editors march in lockstep.
They back Israel’s genocidal Gaza wars. They support mass murder and destruction.
They ignore rule of law principles. They endorse wrong over right.
They ignore Kiev’s putschist governance. They treat ruling fascists like democrats.
They claim Southeastern Ukrainian freedom fighters are pro-Russian separatist terrorists.
They repeat one Big Lie after another. They keep their readers misinformed.
They betray them in the process. All major Western media print and electronic media operate the same way.
Managed news misinformation substitutes for what readers and viewers need to know. Fiction substitutes for facts.
News is carefully filtered. Dissent is marginalized. Monied interests matter more than popular ones.
Imperial wars are called liberating ones. Human suffering is a small price to pay.
Human rights and civil liberties are suppressed for our own good.
Patriotism means supporting lawless governance. Democracy is pure fantasy.
Ukraine’s war without mercy continues. So does Russia bashing. “(L)ong before (Ukrainian crisis conditions erupted), the West’s attacks on Russia assumed an irrational form,” said Lavrov.
“We are not interested in confrontation. We are not interested in” sanctions wars.
Western leaders lie. They “incite public opinion, and then claim it is the people who are forcing them to take anti-Russian measures.”
Relentless pressure on Russia stems from its forthrightness to express opinions candidly, Lavrov believes. It’s speaking frankly about its interests.
Moscow values its independence. It listens “open(ly) to others.” It deserves likeminded treatment.
Washington and other Western countries are “going against the course of history.” Some try “to restrain the emergence of an egalitarian international arena.”
Russia will respond in kind to more unjustifiable sanctions. US-led Western countries create more problems than they solve.
“Cold War blocs” aren’t relevant in today’s multipolar world.
Moscow supports the right of Southeastern Ukrainians to live like their ancestors, “speaking Russian, teaching their children in Russian schools, and electing their own governors, as well as having the chance to retain some of the taxes they pay as a result of their economic activities,” said Lavrov.
They’re entitled to democratic rights. They deserve better than Kiev-imposed diktats. Especially ones imposed “under the cover of bomb blasts.”
Washington’s agenda is polar opposite. Its orchestrated coup installed fascist rule.
It wants internal challengers crushed. It wants democracy in name only. It wants what freedom-loving people deplore.
We’re all Southeastern Ukrainian freedom fighters. They’re on the right side of history. Their struggle is ours.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com .
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
Screenshot of James Foley “execution” video
James Foley’s beheading made him into something no journalist wants to be: a part of the story.
Not only has his murder by ISIS terrorists made him part of the story, it has made the freelancer for GlobalPost a central figure in the story about America going back to war in Iraq.
In what has become a grim kabuki theater since the beheading of Daniel Pearl by al-Qaeda, Foley’s death was apparently recorded in high definition and broadcast globally on social media.
Now the question of whether Foley’s killing was staged for the cameras has arisen, the suggestion being that his murder took place off-camera . The analysis holds that his apparent beheading by a British-accented jihadi was merely a show. The big question is why, and why would that matter?
Let’s start off with one major premise that those stories missed. Foley’s death was absolutely staged for the cameras. The very nature of terrorism is that it is staged. What separates ordinary barbarity from terrorism is that the latter is by definition a gruesome performance art.
Terrorism is about headlines.
So why would ISIS fake it? Firstly, and it’s only speculation, is the possibility that Foley and his killers struck a deal: He reads their message to America clearly for maximum impact and plays along with the cameras in exchange for a quick death later.
What does ISIS gain from that? A huge propaganda victory that grabs the attention of the Western, and particularly, American, media. If they did negotiate a “humane death” in exchange for getting their message out, then it represents a whole other level of sophisticated evil. Ordinary terrorists operate in absolutes and don’t usually negotiate with a focus on perfecting their propaganda.
The sad part is that Foley is another victim in the post-9/11 war. He is perhaps even the victim of a second-generation jihadi , the son of a man involved in Osama Bin Laden’s bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
There is still a spate of coverage about his killing, including the analysis of his video, enduring and questionable criticisms about how freelancers like him face risks that staff journalists for big companies don’t , and the typical post-event questions about how President Obama handled the situation . There is even a debate on whether the U.S. should follow its European counterparts in paying ransoms to terrorists.
All of this ignores an elemental question about the news coverage of Foley’s deaths and others like his.
If terrorists derive power, propaganda value and even recruiting strength from the publication and media coverage of their atrocities, then are journalists who cover their unfortunately newsworthy atrocities encouraging the very people who target them for death?
Read the Rest HERE
The phony nature of the video has created 1000’s of skeptics around the world. This article / tactic, is meant to confront that skepticism by admitting that the video is staged, and that “the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped”.
(Artist Rendition by Anthony Freda)
THE beheading of American journalist, James Foley, at the hands of ISIS militants shocked the world but forensic experts have revealed the video was probably staged, with the murder happening off camera.
The UK Times reported that an international forensic science company, which has worked for police forces across Britain, said there is no question Foley was beheaded(?) but that camera trickery and post-production techniques look to have been used.
“I think it has been staged,” said one expert in visual forensics, after he was commissioned by The UK Times to examine the footage.
“My feeling is that the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped.” (Guessing)
Aymenn al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Middle East Forum think-tank, said over the years ISIS militants have improved the production quality of their videos.
The analysis by experts has highlighted a number of inconsistencies that could suggest that the beheading of Foley, which was seen on the video, was not his actual death.
Firstly, no blood can be seen, even though the knife is drawn across the neck area at least six times. Secondly, sounds allegedly made by Foley do not appear consistent with what may be expected.
The forensic analysis expert said that no incision could be seen on Foley’s neck, though the right hand of the jihadist partially blocked the shot.
While the forensics company, which asked to remain anonymous, did not reach a definitive answer they did conclude that at some point an execution of Foley did take place.
This comes as a heartbreaking last letter from Foley to his family has been revealed on the Free James Foley Facebook tribute page.
While Foley was not permitted to send the letter, a fellow hostage, Danish photographer Daniel Rye Ottosen, memorised it word for word.
The 25-year-old spent 13 months imprisoned with Foley and when released in June his first call was to Foley’s mother, Diane, where he dictated every word.
Foley describes fond memories with his family and how he and the eighteen other hostages being held with him are coping.
“I know you are thinking of me and praying for me. And I am so thankful. I feel you all especially when I pray. I pray for you to stay strong and to believe. I really feel I can touch you even in this darkness when I pray,” Foley said in the letter.
“I have had weak and strong days. We are so grateful when anyone is freed; but of course, yearn for our own freedom. We try to encourage each other and share strength. We are being fed better now and daily. We have tea, occasional coffee. I have regained most of my weight lost last year.”
Foley goes on to describe his hopes of attending his sister’s wedding and his plans to take his grandmother out when he returns home.
“Grammy, please take your medicine, take walks and keep dancing. I plan to take you out to Margarita’s when I get home. Stay strong because I am going to need your help to reclaim my life.”
The full letter can be read here.
“I want to celebrate a life of bearing witness,” his mother Diane said.
“So many people are suffering in the Middle East right now, and there are many hostages being held captive, so this is a mass for all of those who are hoping for peace, and also in Jim’s memory.”
Diane’s husband John said: “We pray for the surviving hostages and in particular Steven Sotloff. We’re just hopeful that something can be done to avoid Jim’s end.”
The couple were given a prolonged standing ovation by several hundred well-wishers after the service, many clearly moved by their dignified response after the cruel end to a long ordeal.
Mrs Foley revealed that her family had been distressed when James, who had been held hostage for several weeks in Libya, decided to go back to first Libya then to Syria.
She recalled in late 2012, before his last departure, pleading with him to “at least stay until Christmas”.
“He said, ‘Oh, Ma, I’ll be back for Christmas, but I’ve got to go.’ He felt he had work to do,” she said.
Yesterday, British security services MI5 and MI6 reportedly identified a British hip-hop artist as the key suspect in the hunt for the killer who beheaded Foley.
The Sunday Times newspaper said Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, from Maida Vale in West London, had become a crucial part of the investigation.
The paper attributed the information to “senior government sources.”
Bary, 23, is the son of an Egyptian-born militant who is awaiting trial on terror charges in New York tied to the deadly 1998 bombings of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Former hostages held by ISIS have said he is one of several jihadists they nicknamed “the Beatles” due to their British accents, with two of his cronies referred to as “George” and “Ringo.”
Bary — who recently tweeted a photo of himself holding up a severed head — was among three Brits identified as possibly being the masked killer known as “John”.
In June, The Sunday Times revealed a threat made by Bary on Twitter. “The lions are coming for you soon you filthy kuffs (infidels),” he wrote. “Beheadings in your own backyard soon.”
Bary, who went to Syria last year to fight in its bloody civil war, has a build, skin tone and accent all similar to those of “John,” according to The Telegraph.
Before becoming a jihadist, he was an aspiring rapper known as “L Jinny,” whose music was played on BBC Radio 1.
Bary also appeared in music videos posted on YouTube for songs titled Overdose,Flying High and Dreamer.
But he was reportedly radicalised by followers of firebrand Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary and walked out of his family’s plush West London home last year, saying he was “leaving everything for the sake of Allah.”
Earlier this month, he was seen in a photo posted to Twitter wearing camouflage clothing and a black balaclava while holding a severed head with his left hand — the same hand “John” is seen using to draw a knife across Foley’s throat in his execution video.
Also under investigation are Abu Hussain Al-Britani, 20, a computer hacker from Birmingham, and Abu Abdullah al-Britani, in his 20s, from Portsmouth, theMailOnline reported.
Mail Online reported that al-Britani was jailed in 2012 for stealing personal information from former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Since joining ISIS’ brutal campaign in Syria al-Britani, real name Junaid Hussian, has worked to fund the ISIS war chest by mounting jihadist cyber attacks on British banks and celebrities.
Abu Abdullah Al-Britani, meanwhile, is active on social media using Twitter to post pro-ISIS propaganda. According to Mail Online, he is believed to be behind an account on the ask.fm social media site giving young people advice on how to travel to Syria and Iraq and encouraging them to join the jihad.
Other possible identities for “John” include the brother of a British doctor once charged with kidnapping two Western war correspondents, and a former gang member who converted to Islam and travelled to Syria, Britain’s Telegraph newspaper reported.
A dozen American counterterrorism experts are expected to fly to the UK “within days” to help identify Foley’s killer, the Daily Mail reported.
McCain’s Army at it again…. ISIS speaks very good English…. Foley reads death statement word for word.
Tony Caralucci / NEO
With the alleged brutal murder of American journalist James Wright Foley, a wave of anger and aggression across Western audiences has been generated. Upon that wave rides two objectives. One is to create plausible deniability for the West which created the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS), the other is to create a further pretext to justify a resurgence of direct US military intervention across the region.
While the focus has been on ISIS in Iraq, there is still another war -linked directly to Iraq’s current conflict – being waged across the border in Syria. Syrian forces have continued making gains across the country, routing NATO-backed terrorist forces and restoring order in cities and towns that have been ravaged by war for years. ISIS strongholds in the eastern Syrian city of Raqqa, have until now long escaped the focus of Syrian forces occupied by more urgent campaigns around Hama, Homs, Damascus, Daraa, Idlib, and Aleppo. Now, the Syrian Army is shifting forces east.
While the West feigns an adversarial position regarding ISIS, it was the West itself that created it, specifically to confront the Iranian arc of influence stretching from Tehran, through Baghdad, Damascus and along the Mediterranean in Lebanon. The elimination of ISIS and other terrorist organizations fighting under or alongside its banner without first achieving regime change in Damascus would effectively mean defeat for the United States and its collaborators in the Middle East.
To intervene before the deathblow is delivered to NATO-backed terrorists in Syria and before the tide is turned against them in Iraq, the West may attempt to provoke, stage, or otherwise create a pretext to militarily intervene in Syria, and expand its operations in Iraq.
More Dead Journalists, Another Downed Airliner…
The alleged death of James Wright Foley has created significant outrage amongst public opinion. It has created the illusion of confrontation between ISIS and the United States, and has served to further vilify ISIS itself. The Western media is still struggling to maintain the illusion that ISIS stands apart from other terrorists operating in Syria, and with that narrative, the West is simultaneously bolstering ISIS in Syria under the guise of arming and aiding “moderates,” while it conducts token airstrikes on ISIS in Iraq.
At the end of the video production featuring Foley’s death, it was revealed that ISIS was also holding missing TIME reporter Steven Sotloff. He was last seen in Aleppo and is believed to have been held in the now besieged Syrian city of Raqqa. The Epoch Times reported in an article titled, “Steven Sotloff: Missing TIME Journalist Steven Joel Sotloff Has been Threatened by ISIS, Report Says,”stated:
According to The Wire, he went missing near Aleppo, Syria, on Aug. 4, and his family said they were aware of the situation but did not want to publicize the information. He was being held in Raqqa.
Another dead American reporter could perhaps tip the scales in terms of public support for a possible US military intervention in Syria at a critical juncture in the near future. Within the same report, an AP update indicated that (emphasis added):
Warnings from an international research group and the Federal Aviation Administration underscore the rising threat to commercial aircraft posed by hundreds of anti-aircraft weapons that are now in the arsenals of armed groups in Syria and could easily be diverted to extremist factions.
Armed groups opposing the Assad regime in Syria have already amassed an estimated several hundred portable anti-aircraft missiles that are highly mobile, difficult to track and accurate enough to destroy low-flying passenger planes, according to a new report by Small Arms Survey, a respected Switzerland-based research organization that analyzes the global flow of weapons.
Of course, while AP attempts to continue differentiating between armed groups and “extremist factions,” the fact that “extremist faction” ISIS had captured Sotloff in Aleppo where these alleged “armed groups” are supposedly operating, indicates that it has been “extremists” fighting Damascus all along and that it is “extremists” who now possess a large number of anti-aircraft weapons, thanks to the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
Warnings that these weapons might be “diverted to extremist factions” when they have been in their hands for years, portends a possible gambit involving the downing of yet another civilian airliner to serve as a pretext to further advance the West’s agenda. The tragic MH17 disaster in Ukraine has long been buried and forgotten by the Western media after baseless accusations against Russia allowed the West to push forward further sanctions against Moscow and further military aid for the regime in Kiev.
The potential downing of a civilian aircraft in the Middle East – or anywhere in the world – attributed to “extremists” operating in Syria and Iraq would give the West a pretext to possibly intervene with direct military force in either country.
The West has proven that it will stop at nothing to advance its agenda in even the most incremental ways. The loss of human life is of no more of consequence to them and their hegemonic designs than the loss of a pawn is in a chess game. That their staged provocations still manipulate large segments of the population and still effectively manipulate public perception is precisely why these tragedies continue on in earnest. Exposing them and disarming global hegemons of this weapon is essential in preventing more tragedies like MH17 and the senseless death of Foley, and thousands of Syrians and Iraqis who have died like him, in the near future.
By Russ Baker on Aug 14, 2014
I was standing blocks from Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex and staring directly at it when it collapsed.
Working for the Los Angeles Times, I had arrived at the World Trade Center as the South and North Tower were making their rapid and deadly descents in the morning. That afternoon, I called in a series of reports to a staffer in the New York bureau.
I was literally on the phone with the office at 5:21 p.m., describing the fires burning in the structure as the building began—and completed— its remarkably fast, smooth descent to the ground. I described the building neatly pancaking, and the Pulitzer Prize winner on the other end taking my dictation declared: “That sounds like a controlled demolition.”
In fact, I have seen controlled demolitions before and since—and indeed, that was exactly what the destruction of Building 7 looked like, except perhaps for a marginally slower collapse of the top portion
As with most people, I was baffled by how Building 7—a smaller, 47-story tower that had not been hit by a plane and was separated from the Twin Towers by low-rise buildings–would come down at all. It just made no sense.
How exactly the building did come down has never been properly explained. An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building was hit by debris from the collapsing North Tower that started fires. However, it ruled out diesel fuel, structural damage from the debris and structural elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) as causes of the collapse. It said the lack of water to the sprinkler system was an important factor in allowing fires to rage all afternoon. But the panel declined to state how the fires could bring down the building—and in such a rapid manner.
For many years, those who have been troubled by things that did not make sense regarding the 9/11 attacks have been marginalized as kooks. To be sure, some entertain enormously elaborate, complex scenarios that assume unspeakable evil carried out by a bewildering number of individuals, nations, and institutions.
However, fair-minded people who have carefully studied the evidence are troubled by the “official story,” just as they are troubled by the official explanations of the assassinations of American leaders over half a century, and other traumas ranging from the Oklahoma City bombing to the Boston Marathon bombing.
There is a reason so many people don’t trust the security apparatus and its allies in government, academia and the media, or the reassuring stories they tell us time after time that “there’s nothing to see here, folks.”Or to allow even the most reasonable question into the public discourse.
That kind of question hasn’t been possible with the mystery of Building 7. Until now.
A small group, NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), run and largely staffed by a young man named Ted Walter, has come up with a solution: Get the public to legislate a formal inquiry into building collapses.
Noting that no high-rise building has ever collapsed as a result of fire, and seizing on the official position that the destruction of Building 7 cannot be definitively explained, Walter’s group has proposed that the city explore all building collapses since and including 9/11. The proposed inquiry pointedly excludes Buildings 1 and 2, the collapses of which have been much investigated and debated. It does not explicitly mention Building 7—but then it does not have to. Building 7 is unique in that it was not hit by a plane. Any serious investigation of building collapses would start with Building 7.
The mechanism for this is to seek to have New Yorkers vote on a ballot measure, the High-Rise Safety Initiative. Its supporters face a tough challenge ahead, and have already hit some formidable road blocks. Still they persevere.
Not Your Run-of-the-Mill “Kooks”
Ted Walter does not fit the caricature of the unshaven, grumpy, shouting activist. He’s a calm, thoughtful, precise fellow. He grew up in Wisconsin and Mozambique, where his father was an official of a private aid group, got a BA at New York University and a Masters in Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and then worked for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.
He’d arrived in New York from Mozambique at age 19 to attend college two weeks before the attacks. “9/11 was essentially my introduction to New York,” he says.
The first thing that struck him was to wonder why, so long after the first planes hit the World Trade Center, another plane was unimpeded in hitting the Pentagon. Where were the U.S.’s vaunted defenses?
He also found it odd that a building collapse would involve entire structures virtually vaporizing in the air.
It was not until the spring of 2006 that Walter began determinedly researching the events. “During the course of a couple months of reading everything I could find, I came to the conclusion that the official account of 9/11 was false,” he says.
In 2008, others launched something called the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative. Walter volunteered as a petitioner, then managed paid canvassers. The next year, he founded a group, NYC CAN, along with some family members of 9/11 victims, and assumed control of the ballot initiative. Although they submitted 80,000 signatures, more than the required number, the city successfully challenged the initiative in court and kept it off the ballot.
This was hardly surprising. In certain parts of the country, especially in many Western states and municipalities, major policy is often legislated directly at the polls. Not so in New York City, which has long made it virtually impossible to qualify such a measure for the ballot. In fact, New York City voters have only seen two of them in half a century.
Nonetheless, in the spring of 2013, Walter and his group talked with a top New York City election attorney, decided there might be a chance at prevailing despite the long odds, and began moving forward with another attempt. It became the High-Rise Safety Initiative.
Between May 1 and July 31, they gathered more than 100,000 signatures, far more than the 30,000 required to gain a place on the ballot. They submitted the first 67,000 of those on July 3, and plan to submit the remaining 33,000 on Sept. 4, which is more than double what’s required to override the City Council.
As anticipated, the City challenged the petition—claiming that not enough signatures are valid, and that the petition language is not legally valid. Walter and company filed suit against the City to have that determination annulled, and were due to go into court on Aug. 14.
The group believes that it has overcome the usual issue of invalid signatures by filing so many—and because even in its 2009 effort, it was able to prove that enough signatures did pass muster. Now, it must pass the arcane statutory hurdles the city created exactly to prevent such measures. Walter thinks they have a chance.
The case should be decided by mid-September. If the initiative is successful, it will be on the November ballot.
The mayor, a liberal named Bill DeBlasio, has not had kind things to say about the effort—presumably not unlike what his predecessors, Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, might have had to say. As reported by Crain’s New York Business:
“From what I’ve heard it’s absolutely ridiculous,” a peeved Mr. de Blasio said in response to a reporter’s question. “And it’s inappropriate, after all the suffering that went on 9/11 and since. It seems to be this is a very insensitive and inappropriate action.”
Crain’s itself couldn’t help referring to the group as “conspiracy theorists,” an unfortunate term that instantly assumes no credibility to those asking what may in fact be legitimate—if uncomfortable—questions.
The speaker of the New York City Council, Melissa Mark-Viverito, a close ally of the mayor, lashed out: “Instead of wasting New Yorkers’ time and hard-earned taxpayer dollars humoring conspiracy theorists with wild fantasies, the City Council will continue to focus on passing sound legislation.”
A Skilled Communicator
Read the Rest at WHO WHAT WHY
NEW YORK (WND) – Amid rumblings of another Mitt Romney run for the White House, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is advising the GOP to avoid nominating the first two-time loser since Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and again in 1956.
In a wide-ranging interview on his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from the Dead to Create the New Majority,” Buchanan expressed doubt that Romney could make the kind of historic comeback Nixon accomplished in 1968.
Buchanan, a WND columnist, believes Romney would beat Barack Obama if the presidential election of 2012 were held today. But he contends Romney would lose in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, the Democrats most likely choice.
Buchanan bases his analysis on his nearly 50 years of top-level election experience. In December 1965, he left his job writing editorials for the St. Louis Globe Democrat and was hired by the Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander, and Mitchell law firm in New York City. A year later, Nixon’s campaign hired him as its first adviser.
Buchanan believes, however, that Clinton will need to work skillfully to distance herself sufficiently from Barack Obama while reassuring Democrats she still advocates the progressive values of the party’s base.
“In 1968, the GOP was seen as an acceptable alternative to the Democratic Party,” Buchanan said.
“Today, while the country is ready to reject Obama, it is not ready to accept the Republican Party as an alternative. Among the reasons are the huge demographic changes in an electorate that is now approaching 30 percent from Third World countries that vote 70 to 90 percent for Democrats. These figures are not moving in the GOP’s direction, they are moving in the other way.”
Hillary running against Obama
Hillary’s problem right now, Buchanan stressed, is that she is running against the growing perception of being part of the Obama administration.
“The American people now are wondering if they want four years of Hillary after the two years of Obama since 2012,” he said.
Buchanan said it’s much like the problem President Lyndon Johnson had in 1968 after winning in a landslide four years earlier.
“By 1968, the American people were saying, ‘We’re not sure we want any more of this guy,’” he said.
“This is the problem the Democrats are having today and the reason Hillary is receding from her high point of something like 70 percent approval when she left her job as secretary of state.”
Buchanan made clear that despite Hillary’s recent decline in popularity, she remains the front-runner.
“It’s very hard to see if Hillary runs who will beat her,” he stressed. “I don’t see Elizabeth Warren beating her. I tell people that if I were a 45-year-old Democratic senator, I would run, and I would challenge Hillary on issues, so if I lost I would have gained the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people and hope lightening strikes.”
Mindful of Bill Clinton’s support of Hillary’s candidacy, he added, “But I doubt any Democrat wants to take the risk of running against Hillary, since it means going after the king, and failing to get the job done might just have disastrous consequences.”
Comparing Romney’s comeback probabilities to Nixon’s, Buchanan said there’s nobody in the GOP like Nixon.
“Before I was 10 years old, Nixon was a world figure that had taken down Alger Hiss and was a famous American congressman who had wiped out Helen Gahagan Douglas by the largest majority in California history (for a U.S. Senate seat),” he said. “Then he was the second youngest vice president. He was a huge figure in the GOP, and there is nobody in the GOP with that stature today.”
Buchanan conceded the nation has changed since Nixon was on the political landscape.
“I can see back in 1965 how the GOP could be stitched together, and you might have trouble holding the liberals,” he said. “But if you commanded the center and the right, you see how we could trade our liberals, the Rockefeller Republicans, to pull away from the Democrats’ huge segments of FDR’s socially conservative supporters, including the ethnics who voted Democratic, southern Protestants and Catholics, in a trade where the GOP came out on top.”
Where are the conservative Democrats?
Buchanan believes the GOP is in a much more difficult position today to turn such a trade into a winning presidential coalition.
“It’s hard to see today where the GOP can find enough conservative Democrats to pull away,” he said. “It used to be there were a lot of conservative Democrats. Today, there aren’t that many.”
Buchanan pointed out the Democrats begin presidential campaigns with a large electoral vote advantage.
“In the last six elections, the Democrats have won the same 18 states plus the District of Columbia all six times, and among those states are California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York – four of the big seven. Two of the other big seven are now swing states – Ohio and Florida. Texas is the only reliable state of the big seven that the Republicans have left. So if the GOP loses those 18 states plus the District of Columbia, adding up to about 242 electoral votes, the Democrats need to pick one or two tricks and it’s over.”
Buchanan said he found it difficult to believe any GOP contender could break the Democratic Party hold on the presidential electorate.
“It’s hard for me to see what Republican cracks that base that is increasingly solid Democratic – first because of demography and second because of the welfare state that now embraces scores of millions of people who look upon anyone wanting to cut government as somebody who’s going to take my food stamps away, or cut my education, or my health care, or my housing subsidy, or my income subsidy.”
Buchanan pointed out that in 1968, Nixon’s only real contender for the GOP presidential nomination was Michigan Gov. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, but before the New Hampshire primary, Nixon was ahead among GOP voters by a margin of 4 to 1.
“The real problem for me in 1968 would have been had then-governor of California Ronald Reagan stepped in and torn the conservative vote away from Nixon. As it was, Nixon basically scared any other GOP contender off from going strong into the primaries.”
Hard to see a clear GOP winner
But this year, Buchanan sees no GOP candidate who can command the kind of lead Nixon had in 1968 ahead of the primaries.
“Going into the GOP presidential primaries next year, it is hard to see a clear winner,” he said.
“Rand Paul will have a following, especially among young voters, and Ted Cruz ignites enough voters to have a strong following,” he said.
Among establishment GOP candidates, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie “is having a hard time recovering the support he lost and he’s now running behind Hillary even in New Jersey.”
“I would be surprised if Jeb Bush ran,” Buchanan said. “Florida Senator Marco Rubio damaged himself early on with the immigration issue.”
GOP can’t win without tea party
Buchanan advised that if Romney wants to run again in 2016, he should be out on the campaign trail supporting GOP candidates, much as Nixon did in 1966.
“Romney should today be working this fall not only for establishment GOP candidates but for tea party folks,” he said.
“The GOP cannot win without the tea party’s energy and enthusiasm. You need those folks, just like in 1968 Richard Nixon needed the Goldwater supporters and the Reagan supporters to win.”
Buchanan argued the voter coalition Nixon put together in 1968 was the greatest of the 20th century, with the possible exception of the FDR New Deal coalition that led to four presidential election victories in a row.
“People forget that after LBJ’s landslide victory in 1964, the GOP was half the size of the Democratic Party at the time,” he said.
Buchanan doubted Romney has the ability to pull together the type of historic voter coalition needed to beat the Democrats in 2016.
“Because Obama is so unpopular now and is likely to be increasingly unpopular in the next two years, and his foreign policy is going to antagonize the interventionist wing of the Democratic Party, Hillary will continue to take a harder line than Obama takes on foreign policy,” Buchanan said.
“Hillary will increasingly distance herself from Obama’s record so she is not seen by 2016 as the successor to Barack Obama, but as someone different, much more realistic and tough-minded, especially in foreign policy – more of a Bill Clinton than a Barack Obama,” he said.
“Where she is right now, she is winning the nomination. But the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will assert itself in 2016, and Hillary wants to make sure Democratic voters know she continues to hold the basic beliefs of the Democratic Party, especially on domestic issues.”
He concluded by emphasizing that Obama could not be elected president again, even if it were constitutionally possible for him to run for a third term.
“By the time of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary will be positioned as a non-Obama, because Obama could not win again. If Obama were to top the ticket as of right now, Republicans could break the 18-state hold the Democrats have on the presidential electorate.”
Buchanan summarized his assessment: “In a contest Romney vs. Obama next week, Romney wins. In a contest Romney vs. Hillary in 2016, Hillary wins, despite Hillary having to spend the remainder of this year and the next two years making her way through choppy waters.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/pat-buchanan-hillary-would-beat-romney-in-2016/#rjyuydApC1xDg5jY.99
Dr. Cornel West speech at the Answer Coalition rally in support of Gaza behind the White House, August 2, 2014.
Noam Chomsky says that Israel is now much worse than the former apartheid regime in South Africa and the attacks on Gaza constitute major war crimes.
Former US lawmaker Cynthia McKinney says every candidate for Congress has to sign a pledge to vote for supporting the military superiority of Israel, and 3 rd parties are absorbed by “Special Interests”, and how THE ADL helped to unseat her in GA etc..
“Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge. They were given a pledge to sign … that had Jerusalem as the capital city,” McKinney said in an interview with Press TV on Sunday.
“You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel that the economic assistant that Israel wants that you would vote to provide that,” she added.
McKinney said that if a candidate does not sign the pledge or perform accordingly, “then you do not get money to run your campaign.”
The former Congresswoman said that after she made the pledge issue public “the tactic changed.”
“But this is what is done for 535 members of the United States Congress, 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives have to now write a paragraph which basically says the same thing.”
Her comments came as US President Barack Obama vowed to sustain Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual gathering on Sunday.
“We (the US) will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge”… “We have increased military financing to record levels,” Obama said.
Former Congressman Ron Paul said the US knows ‘more than it is telling’ about the Malaysian aircraft that crashed in eastern Ukraine last month, killing 298 people on board and seriously damaging US-Russian relations in the process.
In an effort to inject some balance of opinion, not to mention pure sanity, into the ongoing debate over what happened to Malaysian Flight MH17, Ron Paul is convinced the US government is withholding information on the catastrophe.
“The US government has grown strangely quiet on the accusation that it was Russia or her allies that brought down the Malaysian airliner with a Buk anti-aircraft missile,” Paul said on his news website on Thursday.
Paul’s comments are in sharp contrast to the echo chamber of one-sided opinion inside Western mainstream media, which has almost unanimously blamed anti-Kiev militia for bringing down the commercial airline. Incredibly, in many cases Washington had nothing to show as evidence to incriminate pro-Russian rebels aside from tenuous references to social media.
“We’ve seen that there were heavy weapons moved from Russia to Ukraine, that they have moved into the hands of separatist leaders,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “And according to social media reports, those weapons include the SA-11 [Buk missile] system.”
In another instance, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters “the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions.” When veteran AP reporter Matthew Lee asked for proof, he was to be disappointed.
“I can’t get into the sources and methods behind it,” Harf responded. “I can’t tell you what the information is based on.” Lee said the allegations made by the State Department on Ukraine have fallen far short of“definitive proof.”
Just days after US intelligence officials admitted they had no conclusive evidence to prove Russia was behind the downing of the airliner, Kiev published satellite images as ‘proof’ it didn’t deploy anti-aircraft batteries around the MH17 crash site. However, these images have altered time-stamps and are from the days after the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed, fully discrediting the Ukrainian claims.
In yet another inexplicable occurrence, Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet approaching the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. No acceptable explanation has ever been given by Kiev as to why this fighter aircraft was so close to the doomed passenger jet moments before it was brought down.
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” Russian Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov demanded days after the crash.
Paul has slammed the Obama administration, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.
“It’s hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available,” the two-time presidential candidate said.
“Too bad we can’t count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence,” Paul added. “I’m convinced that it knows a lot more than it’s telling us.”
Although no sufficient evidence has been presented to prove that the anti-Kiev militia was responsible for the downing of the international flight, such an inconvenient oversight has not stopped the United States and Europe from slapping economic sanctions and travel bans against Russia.
Moscow hit back, saying it would place a ban on agricultural imports from the United States and the European Union. Russia’s tit-for-tat ban will certainly be felt, as food and agricultural imports from the US amounted to $1.3 billion last year, according to the US Department of Agriculture. In 2013, meanwhile, the EU’s agricultural exports to Russia totaled 11.8 billion euros ($15.8 billion).
After the crash, Ron Paul was one of a few voices calling for calm as US officials were pointing fingers without a shred of evidence to support their claims. Paul has not been afraid to say the painfully obvious things the US media, for any number of reasons, cannot find the courage to articulate.
“They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych,” Paul said.“Without US-sponsored ‘regime change,’ it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened.”
Paul also found it outrageous that Western media, parroting the government line, has reported that the Malaysian flight must have been downed by “Russian-backed separatists,” because the BUK missile that reportedly brought down the aircraft was Russian made.
“They will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons,”he emphasized.
Antiwar.com (blog)-Aug 9, 2014
InSerbia News-Aug 9, 2014
Highly Cited-The Hill-Aug 10, 2014
In-Depth-MSNBC-Aug 9, 2014
Asia’s dependency on rice cultivation for both subsidence and income is intuitively understood. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates the agricultural population of lowland rice cultivation in Asia to be over 470 million – larger than the entire population of the United States. Improvements in rice cultivation would stand to lift hundreds of millions from debt and poverty. Conversely, the disruption of rice cultivation would threaten to mire hundreds of millions in deeper debt, inescapable destitution, and all of the negative socioeconomic implications that follow.
Asia’s rice farmers produce between 1-2 harvests a year depending on the climb and climate of any given region. They do so to sell their rice, generally to mills who in turn sell the final product to exporters or for domestic consumption. Out of each harvest, rice farmers keep a portion for their own consumption, but the vast majority of what they grow is for income.
The UK-based Rice Association claims there are up to 40,000 species of rice, with a wide variety of characteristics suitable for different markets and uses. Rice farmers grow those which local, national and regional markets are best suited to move. In nations where subsidies are offered for rice crops, cheap, easy to grow varieties are chosen. More desirable or exotic species are grown by independent farmers who have developed their own cooperative with millers, marketers and exporters. The rice Asians eat depends on both economic and market realities. The impoverished eat what is cheapest and most easily available, but not necessarily that which is healthiest.
Enter GMO: Problem, Reaction, Solution
Poor diet leads to vitamin deficiencies, a persistent problem among the impoverished. A lack of basic healthcare and education allows the otherwise easily rectified problem to continue unresolved. The World Health Organization (WHO) states on their website, “an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight.” This statistic is global, not regionally specific to Asia, but Southeast Asia in particular suffers from such deficiencies.
WHO prescribes cheap vitamin supplements and the promotion of local gardens to produce a variety of fruits and vegetables that can easily solve not only vitamin A deficiency, but other deficiencies as well. WHO states, “for vulnerable rural families, for instance in Africa and South-East Asia, growing fruits and vegetables in home gardens complements dietary diversification and fortification and contributes to better lifelong health.”
Surely then, one would expect both regional governments and international organizations to focus on these recommendations. However, there is a vocal and growing cry to solve this problem with another, more radical solution, the implementation of genetically modified (GM) rice containing beta-carotene to target specifically vitamin A deficiency in Asia. Promoted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), directly funded by agricultural giants Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and others, along with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) which is also partnered with big-business agriculture, genetically modified “Golden Rice” containing beta-carotene is promoted as the solution to saving “millions of children.”
Golden Rice: Scourge of Asia
In reality Golden Rice will do nothing of the sort. The promotion of Golden Rice is not unlike any given commercial endeavor. IRRI’s website links to articles like, “A senseless fight,” which asks, “how could anyone in good conscience seek to thwart technology that has even a remote chance of tackling the problem of vitamin A blindness?” The appeal to emotions and sickly children diverts from the real threat Golden Rice poses to the very people it claims to be helping. People who grow rice, grow it to sell to markets. These markets are well-developed, based on indigenous agricultural technology and tradition, and linked to export markets with stringent requirements (many of which restrict or outright ban GMO). The introduction of GM rice for any reason, would threaten or potentially destroy the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people.
Proponents of Golden Rice suggest rice farmers replace their profitable crops with genetically modified rice that will treat only one of many vitamin and mineral deficiencies they may or may not potentially suffer from, deficiencies that could be easily solved through other methods. Clearly illogical in terms of “helping” the malnourished, Golden Rice must serve another purpose.
The author of IRRI’s featured article, “A senseless fight,” suggests that “Golden Rice is being developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which is a not-for-profit institute, and the seeds will be distributed to farmers who can resow them as they wish. In these cases, the argument [against Golden Rice] switches to “Golden Rice is a Trojan horse”. In other words, by sneaking below the barriers of suspicion, it will open the floodgates to GMO technology and from then on to a slippery slope and the takeover of the world’s seed supply.”
The author, in their attempt to defend Golden Rice, reveals the true agenda behind the otherwise useless crop. Governments, international organizations and the private sector (i.e. Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer) will flood Asia with Golden Rice, where it will intermingle and contaminate rice species that have been in use for centuries and form the foundation of Asia’s historical and modern agricultural industry. The livelihoods of some 470 million people who depend on rice farming in Asia (not to mention those that import and consume Asian rice beyond Asia’s borders) would be jeopardized by the proliferation of Golden Rice disseminated under the dubious guise of humanitarian concerns.
The marketing machine behind Golden Rice doesn’t ever seem to address this critical fact. That Golden Rice seeds will be kept and sown each year by prospective cultivators only increases the dangers of cross-contamination with other, economically and culturally valuable species. It is in all regards a flagrant attempt to infiltrate, corrupt and overtake rice production at its very geographical and socioeconomic heart. It is akin to a plague openly being designed, tested and prepared to be unleashed on a population. The spread of Golden Rice too is a plague that will compound exponentially the challenges already facing millions of farmers across Asia.
When all it takes to solve vitamin A deficiency is what WHO claims is “supplementation” that costs “a couple of cents a dose,” and the growing of gardens that solve not only vitamin A deficiencies Golden Rice claims to target, but a whole host of other deficiencies Golden Rice most certainly does not address, the fact that Golden Rice is not what it is promoted to be is obvious. It is, as IRRI coined it, a “Trojan horse,” that will not only fail to stop malnutrition, but will expand the very destitution, poverty, and helplessness that causes malnutrition in the first place.
Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.