February 2017

Top British general given 100k for home upkeep

while soldiers live in squalor
31 Jan, 2017 / RT

One of Britains top generals was given 100,000 ($125,000)

just to cover domestic assistance at his plush London
home last year, despite the daily struggles faced by rank and
file soldiers.

General Nick Houghton, who has since retired, enjoyed one

of the grace and favor homes given to senior military
officers. The bill incurred by the taxpayer for cleaning,
cooking, and admin in 2016 was 104,000. This was on top
of his basic salary of 260,000 per year.

The revelation, which surfaced following a Freedom of

Information (FoI) request by the Daily Mail, will cause anger
in the Armed Forces community. Rank and file troops have
faced job and pension cuts, a wage freeze and appalling
housing standards in recent years.
Houghton has since been replaced as head of the military by
Air Marshall Sir Stuart Peach, whose bill for 2016 was
58,000.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) told the Mail: Official service
residences have now been abolished, and all properties are
now treated as Service Family Accommodation in the same
way.
However, some posts (not people) have a property that is
tied to that post; The Chief of Defense Staff and Vice Chief of
Defense Staff are two such posts. The reason houses are
tied to these posts is due to the nature of those roles.
The news comes just weeks after it emerged that soldiers in
Londons Wellington Barracks had been left with no hot
running water and or heating.
Similarly, a report from March 2016 found that serving
personnel were deeply unhappy with their one percent pay
rise.
Researchers from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body
surveyed soldiers across the army in the wake of the pay
rise.
On our visits, there was more dissatisfaction expressed
over pay levels and the one percent increase than
previously, the report found.
https://www.rt.com/uk/375813-top-general-cleaning-bill/?
utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm
_campaign=chrome

Genetically Modified Insects Could Put Organic

Farmers At Risk And Disrupt International Food Trade
January 31, 2017GMO

Genetically modified organisms for pest control could end up

as contaminants in agricultural products throughout the
globe.
Theres a fly in my soup. This statement conjures up the
image of a dead fly in a bowl of soup rather than a
genetically modified insect being served up with organic
vegetables. However, this is not a totally unrealistic scenario
as experimental releases of genetically modified insects
have been approved by US regulators in 2014 very near
farming areas. The question is whether fruit and vegetables
exported from the USA to Europe and China can be sold
under the organic label if genetically modified insects have
developed on them.
Guy Reeves from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Biology in Pln, Germany and Martin Phillipson Dean of Law
at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, are drawing
attention to this problem. In their view, clarifying statements
on the part of US regulators is required to ensure that
producers of organic commodities do not have to fear for
their reputation.
All around the world for the last 50 years, males sterilised by
transient exposure to radiation have been used to
successfully control a wide range of insect species (e.g.
screw worm and medfly). While these males can still mate,
the resulting eggs are not viable. A new elaboration of this
technique that utilises genetically modified males that only
produce sons has recently been approved for open field-
testing in the USA. In both approaches where sufficient
males are released over several generations the size of the
wild female populations will decline and the pest population
will gradually be reduced or become locally extinct.
The following applications for mass open release of
genetically modified insects for agricultural pest control have
been submitted:
UK 2011: withdrawn by the applicant
Spain 2013 and 2015: withdrawn by the applicant
USA 2005-2011: approved, releases took place at
isolated location in Arizona desert
New York State 2014-2017: approved, then withdrawn
by the applicant in March 2016, in November 2016 all
permit documents were withdrawn by the regulator The
permit allowed for the of release genetically modified
diamondback moths 72 times per year until the end of
March 2017. With releases of up to 100,000 moths per
week on cabbage or broccoli fields totalling 40,500
square metres.
http://products.naturalblaze.com/organics.htmlThe big
advantage of releasing sterile insects is that pests can be
controlled without the need to spray chemical insecticides
into the environment. This is true for both the conventional
irradiation approach and the new genetically modified
approach. However, if the use of genetically modified insects
in agriculture is to become a widespread solution for pest
control, the implications stemming from the fact that
genetically modified insects are intended to fly between
farms needs to be adequately considered. Realistically this
must be done in the context of the regulations on the
presence of genetically modified contaminants in food that
have developed over the past 30 years around the world.
Organic farmers at risk
The release of genetically modified insects has potential
consequences for organic farmers, which are a particularly
sensitive group in this respect. There are some realistic
circumstances where the mass release of flying genetically
modified insects could harm organic farmers and erode
consumer confidence in their products. Unfortunately, we
can find little evidence of efforts to reduce this risk or even
discuss the issue, explains Reeves from the Max Planck
Institute in Pln.
Using legal case studies around the world (Australia, China,
Canada, EU and the USA) Reeves and Phillipson establish
that any detected or conceivably perceived contamination of
crops imported into countries that have not approved its
presence is likely to be met with import bans, disrupting
international trade. The situation for crop products
internationally certified as 100 percent organic has
additional levels of complexity. These include the costs of
any negative perceptions of involvement in this technology
by organic consumers and the potential loss of organic
certification by farms located near releases.
The article also focuses on the situation of a hypothetical
certified organic spinach farmer located near a widely
reported approved release of genetically modified
diamondback moths in New York State (USA). Currently,
there is no obligation to inform local farmers of mass
releases, which makes it difficult for them to plan or mitigate
risks. This is even the case within the three kilometre area
indicated by a published experimental study that may be
appropriate for diamondback moth control programs.
More transparency required
http://products.naturalblaze.com/thrivemarket.htmlIn
addition, a letter from the European Commission Health and
Consumers Directorate-General indicates that inadvertent
presence of genetically modified insects imported into the
EU would be unapproved and that it is the responsibility of
Member States to prevent this occurring. In order for
genetically modified insects to be used successfully
(potentially on organic farms), it is essential that all of the
affected groups be involved in the development process and
have access to regularly updated information. While the
introduction of driverless cars has the potential to bring a
wide range of benefits it would be misguided to introduce
them without making it clear that cyclists will not be knocked
over by them. Likewise releasing flying genetically modified
insects without considering the likely impact on sensitive
groups of farmers is unwise and unnecessary, says Reeves.
This article was sourced from The Max Planck
Institute where this article first appeared.
http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/01/gm-insects-organic-
farmers-risk-disrupt-food-trade.html

How Goldman Sachs Sacked Washington

Trump attacked Hillary for her finance ties, and then
proceeded to stock his Cabinet with former executives at the
nation's largest banks.
By Nomi Prins / TomDispatch
January 30, 2017
Irony isnt a concept with which President Donald J. Trump is
familiar. In his Inaugural Address, having nominated the
wealthiest Cabinet in American history, he proclaimed, For
too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the
rewards of government while the people have borne the
cost. Washington flourishedbut the people did not share in
its wealth. Under Trump, an even smaller group will flourish
in particular, a cadre of former Goldman Sachs executives.
To put the matter bluntly, two of them (along with the
Federal Reserve) are likely to control our economy and
financial system in the years to come.
Infusing Washington with Goldman alums isnt exactly an
original idea. Three of the last four presidents, including The
Donald, have handed the wheel of the U.S. economy to ex-
Goldmanites. But in true Trumpian style, after attacking
Hillary Clinton for her Goldman ties, he wasnt satisfied to do
just that. He had to do it bigger and better. Unlike Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush, just a sole Goldman figure lording it
over economic policy wasnt enough for him. Only two would
do.
The Great Vampire Squid Revisited
Whether you voted for or against Donald Trump, whether
youre gearing up for the revolution or waiting for his next
tweet to drop, rest assured that, in the years to come, the
ideology that matters most wont be that of the forgotten
Americans of his Inaugural Address. It will be that of
Goldman Sachs and it will dominate the domestic economy
and, by extension, the global one.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, when President Teddy
Roosevelt governed the country on a platform of trust
busting aimed at reducing corporate power, even he could
not bring himself to bust up the banks. That was a mistake
born of his collaboration with the financier J.P. Morgan to
mitigate the effects of the Bank Panic of 1907. Roosevelt
feared that if he didnt enlist the influence of the countrys
major banker, the crisis would be even longer and more
disastrous. Its an error he might not have made had he
foreseen the effect that one particular investment bank
would have on Americas economy and political system.
There have been hundreds of articles written about the
worlds most powerful investment bank, or as journalist
Matt Taibbi famously called it back in 2010, the great
vampire squid. That squid is now about to wrap its tentacles
around our world in a way previously not imagined by Bill
Clinton or George W. Bush.
No less than six Trump administration appointments already
hail from that single banking outfit. Of those, two will impact
your life strikingly: former Goldman partner and soon-to-be
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and incoming top
economic adviser and National Economic Council Chair Gary
Cohn, former president and number two at Goldman. (The
Council he will head has been responsible for policy-making
for domestic and international economic issues.)
Now, lets take a step into history to get the full Monty on
why this matters more than you might imagine. In New York,
circa 1932, then-Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt
announced his bid for the presidency. At the time, our nation
was in the throes of the Great Depression. Goldman Sachs
had, in fact, been one of the banks at the core of the
infamous crash of 1929 that crippled the financial system
and nearly destroyed the economy. It was then run by a
dynamic figure, Sidney Weinberg, dubbed the Politician by
Roosevelt because of his smooth tongue and Mr. Wall
Street by the New York Times because of his range of
connections there. Weinberg quickly grasped that, to have a
chance of redeeming his firms reputation from the ashes of
public opinion, he would need to aim high indeed. So he
made himself indispensable to Roosevelts campaign for the
presidency, soon embedding himself on the Democratic
National Campaign Executive Committee.
After victory, he was not forgotten. FDR named him to the
Business Advisory Council of the Department of Commerce,
even as he continued to run Goldman Sachs. He would, in
fact, go on to serve as an advisor to five more presidents,
while Goldman would be transformed from a boutique
banking operation into a global leviathan with a direct phone
line to whichever president held office and a permanent seat
at the table in political and financial Washington.
Now, lets jump forward to the 1990s when Robert Rubin, co-
chairman of Goldman Sachs, took a page from Weinbergs
playbook. He recognized the potential in a young,
charismatic governor from Arkansas with a favorable attitude
toward banks. Since Bill Clinton was far less well known than
FDR had been, Rubin didnt actually cozy up to him from the
get-go. It was another Goldman Sachs executive, Ken Brody,
who introduced them, but Rubin would eventually help
Clinton gain Wall Street cred and the kind of funding that
would make his successful 1992 run for the presidency
possible. Those were favors that the new president wouldnt
forget. As a reward, and because he felt comfortable with
Rubins economic philosophy, Clinton created a special post
just for him: first chair of the new National Economic Council.
It was then only a matter of time until he was elevated to
Treasury Secretary. In that position, he would accomplish
something Ronald Reaganthe first president to appoint a
Treasury Secretary directly from Wall Street (former CEO of
Merrill Lynch Donald Regan)and George H.W. Bush failed to
do. He would get the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 repealed by
hustling President Clinton into backing such a move. FDR
had signed the act in order to separate investment banks
from commercial banks, ensuring that risky and speculative
banking practices would not be funded with the deposits of
hard-working Americans. The act did what it was intended to
do. It inoculated the nation against the previously reckless
behavior of its biggest banks.
Rubin, who had left government service six months earlier,
wasnt even in Washington when, on November 12, 1999,
Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed
Glass-Steagall. He had, however, become a board member
of Citigroup, one of the key beneficiaries of that repeal,
about two weeks earlier.
As Treasury Secretary, Rubin also helped craft the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He subsequently
convinced both President Clinton and Congress to raid U.S.
taxpayer coffers to help Mexico when its banking system
and peso crashed thanks to NAFTA. In reality, of course, he
was lending a hand to American banks with exposure in
Mexico. The subsequent $25 billion bailout would protect
Goldman Sachs, as well as other big Wall Street banks, from
losing boatloads of money. Think of it as a test run for the
great bailout of 2008.
A World Made by and for Goldman Sachs
Moving on to more recent history, consider a moment when
yet another Goldmanite was at the helm of the economy.
From 1970 to 1973, Henry (Hank) Paulson had worked in
various positions in the Nixon administration. In 1974, he
joined Goldman Sachs, becoming its chairman and CEO in
1999. I was at Goldman at the time. (I left in 2002.) I
remember the constant internal chatter about whether an
investment bank like Goldman could continue to compete
against the super banks that the Glass-Steagall repeal had
created. The buzz was that if Goldman and similar
investment banks were allowed to borrow more against their
assets (leverage themselves in banking-speak), they
wouldnt need to use individual deposits as collateral for
their riskier deals.
In 2004, Paulson helped convince the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to change its regulations so
that investment banks could operate as if they had the kind
of collateral or backing for their trades that goliaths like
Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase had. As a result, Goldman
Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns, to name three
that would become notorious in the economic meltdown only
four years later (and all ones for which I once worked)
promptly leveraged themselves to the hilt. As they were
doing so, George W. Bush made Paulson his third and final
Treasury Secretary. In that capacity, Paulson managed to
completely ignore the crisis brewing as a direct result of the
repeal of Glass-Steagall, the one I predicted was coming in
Other Peoples Money, the book I wrote when I left Goldman.
In 2006, Paulson was questioned on his obvious conflicts of
interest and responded, Conflicts are a fact of life in many,
if not most, institutions, ranging from the political arena and
government to media and industry. The key is how we
manage them. At the time, I wrote, The question isnt how
its a conflict of interest for Paulson to preside over our
countrys economy but how its not? For men like Paulson,
after all, such conflicts dont just involve their business
holdings. They also involve the ideology associated with
those holdings, which for him at that time came down to a
deep belief in pursuing the full-scale deregulation of banking.
Paulson was, of course, Treasury Secretary for the period in
which the 2008 financial crisis was brewing and then
erupted. When it happened, he was the one who got to
decide which banks survived and which died. Under his
ministrations, Lehman Brothers died; Bear Stearns was given
to JPMorgan Chase (along with plenty of government
financial support); and you wont be surprised to learn that
Goldman Sachs thrived. While designing that outcome under
the pressure of the moment, Paulson pled with Nancy Pelosi
to press the Democrats in the House of Representatives to
support a staggering $700 billion bailout. All those taxpayer
dollars went with the 2008 Emergency Financial Stability Act
that would save the banking system (under the auspices of
saving the economy) and leave it resplendently triumphant,
bonuses included), even as foreclosures rose by 21 percent
the following year.
Once again, it was a world made by and for Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Back in the (White) House
Running for office as an outsider is one thing. Instantly
inviting Wall Street into that office once you arrive is another.
Now, it seems that Donald Trump is bringing us the newest
chapter in the long-running White House-Goldman Sachs
saga. And count on Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn to offer a
few fresh wrinkles on that old alliance.
Cohn was one of the partners who ran the Fixed Income,
Currency and Commodity (FICC) division of Goldman. It was
the one that benefited the most from leverage, trading, and
the complexity of Wall Streets financial concoctions like
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) stuffed with
derivatives attached to subprime mortgages. You could say,
it was leverage that helped propel Cohn up the Goldman
food chain.
Steven Mnuchin has proven particularly adept at
understanding such concoctions. He left Goldman in 2002. In
2004, with two other ex-Goldman partners, he formed the
hedge fund Dune Capital Management. In the wake of the
2008 financial crisis, Dune went shopping, as Wall Street
likes to do, for cheap buys it could convert into big profits.
Mnuchin and his pals found the perfect prey in a Pasadena-
based bank, IndyMac, that had failed in July 2008 before the
financial crisis kicked into high gear, and had been seized by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). They
would pick up its assets on the cheap.
At his confirmation hearings, Mnuchin downplayed his role in
throwing homeowners (including members of the military)
out of their heavily mortgaged homes as a result of that
purchase. He cast himself instead as a genuine hero, the guy
who convened a cadre of financial sharks to help, not harm,
the banks customers who, without their benevolence, would
have fared so much worse. He looked deeply earnest as he
spoke of his role as the savior of the commonor perhaps in
the age of Trump forgottenman and woman. Maybe he
even believed it.
But the philosophy of swooping in, attacking an IndyMac-like
target of opportunity and converting it into a fortune for
himself (and problems for everyone else), has been a
hallmark of his career. To transfer this version of over-amped
1 percent opportunism to the halls of political power is
certainly a new definition of, in Trumpian terms, giving the
government back to the people. Perhaps what our new
president meant was the people at Goldman Sachs. Think
of it, in any case, as the supercharging of a vulture mentality
in a designer suit, the very attitude that once fueled the rise
to power of Goldman Sachs.
Mnuchin repeatedly blamed the FDIC and other government
agencies for not helping him help homeowners. In the press
it has been said that I ran a foreclosure machine, he said,
On the contrary, I was committed to loan modifications
intended to stop foreclosures. I ran a Loan Modification
Machine. Whenever we could do loan modifications we did
them, but many times, the FDIC, FNMA, FHLMC, and bank
trustees imposed strict rules governing the processing of
these loans. Nothing, that is, was or ever is his fault
reflecting his inability to take the slightest responsibility for
his undeniable role in kicking people out of their homes
when they could have remained. Its undoubtedly the perfect
trait for a Treasury secretary in a government of the 1
percent of the 1 percent.
Mnuchin also blamed the Federal Reserve for suggesting that
the Volcker Rulepart of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010
designed to limit risky trading activitieswas harming bank
liquidity and could be a problem. The way he did that was
typically slick. He claimed to support the Volcker Rule, even
as he underscored the Feds concern with it. In this way, he
managed both to make himself look squeaky clean and very
publicly open the door to a possible Trumpian revision of
that rule that would be aimed at weakening its intent and
once again deregulating bank trading activities.
Similarly, at those confirmation hearings he said (as Trump
had previously) that we needed to help community banks
compete against the bigger ones through less onerous
regulations. Even though this may indeed be true, it is also
guaranteed to be another bait-and-switch move likely to lead
to the deregulation of the big banks, too, ultimately
rendering them even bigger and more dangerous not just to
those community banks but to all of us.
Indeed, any proposition to reduce the size of big banks was
sidestepped. Although Mnuchin did say that four monster
banks shouldn't run the country, he didnt say that they
should be broken up. He wont. Nor will Cohn. In response to
a question from Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, he
added, No, I dont support going back to Glass-Steagall as
is. What weve talked about with the president-elect is that
perhaps we need a twenty-first-century Glass-Steagall. But,
no I dont support taking a very old law and saying we
should adhere to it as is.
So, although the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall was part of
the 2016 Republican election platform, its likely to prove
just another of Trumps many tactics to gain votesin this
case, from Bernie Sanders supporters and libertarians who
see too-big-to-fail institutions and a big-bank bailout policy
as wrong and dangerous. Rest assured, though, Mnuchin and
his Goldman Sachs pals will allow the largest Wall Street
players to remain as virulent and parasitic as they are now, if
not more so.
Goldman itself just announced that it was the worlds top
merger and acquisitions adviser for the sixth consecutive
year. In other words, the real deal-maker isnt the former
ruler of The Celebrity Apprentice, but Goldman Sachs. The
government might change, but Goldman stays the same.
And the traffic pile up of Goldman personalities in Trumps
corner made their fortunes doing dealsand not the kind
that benefited the public either.
A former Goldman colleague recently asked me whether it
was just possible that Mnuchin was a good person. I cant
answer that. Its something only he knows for sure. But no
matter how earnest or sympathetic to the little guy he tried
to be before that Senate confirmation committee, I do know
one thing: hes also a shark. And sharks do what theyre best
at and whats best for them. They smell blood in the water
and go in for the kill. Think of it as the Goldman Sachs effect.
In the waters of the Trump-Goldman era, dont doubt for a
second that the blood will be our own.
Nomi Prins, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of six
books, a speaker, and a distinguished senior fellow at the
non-partisan public policy institute Demos. Her most recent
book is All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances
That Drive American Power (Nation Books). She is a former
Wall Street executive.
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/goldman-sachs-effect

Trump's Right-Hand Man Steve Bannon Called for

Christian Holy War: Now He's on the National Security
Council
"We're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and
bloody conflict," President Trump's chief strategist told a
Christian conference in 2014.
By Ben Norton / AlterNet / January 29, 2017

Steve Bannon, President Donald Trump's right-hand man,

made what was essentially a call for a Christian holy war in a
speech in a international conference only a few years ago.
Bannon, chief strategist and senior counselor to Trump, is
notorious for his extreme right-wing views. He previously
served as the CEO for the far-right president's campaign, and
now sits on the National Security Council.
In remarks to a 2014 conference at the Vatican, Bannon
warned his Christian audience, "We're at the very beginning
stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict."
"We are in an outright war against jihadists, Islam, Islamic
fascism," Bannon continued. He likewise condemned "the
immense secularization of the West" and the increasing
secularism among millennials.
Bannon stressed that "the people in this room, and the
people in the Church" must "bind together and really form
what I feel is an aspect of the Church militant, to really be
able to not just stand with our beliefs but to fight for our
beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting that will
literally eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed
over the last 2,000 and 2,500 years."
In his speech, Bannon articulated a view of the world as a
constant conflict between the capitalist "Judeo-Christian
West," which is a benevolent force of "enlightenment," and
the malevolent forces of socialism, atheism, and Islam.
Trump's chief strategist, who will now play a crucial role in
crafting U.S. foreign policy and sit in on meetings of the
National Security Council Principals Committee, has been
described even by hard-line conservatives as an extremist.
Ultra-right-wing pundit Glenn Beck compared Bannon to the
Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, a close ally of Adolf
Hitler, and said the Trump campaign was grooming
Brownshirts, in reference to Nazi paramilitaries. According
to Beck, Bannon is quite possibly the most dangerous guy
in all of American politics.
Republican strategist John Weaver, who worked on
Republican John Kasich's 2016 presidential campaign,
likewise warned that, with Bannon as Trump's chief
strategist, "The racist, fascist extreme right is represented
footsteps from the Oval Office." (The Ku Klux Klan and
American Nazi Party praised Trump for appointing Bannon to
his top positions.)
Bannon made these holy war remarks in a speechwhich
has previously been reported on by BuzzFeedat the 2014
International Conference on Human Dignity, the third annual
meeting organized by the Rome-based Christian organization
Dignitatis Humanae Institute.
The Dignitatis Humanae Institute is a religious group that
advocates for "the active participation of the Christian faith
in the public square." It promotes what it calls "authentic
human dignity" by, in its words, "supporting Christians in
public life, assisting them in presenting effective and
coherent responses to increasing efforts to silence the
Christian voice in the public square."
A glowing endorsement from Bannon is conspicuously
featured at the top of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute's
website, in which President Trump's right-hand man calls the
group's founder Benjamin Harnwell "the smartest guy in
Rome" and "a very tough guy."
The religious organization uploaded footage of Bannon's
speech at its 2014 conference to YouTube. The video had
only a few thousand views at the time of the publication of
this article.
When he made his remarks, Bannon served as chairman of
the far-right media company Breitbart, which is infamous for
publishing racist and sexist material. Bannon has identified
Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right," a popular
euphemism for the growing white supremacist, neo-fascist
movement in the U.S. and Europe.
In a guide Breitbart published on the alt-right, it noted that
the movement was founded by neo-fascist leader Richard
Spencer, who declared "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail
victory!" at a white supremacist conference in November,
referencing the Nazi slogan "Sieg heil."
Bannon kicked off his 2014 speech warning that "the world,
and particularly the Judeo-Christian West, is in a crisis."
"It is really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart
News to really be a platform to bring news and information
to people throughout the worldprincipally in the West, but
we're expanding internationallyto let people understand
the depths of this crisis," he explained.
Bannon noted that, exactly 100 years before his speech,
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, in a
shot heard round the world that prefaced World War I. This
war heralded in the bloodiest century of human history.
The 20th century, Bannon argued, constituted a kind of
second Dark Age. He described its conflict as "the Judeo-
Christian West versus atheism."
"But the thing that got us out of that... was just not the
heroism of our people," Bannon continued. "The underlying
principle was an enlightened form of capitalism," he
explained. "That capitalism really generated tremendous
wealth."
Bannon stressed that the absolute basis of this civilization is
capitalism. "I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was
trained at Goldman Sachs; I went to Harvard Business
School. I'm as hard-nosed a capitalist as you can get," he
explained.
Yet Bannon criticized the libertarianism of figures like Ayn
Rand, however, for "taking away from the underlying
spiritual, moral foundations of Christianity and really Judeo-
Christian belief." He added, "That form of capitalism is quite
different, when you really look at it, to what I call the
enlightened capitalism of the Judeo-Christian West."
In the early years of the 21st century, nevertheless, Bannon
argued, "I believe that we've come horribly off track." He
went on, claiming the time marked "the very beginning
stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict."
Bannon spoke of the increasing secularism among young
people in the West as a dangerous problem. "The
overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely
secularize this rising generation," he lamented.
The Breitbart head also alarmed his Christian audience about
the wave of extremist Islamism. "We're now I believe at the
beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism," he
said. "And this war is I think metastasizing far quicker than
governments can handle it."
Bannon discussed the heinous atrocities committed by the
violent extremist group ISIS, which has received support
from close Western allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
"We are at the very beginning stages of a global conflict," he
continued. "If we do not bind together as partners, with
others in other countries," Bannon added, then "this conflict
is only going to metastasize."
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/steve-bannon-
christian-holy-war-islam-donald-trump-capitalism-secularism-
atheism

US-Australia refugee deal: Trump in 'worst call' with

Turnbull

A phone call between US President Donald Trump and

Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has called into question a
refugee resettlement deal.
The Washington Post reported Mr Trump called the
conversation "the worst by far" of his calls with world leaders
that day, and cut it short.
Mr Trump later tweeted that he would "study this dumb
deal".
Struck with the Obama administration, it would see up to
1,250 asylum seekers to Australia resettled in the US.
Australia has controversially refused to accept them and
instead holds them in offshore detention centres on the
Pacific nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
PM Turnbull had been seeking clarification on the future of
the deal after Mr Trump last Friday signed an executive order
temporarily barring the entry into the US of refugees and
people from seven Muslim-majority countries.
What do we know about the phone call?
The phone call between Mr Trump and Mr Turnbull took place
on Saturday, and was one of four the US president had with
world leaders, including Russia's Vladimir Putin.
The Washington Post quotes senior US officials, briefed on
the call, as saying that the conversation should have lasted
an hour but was abruptly ended after 25 minutes by Mr
Trump.

Mr Turnbull was seeking assurances from Mr Trump that the

deal would be honoured.
The US president reportedly said accepting the refugees
would be like the US accepting "the next Boston bombers",
who were from the Caucasus region of Russia.
Image copyright AP Image caption These asylum seekers to
Australia had their application processed in Papua New
Guinea
The official version of the call from the US was brief, but said
both leaders had "emphasised the enduring strength and
closeness of the US-Australia relationship".
On Monday Mr Turnbull confirmed he had spoken to Mr
Trump and thanked him for agreeing to uphold the deal.
US presidential spokesman Sean Spicer has since also said
Mr Trump intends to uphold the deal.
But Mr Trump's tweet on Wednesday - coming after the
Washington Post story - has thrown fresh doubt on the
arrangement.
Image copyright @realDonaldTrump/Twitter
Mr Turnbull later said he was disappointed that details of the
call - which he described as "very frank and forthright" - had
been made public.
He told a Sydney radio station that "the report that the
president hung up is not correct".
What is the deal about?
Australia announced in November 2016 that the US had
agreed to a one-off deal to resettle refugees currently being
held on Nauru and Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea
(PNG).
The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, would oversee the deal and
the "most vulnerable" would be prioritised, Mr Turnbull said.
No numbers were given and Australian Immigration
Department Secretary Mike Pezzullo later told a Senate
inquiry that, while those who were eligible could express an
interest, it was up to the US to decide how many people it
wanted to take.
A total of 1,254 people were being held in the two camps,
871 on Manus Island and 383 in Nauru, as of 30 November
2016, according to Australian government statistics.
Mr Trump's tweet incorrectly labelled refugees as illegal, and
recast the number who might be resettled as "thousands".
Australia refuses to accept refugees who arrive by boat,
under a tough deterrent policy. It has already struck
resettlement deals with Cambodia and PNG, but only a
handful of refugees have been resettled. Critics say the two
nations are completely ill-equipped to resettle refugees.
So the US deal was a boon to the Australian government
from a close political and military ally.
Australia has faced fierce international criticism for its
offshore detention policy and wants to close the Manus
Island camp. Conditions in the offshore camps have been
roundly condemned by rights groups, who say the policy is
punitive and inflicts harm on refugees.
Who are the refugees?
Official figures show that about 80% of those held on Manus
Island and Nauru have been found to be genuine refugees
(those found not to be are not eligible for the US deal).
All of the occupants of Manus Island are male. By far the
largest number are from Iran, followed by Afghanistan and
Iraq. There are also sizeable contingents from Bangladesh,
Pakistan and Myanmar.
The Nauru camp holds men, women and children. Again the
largest number come from Iran, followed by Sri Lanka and
those who are stateless.
Some of those being held have spent several years in the
camps awaiting a decision on their fate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38837263

The new property trap affecting thousands

By James Longman and Emma Ailes BBC Victoria Derbyshire
programme
2 February 2017
When putting pen to paper to buy a new home, most people
expect to know how much they will need to pay to own it
outright. But thousands of families in England and Wales are
discovering the houses they bought are not all they seemed.
Katie Kendrick bought her home from Bellway in Ellesmere
Port, Cheshire, three years ago for 214,000.
"It was supposed to be our forever home," she tells the
BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme, sitting in the living
room of her four-bedroom house. "But it's the biggest
mistake I've ever made."
Katie knew the house was leasehold - meaning she owned
the property for the length of her lease agreement - but
claims she was told by the sales representative that because
of the long lease it was "as good as freehold"; a property
owned outright.
She thought nothing of it, and says she was told she would
be able to buy her freehold after two years, believing it
would cost between 2,000 and 4,000.
But a year and a half later, she received a letter from
Bellway saying her freehold had been sold to an investment
company, which was now quoting 13,300 for her to buy it.
"At the moment I feel completely blind and in a corner and
don't know which way to turn. There's legal action but that is
very costly," she says.
Leaseholds and freeholds
Image copyright Getty Images
A freeholder of a property owns it outright, including
the land it is built on.
Most houses are freehold but some might be leasehold -
usually through shared-ownership schemes.
With a leasehold, the person owns the property for the
length of their lease agreement with the freeholder.
Leaseholders have to pay their freeholders ground rent
and other fees in order to make changes to their
homes.
When the lease ends, ownership returns to the
freeholder unless the person can extend the lease.
Some wish to buy their freeholds to save themselves
these costs.
Source: The Money Advice Service

What Bellway has done - selling a new home as leasehold,

and then selling the freehold separately to an investment
company without informing the family living there - is not
illegal.
In England and Wales, the "right of first refusal" applies to
flats, but not houses. So it was not legally obliged to tell
Katie it would do this.
For an investment company, buying groups of freeholds is a
safe long-term investment. Receiving regular payments for
ground rents - over leases that number well over 100 years -
means safe, steady incomes, to fund things like pensions.
But nowhere on Bellway's website is this system made clear
to potential buyers and Katie feels these facts were not
made clear to her. She also says the solicitor - recommended
to her by Bellway - made no mention of this possibility either.
Katie says because she bought the house through the
government's Help To Buy scheme, she felt she could trust
the process.
Bellway has not responded to requests for comment.
Homeground - the company that now manages Katie's
freehold on behalf of the investment company - said in a
statement it "can usually informally negotiate a price which
can often save both time and some of the professional fees".
"In the rare event we cannot agree, the leaseholder still
retains the right to turn to the statutory process, which will
establish the price as well as the legal fees they have to
pay."
'It's immoral'
It's likely thousands of homeowners could be in a similar
position to Katie. Lindsay, who lives on the same estate,
bought a house from developers Taylor Wimpey.
The company did ask Lindsay if she wanted to buy her
freehold - for 2,600. She declined because she was on
maternity leave and felt financially it was not possible.
Two years later she asked about buying it but found it was
now 32,000.
"I rang them and said, 'I'd like to buy it now.' And they said,
'It's not for sale - there's a private investor who owns it.
They've got a long-term interest in your property,'" Lindsay
explains.
"I turned around and said, 'I've got a long-term interest in my
property. It's my family home, it's my son's inheritance, and
it's not yours to just line your pockets with.'
"I feel like I've let everybody down because it wasn't right to
buy it when it came. But nobody said this was a one-time
offer.
"It might be legal, but it's not even questionable that it's
immoral," she adds.

Find out more

Watch the Victoria Derbyshire programme on weekdays
between 09:00 and 11:00 on BBC Two and the BBC News
channel.

Taylor Wimpey said as it no longer owned the freehold to

Lindsay's house, it did not set the price of the freehold or
benefit from the ground rent.
It added that, since the start of this year, houses on its new
developments would be sold as freehold-only, except in a
small number of cases where it did not own the freehold to
the land.
But other developers are still selling new-build houses as
leasehold.
Katie and Lindsay say they do not want to start negotiating
with the companies who own their freeholds, and feel the
original prices should still stand.
The law does allow a leaseholder to force their freeholder to
sell - but the leaseholder is also liable for the legal fees of
both parties, meaning further expense to people like Katie
and Lindsay.
'Unsellable'
A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local
Government has told the BBC "it is unacceptable if home
buyers are being exploited with unfair charges and
unfavourable ground rent agreements prior to purchase.
"We are aware of this issue and will announce radical
proposals to reset the housing market in our forthcoming
White Paper."
Beth Rudolf, from the Conveyancing Association, says that if
the developers were not clear about the leaseholds, it may
be a case of misrepresentation.
"Anyone marketing a property is covered by consumer unfair
trading regulations, which means that if there is anything
that would affect their decision-making process, then they
should be advised of that before viewing the property," she
says.
Image caption Beth Rudolf believes developers should be
clear about the leaseholds from the start
"It's too late when they move into the house to find that out,
it's too late when they become legally liable to purchase it.
"It's too late really at the point when they've viewed it,
because they've already fallen in love with it."
The fight goes on for Katie and Lindsay, who worry their
homes are now unsellable while this shadow hangs over
them.
"Hindsight's a wonderful thing," says Lindsay. "I wouldn't
have done it if I had known."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38827661
https://www.rt.com/news/
Red Crescent staff injured in hideous US coalition
strike on Idlib HQ Turkish IFCR chief
2 Feb, 2017

The US coalition has struck the headquarters of the Syrian

Red Crescent and injured its staff in Syrias Idlib, President of
Turkish Red Crescent Kerem Kinik said, calling the alleged
drone strike a hideous war crime.

The strike happened in the early hours of Wednesday at

around 3:00 am (01:00 GMT) and destroyed the buildings
upper floors and injured people on the ground level. The
victims have reportedly been transported to makeshift
hospitals in Idlib.
At least four staff members of the Syrian Red Crescent
(SARC) were injured in the airstrikes, one of them is in
critical condition, media activist Abdulqadir Othman
told ARA News in Idlib.
The bombardment also caused a massive destruction of the
organizations offices, Othman added. The fire that broke
out after the strike reportedly further contributed to the
destruction of vital medical equipment.
While the attack has not been yet been confirmed by any of
the forces operating in Syria, Kinik pinned the blame on the
US-led coalition, calling the bombardment a war crime.
We strongly condemn hideous air attack led by US coalition
on #Idlib #RedCrescent HQ. It's clear #warcrime and #IHL
violation, Kinik tweeted.
A single strike from what is thought to be a coalition drone
slammed into the building, Idlib Civil Defense spokesman
Hamid Kutini told Syria Direct. The official added that he
identified the drone by the sound emitted by the aircraft on
its approach to the target area.

The SARC center was based in the old building of Carlton

Hotel in central Idlib city. It provided medical services, food
and relief aid to civilians of the terrorist-held provincial
capital. The Syrian Red Crescent has not yet commented.
Apart from the US coalition, both the Russian and Syrian air
force continue to conduct aerial operations against terrorists
in Idlib province, including the al-Qaeda-splinter group of
Fateh al-Sham.
https://www.rt.com/news/376004-idlib-red-crescent-coalition-
strike/?
utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm
_campaign=chrome

Trump threatened to send US troops to Mexico, report

says
Thu Feb 2, 2017 / Press TV

US President Donald Trump threatened to send troops

to Mexico during a phone conversation with President
Enrique Pena Nieto last week, says a report.
According to an excerpt of transcript of the Friday
conversation seen by the Associated Press, Trump told Nieto
the troops would be sent to stop the "bad hombres down
there" unless Mexico deals with them itself.
You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military
is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down
to take care of it," Trump was quoted as saying by the
Wednesday AP report.
A similar report was published by a Mexican website,
Aristegui Noticias, on Tuesday.
In a Wednesday statement, Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign
Affairs rejected the reports as being "based on absolute
falsehoods" and stressed that the conversation
was constructive.

"The assertions that you make about said conversation do

not correspond to the reality of it," read the statement. "The
tone was constructive and it was agreed by the presidents to
continue working and that the teams will continue to meet
frequently to construct an agreement that is positive for
Mexico and for the United States," it added.
The White House refrained from commenting on the report.
According to official statements issued by Mexico and the
US, Nieto and Trump agreed to meet in the future during the
phone call that came after the cancellation of a previously
scheduled meeting over Trump's proposed wall on the border
with Mexico.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/02/508757/mexico-us-
trump-troops

Trumps adviser puts Iran on notice over missile

tests
Wed Feb 1, 2017 / Press TV

A top adviser to US President Donald Trump says the

country has put Tehran on notice over Irans missile
program.
"We are officially putting Iran on notice, said White House
national security adviser Michael Flynn in a statement on
Wednesday.
Flynn repeated the US claims that ballistic missile tests
violate a UN Security Council resolution that endorsed Irans
nuclear deal with the world powers, including Washington.
UN Security Council Resolution 2231 calls on Iran "not to
undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed
to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including
launches using such ballistic missile technology."
Irans defensive ballistic missile program has been a bone of
contention with the West. Tehran says its missile tests do not
breach UN resolutions because they are solely for defense
purposes and not designed to carry nuclear warheads.
Arms control experts have also said that Irans missile tests
are not banned under the nuclear agreement and the UNSC
resolution, because Iran's missiles are not meant to
deliver nuclear warheads.
In a typically Trumpish tone, Flynn stated that "Instead of
being thankful to the United States for these agreements,
Iran is now feeling emboldened.
Resolution 2231 was adopted in July 2015 to endorse a
nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA), between Iran and the P5+1 group of
countries, also including the UK, Russia, Germany, China and
France.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, a total of 220 Iranian
lawmakers highlighted the deterrence strategy in Irans
missile program.

Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan also

said that the recent test was "in no way in contravention of
Resolution 2231.
"We do not let any foreigner intervene in our defense
affairs, Dehqan asserted.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/01/508745/Flynn-puts-
Iran-on-notice-over-missile-tests

Genetically modified 'super-wheat' will be grown in

the UK after trial is given the go-ahead despite fears
of contamination
The wheat has been modified to enhance its
ability to use the sun's energy
Gold particles are used to transport the genes
into the wheat
In experiments, the wheat produced yields 40%
higher than normal wheat
Defra has granted permission to researchers to
begin the trial this year
By Sean Poulter Consumer Affairs Editor For The Daily Mail
1 February 2017

Open field trials of a genetically modified super wheat have

been approved by ministers, despite fears it will contaminate
other crops.
The planting in Hertfordshire, which will be surrounded by a
steel fence to keep out protesters, will start in spring.
Scientists claim the wheat is able to dramatically increase
the yield of grains.
But the technology is controversial. American farmers have
turned their backs on planting GM wheat for fear it will be
rejected by shoppers.
Critics fear British wheat sales and exports will suffer if crops
here are contaminated with genes from the GM plants.
HOW IS IT MODIFIED?
Two versions of the wheat will be planted, both with extra
copies of a gene that makes the enzyme SBPase, which
plays an important role in photosynthesis.
One will have two extra copies of the gene and the other six.
The genetic tweaking will allow the plants to absorb more
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Carbon is one of the raw ingredients plants use to make
sugar through photosynthesis, a complex chemical process
powered by energy from sunlight.
The wheat has been genetically engineered so that, in
theory, it can use sunlight more efficiently. Genes from a wild
plant called stiff brome have been inserted.
The process also added an antibiotic marker gene and genes
giving resistance to some weedkillers.
Tests in greenhouses at Rothamsted Research have boosted
yields by up to 40 per cent. The field trials will determine
whether this can be replicated in open air.
It is not the first GM wheat to be tested at the site. British
researchers took five years to develop a crop that gave off
chemicals supposed to deter insect pests, but the process
did not work in field trials.
More than 3million of public money was spent on the trials
and associated security measures.
Trials on GM wheat varieties in the US have led to some so-
called escapes, creating the risk of contaminating wild plants
and commercial crops.
GM Freeze, representing 30 organisations, had called on
ministers to refuse permission for the wheat trial.

However, the Government has made clear it is keen to

promote GM farming.
Liz ONeill of GM Freeze said: We raised a number of
technical concerns about the application itself and
highlighted the potential for GM wheat to escape into the
wild, as has happened repeatedly with GM wheat trials in the
US.
Wheat varieties which were modified to make them resistant
to weedkillers have been discovered growing outside field
trials in the US on three separate occasions in recent years.

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, which supports

organic farming, said: We do not believe that this trial
should go ahead.
GM FOOD CONTROVERSY
Some people have concerns over GM foods.
The main topics of debate include:
Allergenicity - It's possible to transfer a gene from an
allergenic plant to a non-allergenic plant.
But to date, no allergic effects have been found in GM foods
currently on the market.
Gene transfer - The risk that genes from a GM food will be
transferred to the cells of the body or bacteria in the
gastrointestinal tract is considered low.
However, there's concern about the transfer of antibiotic
resistance genes and effects on human health.
Outcrossing - When genes from GM plants spread to
conventional plants, it's called outcrossing. The effects of
introducing engineered genes into wild populations are
concerning, as are the possible effects on food safety and
security.
For this reason, several countries have adopted strategies to
keep GM crops separate from conventional crops.
Source: Mayo Clinic
It is vital that the trial crop does not escape from the trial
site given the inclusion of antibiotic resistance and herbicide
tolerance genes, but that is exactly what has happened on
multiple occasions with GM wheat trials elsewhere.
If that happens here it will threaten the growing use of UK
wheat in British bread.
The claimed potential gains from this trial are achievable
through other means and there is simply no market for the
trials eventual end product.
The trials, which are jointly funded by the British and US
governments, have been approved by the food and farming
department, Defra.
The Rothamsted team, with researchers from Lancaster and
Essex universities, says modified wheat carries out
photosynthesis the use of sunlight to convert water and
carbon dioxide into glucose and oxygen more efficiently,
resulting in more grain.
Rothamsteds Dr Malcolm Hawkesford said the trial would
assess the plants ability to produce more using the same
resources and land area as their non-GM counterparts.
He added: These field trials are the only way to assess the
viability of a solution that can bring economic benefits to
farmers, returns to the UK taxpayer from the long-term
investment in this research, benefits to the UK economy
and the environment in general.
Essex Universitys Professor Christine Raines said: To date
photosynthesis has not been used to select for high yielding
crops and represents an unexploited opportunity.

How the mutant strain escaped across the US

By Tom Leonard in New York for the Daily Mail
Genetically modified wheat trials have long been a source of
controversy in the US.
While supporters insist GM food is safe, America has failed
repeatedly to stop it from contaminating GM-free wheat.
In 2013, a strain of GM wheat was found sprouting on a farm
in eastern Oregon where it had never been grown.
The farmer made the discovery after spraying a patch of
wheat with herbicide and finding it did not die.
GM CROPS IN THE UK
Some of the first open air trials of GM crops in the late 1990s
were disrupted by protesters who trampled on the plants.
As a result, the government put a halt on all outdoor trials of
the technology between 2003 and 2010.
But in 2014, Rothamsted Research was granted permission
to perform field trials of GM rape seed, containing omega-3
fatty acids.
The results are yet to be published.
And in 2012, the firm was granted permission to do a field
trial of GM wheat that had been modified to repel aphids.
Unfortunately the trial was unsuccessful and the GM wheat
was not shown to repel insects in practice.
Testing confirmed that the strain, which was resistant to the
weedkiller glysophate, had been developed by biotechnology
giant Monsanto across the US between 1998 and 2005, and
tested in open fields.
However, it was never approved or marketed.
Scientists were puzzled about how the crop had appeared
when no seeds should have been available for eight years.
The discovery rocked international wheat markets. Japan,
South Korea and Taiwan suspended imports of US soft white
wheat for months, while a Kansas farmer sued Monsanto,
saying it had caused the price of American wheat to plunge.
The US government insisted the outbreak was confined to a
single field. But it was never able to explain what had
happened.
A Monsanto boss blamed anti-GM saboteurs. Other theories
included a bag of wheat being mislabelled at Monsanto or
even passing geese infecting the field as they flew over.
More Monsanto-made GM wheat was found in 2014 in a
research field at Montana State University.
There were field trials of the wheat at the research station 11
years earlier but it should have been removed or destroyed.
Roughly half of Americas huge wheat crop is exported. In
1999, Thai scientists claimed they had found GM wheat in a
grain shipment from the Pacific Northwest of the US.
The news caused shock in America as GM wheat had not
been approved for commercial sale and was grown only on
supposedly secure test plots.
Officials were unable to discover how the shipment, sent
from Portland, Oregon, had become infected but admitted
that a small number of acres of GM grain had been planted
in the states of Washington, Idaho and Oregon that year.
Critics say such cases of GM wheat contamination are
evidence that field trials must be monitored far more
carefully.
Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed science expert at Oregon State
University, said the outbreaks showed that plant genes are
likely to persist in the environment once they are planted in
open fields.
Theres really no way of retracting that gene or bringing it
back and saying, Weve changed our mind, she added.
THE CLAIMS...AND THE PROBLEMS
GM crops were promoted on the basis they would boost
yields and cut pesticide use, but academics have shown
GM farming in the US has not accelerated yields or led
to an overall reduction in pesticides.
Advocates insist GM crops are beneficial to insects but
UK trials in 2004 found the numbers of butterflies, bees
and beetles in fields of GM oilseed rape and beet were
significantly lower than with conventional farming.
This was associated with industrial farming practices and
heavy use of weedkillers.
GM supporters insist the crops are safe for humans as
they have been eaten in the US for nearly 20 years.
But in January experts at Kings College London linked
glyphosate, used to kill wild plants in GM fields, to liver
disease.
In 2013, academics reported that pigs fed a GM diet suffered
inflamed stomachs and heavier uteruses, which could be a
sign of disease.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-
4179870/Genetically-modified-wheat-grown-UK.html

Iran Prepares to Ditch Dollar in International Trade

1 February 2017 / Sputnik News
After US President Donald Trump included Iran on a
list of Muslim-majority countries facing a temporary
immigration ban, Tehran responded by threatening to
stop using the American dollar.
Iran would either introduce a new common currency, in place
of the US dollar, or use a portfolio of various currencies
in foreign exchange and financial reports, according
to Valiollah Seif, governor of the Central Bank of Iran.
Iranian media quoted Seif saying that the initiative would
begin in March 2017, at the start of the fiscal year.
Trump signed an executive order on immigration last Friday,
ostensibly to protect Americans from terror attacks. Under
the order, immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya,
Sudan and Yemen will not be allowed to enter the US for 90
days. Additionally, the US refugee program is suspended
for 120 days, and the acceptance of refugees from Syria is
suspended indefinitely.
Trump told reporters, "It's working out very nicelyYou see it
at the airports. You see it all over. It's working out very nicely
and we're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're
going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had
in this country for many years."

Massive protests cropped up at airports all over the country

as a result, with demonstrators voicing their support
for immigrants and refugees, as well as many professionals,
including immigration lawyers, offering free consultations
to those trapped in limbo.
Seif noted that the US dollars share in Irans foreign
exchange is insignificant, and that its replacement should be
suitable for trade with important partners like the United
Arab Emirates, Russia, China and the European Union.

Agreements to stop using the dollar have been signed

with Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Russia, although Seif
pointed out that the agreements were not yet effective,
as trade with those countries does not warrant the switch.
Some analysts have suggested that Tehran stands to make
$41 billion in oil profits this fiscal year alone, and that
switching from the dollar could pose a considerable financial
risk. Iranian economic publication Donya-ye Eqtesad
observed, however, that the dollar has already been largely
replaced by other currencies in oil transactions, and that
Tehran has been chiefly using it in official reporting.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201702011050220348-
iran-threatens-to-ditch-dollar/
Existence of 'Lost Continent' Under Indian Ocean
Confirmed --"Remnant of the Primeval SuperContinent
Gondwana"
January 31, 2017 / Daily Galaxy

Scientists have confirmed the existence of a "lost continent"

under the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius (above) that was
left-over by the break-up of the supercontinent, Gondwana,
which started about 200 million years ago. The piece of
crust, which was subsequently covered by young lava during
volcanic eruptions on the island, seems to be a tiny piece of
ancient continent, which broke off from the island of
Madagascar, when Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica split
up and formed the Indian Ocean.
"We are studying the break-up process of the continents, in
order to understand the geological history of the planet,"
says Wits geologist, Professor Lewis Ashwal, lead author on
the paper "Archaean zircons in Miocene oceanic hotspot
rocks establish ancient continental crust beneath Mauritius",
published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications.

By studying the mineral, zircon, found in rocks spewed up by

lava during volcanic eruptions, Ashwal and his colleagues
Michael Wiedenbeck from the German Research Centre for
Geosciences (GFZ) and Trond Torsvik from the University of
Oslo, guest scientist at GFZ, have found that remnants of
this mineral were far too old to belong on the island of
Mauritius.
"Earth is made up of two parts - continents, which are old,
and oceans, which are "young". On the continents you find
rocks that are over four billion years old, but you find nothing
like that in the oceans, as this is where new rocks are
formed," explains Ashwal. "Mauritius is an island, and there
is no rock older than 9 million years old on the island.
However, by studying the rocks on the island, we have found
zircons that are as old as 3 billion years."
Zircons are minerals that occur mainly in granites from the
continents. They contain trace amounts of uranium, thorium
and lead, and due to the fact that they survive geological
process very well, they contain a rich record of geological
processes and can be dated extremely accurately.
Indian Ocean topography showing the location of Mauritius
as part of a chain of progressively older volcanoes extending
from the presently active hot-spot of Runion toward the 65-
million-year-old Deccan traps of northwest India.
"The fact that we have found zircons of this age proves that
there are much older crustal materials under Mauritius that
could only have originated from a continent," says Ashwal.
This is not the first time that zircons that are billions of years
old have been found on the island. A study done in 2013 has
found traces of the mineral in beach sand. However, this
study received some criticism, including that the mineral
could have been either blown in by the wind, or carried in on
vehicle tyres or scientists' shoes.
"The fact that we found the ancient zircons in rock (6-million-
year-old trachyte), corroborates the previous study and
refutes any suggestion of wind-blown, wave-transported or
pumice-rafted zircons for explaining the earlier results," says
Ashwal.
Variably sized crystals of alkali feldspar like the large white
one at lower left are aligned by magmatic flow. A large zircon
crystal appears as the brightly coloured grain just right of
centre. Credit: Wits University
Ashwal suggests that there are many pieces of various sizes
of "undiscovered continent", collectively called "Mauritia",
spread over the Indian Ocean, left over by the breakup of
Gondwanaland.
"According to the new results, this break-up did not involve a
simple splitting of the ancient super-continent of Gondwana,
but rather, a complex splintering took place with fragments
of continental crust of variable sizes left adrift within the
evolving Indian Ocean basin."
Gondwanaland is a super-continent that existed more than
200 million years ago and contained rocks as old as 3.6
billion years old, before it split up into what are now the
continents of Africa, South America, Antarctica, India and
Australia. The split-up occurred because of the geological
process of plate tectonics. This is the process where the
ocean basin is in continuous motion, and moves between 2
cm and 11 cm per year. Continents ride on the plates that
make up the ocean floor, which causes the movement of the
continents.
The Daily Galaxy via Wits University
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/existence-
of-lost-continent-under-indian-ocean-confirmed-a-remnant-
of-the-primeval-supercontinent-go.html

https://www.rt.com/uk/
620,000 Brits at risk of sudden death because of
faulty gene
1 Feb, 2017 / RT

More than half a million Brits are believed to have a faulty

gene that means they are at a greater risk of developing
heart disease or succumbing to sudden death, a charity has
warned.
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) said an estimated
620,000 people have the gene and most are unaware.
This figure is 100,000 times higher than was previously
thought and the true number is likely to be even higher due
to underdiagnosis and undiscovered faulty genes, the charity
said.
In a press statement, the BHF said the condition can affect
people of any age and that a child of someone with an
inherited heart condition has a 50 percent chance of also
inheriting it.
Many families are unaware there is a problem until someone
dies suddenly from a cardiac arrest or heart attack with no
obvious cause or explanation, the charity added.
Around 12 seemingly healthy people under the age of 35 die
each week in Britain due to undiagnosed heart conditions.
The BHF says more research is urgently needed to
understand these heart conditions.
BHF medical director Prof Sir Nilesh Samani said: The reality
is that there are hundreds of thousands of people across the
UK who are unaware that they could be at risk of sudden
death.
"If undetected and untreated, inherited heart conditions can
be deadly and they continue to devastate families, often by
taking away loved ones without warning.
"We urgently need to fund more research to better
understand these heart conditions, make more discoveries,
develop new treatments and save more lives."
Research published by the BHF in 2015 also found the
workplace has a considerable impact on healthy hearts, as it
can push workers into unhealthy lifestyles.
Millions of people say they are smoking more, exercising
less and putting on weight because theyre not considering
the impact their job is having on their health and wellbeing,
BHF project manager Lisa Young said.
https://www.rt.com/uk/375949-heart-faulty-gene-death/?
utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm
_campaign=chrome

Russian cybersecurity experts arrested in US-linked

treason case
Wed Feb 1, 2017

Two senior Russian cyber security officials along with

a top anti-hacking expert have been arrested in a US-
linked treason case.
A lawyer representing one of the suspects said on
Wednesday that Sergei Mikhailov, the deputy head of the
FSB's Centre for Information Security, and his deputy Dmitry
Dokuchayev along with Ruslan Stoyanov, the head of the
investigation unit at Moscow-based cybersecurity giant
Kaspersky, had been detained by authorities in Moscow.
Ivan Pavlov said the three were suspected of committing
treason. He added that the case was linked to the United
States but said the CIA spy agency was not specified in the
documents related to the case.
This is believed to be one of the highest-profile treason cases
to hit the Russian intelligence community in years.
Authorities have yet to officially confirm the arrests but
sources in the Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin had been
informed about the case when Russian media were earlier
covering it.

Kremlin spokesman Demitry Peskov, however, denied there

was any link between the case and recent allegations in the
United States that Russia carried out cyber attacks on
American organizations with the intention of paving the way
for the election of Donald Trump as president.

Peskov said there could be no connection as Russia

categorically denies any claims on the possible Russian
involvement in any hacking.
Pavlov said more suspects were involved in the case but he
would not elaborate. If confirmed, the case could be one of
the most sensitive affecting Russias domestic intelligence
agency FSB.
Sources in the CIA also said that they had no comment on
the issue.
Kaspersky had confirmed the arrest of its former official last
week although it said charges brought against Stoyanov
were related to the time he was not an employee of the
company.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/01/508736/Russia-
cybersecurity-experts-treason

Massive protests held across Romania over decree

decriminalizing official misconduct
Thu Feb 2, 2017 / Press TV
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the
streets across Romania in protest to a government
decree decriminalizing some offenses, including
official misconduct.
Around 250,000 people gathered outside the cabinet
building in the capital city Bucharest on Wednesday, while
around 100,000 more took part in similar protests across the
country.
The demonstrators chanted slogans such as, "Repeal it, then
leave," and, "Thieves, thieves."
The protest was generally peaceful until midnight local time
when a group of football fans arrived and started to
hurl stones and fireworks at the police.

The demonstrations began on Tuesday after the cabinet

approved the decree that decriminalizes a range of graft and
other offenses in which the amounts involved are lower than
$48,000.
The decree, set to be enforced within the next 10 days, will
benefit dozens of political figures from all parties, and has
been described as the biggest rollback on reforms since
Romania became part of the EU in 2007.
Meanwhile, the countrys top judicial watchdog, the Superior
Magistrates' Council, has issued a constitutional court
challenge to the decree, which was introduced by the Social
Democrat government of Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu.

The European Union has also warned Romania over

backtracking on reforms with European Commission
President Jean-Claude Juncker issuing a an official statement.
The fight against corruption needs to be advanced, not
undone. We are following the latest developments in
Romania with great concern, read the statement.
The statement acknowledged the progress of prosecutors
and judges in the country, but warned over "steps which
undermine this process" or have the effect of weakening or
shrinking the scope of corruption as an offense.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/02/508748/romania-
protest-decree-misconduct

Russian hacking aims to destabilise West, Sir Michael

Fallon says
3 February 17 / BBC Online
Russia is carrying out a sustained campaign of cyber attacks
targeting democracy and critical infrastructure in the West,
UK Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has warned.
Moscow was "weaponising misinformation" in a bid to
expand its influence and destabilise Western governments
and weaken Nato, he said.
Vladimir Putin had chosen to become a "strategic
competitor" of the West.
Sir Michael said it was vital alliance members strengthened
cyber defences.
His speech, at the University of St Andrews, came hours
before Theresa May was due to use an informal summit in
Malta to press EU Nato members to boost defence spending.

May to press EU leaders over defence spending

Meanwhile, in a report, MPs have warned that a skills
shortage and "chaotic" handling of personal data breaches
are undermining confidence in the UK government's ability
to protect its own infrastructure and economy from cyber
attacks.

MPs question UK's cyber attack defences

Sir Michael said Nato needed to do more to tackle the "false
reality" being propagated by the Kremlin.
"Nato must defend itself as effectively in the cyber sphere as
it does in the air, on land, and at sea, so adversaries know
there is a price to pay if they use cyber weapons," he added.
The defence secretary pointed to a "persistent pattern of
behaviour" by Moscow, highlighting a series of cyber attacks
that had been linked to Russia.

Suspected Russian attacks included France's TV5Monde

broadcaster being taken off air in April 2015 - originally
claimed by hackers linked to the self-styled Islamic State -
and the targeting of Germany's lower house of parliament,
he said.
Another cyber attack, on Bulgaria in October 2016, was
described by the country's president as the "heaviest" and
most "intense" to be conducted in south-eastern Europe.
Sir Michael also spoke of the suspected Russian hacking of
the two main political parties in the US presidential elections.
Russia has denied any involvement in the hacking, and
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Moscow was not the
source for the site's mass leak of emails from the Democratic
Party.

Testing Nato
Sir Michael said: "Today, we see a country that in
weaponising misinformation has created what we might now
see as the post-truth age.
"Russia is clearly testing Nato and the West. It is seeking to
expand its sphere of influence, destabilise countries and
weaken the alliance.
"It is undermining national security for many allies and the
international rules-based system.
"Therefore it is in our interest and Europe's to keep Nato
strong and to deter and dissuade Russia from this course."
Sir Michael backed US president Donald Trump's call for all
Nato member states to honour the commitment to spend a
minimum of 2% of GDP on defence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38850907

Trump warns Iran that nothing is off the table

following its missile test
2 Feb, 2017 / RT

Jason Reed / Reuters

The US President Donald Trump has warned Tehran that a
military option is not off the table as a response to the
latest alleged missile test by Iran.
When asked whether the US would consider using force to
respond to Tehran, Trump told reporters on Thursday that
"nothing is off the table."
On January 30, Fox News reported, citing US officials, that
Iran had conducted tests of its medium-range ballistic
missiles. On Thursday, three days later, CNN, NBC News and
Reuters all cited unnamed sources reporting that fresh
sanctions against Iran were likely to come as early as Friday.
The House seems open to the idea.
"I'd like to put as much toothpaste back in the tube as
possible. I think the last administration appeased Iran far too
much," House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said at a
news conference on Thursday, according to NPR.
Washington condemned the move, saying the test
undermined security, prosperity and stability throughout
and beyond the Middle East essentially putting lives at
risk.
We are officially putting Iran on notice, Trumps National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn warned.
The US claimed the test violated UN Security Council
Resolution 2231 which called on Iran not to undertake any
activity related to ballistic missiles.
On Wednesday, Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein
Dehqan confirmed that Iran did indeed test the missile.
"The recent test was in line with our plans and we will not
allow foreigners to interfere in our defense affairs," Defence
Minister Hossein Dehghan told Tasnim news agency. "The
test did not violate the nuclear deal or (UN) Resolution
2231."
Trump said that instead of conducting tests, Iran should
have been thankful for the P5+1 deal brokered by key world
powers including the US, which the new US President
repeatedly called a disaster.
Tehran emphatically dismissed Trumps threats saying, The
American government will understand that threatening Iran
is useless, Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign policy advisor to the
Irans Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
told reporters.
Last month Tehran also warned Washington against
dishonoring the so-called P5+1 deal which resolved a years-
long deadlock on the Iranian nuclear program. Iran said if
Trump disrespect the agreements, it would consider
resuming the nuclear program at a higher level.
https://www.rt.com/usa/376110-trump-warns-iran-missile/?
utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm
_campaign=chrome
US Armed Forces Order $1 Billion Worth of Fuel From
14 Companies
AFP 2016/ ERIC PIERMONT
3 February 2017 / Sputnik News
The US Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) ordered more
than $1 billion worth of fuel from Shell Oil, Exxon
Mobil and 12 other companies for different military
services and functions, the Department of Defense
said in a press release.

Trump: There Would Be No Daesh Terrorism if US Took

Control of Oil
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) The contracts include one for
$449.4 million with Equilon Enterprises, doing business
as Shell Oil Products and another for almost $218.4 million
with Exxon Mobil Fuels Lubricants and Specialties Marketing
Company, the Defense Department said.
They are one-year contracts with a 30-day carryover.
Locations of performance are Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio,
Indiana, Alabama, Wyoming, Oregon, Illinois, New York,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas, the release
stated on Wednesday.
Other fuel deals included in the announcement were for
$112.3 million with the Phillips 66 Company, $109.1 million
with the Petromax Refining Company, $63.5 million with the
Placid Refining Company and $55.1 million with Lazarus
Energy Holdings, the announcement added.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201702021050261499-us-
armed-forces-fuel/

Trump: There Would Be No Daesh Terrorism if US Took

Control of Oil
AP Photo/ Hasan Jamali
US President Donald Trump claims that Daesh
terrorist group would have disintegrated if the United
States were to take control of the oil.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) The Islamic State (ISIL, also known
as Daesh or ISIL) terrorist group would have disintegrated if
the United States were to take control of the oil, US President
Donald Trump said in an interview with ABC News.
"You wouldnt have ISIS if we took the oil," Trump stressed,
explaining that the main reason why Daesh was able to gain
strength was because of oil trade.
Speaking on Syria, where a US-led international coalition has
been launching airstrikes against Daes, Trump reiterated that
he plans to create safe zones for civilians.
During his election campaign, Trump spoke several times
of creating safe areas for Syrian refugees in Syria. When
arguing for the proposal, Trump had stated this would stem
the tide of Syrian refugees going abroad and lower the
burden on neighboring countries and Europe.
https://sputniknews.com/world/201701261050016917-
trump-daesh-control-oil/

How corporate dark money is taking power on both

sides of the Atlantic
5 February 2017 / Guardian Online
George Monbiot
A secretive network of business lobbyists has long held sway
in US politics. Now their allies in the UK government are
planning a Brexit that plays into their hands

http://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot
Thursday 2 February 2017 18.29 GMT Last modified on
Friday 3 February 2017 16.03 GMT
It took corporate America a while to warm to Donald Trump.
Some of his positions, especially on trade, horrified business
leaders. Many of them favoured Ted Cruz or Scott Walker. But
once Trump had secured the nomination, the big money
began to recognise an unprecedented opportunity.
Trump was prepared not only to promote the cause of
corporations in government, but to turn government into a
kind of corporation, staffed and run by executives and
lobbyists. His incoherence was not a liability, but an opening:
his agenda could be shaped. And the dark money network
already developed by some American corporations was
perfectly positioned to shape it. Dark money is the term
used in the US for the funding of organisations involved in
political advocacy that are not obliged to disclose where the
money comes from. Few people would see a tobacco
company as a credible source on public health, or a coal
company as a neutral commentator on climate change. In
order to advance their political interests, such companies
must pay others to speak on their behalf.
Soon after the second world war, some of Americas richest
people began setting up a network of thinktanks to promote
their interests. These purport to offer dispassionate opinions
on public affairs. But they are more like corporate lobbyists,
working on behalf of those who fund them.
We have no hope of understanding what is coming until we
understand how the dark money network operates. The
remarkable story of a British member of parliament provides
a unique insight into this network, on both sides of the
Atlantic. His name is Liam Fox. Six years ago, his political
career seemed to be over when he resigned as defence
secretary after being caught mixing his private and official
interests. But today he is back on the front bench, and with a
crucial portfolio: secretary of state for international trade.
In 1997, the year the Conservatives lost office to Tony Blair,
Fox, who is on the hard right of the Conservative party,
founded an organisation called The Atlantic Bridge. Its patron
was Margaret Thatcher. On its advisory council sat future
cabinet ministers Michael Gove, George Osborne, William
Hague and Chris Grayling. Fox, a leading campaigner for
Brexit, described the mission of Atlantic Bridge as to bring
people together who have common interests. It would
defend these interests from European integrationists who
would like to pull Britain away from its relationship with the
United States.
The diplomatic mission Liam Fox developed through Atlantic
Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration
Atlantic Bridge was later registered as a charity. In fact it was
part of the UKs own dark money network: only after it
collapsed did we discover the full story of who had funded it.
Its main sponsor was the immensely rich Michael Hintze,
who worked at Goldman Sachs before setting up the hedge
fund CQS. Hintze is one of the Conservative partys biggest
donors. In 2012 he was revealed as a funder of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation, which casts doubt on the science
of climate change. As well as making cash grants and loans
to Atlantic Bridge, he lent Fox his private jet to fly to and
from Washington.
Another funder was the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. It
paid for a researcher at Atlantic Bridge called Gabby Bertin.
She went on to become David Camerons press secretary,
and now sits in the House of Lords: Cameron gave her a life
peerage in his resignation honours list.

Trade secretary Liam Fox. Photograph: Daniel Leal-

Olivas/AFP/Getty Images
In 2007, a group called the American Legislative Exchange
Council (Alec) set up a sister organisation, the Atlantic Bridge
Project. Alec is perhaps the most controversial corporate-
funded thinktank in the US. It specialises in bringing together
corporate lobbyists with state and federal legislators to
develop model bills. The legislators and their families enjoy
lavish hospitality from the group, then take the model bills
home with them, to promote as if they were their own
initiatives.

The Guardian's Brexit Means... Brex and the City

Brexit podcast
Jon Henley is joined by Vincenzo Scarpatta, Jill Treanor, Dan
Roberts and Anthony Browne to discuss how Brexit will affect
Britains multi-billion pound financial services industry
Listen
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/audio/2017/jan/27/brex
-and-the-city-brexit-means-podcast
Alec has claimed that more than 1,000 of its bills are
introduced by legislators every year, and one in five of them
becomes law. It has been heavily funded by tobacco
companies, the oil company Exxon, drug companies and
Charles and David Koch the billionaires who founded the
first Tea Party organisations. Pfizer, which funded Bertins
post at Atlantic Bridge, sits on Alecs corporate board. Some
of the most contentious legislation in recent years, such as
state bills lowering the minimum wage, bills granting
corporations immunity from prosecution and the ag-gag
laws forbidding people to investigate factory farming
practices were developed by Alec.
To run the US arm of Atlantic Bridge, Alec brought in its
director of international relations, Catherine Bray. She is a
British woman who had previously worked for the
Conservative MEP Richard Ashworth and the Ukip MEP Roger
Helmer. Bray has subsequently worked for Conservative MEP
and Brexit campaigner Daniel Hannan. Her husband is Wells
Griffith, the battleground states director for Trumps
presidential campaign.
Among the members of Atlantic Bridges US advisory council
were the ultra-conservative senators James Inhofe, Jon Kyl
and Jim DeMint. Inhofe is reported to have received over
$2m in campaign finance from coal and oil companies. Both
Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have been major donors.
Kyl, now retired, is currently acting as the sherpa guiding
Jeff Sessionss nomination as Trumps attorney general
through the Senate. Jim DeMint resigned his seat in the
Senate to become president of the Heritage Foundation the
thinktank founded with a grant from Joseph Coors of the
Coors brewing empire, and built up with money from the
banking and oil billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Like Alec, it
has been richly funded by the Koch brothers. Heritage, under
DeMints presidency, drove the attempt to ensure that
Congress blocked the federal budget, temporarily shutting
down the government in 2013. Foxs former special adviser
at the Ministry of Defence, an American called Luke Coffey,
now works for the foundation.

Former Arizona senator Jon Kyl. Photograph: Saul

Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
The Heritage Foundation is now at the heart of Trumps
administration. Its board members, fellows and staff
comprise a large part of his transition team. Among them are
Rebekah Mercer, who sits on Trumps executive committee;
Steven Groves and Jim Carafano (State Department); Curtis
Dubay (Treasury); and Ed Meese, Paul Winfree, Russ Vought
and John Gray (management and budget). CNN reports that
no other Washington institution has that kind of footprint in
the transition.
Trumps extraordinary plan to cut federal spending by
$10.5tn was drafted by the Heritage Foundation, which
called it a blueprint for a new administration. Vought and
Gray, who moved on to Trumps team from Heritage, are now
turning this blueprint into his first budget.
This will, if passed, inflict devastating cuts on healthcare,
social security, legal aid, financial regulation and
environmental protections; eliminate programmes to prevent
violence against women, defend civil rights and fund the
arts; and will privatise the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. Trump, as you follow this story, begins to look
less like a president and more like an intermediary,
implementing an agenda that has been handed down to him.
In July last year, soon after he became trade secretary, Liam
Fox flew to Washington. One of his first stops was a place he
has visited often over the past 15 years: the office of the
Heritage Foundation, where he spoke to, among others, Jim
DeMint. A freedom of information request reveals that one of
the topics raised at the meeting was the European ban on
American chicken washed in chlorine: a ban that producers
hope the UK will lift under a new trade agreement.
Afterwards, Fox wrote to DeMint, looking forward to working
with you as the new UK government develops its trade policy
priorities, including in high value areas that we discussed
such as defence.
How did Fox get to be in this position, after the scandal that
brought him down in 2011? The scandal itself provides a
clue: it involved a crossing of the boundaries between public
and private interests. The man who ran the UK branch of
Atlantic Bridge was his friend Adam Werritty, who operated
out of Michael Hintzes office building. Werrittys work
became entangled with Foxs official business as defence
secretary. Werritty, who carried a business card naming him
as Foxs adviser but was never employed by the Ministry of
Defence, joined the secretary of state on numerous
ministerial visits overseas, and made frequent visits to Foxs
office.
By the time details of this relationship began to leak, the
charity commission had investigated Atlantic Bridge and
determined that its work didnt look very charitable. It had to
pay back the tax from which it had been exempted (Hintze
picked up the bill). In response, the trustees shut the
organisation down. As the story about Werrittys
unauthorised involvement in government business began to
grow, Fox made a number of misleading statements. He was
left with no choice but to resign.
Frightened by Donald Trump? You dont know the half
of it
George Monbiot

When Theresa May brought Fox back into government, it was

as strong a signal as we might receive about the intentions
of her government. The trade treaties that Fox is charged
with developing set the limits of sovereignty. US food and
environmental standards tend to be lower than Britains, and
will become lower still if Trump gets his way. Any trade treaty
we strike will create a common set of standards for products
and services. Trumps administration will demand that ours
are adjusted downwards, so that US corporations
can penetrate our markets without having to modify their
practices. All the cards, post-Brexit vote, are in US hands: if
the UK doesnt cooperate, there will be no trade deal.
May needed someone who is unlikely to resist. She chose
Fox, who has become an indispensable member of her team.
The shadow diplomatic mission he developed through
Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump
administration.
Long before Trump won, campaign funding in the US had
systematically corrupted the political system. A new analysis
by US political scientists finds an almost perfect linear
relationship, across 32 years, between the money gathered
by the two parties for congressional elections and their share
of the vote. But there has also been a shift over these years:
corporate donors have come to dominate this funding.
By tying our fortunes to those of the United States, the UK
government binds us into this system. This is part of what
Brexit was about: European laws protecting the public
interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as
intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom. Taking back
control from Europe means closer integration with the US.
The transatlantic special relationship is a special relationship
between political and corporate power. That power is
cemented by the networks Liam Fox helped to develop.
In April 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent the US
Congress the following warning: The liberty of a democracy
is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power
to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic
state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism. It is a warning
we would do well to remember.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/02/co
rporate-dark-money-power-atlantic-lobbyists-brexit

Elizabeth Warren silenced over US Senate criticism of

Sessions
8 February 17/ BBC Online

Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced by

Senate Republicans on Tuesday after reading a letter written
by the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
The 30-year-old letter criticised Jeff Sessions, President
Donald Trump's nomination for attorney general.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, said Ms
Warren had broken senate rules by impugning the conduct of
another senator.
She subsequently read Coretta Scott King's letter live on
Facebook.
The incident occurred during a debate in the senate on the
nomination of Mr Sessions. Mr McConnell's objection to Ms
Warren's speech was put to a vote and senators voted 49-43
in his favour.
Ms Warren described what happened in a comment
alongside her Facebook video: "During the debate on
whether to make Jeff Sessions the next Attorney General, I
tried to read a letter from Coretta Scott King on the floor of
the Senate.
"The letter, from 30 years ago, urged the Senate to reject
the nomination of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. The
Republicans took away my right to read this letter on the
floor - so I'm right outside, reading it now."

Ms Scott King's letter alleged that Mr Sessions was

unsuitable for that role because he had "used the awesome
powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and
frighten elderly black voters". Mr Sessions' nomination
process has been dogged by allegations that he attempted
to suppress black votes when he was an attorney in
Alabama.
The objection by Mr McConnell raised the ire of Democrats
and members of the public, many of whom shared the letter
on social media using the hashtag #LetLizSpeak.
Bernice King, the daughter of Coretta Scott King and Martin
Luther King, wrote on Twitter: "Thank you @SenWarren for
being the soul of the Senate during the #Sessions hearing.
#LetCorettaSpeak #LetLizSpeak"
The Democratic National Committee said in a statement it
was a "sad day in America when the words of Martin Luther
King Jr's widow are not allowed on the floor of the United
States Senate".
Ms Warren is now barred from speaking on the floor for the
remainder of the debate, Mr McConnell's office said. The
debate is expected to conclude on Wednesday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38903338

Government begins plans to sell off billions of pounds

worth of student debt to private companies
Monday 6 February 2017 / Rachael Pells / Independent
The Government has begun controversial plans to sell off
billions of pounds worth of student debt to private
companies, a move experts warn could come at a cost to
students and taxpayers as the industry falls victim to
"marketisation".
Graduates who took out loans before the 2012 academic
year could find themselves making repayments to private
lenders buying up contracts from the Student Loans
Company (SLC) a move the Treasury expects to make
12bn from in return.
Universities Minister Jo Johnson said there would be no
impact on graduates with loans, but union leaders have
attacked the decision - with the National Union of Students
(NUS) accusing the Government of pulling an ugly move on
students.

Sorana Vieru, NUS Vice President of Higher Education, said:

Selling the loan book to investors is privatisation through
the back door. It is outrageous that bankers will profit off the
backs of graduates who took out loans because they had no
other option.
First to be sold will be the 2002/06 student loan book, which
had a face value of 4bn the end of the 2014/15 financial
year.
A string of factors - including the likelihood that some
student loans will not be repaid in full - means the money
recouped from the sales will be lower than the face value,
however.
Plans to privatise the debt pile were previously called off by
former business secretary Vince Cable in 2014, after
deciding that it would not reduce public sector debt by as
much as originally thought.
Over the next four years, the Government aims to sell off
debt from loans taken out before 2012, when tuition fees in
England were trebled to 9,000 per year.
Former City lawyer and Advisory Board member for the
Intergenerational Foundation think-tank, Estelle Clarke, said
selling student loans was a bizarre step for the government
to take as well as a bad idea for students and taxpayers.
She told The Independent: Students and graduate
borrowers will be right to be alarmed by this announcement:
their loans will be controlled by private purchasers whose
legitimate intention is to extract as much money as possible
from graduate borrowers.
The Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 allows student loans to
be made worse for borrowers and there is a serious risk this
will happen.
"The loans in question already charge expensive monthly
compounding interest and purchasers may well seek to
receive more money from borrowers.
While the Government insists there will be no changes made
to the terms and conditions of loans undertaken, Ms Clarke
warned: "The government has a track record of breaking its
promises; its press position cannot be relied upon.
"The loan sales smack of short-term desperation paid for
by the educational and economic wellbeing of a nation."
Universities and College Union said: This is a government
that has already moved the goalposts on loan repayment to
sting graduates with higher charges, so you can forgive our
scepticism when the minister says people with student debts
have nothing to fear.

Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy

Institute, has previously argued, however, that by selling off
loans, the Government will be forced to set clearer
repayment agreements and the move could therefore make
the borrowing system more secure.
Announcing the decision, a Department for Education (DfE)
spokeswoman said an initial value for money assessment
had been carried out and that it had been deemed a good
time to go through with the sales.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Gauke said: The
Autumn Statement reaffirmed our commitment to the sale of
the student loan book if market conditions were favourable
and I'm pleased the timing is now right to start the process.
This sale makes sense for taxpayers and will play an
important contribution in our work to repair the public
finances.
Universities Minister Jo Johnson said: This Government is
committed to bringing public finances under control. As part
of this we will look to sell assets where value for money to
the UK taxpayer is assured.
This sale will have no impact on people with student loans
and will only proceed once we are satisfied that it represents
value for money for the taxpayer.

But Sorana Vieru, vice president for higher education at the

National Union of Students (NUS), argued: The Government
are pulling yet another ugly move on students. The selling
off of tranches of the student loan book to the highest bidder
for less than it's worth is economic illiteracy.
It doesn't just penalise students and graduates, it is taking
money from the public purse which could and should be
spent on services over the long term.
Recent UCAS figures have fuelled concerns students are
becoming increasingly put-off the prospect of going to
university due to financial pressures.
The application rate for student nurses fell by almost a
quarter this year, following the government's move to scrap
NHS bursaries.
"As students and their parents begin to understand the
impact of this, more and more people will shy away from
university at a time when receipts from EU students are less
because of Brexit," Ms Clarke added.
"The government is shooting itself in its economic foot with
these loan sales and taxpayers and borrowers will end up
picking up the governments medical bill."
University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt,
added: The Government has tried to sell off parts of the
student loan book before, but not gone through with it
because it didn't feel the taxpayer would get a good deal.
We don't believe another attempt to bring private
companies into the higher education sector can represent a
better deal for students or the taxpayer.
UK Government Investments has begun searching for buyers
to snap up the pre-2012 English student loan book through a
series of sales before the end of the 2020/21 financial year.
Chancellor Philip Hammond is searching for ways to shore up
the public finances in the face of ballooning public sector
debt, which reached 86.2% of gross domestic product in
December.
Sale of the student loan book would be structured through a
securitisation to attract an array of different investor groups,
including pension funds, insurers and asset managers.
It is expected to take several months to complete and would
depend on market conditions, the Government added.
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/student-loans-
sales-debt-private-companies-treasury-graduates-12bn-
a7565716.html

theverge.com
Facebook launches fake news filter in France
Amar Toor
Facebook has launched a campaign to crack down on fake
news in France, ahead of the countrys presidential election
later this year. As Reuters reports, the social network
announced on Monday that it will work with eight French
media companies to fact-check and filter news articles that
have been reported by users.
According to Le Monde, one of Facebooks partners, the
French campaign is similar to an initiative that Facebook
launched in the US late last year, and in Germany last
month. Both Facebook and Google faced widespread
criticism for allowing fake news to spread during the US
presidential election, and European leaders have expressed
concern that such misinformation could impact upcoming
elections across the continent.

Under the system, if an article is reported as false by users,

it will be sent to a portal that all eight media companies
have access to, according to Le Monde. If at least two of the
companies confirm the article as false (with links to support
their claims), the content will be flagged as disputed in
Facebooks News Feed, and users will see a warning before
they share it. Advertising against the article will also be
blocked, Le Monde reports.

In addition to Le Monde, Facebooks French partners include

Agence France-Presse (AFP), BFM-TV, Franceinfo, France
Mdias Monde, LExpress, Libration, and 20 Minutes.
Facebook also announced that it will support CrossCheck
an initiative that will allow users to submit questions and
gather information from 16 French media partners.
CrossCheck was launched by the First Draft News coalition,
with support from the Google News Lab.
Some French media outlets have already their launched their
own initiatives to combat fake news. Le Monde has compiled
a database of more than 600 websites deemed to be
unreliable, and the left-leaning newspaper Libration is
working to create a similar database of false stories.
In its report on the launch of Facebooks initiative, Le Monde
said that French media companies had been reluctant to
partner with the social network, amid concerns that the
program would place too great a burden on their fact-
checking teams. But the newspaper and other companies
ultimately decided to sign on, in part because Facebook said
that its algorithms could limit the visibility of articles flagged
as false.
Thats what convinced us to join, said Jrme Fenoglio, Le
Mondes editorial director. For the first time, itll be possible
to tweak the algorithm if theres an editorial issue with a
post.
Le Monde described the Facebook initiative as an
experiment, and that its early results will be assessed in
two months. The first round of Frances presidential elections
will be held in April, with the second round slated for May.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14520172/facebook-fake-
news-filter-france-election
NOT Russian Awan Brothers Suspected of Accessing
House Intelligence Committee Computers
S. Noble / February 4, 2017

In light of last years email hacks, this is very interesting.

Three brothers were relieved of their IT duties for possibly
accessing congressional computers, including Debbie
Wasserman-Schultzs computer network. Abid, Imran and
Jamal Awan have worked for dozens of departments in the
House of Representatives.
Do you feel safe? Our security services look like buffoons if
this is true.
The brothers who managed information technology for the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
other lawmakers might have accessed congressional
computers without permission.
Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from
computer networks at the House of Representatives
Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative
Group has learned.
The committees that employed these brothers deal with
many of the nations most sensitive issues, information and
documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.
Also among those whose computer systems may have been
compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida
Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous
email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic
National Committee during the 2016 campaign.
Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki said the
investigation was ongoing. No arrests have been made.

They Are Shared Employees and Are Hired by Multiple

Offices
Some congressional Democrats exposed the nations most
sensitive information to these three.
Jamal handled IT for Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat
who serves on both the intelligence and foreign affairs
panels.
As of 2/2, his employment with our office has been
terminated, Castro spokeswoman Erin Hatch told TheDCNF
Friday.
Jamal also worked for Louisiana Democrat Rep. Cedric
Richmond, who is on the Committee on Homeland Security.
Imran worked for Reps. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat,
and Jackie Speier, a California Democrat. Carson
They make about $160,000 a year each and one is only 22
years of age.
Theyre not Russian!
http://www.independentsentinel.com/not-russian-awan-
brothers-suspected-accessing-democrat-computers/

Trump backs One China policy in 'cordial' call with Xi

10 February 2017
US President Donald Trump has agreed to honour the so-
called "One China" policy in a phone call with Chinese
President Xi Jinping, the White House said.
The One China policy is the diplomatic acknowledgement
that there is only one Chinese government.
Mr Trump had placed the long-standing policy in doubt when
he spoke with Taiwan's president in December.
The move was a major break from traditional protocol and
provoked an official complaint from China.
The telephone conversation was the first between the two
since Mr Trump took office on 20 January, though the new US
president has called several other national leaders.

The White House said a wide range of issues were discussed

during the call, which it characterised as "extremely cordial".
The two leaders had invited each other to visit, it said, and
looked forward to further talks.
A statement from Beijing said China appreciated Mr Trump's
acknowledgement of the One China policy.
The two nations were "co-operative partners, and through
joint efforts we can push bilateral relations to a historic new
high", it quoted Mr Xi as saying.
The telephone call followed a letter sent by Mr Trump to Mr
Xi on Thursday - the president's first direct approach to the
Chinese leader.

Mr Trump caused serious concern in Beijing when he

accepted a telephone call from Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-
wen.
Though the US is Taiwan's main military ally, no US president
or president-elect had spoken directly to a Taiwanese leader
for decades.
Under the One China policy, the US recognises and has
formal ties with China rather than the island of Taiwan, which
China sees as a breakaway province to be reunified with the
mainland one day.
Mr Trump then appeared to suggest that US policy could
shift, saying: "I don't know why we have to be bound by a
One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to
do with other things, including trade."
Clear commitment - By Carrie Gracie, BBC China
editor
The content of the phone call between President Trump and
President Xi will be celebrated in Beijing as signalling a
return to the traditional framework of the US-China
relationship.
Three weeks into the new American administration, after a
score of phone calls between Mr Trump and other world
leaders, China's absence from the list was becoming ever
more conspicuous.
Two months ago it looked as though Mr Trump might be
willing to reshape the relationship between the world's two
biggest economies. Not only did he warn that he would
consider 45% tariffs against China and brand Beijing a
currency manipulator; from Beijing's point of view, far more
shocking was his willingness to take a phone call from the
president of Taiwan and his suggestion that the status of
Taiwan might become a bargaining chip in negotiation for
some other American objective.
But many Chinese citizens see Taiwan as the last piece in
China's territorial jigsaw. Any further move towards
independence and international recognition for the island
would have represented a dangerous humiliation for Mr Xi.
With the presidential phone call, Beijing can draw a line
under such fears. Three weeks in, it has won a clear and
unequivocal commitment from the Trump administration to
honour the One China policy. And after all the threats and
promises Mr Trump made about China on the campaign trail,
it is not clear what, if anything, the Trump administration has
won in return.
The new president and his officials have also caused
consternation in Beijing with combative comments on trade
practises and China's military build up in the South China
Sea.
During his nomination hearing, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said the US should block access to islands being
built by China in disputed waters.
To date Beijing has responded cautiously, expressing
"serious concern" about Mr Trump's position on the One
China policy and pledging to "defend its rights" in the South
China Sea.
But state media outlets have been less restrained and have
issued strongly-worded rebukes, blasting Mr Trump for
"playing with fire" on the Taiwan issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38927891

Brexit: The 'Hard' or 'Soft' Option and Does It Really

Matter?
10 February 17 / Sputnik News
Neil Clark
"Which do you choose, a hard or soft option?" It's
doubtful that when The Pet Shop Boys wrote that lyric
over 30 years ago, they could have envisaged the
having great political significance in 2017 - ironically
enough, the centenary of the year in which Vladimir
Ilyich Ulyanov aka Lenin, made the journey "from
Lake Geneva to the Finland Station."
Back in 1986, when "West End Girls" was number one in the
pop charts, only the most diehard Euroskeptics could have
dreamt that Britain would one day leave the EU. But it's
happening now.
Last Wednesday (February 1) the House of Commons voted
by 498 to 114 to invoke Article 50 the EU exit clause.
"Now we're on our way out of the EU" the front page of the
Daily Express declared. The only question left now is: will we
have a "hard" Brexit or a "soft" one?
A "hard" or "clean," Brexit would mark a complete break
with the EU and its institutions, with the UK out of both the
single market and the customs union. A "soft" Brexit would
mean staying in the single market, in return for some
increased control over the free movement of EU citizens.
Last week, the government finally published its plans in a
White Paper. The Brexit Prime Minister Theresa May would
like to see won't be as hard as the going used to be at Bath
racecourse in August, but probably hard enough to please
most of those who voted "out" last June 23.

The UK will withdraw from the single market but seek a new
"mutually beneficial" customs arrangement and a free trade
agreement with the EU. A new system to control EU
migration will be created, although there could be "a phased
process of implementation" to give business time to prepare.
The government will work to secure the status of EU
nationals already living in the UK, and British nationals living
in other EU countries. Workers' rights will be protected. The
government "will bring an end to the jurisdiction of the Court
of Justice of the European Union in the UK."
The chances of a "soft" Brexit receded further this week
when a key Remainer amendment to the Brexit Bill was
rejected by a majority of 33. And although the government
has promised MPs a vote on a final deal, before it goes
before the European Parliament, it's difficult to imagine
Parliament derailing Brexit in any significant way now. There
will of course be attempts to make the forthcoming
Parliamentary debates sound as if they're of life-shattering
importance, but is the difference between a "hard" or "soft"
Brexit really that much of a big deal (no pun intended)?
Given Britain's trade imbalance with its EU "partners" its
hard to see leaving the Single Market as a tragedy. Seeing
that they do so well out of trading with Britain, other
countries in the EU would be mad not to want to strike new
trade agreements as soon as possible. And if workers rights
are fully protected, as the government has promised, why
the "liberal" concern over a "hard" Brexit?
By obsessing over "hard" or "soft" Brexits, aren't we guilty
of losing sight of the bigger picture namely the UK's
economy overdependence on financial services, its high
level of personal indebtedness, and its chronic balance
of payments problems? Regardless of how we leave the EU,
Britain urgently needs to pursue a radically different
economic course, if the country is to stay afloat, and this is
really what we should be talking about now.
We need a break with banker-friendly neo-liberalism and a
return to the policies governments pursued in the period
1945-79 and which benefited the majority of the population
as opposed to just the financial elites. For all the spiel
about helping manufacturing, that won't happen under
Theresa May's Conservatives, who are in hock to the City.
There's no reason economic reform can't happen
under Labour, if the party gets its act together and ditches
the neo-liberal Blairites. However, at a moment of great
opportunity, the party of Keir Hardie, Clem Attlee and Harold
Wilson, seems to be afflicted with a new bout
of cautiousness for example, only last week, Shadow
Chancellor John McDonnell called for caps on price rises
by profiteering energy companies, instead of advocating
their wholescale re-nationalization.
This timidity needs to be jettisoned. While Brexit has been
portrayed as something terribly right-wing, and a
phenomenon that no true progressive could possibly
welcome, it could in fact lead to a renewal of democratic
socialism in the UK, if Labour were brave enough to grasp
the challenge.
I'm pretty sure that if those brilliant anti-globalist left-wing
Labour politicians Tony Benn and Peter Shore were still
with us today, they wouldn't be wasting their time debating
the minutia of Brexit deals, and bemoaning Britain leaving a
capitalist, TNC-friendly "single market," but be hard at work
compiling a list of profiteering transport and utility
companies to be taken into public ownership and urging
Jeremy Corbyn to set up a new National Investment Bank
and National Enterprise Board.
The "hard" or "soft" option debate is in so many ways a
needless distraction away from the real problems facing the
UK.
It's no wonder that the Establishment,and its stenographers,
want us to focus obsessively on the "difficulties" and
"complexities" of Brexit and not on rip-off rail and bus fares,
public library closures, scandalously low old age pensions,
and the rationing of important operations on the National
Health Service.
These issues, at the end of the day, matter far more
to ordinary people than a line from a thirty-year old Pet Shop
Boys single which, to the convenience of the elite, has had a
new lease of life in recent months.
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201702091050505189-
uk-hard-soft-brexit/

UK government denies it ignored advice over Saudi

arms sales
Documents revealed in High Court detail close nature of
military ties between London and Riyadh

Jamie Merrill
Wednesday 8 February 2017

The British government used its considerable insight into

the actions of the Saudi Arabian military to make its decision
to continue arms exports to the kingdom, a London court
heard on Wednesday.
James Eadie QC told the High Court that in considering
whether to halt the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia in
February 2016, government ministers used significant
understanding and knowledge" of Saudi processes to make
a considered analysis.
But the government's lawyer also appeared to defend Saudi
strikes on hospitals and school buildings by saying they
could serve as arms dumps and could in some
circumstances be considered dual-use targets, making air
strikes legitimate.
According to evidence presented by the government,
ministers discussed arms exports to Saudi Arabia at the
"highest levels," and relied on expert evidence from the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Ministry of
Defence (MoD) officials to reach their conclusions.

Eadie is defending the government against a judicial review

brought by Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT). The
group, which has campaigned against arms sales since 1974,
is hoping the case will lead to the suspension of UK arms
sales to Saudi Arabia.
The court hearing on Wednesday also saw the release of a
number of documents focusing on the close ties between the
British military and the Saudi forces engaged in the ongoing
conflict in Yemen.
In spite of human rights fears over Saudi Arabias bombing
campaign in Yemen, Britain has exported 3.3bn ($4.1bn) of
weapons to the kingdom since 2015, including fighter jets
and munitions.
On Tuesday lawyers for CAAT argued that Sajid Javid, the
then-business secretary with decision-making responsibility
for arms exports, had ignored the advice of his own arms
control expert. They presented an email to the court from
Edward Bell, the policy head of the Export Control
Organisation. It detailed how Bell had told Javid that his gut
tells me we should suspend.
The court also heard that officials within the MoD had
removed a column in a tracking system dedicated to
recording violations of international human rights law (IHL).
Defending the government's position, Eadie told the court
that officials and ministers at the then Department for
Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), which had decision-
making power over arms exports, made their decision after
rationally examining the evidence and the so-called
consolidated criteria for arms exports.

The relevant question for the secretary of state is whether

there is a clear risk that the items to be licensed might be
used in the commission of serious violations of international
humanitarian law (IHL). That has been the question
consistently addressed by the secretary of state, he said in
his written submission to the court.
Eadie also told the court that Javid, who is now minister for
communities and local government, had sought assistance
from senior civil servants at the FCO and MoD, as well as
then foreign secretary Philip Hammond. Since the case was
brought, the role of approving arms exports has been
transferred to the new Department of International Trade. He
also said officials examined Saudi Arabia's IHL record, its
public statements and its willingness to engage in dialogue
to make the decision to continue exports.
Arms traders not 'auditors of foreign states'
The governments legal team rejected demands that civil
servants must fully investigate each and every allegation of
IHL violations. It is difficult to think those who set criteria for
arms sales intended to set themselves up as auditors of
foreign states conduct of conflict, Eadie said.
In a defence of Saudi Arabia, he also said the evidence
showed that the country is not a state flagrantly and
wantonly violating IHL. It knows the eyes of the world are on
it.
To the dismay of campaigners, he said hospitals and school
buildings that were targeted by the Saudis could serve as
arms dumps. He said they could in some circumstances be
considered dual-use targets, making air strikes legitimate.

Documents presented to the court also revealed the full

extent of Britains military relationship with Saudi Arabia:
More than 100 civil servants and armed forces
personnel are based in Saudi Arabia to ensure the
 supply of modern military aircraft, naval weapons and
training.
British personnel and officials are based in the Saudi-led
coalitions operational headquarters, where the conflict
in Yemen is overseen and air strikes are planned.
The defence attache at the British Embassy in Riyadh
regularly visits the coalition's operational headquarters.
The officer who currently holds this role is a one-star
general rank. The only British defence attache more
senior in rank is based in Washington.
The British Royal Air Force has a permanent liaison
officer of group captain rank based in Riyadh.
UK military personnel provide logistical and technical
support and training to the Royal Saudi Armed Forces.
UK liaison officers are also based at the Saudi Arabian
Ministry of Defence, the Royal Saudi Air Force
headquarters.
UK officers have knowledge of targeting guidance
given to Saudi forces operating in Yemen.
Sensitive evidence to be heard in private
The remainder of the judicial review, which ends on Friday, is
due to be held in secret to protect sensitive government
sources. These are expected to include MoD surveillance
satellite images of bomb sites in Yemen as well as top-secret
intelligence reports.
Lord Justice Burnett and Justice Haddon-Cave will also
examine the full text of a UN report to the Security Council,
which includes Britain.
The report was partially leaked to Reuters last month and
British ministers were compelled to hand it over to the court.
According to Reuters, the report shows that the Saudi-led
coalition has carried out attacks in Yemen that may amount
to war crimes.
The report found that in eight out of 10 cases examined
there was no evidence that air strikes had targeted
legitimate military objectives.
The MoDs own figures show it has tracked or is tracking 251
allegations of violations of international humanitarian law by
Saudi forces in Yemen.
The case continues.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-government-defends-
arms-sales-saudi-arabia-1844692551

US promises to back up Pacific allies in face of North

Korea hostilities

First North Korean missile test during Donald Trumps

presidency
Jon Sharman / 13 February 17
The White House has responded to North Koreas latest
missile test and promised it will reinforce its alliances in
the Pacific.
President Donald Trump said he stood behind Japan 100 per
cent in a press conference immediately following the news,
which happened during a visit by Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe.
A broader statement on the United States position came
from senior adviser Stephen Miller during a Sunday
television interview, as UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson
also condemned the launch.
North Korea trading despite nuclear sanctions - Inside
the country's special economic zone
The message is that we are going to reinforce and
strengthen our vital alliances in the Pacific region as part of
our strategy to deter and prevent the increasing hostility
that weve seen in recent years from the
North Korean regime, Mr Miller told Fox News Sunday.
More broadly, as you know, were inheriting a situation
around the world today that is deeply troubling. The situation
in North Korea, the situation in Iraq, the situation in Syria,
the situation in Yemen.
And this President is committed to a fundamental rebuilding
of the armed forces of the United States that will again send
a signal to the world that Americas strength will not be
tested.
Mr Johnson tweeted: Condemn latest #NorthKorea missile
launch. UK will continue to work with allies for strong
response to this threat to int peace & security.
Speaking at one of Mr Trumps golf resorts in Florida, Mr Abe
said: North Koreas most recent missile launch is absolutely
intolerable. President Trump and I, myself, completely share
the view that we are going to promote further cooperation
between the two nations. And also we are going to further
reinforce our alliance.
North Korea must fully comply with all UN Security Council
resolutions, he added.
Kim Jong-uns regime has been subject to harsh economic
sanctions, including restrictions on coal shipments, because
of its weapons testing.
And the countrys highest-profile defector, Thae Yong-ho, the
former deputy ambassador in London, has said Mr Kim hopes
to control a functioning nuclear arsenal by the end of this
year.

The missile launch was quickly condemned by South Korea,

as well as France, Russia and Italy.
The Souths foreign ministry said the test showed the
irrational nature of a government fanatically obsessed
with developing nuclear ballistic missiles.
Russian politician Leonid Slutsky said: We need to work
intensively on the Korean dossier and not slow down the
pace for all of us. US-Russia cooperation on the matter was
possible however utopian that may appear now, he added.
The international community has pursued a policy of
sanctions against Mr Kims regime in an attempt to dissuade
the dictator from striving to gain nuclear weapons.
But Mr Thae said he believed Pyongyang would stop at
nothing to obtain the apocalyptic arsenal, even if it was
offered trillions of dollar to do so money that would be
transformative for its starving and repressed population.
While the US now seeks stronger security ties with Pacific
nations, one of Mr Trumps first acts as President was to sign
an executive order withdrawing his country from the Trans-
Pacific Partnership trade agreement.
The deal was meant to bring together 12 countries in a wide-
ranging new relationship. Mr Abe said it has no
meaning without US involvement and New Zealand Prime
Minister John Key said: At some point the US would want to
think about how it accesses those very fast-growing markets
in Asia, and what role it wants to have in Asia.
Mr Key said he hoped the 11 remaining countries could
revive the pact. And Alexander Downer, the Australian High
Commissioner to London, said he thought China or Indonesia
could replace the US as the 12th member.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stephen-
miller-us-bolster-allies-pacific-north-korea-hostile-missile-
test-a7576216.html

Monsanto-GMO Propaganda. Softening-up the

British Public in Favour of GM Food
By Colin Todhunter
Global Research, February 13, 2017

On the back of Brexit, the UK government is planning what

could be a disastrous trade deal with the Trump
administration. It would likely be worse than the secretive
and undemocratic stalled Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal that the EU has been
planning with the US.
As for food and agriculture, such a trade deal would be
contingent on the UK abandoning standards that took years
to put in place, allowing imports of US foods that were
previously rejected: beef from cattle implanted with growth
hormones, chlorine-washed chicken and unlabelled
genetically modified (GM) foods.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Monsanto is preparing a
fresh effort to try to soften up the UK public for GM food
appearing on supermarket shelves and GM crops being
planted in the nations fields. Former World Bank
communications strategist and slick communicator Vance
Crowe has been hired by Monsanto as its Director of
Millenial Engagement to convince younger people about the
benefits of GM. And he is visiting the UK to give a series of
talks.
Although Crowe will do his best, no amount of corporate spin
can hide the reality: the UK public does not want GM; there
is no scientific consensus on the health safety aspects of GM;
there is more than sufficient information to indicate serious
health dangers (for example, see this); and there are well-
documented adverse environmental impacts derived from
what is an over-hyped (and largely unneeded) technology. In
fact, the failed GM project has to date left a trail of broken
promises in its wake that are clear for all to see: no decrease
in pesticide use and no increase in crop yields.
One thing in the technologys favour, however: at least from
an industry standpoint, GM allows corporations like
Monsanto tosecure intellectual property rights on seeds and
to secure farmer dependency on proprietary inputs. In this
respect, maybe the public arent as ignorant about the GM
issue as Monsanto would like us all to think: in a recent
survey in Canada, over 50% of the public who were
questioned believed GM was just a way for companies to
increase their profits.
Crowe is promoting a food and agriculture model based not
only on a disastrously failing taxpayer-subsidised chemical
treadmill but on a failing biotech treadmill too. Good for the
agritech/agribusiness cartel, bad for farmers, bad the
environment and bad for consumers.
But Crowe reads from a script that will try to convince
everyone that the opposite is true: Monsanto is providing a
service to humanity and that his company is a hapless victim
of hate-filled ideologues. He is on record as saying that that
critics of modern agriculture have spread anger and fear
into the system and that:
what we as an industry can do is to package ideas so that
people can understand them and spread our ideas
throughout networks making sure that what we believe
spreads out to be what culture stacks up to.
Part of the cultural stack-up involves an attempt to depict
critics of modern agriculture and GMOs as anti-science and
fear-mongers who deal in ideology and emotion. These
claims have been used by various pro-GM ideologues, such
as Kevin Folta, Owen Paterson, Richard John
Roberts and Shanthu Shantharam time and again. And these
claims have been debunked time and again
(see this, this and this).
The industry tactic is that if the same baseless claims are
repeated as nauseam, the public and policy makers will take
them at face value. The aim is to reduce the debate to a
series of trivial soundbites. This manipulation is carried out
by individuals with an interest in promoting a GMO techno
quick-fix for world hunger and whose own self-interest
compels them to side-line the social, environmental and
economic impacts of this technology and the root causes of
poverty, malnutrition, inequality and hunger.
Slogans and PR stunts are designed to bring the debate
down to smears and emotional blackmail to sway public
opinion in favour of GMOs. They are designed to denigrate
critics and marginalise debate about realistic alternatives for
feeding the world, which challenge the interests of the global
GMO agritech sector.
The pro-GMO lobby has used such tactics as part of a well-
funded, carefully thought-out strategy for dealing with
critics. It has favoured public relations, deception and the co-
option of public institutions over actual science.
The GMO-agritech sector has taken its cue from big tobacco,
big oil and right-wing free market fundamentalists whose
only concern is to maximise profit, do away with regulations
and health and safety standards and deceive the public and
politicians that harmful products and practices are in the
public interest. For instance, front groups like the Science
Media Centre and Sense About Science have done their best
to hijack the concept of sound science and twist it in favour
of industry propaganda which is based on anything but
science that is sound.
Vance Crowe aside, we should also take note of other key
figures who are currently jumping on the pro-GMO
bandwagon and who are trying to shape the debate.
Former UK agriculture permanent secretary (i.e. a former
senior civil servant) Sir Richard Packer recently penned the
article Brexit, Agriculture and Agricultural Policy. He argues
that anti-scientific attitudes and bureaucracy are holding
back the scientific advance of agricultural production.
In the EU agricultural sector, he says:
opposition is especially prominent in the debates over
GM crops and foods and, sometimes, on issues such as
pesticides. On GM in particular, the EU has been unable to
make progress despite clear scientific advice.
Packer argues that the EU debate on GM foods was for a
considerable period hijacked by anti-scientific forces:
If, as many believe, GM has a significant role to play in
meeting future food supply sustainability, it would be
sensible to make rapid progress on the matter, for the
benefit of future generations. As in the EU, there are also
groups in the UK opposed to GM as a matter of principle who
would not therefore be persuadable as to its benefits. But it
is to be hoped the scientific view would prevail and there
would be an opportunity to ensure it did.
He adds that after Brexit there will be scope for
improvement in the present arrangements:
Post-Brexit there will also be scope for adopting a more
rigorous scientific attitude on matters such as pesticides and
biotechnology including GM. We cannot afford the luxury of
ignoring scientific advance because Luddites shout louder
than the rest of us. But the basic system suits us quite well.
It is interesting to note that his piece was originally
published on the website of the pro-privatisation, pro-
deregulation right-wing Centre for Policy Studies lobby
group. His views are based on little more than standard
industry-type public relations. There is the usual hint of
emotional blackmail that suggests future generations will
lose out on the perceived benefits of GM thanks to a bunch
of anti-science ideologues (future generations that will no
doubt also lose out on the benefits of more health-
destroying pesticides from an agrochemicals industry in dire
need of more deregulation). Of course, the tiresome Luddite
smear is thrown in for good measure.
Isnt it about time that people in Parkers position stood up
and held the likes of Monsanto and its claims to account
instead of acting as cheerleaders? By buying into industry PR
and attacks on critics, does Parker think he comes across as
credible and objective?
Despite the spin and deception, the public is not as gullible
or misinformed about the GM issue as the likes of Parker or
Crowe would like to think.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-gmo-propaganda-
softening-up-the-british-public-in-favour-of-gm-food/5574583

Veteran Palestinian prisoner elected new Hamas Gaza

chief
Mon Feb 13, 2017
The Palestinian Islamic resistance movement, Hamas,
has named a high-ranking member of its military wing
as its new leader in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas officials said on Monday that Yahya Sinwar, a senior
commander of the Ezzedine Qassam Brigades, was elected
to head the movements political office in Gaza.
He will succeed Ismail Haniya, who served as the
democratically-elected prime minister of the Hamas
government which took control of the coastal sliver in June
2007. Many observers view Haniyah as the most likely
successor to Khaled Meshaal, who is the Hamas political
bureau chief and lives in exile in the Qatari capital city of
Doha.
Khalil al-Haya was elected as Sinwar's deputy as well.
Sinwar, who is in his mid-50s, is a founder of
the Ezzedine Qassam Brigades. Sinwar, who was detained by
Israel in 1988, was released in October 2011 under an
agreement to exchange about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for
Israeli trooper Gilad Schalit, whom Hamas fighters had
captured in a cross-border raid five years earlier.
Sinwar rejects any form of reconciliation with Israel.
The Gaza Strip has been under an Israeli siege since June
2007. The blockade has caused a decline in the standards of
living as well as unprecedented levels of unemployment and
unrelenting poverty.
Israel has launched several wars on the Palestinian sliver,
the last of which began in early July 2014. The 50-day
military aggression, which ended on August 26, 2014, killed
nearly 2,200 Palestinians, including 577 children. Over
11,100 others -- including 3,374 children, 2,088 women and
410 elderly people -- were also wounded in the war.
The Israeli military also frequently bombs the Gaza Strip,
with civilians being the main target of such attacks.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/13/510364/Palestine-
Gaza-Hamas-Yahya-Sinwar-Ismail-Haniyah-Khaled-Meshaal-
Israel

bbc.co.uk
North Korean leader's brother Kim Jong-nam killed at
Malaysia airport - BBC News
14 February 17 / BBC Online
The half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Kim
Jong-nam, has been killed in an attack in the Malaysian
capital, Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysian police say he was waiting at the airport for a flight
to Macau on Monday when a woman covered his face with a
cloth which burnt his eyes.
He was using a passport in a different name at the time.
The late Kim Jong-il's eldest son is thought to have fled North
Korea after being passed over for the leadership.
'Laced with a liquid'
Malaysian police official Fadzil Ahmat confirmed for
Malaysian news agency Bernama that the victim was indeed
Kim Jong-nam.
"While waiting for the flight, a woman came from behind and
covered his face with a cloth laced with a liquid," he said.
"Following this, the man was seen struggling for help and
managed to obtain the assistance of a KLIA [Kuala Lumpur
International Airport] receptionist as his eyes suffered burns
as a result of the liquid.
"Moments later, he was sent to the Putrajaya Hospital where
he was confirmed dead.
Image copyright AP Image caption The man who died was
preparing to fly to Macau
"So far there are no suspects, but we have started
investigations and are looking at a few possibilities to get
leads," Fadzil Ahmat told Reuters news agency separately.
Image copyright AP Image caption Hospital security
personnel blocked the entrance of the forensic department
on Tuesday
According to the dead man's travel document, he was "Kim
Chol", born 10 June 1970, but police confirmed he was
actually Kim Jong-nam, born 10 May 1971.
The police official said he had informed the North Korean
embassy about Mr Kim's death.
Earlier reports about his death had spoken of a poisoned
needle or a spray being used to attack him.
The results of an autopsy on his body have not yet been
released.
Bypassed for succession
In 2001, Mr Kim was caught trying to enter Japan using a
false passport. He told officials that he was planning to visit
Tokyo Disneyland.

Once seen as a likely successor to Kim Jong-il, he was

thought to have fallen out of favour with his father over the
incident.
Bypassed in favour of his youngest half-brother for
succession when their father died in 2011, Kim Jong-nam
kept a low profile, spending most of his time overseas in
Macau, Singapore and China.
Image copyright AFP Image caption Malaysian journalists
gathered outside the hospital
He was quoted by Japanese media in 2011 as saying he
opposed "dynastic succession".
He was also quoted in a 2012 book as saying he believed his
younger half-brother lacked leadership qualities, the
succession would not work and that North Korea was
unstable and needed Chinese-style economic reform.
Mr Kim was reportedly targeted for assassination in the past.
A North Korean spy jailed by South Korea in 2012 was
reported to have admitted trying to organise a hit-and-run
accident targeting him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38971655

Trump accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear

weapons
Wed Feb 15, 2017

US President Donald Trump has once again accused

Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, arguing
that he would prevent Tehran from ever gaining
nukes.
I will do more to prevent Iran from ever developing, I mean
ever, a nuclear weapon, Trump said on Wednesday during a
joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu at the White House.
He also called Iran's atomic program a threat to Israel, which
is believed to possess the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle
East.
The security challenges faced by Israel are enormous,
including the threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions, which I've
talked a lot about, he said.
Trump's anti-Iran rhetoric comes as the longstanding
Western dispute over Tehran's nuclear program was settled
after the conclusion of a landmark nuclear agreement in
2015. UN Security Council Resolution 2231 also endorsed the
nuclear deal, which went into effect in January 2016.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also
confirmed Iran's commitment to the terms of the nuclear
agreement, dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA).

Trump also called the landmark nuclear agreement with Iran

as one of the worst deals I've ever seen, saying that his
administration has already introduced fresh sanctions
against Tehran over its missile tests.
Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council -- the United States, France, Britain, Russia
and China -- plus Germany started implementing the JCPOA
on January 16, 2016.
The deal limited parts of Iran's peaceful nuclear program in
exchange for the complete removal of all sanctions against
the country.
Earlier this month, however, Trump undermined the
multilateral deal by introducing a new round of sanctions
against Iran following the countrys successful test-launch of
a ballistic missile, which Washington said was a breach of the
JCPOA. Iran rejected the US claim, reiterating the right to
develop its defense capabilities.
Israel welcomed the sanctions, calling on the US and its
allies to form a united front against Iran to ensure Israels
security.
Underscoring Washington and Tel Avivs unbreakable bond,
Trump promised Netanyahu that his country was committed
to Israels security.

Netanyahu traveled to Washington on Wednesday for talks

with Trump and an opportunity to improve US-Israeli ties
after a frequently combative relationship with Trumps
Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.
With this visit the United States, again, reaffirms our
unbreakable bond with our cherished ally, Israel, Trump
said.
The United States and Israel agreed in September on a
record new package of at least $38 billion in US military aid
over a 10 year period.
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign
assistance since World War II. America's military assistance
to Israel has amounted to $124.3 billion since it began in
1962, according to a US congressional report last year.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/15/510723/US-Trump-
Iran-Israel-Netanyhau-JCPOA

Palestinians Dismayed as U.S. Appears to Back Off

Two-State Solution
By IAN FISHERFEB. 15, 2017
GAZA CITY Palestinians reacted with anger and bafflement
on Wednesday after the Trump administration apparently
backed away from insisting that having two states one for
Israelis, one for Palestinians was the only viable solution
to the decades-long Middle East conflict.
Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator for the Palestinians, raised the
specter of apartheid and called for concrete measures in
order to save the two-state solution.
A White House official, in remarks to reporters on the eve of
President Trumps meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu of Israel on Wednesday, said the Trump
administration would not push the two-state solution, an
apparent retreat from decades of American policy.
In his news conference with Mr. Netanyahu in Washington on
Wednesday, Mr. Trump directly broke with diplomatic
tradition on the issue by saying his concern was the deal,
not whether that included a state for Palestinians.
Im looking at two states and one state, Mr. Trump said. I
like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.
Some Palestinians and Middle East experts reacted with
alarm, saying that such a policy change would undercut the
chances, already slim, of progress toward reconciliation
between the two sides.
This is going to give Israel a free hand to do what it wants,
said Mosheer A. Amer, an associate professor at the Islamic
University here in Gaza City. At least Obama had some
control over Netanyahu.
Photo

Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator and and secretary general

of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said at a news
conference in Jericho in the West Bank on Wednesday that
he feared a new version of apartheid if the two-state peace
plan were abandoned. Credit Ahmad Gharabli/Agence
France-Presse Getty Images
Israel captured and occupied the West Bank and East
Jerusalem 50 years ago, in 1967, and the status of the
former Jordanian territories has been a source of conflict
ever since. (So has the Gaza Strip, which had formerly been
administered by Egypt.) Many Palestinian leaders, especially
those in the West Bank, hold strongly that a two-state
solution is the only acceptable resolution of the conflict.
There is also considerable diplomatic weight behind the goal
of having two viable states living in peace side by side. In
December, with the Obama administrations tacit support,
the United Nations condemned Israeli settlements on
occupied land as obstacles to the two-state solution.
But lately the chances of achieving it have been dimming.
Many Israelis and Palestinians have begun to doubt whether
it is possible or even desirable.
Morning Briefing: Europe
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your
inbox.

Many Israelis argue that the Palestinians in the West Bank

and Gaza are too divided among themselves to ever be able
to permanently accept two states. Some in the Israeli right
advocate annexing all or part of the West Bank, and some
rightists warned Mr. Netanyahu not to raise the possibility of
two states in his meeting with Mr. Trump.
At the same time, many Palestinians say the line has already
been crossed that Israeli settlements have already
eliminated the possibility of creating a contiguous Palestinian
state. Instead, they advocate a single state encompassing
both Israel and the occupied territories a secular state
where Palestinians and Israelis would live together with
equal rights.
At a news conference on Wednesday in the West Bank, Mr.
Erekat said the only alternative to what he called Mr.
Netanyahus apartheid vision was one single secular and
democratic state with equal rights for everyone, Christians,
Muslims and Jews, on all of historic Palestine.
That is opposed by many Israelis, who want Israel to remain
a Jewish state.
Some Israelis say that the deep divisions between the
Palestinian factions that control the West Bank and Gaza are
another reason that it will be impossible to reach an
agreement on two states. The Fatah faction in the West Bank
has tried to cooperate with the Israeli authorities on some
levels, while Hamas, the group that has controlled Gaza
since 2007, is more actively hostile to Israel.
Hazim Kassim, a spokesman for Hamas, said on Wednesday,
What Trump said is new, but whatever he says, we in
Hamas still believe that resistance is the only way to liberate
our lands from the Israeli occupation.
It is now clear that the U.S. has provided a cover for
aggression, occupation and the confiscation of Palestinian
land, he continued. The U.S. is never serious when it
comes to Palestinians human rights.
Correction: February 15, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated the location of
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, on Wednesday.
He spoke in Jericho, in the West Bank, not in Britain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/middleeast/trum
p-israel-two-state-solution.html?_r=0

US troops deployed to Bulgaria as NATO boosts

Eastern European presence
15 Feb, 2017 / Kacper Pempel / Reuters
US troops arrived in Bulgaria on Wednesday, with armored
vehicles and heavy equipment to be shipped by the end of
the week as part of NATOs significant buildup in Eastern
Europe, the Bulgarian Defense Ministry has said.
Around 120 US servicemen from Fort Carson, Colorado were
accommodated at the Novo Selo military base in the east of
the Black Sea country, according to Bulgarian officials.

Joint drills and training at Novo Selo training range will be

increased this year. The US army troops will be rotated for
the drills, the defense ministry said as cited by Reuters.
On Tuesday, tanks and hardware accompanied by another
500 American troops arrived in Romania.
The deployment is part of Atlantic Resolve, the operation to
reassure NATOs allies in the region following Russias
reunion with Crimea and accusations of Moscow being
involved in the Ukrainian conflict.
Russia has denied the claims.
Last summer, NATO members agreed to boost its NATO
presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region to levels
not seen since the Cold War - posting four rotating
multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland.
In January, 2,800 pieces of US military hardware, including
Abrams tanks, Paladin artillery, and Bradley fighting
vehicles, and 4,000 troops arrived in Europe as part of the
operation.

The forces took part in drills in Poland and were then

deployed across seven countries, including the Baltic States,
Bulgaria, Romania, and Germany.
American troop deployment accelerated in the last months
of the President Barack Obama's presidency as his
successor, Donald Trump, announced plans of mending
relations with Moscow.
However, Trumps rhetoric towards Russia has changed since
he took office, with White House spokesman, Sean Spicer,
saying on Tuesday that the new president expects the
Russian government to de-escalate violence in Ukraine and
return Crimea to Kiev.

On Wednesday, the new US Defense Secretary, James Mattis,

who was on his first European visit, warned NATO allies that
America will moderate its commitment to the alliance if
other members dont increase their financial contribution.
No longer can the American taxpayer carry a
disproportionate share of the defense of western values,
Mattis said.
But the Defense Secretary assured President Trump's strong
support for NATO, calling the block a fundamental bedrock
for the United States and for all the transatlantic
community.
Moscow has criticized the expansive NATO military buildup
on its borders, saying it increases the risk of incidents and
poses a threat to Russian national security.
This deployment is, of course, a threat for us, Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov said last week,
adding that it is obvious that the steps by NATO gravely
increase the risk of incidents.
https://www.rt.com/news/377494-nato-bulgaria-us-troops/

Venezuela shuts down CNN for misinterpreting &

distorting truth
15 Feb, 2017 / Carlos Eduardo Ramire / Reuters
Venezuelas media watchdog has ordered CNNs Spanish-
language channel off the air across the country, accusing it
of engaging in a propaganda war. Nicolas Maduro said earlier
the channel is sticking its nose in the countrys internal
affairs and manipulating information.
The Venezuelan National Telecommunications Commission
(Conatel) has opened an administrative sanctioning
proceeding against the CNN Espaol news channel for
allegedly attempting to violate the peace and democratic
stability of the country.
The sanctions were imposed due to the content that has
been disseminated by the international news outlet in a
systematic and repeated way in the channels daily
programming, said a statement released by Conatel.
Conatel has ruled that CNNs reporting often lacks proof
and fuels a climate of intolerance by distorting the truth in
an inadequate manner in contradiction to the provisions
of article 58 of the Venezuelan constitution, which states
that everyone has the right to timely and impartial
information.
The move comes after a joint investigation by CNN and CNN
Espaol claimed to have uncovered serious irregularities in
the issuing of Venezuelan passports and visas inside the
embassy in Baghdad. On February 6, CNN Espaol broadcast
a report fingering Venezuelan Vice President Tareck El
Aissami as one of those allegedly responsible for the
scheme.

The Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Delcy Rodriguez, accused

CNN of launching a propaganda war against her country,
after the channel reported about alleged passports sales to
people linked to terrorism and drug trafficking. She accused
the channel of spreading an absolute lie calling such an
approach a pity.
CNN en Espaol launched a psychological warfare
operation, a war propaganda operation, mounted absolutely
on falsehoods, she said. Rodriguez also demanded action
from the broadcast authorities and the legal team.
Prior to Conatels announcement, President Nicolas Maduro
indicated that he wants the channel out of the country for
its manipulation of news.
CNN, do not get into the affairs of Venezuelans. I want CNN
well away from here. Outside of Venezuela. Do not put your
nose in Venezuela, Maduro said, as cited by El Nacional.
Some media like CNN tried to manipulate. They cannot
manipulate! That is our business, of the Venezuelans.
https://www.rt.com/news/377495-venezuela-kicks-cnn-out/?
utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm
_campaign=chrome

Outlawing microchipping humans not so far-fetched,

Nevada senator says
Posted February 13, 2017 [WRONG DATE PUBLISHED]

By SANDRA CHEREB
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit
forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it
might seem, because it happens in some places around the
world.
Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require
someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier,
such as microchips placed in pets.
The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas
Republican said.
As I began to look into the issue, I was surprised with the
merit that I believe the issue warrants, Harris told the
Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.
She said sales of radio frequency identifiers are escalating
around the world, and a company in Australia as of June
2016 sold more than 10,000 implantable chips with do-it-
yourself kits.
Each kit costs about $100 and includes a tag and an
injection tool, Harris said.
The Wall Street Journal has reported an estimated 30,000 to
50,000 chips have been sold globally, she said.
Harris said the technology is used by companies in Belgium
and Sweden to identify employees.
Its done under the idea to unlock doors or use copy
machines or maybe pay for lunch, you could use your hand,
she said.
Besides privacy concerns, Harris said the concept raises
ethical questions, such as who owns the chip or the
information contained on it, and how does someone get de-
chipped if they are no longer employed by the company
that required it. She also wondered if a chip could be hacked
to harass or stalk someone.
Harris said the Nevada bill is modeled after legislation
passed by at least 10 other states.
It wouldnt prohibit the voluntary decision of a person to be
microchipped, she said, adding that a nightclub in Europe
offers microchipping to customers so the establishment can
provide tailored service.
There was no total opposition to the bill, though some
witnesses said the technology could help patients with
dementia.

Some Alzheimers patients wander away, said Jonathan

Friedrich of Las Vegas, adding the technology could be used
to help find them quickly.
State Sen. Don Gustavson questioned whether military pilots
are microchipped so rescuers can find them if aircraft crash
or are shot down.
Harris said she would check with military officials.
No action was taken on the bill by the committee.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-
government/nevada/outlawing-microchipping-humans-not-
so-far-fetched-nevada-senator

Tony Blair calls for people to 'rise up' against Brexit

17 February 2017 / BBC Online
Tony Blair has said it is his "mission" to persuade Britons to
"rise up" and change their minds on Brexit.
Speaking in the City of London, the former prime minister
claimed that people voted in the referendum "without
knowledge of the true terms of Brexit".
He urged "a way out from the present rush over the cliff's
edge".
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said the comments
were arrogant and undemocratic but Lib Dem Nick Clegg
said he "agreed with every word".

Downing Street has said it is "absolutely committed" to

seeing Brexit through.
Prime Minister Theresa May wants to trigger formal Brexit
talks by the end of March - a move which was backed in the
House of Commons by MPs last week.
'Expose relentlessly'
Mr Blair, who was UK prime minister between 1997 and
2007, used the speech to the pro-European campaign group
Open Britain to stress that those driving a withdrawal from
the European Union "always wanted a hard Brexit".
"Indeed even the term 'Hard Brexit' requires amendment.
The policy is now 'Brexit at any cost'," he said.
"Our challenge is to expose, relentlessly, what that cost is.
Image caption 51.9% of UK voters backed leaving the EU in
June
"To show how this decision was based on imperfect
knowledge, which will now become informed knowledge.
"To calculate in 'easy to understand' ways how proceeding
will cause real damage to the country and its citizens and to
build support for finding a way out from the present rush
over the cliff's edge."
Mr Blair, who campaigned to Remain in the EU, said that
while he accepted the verdict of June's referendum, he would
recommend looking again at Brexit when "we have a clear
sense of where we're going".
'Pain and gain'
On leaving the EU, he argued: "The pain is large and the gain
is largely illusory. The ideologues are the ones who are
driving the bus".
He said the debate was being driven by immigration "which I
fully accept is a substantial issue".
Image caption Tony Blair stood down as prime minister in
2007
"Nonetheless, we have moved in a few months from a
debate about what sort of Brexit, involving a balanced
consideration of all the different possibilities; to the primacy
of one consideration - namely controlling immigration from
the EU - without any real discussion as to why, and when
Brexit doesn't affect the immigration people most care
about."
Mr Blair stressed that the Conservative government only
"has bandwidth for only one thing - Brexit", at the cost of the
NHS, education, investment in communities, the rise in
serious crime, the increased burden of social care and
control of immigration.
"This is a government for Brexit, of Brexit and dominated by
Brexit - it's a mono-purpose political entity and nothing else
therefore truly matters," he said.
Brexit was the government's "waking thought, the daily
grind, the meditation before sleep and the stuff of its dreams
or nightmares. It's obsessed with Brexit because it has to
be."
'Rallying call'
Mr Blair has faced criticism in the past for his government's
decision to allow people from Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic to work in Britain without restrictions, while most
EU states imposed transitional controls to slow the rate of
migration.
BBC political correspondent Tom Bateman said the former
prime minister's intervention on Friday is "quite an explicit
rallying call" for those who campaigned on the Remain side.
But he added that not everyone on the Remain side agrees
with Mr Blair, with one former campaign boss arguing that
they should be working for the best version of Brexit, rather
than fighting against it.
A government spokesman said the British people had
expressed their view very clearly on 23 June, adding: "There
will be no second referendum."
Iain Duncan Smith, who was a prominent Leave campaigner,
said Mr Blair's comments were arrogant, utterly
undemocratic and showed that the political elite was
completely out of touch with the British people.
Brexit bill
Supporters of leaving the EU argue it will free up the UK to
trade better globally and give the government better control
of immigration.
Previously, Mr Blair has argued that there has to be a way,
either "through Parliament, or an election, or possibly
through another referendum, in which people express their
view".
Earlier this month, MPs overwhelmingly agreed to let the
government begin the UK's departure from the EU by voting
for the Brexit bill.
The draft legislation was approved by 494 votes to 122, and
will move to the House of Lords on Monday.
But the Commons vote prompted splits in the Labour party,
with shadow business secretary Clive Lewis quitting the front
bench to vote against the bill. Despite calls by leader Jeremy
Corbyn for his party to back the government, 52 MPs
rebelled.
Lib Dem attempts to amend the bill to include a provision for
another referendum were defeated by 340 votes to 33.
The government has promised to invoke Article 50 - setting
formal talks with the EU in motion - by the end of next
month, but it requires Parliament's permission before doing
so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38996179
The New Arab
US 'absolutely' committed to two-state solution, says
UN ambassador

US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on

Thursday that her country still supports a two-state solution
to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The ambassador's affirmation of the US' longstanding stance
comes just a day after President Donald Trump suggested
that he is open to other solutions.

"First of all, the two-state solution is what we support.

Anybody that wants to say the United States does not
support the two-state solution - that would be an error,"
Haley told reporters at the UN in New York.

"We absolutely support the two-state solution but we are

thinking out of the box as well: which is what does it take to
bring these two sides to the table; what do we need to have
them agree on."

On Wednesday, Trump suggested a break with the two-state

solution, which is a longstanding bedrock of Washington and
the international community's policy for a settlement
between Israel and the Palestinians.

"I'm looking at two states and one state, and I like the one
both parties like," Trump told a joint news conference with
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. "I can live with
either one."

Haley on Thursday echoed Trump's sentiment about

Washington not wishing to impose their preference on the
two parties involved.

"The solution to what will bring peace in the Middle East is

going to come from the Israelis and the Palestinian
Authority," Haley said. "The United States is just there to
support the process."
The US envoy also went on to criticise the UN for alleged
bias against Israel. She called Thursday's scheduled Security
Council meeting on the Middle East "focused on criticising
Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East".

She added that the US would not back resolutions

condemning Israel, like the one passed in December that
called for the end of settlement building.

"I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye
to this anymore," Haley said. "I am here to emphasise that
the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-
Israel bias."
Following Trump's ambiguity about his commitment to the
two-state solution on Wednesday, French and British
diplomats came forward to reiterate their commitment to the
longstanding policy of many Western states.
"The UK continues to believe that the best solution for peace
in the Middle East is the two-state solution," said Matthew
Rycroft, British ambassador to the UN.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday made

a similar statement while on a trip to Cairo, warning that
there is no way to a peaceful settlement of the conflict other
than a two-state solution.
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/2/17/us-
absolutely-committed-to-two-state-solution-says-un-
ambassador

WikiLeaks releases 'CIA espionage orders' for 2012

French presidential election
16 Feb, 2017 / Toru Hanai / Reuters
WikiLeaks has released three classified CIA espionage orders
revealing details of an alleged seven-month long spying
campaign by the agency ahead of the 2012 French
presidential election.

The documents disclose that all of Frances major political

parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA's human
("HUMINT") and electronic ("SIGINT") spies.
The CIA assessed that President Nicholas Sarkozy's UMP
party was not assured re-election and ordered officers to find
out Sarkozy's private deliberations "on the other candidates"
as well as how he interacted with his advisors, according to
the documents.
The agency also reportedly outlined orders specific to the
UMP (Union for a Popular Movement), including obtaining the
partys Strategic Election Plans" and gleaning private
thoughts within the party on Sarkozys campaign strategies.
The agency also outlined orders specific to the UMP (Union
for a Popular Movement), including obtaining the partys
Strategic Election Plans" and gleaning private thoughts
within the party on Sarkozys campaign strategies.
According to the papers, the CIA justification for seeking
detailed information on the inner workings of the party was
to assist analysts assess and prepare US key policymakers
for the post-election French political landscape and the
potential impact on US-France relations.

Another secret CIA order included in the leaks entitled, "Non

Ruling Political Parties and Candidates Strategic Election
Plans," demands information on rising party leaders and
emerging political parties.

The information sought ranged from party strategies,

opinions on the US and efforts to reach out to other
countries, including Germany, UK, Libya, Israel, Palestine,
Syria and Cote d'Ivoire.
The CIA also requested details on how candidates were
funded, their views on the French economy, and the Greek
debt crisis the documents indicate. The agency was also
interested in French political opinions on the German model
of export-led growth and any specific proposals that would
help solve the Eurozone crisis.

The documents indicate that the CIA operation initially ran

for 10 months from November 21, 2011, to September 29,
2012, and continued after the April-May 2012 French
presidential election and into the formation of the new
government.

The revelations are contained within three alleged CIA

tasking orders, totaling seven pages, and published by
WikiLeaks as context for its forthcoming CIA Vault 7 series.
WikiLeaks began tweeting about the mysterious Vault 7
series earlier this month, sending speculation into overdrive
online over what the cryptic tweets indicated.
https://www.rt.com/usa/377619-wikileaks-cia-election-france/

Society & Culture

This Week The Arch Of Baal Was Displayed for the
Third Time In Honor Of The World Government
Summit

Waking Times Media / Posted on February 16, 2017

The globalists dream of a utopia where humanity has been

united under a one world government, a one world economy
and a one world religion.
Michael Snyder, End of the American Dream
Waking Times Media
Did you know that 4,000 world leaders from 130 different
countries gathered in Dubai this week for the World
Government Summit? It was held from February 12th to
February 14th, and it featured more than 100 internationally-
known speakers including UN Secretary General Antonio
Guterres, Christine Lagarde and Elon Musk. If you would like
to know more about this shadowy group, you can visit the
official website right here. The first World Government
Summit was held back in 2013, and that one was actually
attended by Barack Obama. Unfortunately the mainstream
media in the United States was almost entirely silent about
this summit, so most of us in the western world didnt even
hear about it.
To honor the spirit of this summit, a reconstructed version of
Palmyras Arch Of Triumph (also known as the Monumental
Arch) was erected in Dubai. Previously it had been put up in
London and New York City for brief periods of time, and so
this marked only the third time that it has been displayed.
The following comes from Breaking Israel News
A replica of a Roman arch that once stood in front of the
pagan Temple of Baal was erected for the World
Government Summit in Dubai this week, creating a scene
that one rabbi claims symbolizes the dangerous fusion of
Ishmael and Edom against Israel.
The original Roman Victory Arch stood for 1,800 years in
Palmyra, Syria, until it was destroyed by ISIS in October
2015. A full-size 28-meter tall replica of the arch was created
last year by the Institute for Digital Archeology, a joint
project of Oxford and Harvard universities, and has been
displayed twice before.
The replica was erected for the opening of the World
Government Summit that opened on Sunday in Dubai.
In ancient Palmyra, the Arch of Triumph connected the main
street of the Colonnade with the Temple of Bel. If ordinary
people of the time wanted to visit the Temple of Bel, they
would pass through this arch. And once they were done, the
would pass through this arch again on their way out.
And of course Bel and Baal are synonymous, and both
titles can be traced all the way back to ancient Babylon and
a very evil ruler named Nimrod. The following is an extended
excerpt from one of my previous articles
In a previous article, I included a quote from Wikipedia that
discusses how Bel is an ancient Babylonian term for Lord
or Master, and that Baal comes from that original root
word
Bel (/bel/; from Akkadian blu), signifying lord or
master, is a title rather than a genuine name, applied to
various gods in the Mesopotamian religion of Akkad, Assyria
and Babylonia. The feminine form is Belit Lady, Mistress.
Bel is represented in Greek as Belos and in Latin as Belus.
Linguistically Bel is an East Semitic form cognate with
Northwest Semitic Baal with the same meaning.
The title of Bel or Baal seems to have originally been
used primarily for the Babylonian god Marduk. Here is more
from Wikipedia
Bel became especially used of the Babylonian god Marduk
and when found in Assyrian and neo-Babylonian personal
names or mentioned in inscriptions in a Mesopotamian
context it can usually be taken as referring to Marduk and no
other god. Similarly Belit without some disambiguation
mostly refers to Bel Marduks spouse Sarpanit. However
Marduks mother, the Sumerian goddess called Ninhursag,
Damkina, Ninmah and other names in Sumerian, was often
known as Belit-ili Lady of the Gods in Akkadian.
So where did Marduk come from?
Well, many scholars have traced the worship of Marduk all
the way back to the historical figure of Nimrod
Traditionally the Tower of Babel event has been associated
with Nimrod, and Jewish commentaries as well as the Jewish
historian Josephus both seem very emphatic on this point.
Regarding the Sumerian name Enmer-kar, the suffix kar
means hunter, and so Enmer-kar is in fact Enmer the
Hunter, just as Nimrod is referred to as the Mighty Hunter
in Genesis 10. Furthermore, Enmerkar is named on the
Sumerian King List as the one who built Uruk, just as
Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:10 as having a kingdom
that began in Babel (Eridu) and Erech (Uruk) in the land of
Shinar. After Enmerkars death he became honored in
Sumerian myth as the semi-divine hero Ninurta, and
eventually this cult evolved into the great cult of
Marduk, which became the state religion of Babylon
after the conquests and religious innovations of
Hammurabi.
Are you starting to see how everything fits together?

And Nimrod was the great king of the very first world
government in the post-flood world. The following is what
Genesis 10:8-12 says in the Modern English Version
8
Cush was the father of Nimrod. He became a mighty one on
the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.
Therefore it is said, Even like Nimrod the mighty hunter
before the Lord. 10The beginning of his kingdom was Babel,
Uruk, Akkad, and Kalneh in the land of Shinar. 11 From that
land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, the city Rehoboth
Ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that
is the principal city).
So it seems more than a little bit strange that an arch with
links to Nimrod has been erected to honor a summit devoted
to the promotion of world government in our day.
It has been said that if we do not understand history we are
doomed to repeat it. Nimrods world government in ancient
times attempted to push God out of the picture, and the
same thing is true with the globalists of today.
The globalists dream of a utopia where humanity has been
united under a one world government, a one world economy
and a one world religion. Donald Trump stands opposed to
this twisted dream, and that is why the globalists hate him
so much.
And the globalists understand the power of symbols very
well. The erecting of this arch in Dubai at the exact same
time the World Government Summit was being held sends
a very powerful message.
Even though Donald Trump is now the president of the
United States, the globalists are far from defeated, and if
they have their way all of humanity will soon be within their
ruthless grip.
http://wakingtimesmedia.com/week-arch-baal-displayed-
third-time-honor-world-government-summit/

Italian senators mull making fake news a crime

punishable by fines & jail
18 Feb, 2017 / RT / Alessandro Bianchi / Reuters
A cross-party bill in the Italian Senate proposes heavy fines
and even jail time for individuals or media outlets who
undermine democracy and publish false, exaggerated or
biased news online and refuse to amend copy within 24
hours.
There have always been 'fake news' or hoaxes, but they
have never been spread at the rate we see today. Because
of this, it is no longer possible to put off the debate, said a
statement prefacing the legislation, submitted by Adele
Gambaro, a member of the small centrist Liberal Popular
Alliance, whose initiative has the support of the bigger
parties.

Ordinary fake news reporting would merit a fine of 5,000

($5,300), while hate campaigns against individuals or
stories aimed at undermining the democratic process
could result in 10,000 ($10,614) penalties. News items that
would cause alarm to the public or damage the public
interest will be punishable by up to one year in jail.
Traditional media outlets newspapers and TV would be
exempt from the legislation.
The internet has certainly expanded the boundaries of our
freedom by giving us the opportunity to express ourselves
on a global scale, wrote Gambaro. But freedom of
expression cannot turn into a synonym for lack of control
where control, in the information era, means correct news,
for the protection of users.
Additionally, operators of any online news outlets including
bloggers, and forum administrators would have to apply for
a license from the state to operate their website, as well as
submitting their name, address, and tax data.
The proposal also calls for students to undergo special
media literacy courses that would help them distinguish
between reliable and deceptive sources of information.
Authoritarian tool
The proposed law immediately provoked a furious backlash.
Multiple civil rights activists say the definition of fake news
in the legislation is so broad as to be indefinable, while the
whole principle of punishing people for publishing news is
authoritarian.

Although Germany is mooting its own potential anti-fake

news laws, the proposed bill has no equivalent in any
Western country, and even if a few are actually punished, it
could have a massive chilling effect, shutting down online
discussion for fear of prosecution.
A tool like this would, in essence, be an unexpected ally of a
possible anti-democratic order, legal activists Francesco
Paolo Micozzi and Giovanni Battista Gallus told the daily La
Repubblica, arguing that open debate is the best means of
stopping the spread of unreliable stories.
The law would also likely be almost unenforceable, with no
efficient body to monitor the thousands of potential
complaints, and guarantees years of legal battles in courts,
as the purveyors of alleged fake news will surely defend
their position.
Populist Five-Star Movement leader Beppe Grillo, who has
battled fake news over his links with Russia, recently
suggested creating citizen panels that would get to rule on
whether a piece of news is reliable or not. If the commission
rules a story to be fake, a publishing newspaper would have
to print front-page apologies.
Digital rights lawyer Carlo Piana told The Local that the law
unfairly singles out online media, placing absurd obligations
on blogs and communication platforms. He said the law
would also most likely contravene EU directives.
The authors would be kicked out of any university with a
course in law. But unfortunately, they're in parliament, said
Piana, who told the website that he had tried to present his
objections to Gambaro on Twitter, but she immediately
blocked him.
Despite numerous objections to the law, and media
speculation that it will not pass through the Senate,
Gambaro is undeterred.
This text is a first step. We know its an enormous task, but
we want to try, and we are open to debate, said the
politician.
https://www.rt.com/news/377765-italy-fake-news-bill/?
utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm
_campaign=chrome

Sir Edward Heath WAS a paedophile, says police chief:

Astonishing claim is made that the former PM is guilty
of vile crimes 'covered up by the Establishment'
More than 30 people have come forward with
claims about the former PM
And they are said to have given 'strikingly
similar' accounts to Wiltshire Police
The county's chief constable has said that the
allegations are 'totally convincing'
Pictures have emerged of Heath driving - despite
it being claimed he didn't have a car
Simon Walters Political Editor For The Mail On Sunday / 18
February 2017

The police chief investigating claims that Sir Edward Heath

was a paedophile is convinced the allegations are 120 per
cent genuine, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
More than 30 people have come forward with claims of
sexual abuse by the former Conservative Prime Minister,
according to well-placed sources.
And they are said to have given strikingly similar accounts
of incidents to Wiltshire Police even though the individuals
are not known to each other.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that Wiltshire Chief
Constable Mike Veale regards the allegations as totally
convincing, and plans to publish a report in June.
Detectives have established that, contrary to claims that Sir
Edward could not have committed the crimes as he never
drove a car and always had a police driver with him, he did
drive and did have a car.
They have photographic evidence that shows he is a driver,
and have established that he had a driving licence. He also
bought a Rover 2000 after being deposed as Tory leader by
Margaret Thatcher in 1975, when he was 58.
Astonishingly, Mr Veale is also understood to support claims
that Sir Edwards alleged crimes were reported to police
years ago but covered up by the Establishment.
Some of those who said Sir Edward abused them are
believed to have told police they went on to commit sexual
abuse crimes themselves as a result.
The investigation into Sir Edward, called Operation Conifer,
was set up in 2015 in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.
Mr Veale came under pressure to abandon the inquiry last
year after separate claims of a paedophile ring at
Westminster involving former Home Secretary, the late Lord
Brittan, and former Defence chief, Lord Bramall, were found
to be groundless.

Allegations that Sir Edward was involved in satanic orgies

have been dismissed as fantasy by an expert asked to
review the case.
However, The Mail on Sunday has been told that Mr Veale
believes the paedophile allegations are genuine. A source
said: Mr Veale believes in them 120 per cent and thinks they
are totally convincing.
There are very close similarities in the accounts given by
those who have come forward. The same names used for
him, the same places and same type of incidents keep
coming up.
What stands out is that the people giving these accounts
are not connected but the stories and the details dovetail.
It contains disturbing stuff. Investigators have been shocked
by what they have learned.
Another source said: The police were initially sceptical about
the allegations, but now believe them. And they have come
round to the view that they were covered up in the past
because of who Heath was.
DO THESE PHOTOS UNDERMINE EX PM'S DEFENCE?

These are the photographs that appear to disprove the

notion that the allegations against Sir Edward cannot be true
because he never drove a car and was always accompanied
by police.
Both were taken in October 1975. In the main picture on the
right, Heath is standing by the drivers door of the Rover
2000 he bought after Margaret Thatcher ousted him as Tory
leader in February that year. In the picture on the left, he is
seen arriving at the Tory Party conference in Blackpool in
the drivers seat.
The Mail on Sunday has learned that Wiltshire Police has also
obtained photographic evidence of him driving.
The issue was first raised by former Cabinet Secretary Lord
Armstrong, who worked with Sir Edward in No 10. Lord
Armstrong said Sir Edward whom he described as asexual
had a 24-hour police guard and driver from the day he
became PM in 1970 to his death in 2005, and did not have
his own car.
When he was at home he had two policemen on the gate,
he had the personal protection officer from Scotland Yard in
the house, he never drove a car himself, he always had an
official driver, said Lord Armstrong. It seems highly unlikely
he could have escaped all that to do the kind of thing that is
described.

Sir Edward bought the Rover after losing the chauffeur-

driven car he was entitled to as Prime Minister, then
Opposition leader.
A confidant of the former PM said: He definitely could and
did drive, though was a notoriously bad one. When he went
to music concerts in Salzburg and hired a car, he was meant
to drive it because his British police guards werent officially
allowed to.
But they insisted as they were frightened he was going to
crash.
They will not be deflected by the rich and powerful trying to
do the same now. Mike Veale is doing a great job and should
be congratulated for his courage.
The disclosures come after several senior politicians
dismissed the allegations against Heath as absurd and
unfounded. Former Tory Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm
Rifkind complained Heaths reputation was being
besmirched. Heaths sexuality has been the source of much
speculation over the years. Some believed he was gay,
others said he was asexual. At one point, he was being
investigated by no fewer than five police forces the Met,
Wiltshire, Hampshire, Kent and Jersey.
The claims, some of which have been proved false, include
alleged links to a convicted brothel keeper known as
Madame Ling-Ling. A paedophile dossier compiled by Labour
peer Baroness Castle said he offered young boys trips on his
yacht, and in a separate incident one man claimed Sir
Edward picked him up hitchhiking in Kent as a 12-year-old in
the 1960s and lured him to his Mayfair flat.
Labour MP Tom Watson also said he had received allegations
about Sir Edward. However the claims Mr Veale is
investigating, which date from the 1960s to 1990s, are not
linked to the discredited evidence of the man known as
Nick, who alleged a high-level paedophile ring.
One of the key counter-claims made when the allegations
first surfaced came from former Cabinet Secretary Lord
Armstrong, who worked with Heath when he was Prime
Minister. He said Heath never drove a car and always had
at least one policeman with him from 1970 until his death in
2005.

The fact that Sir Edward could drive was confirmed last night
by a friend, who said the former Prime Minister bought a car
in 1975, although Sir Edward was later given a chauffeur-
driven car and police guard after IRA death threats.
Asked if Mr Veale believed the allegations against Sir Edward
were totally convincing, a police spokesman said the Chief
Constable was determined to ensure the investigation is
proportionate, measured and legal and that the job of the
police was to impartially investigate allegations without fear
or favour and go where the evidence takes us. It is not the
role of the police to judge the guilt or innocence of people in
our criminal justice system.
Further asked if Mr Veale had 120 per cent faith in the
allegations, the spokesman declined to comment.

Launched in 2015 to investigate allegations against Sir

Edward Heath, Operation Conifer has been dogged by claims
that it traduces the reputation of a Prime Minister who died
more than a decade ago and could not be put on trial.
The operation, which has a staff of 17 and has run up a bill
approaching 1 million, did not get off to a good start when
Wiltshire Chief Constable Mike Veale had to apologise for
launching it in front of cameras outside Sir Edwards former
house, Arundells, in Salisbury.
Demands to call it off grew last November when Scotland
Yard was forced to abandon its Operation Midland
investigation into similar claims of a VIP paedophile ring in
Westminster.
After a flurry of false accusations, Commissioner Sir Bernard
Hogan-Howe apologised to former Defence chief Lord
Bramall, ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, DJ Paul Gambaccini and
Lady Brittan, widow of the late Lord Brittan.

Pressure on Operation Conifer mounted after this newspaper

revealed how an expert, brought in by police to assess
claims that Heath was linked to paedophiles who held
satanic orgies, dismissed them as fantasy.
Days after The Mail on Sunday report, Mr Veale came out
fighting and insisted Operation Conifer was not a witch-
hunt.
In a surprise statement released on December 2, he said he
refused to buckle to demands to abandon the inquiry, and
stressed his officers had not spoken to Nick, the man at the
root of Operation Midland.
The Heath investigation was not a fishing trip, he said,
adding that he was duty-bound to go ahead with it without
fear or favour and go where the evidence takes us.
He accused his critics of ignorance, and rebuked them for
using inappropriate and unacceptable pressure in an
attempt to halt the inquiry.
Mr Veale said a significant number of individuals had
alleged abuse, but refused to say how many or give details
of the only two people to be arrested.
He even said the findings of the investigation may never be
made public, stating: A confidential closing report will be
written and at that time I will take advice as to what I can
legally put in the public domain.
Police were testing, checking and challenging the evidence
and ensuring our approach is proportionate and justified, he
said.
Mr Veale argues that although Sir Edward died in 2005, other
offenders may still be alive and victims could require
support.
If the force had received allegations of non-recent child
abuse against a former Prime Minister and done nothing,
what would the reaction have been?

Lincoln Seligman, Sir Edwards godson, responded to Mr

Veales December statement by saying: If they have
uncovered no evidence after 18 months they should say so.
And if Conifer is wound up, [Sir Edward] deserves to be
exonerated as publicly as he was initially smeared. Shuffling
the inquirys findings off into the night is not acceptable.
Other aspects of Operation Conifer have also come under
fire. Wiltshire Police interviewed key figures at Private Eye
because the satirical magazine joked about unmarried Sir
Edwards sexuality 40 years ago.
They wanted to know if its nickname for him, Sailor Ted, in
his days as PM from 1970 to 1974, was a reference to
rumours that he was gay.
Police even asked current editor Ian Hislop what he knew
about Heath, despite Hislop being a teenager during the
period under investigation.
Officers have also tracked down former Downing Street staff
to ask them if young men were ever sneaked into No 10.
Times writer and ex-Tory MP Matthew Parris dismissed the
allegations, saying: If Heath was a child abuser, Im an
aardvark.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238188/Sir-Edward-
Heath-paedophile-says-police-chief.html

Why wont Democrats call out Friedmans crimes?

Michael F. Brown Power Suits 17 February 2017

David Friedman faced a few sharp questions Thursday as a

US Senate committee considered his nomination for the post
of ambassador to Israel.
This was to be expected: Friedman had previously described
supporters of the liberal Zionist group J Street as far worse
than kapos Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi
death camps.
Some senators were bound to ask him about such
intemperate comments and it was not surprising that
Friedman repeatedly expressed regret for his undiplomatic
language. But it was equally predictable that senators would
avoid pressing Friedman on aspects of his background
curtailing Palestinian rights.
Friedman has a home in Talbiyeh, a West Jerusalem
neighborhood that was ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces
in 1948.
No senator asked Friedman whether he lives in a home
owned by a Palestinian or in a residence constructed since
the mass expulsion. No one asked him what should be done
with the private property in his neighborhood to which
uprooted Palestinians hold the deeds.
Long way to go
Friedmans appearance before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations demonstrated there is a very long way to
go before Palestinian political and economic rights are
properly addressed by US politicians.
Senators were widely reluctant to confront the reality of
occupation. They did not want to engage the fact that
Palestinians enjoy fewer rights than Israeli Jews and that
there is a military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
No senator dared to describe Israel as an apartheid state.
Only the protesters who briefly disrupted the proceedings
drew attention to the forcing out of Palestinians at the time
of Israels establishment.
The process initiated has less to do with whether all 11
Republicans on the committee will vote en masse for
Friedman a likelihood and more to do with whether the
emerging partisan split on Israel will continue to grow.
Will Israels staunchest Democratic allies the partys
Trump-Netanyahu wing endorse Friedman?
Some of them might.
Bob Menendez is one, though the Democratic senator from
New Jersey described Friedmans appearance before the
foreign relations committee as a nomination conversion.
Mike Merryman-Lotze, Palestine-Israel Program Director for
the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker
organization, stated, When you have spent years spreading
virulently racist hate, saying that you reject your previous
statements when confronted with them at a job interview
does not absolve you of responsibility for your action nor
demonstrate your genuine contrition.
New extreme
Yet even if all Democrats on the committee vote against
Friedman, their motives in doing so should be scrutinized.
Why are they more concerned with how Friedman has
insulted Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer
now the Senates minority leader and J Street than how he
has aided Israels crimes?
For that is precisely what Friedman has done. Friedman
heads the American Friends of Bet El Yeshiva Center. In that
capacity, he has funneled millions of dollars into an Israeli
settlement in the occupied West Bank.
Consequently, he has played a significant role in sustaining a
colony built in violation of international law.
Friedmans efforts to present himself as moderate this week
should not fool anyone.
He claimed, for example, that he currently does not support
annexation of the West Bank by Israel. Yet annexation is
clearly the objective of the settler movement to which he
belongs.
Implicitly, Friedman admitted that his attempts to sound
reasonable were made to ensure that his nomination is
approved. When Bob Corker, the committees chair,
expressed astonishment that he was willing to recant every
strongly held belief that youve expressed, almost,
Friedman replied that serving as ambassador to Israel would
be the fulfillment of my lifes work.
There were some notable contributions from Democrats at
Friedmans hearing.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire was perhaps
the most outspoken in raising concerns that carried the
discussion beyond the offense Friedman caused J Street and
its supporters. She sounded the alarm about Israels
discriminatory treatment of visiting Arab Americans and
secured Friedmans agreement for what its worth to raise
this matter with the Israeli government when it happens on
his watch.
Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia managed to get Friedman on
record agreeing that it would be untenable to force
Palestinians to accept inferior rights in the context of a one-
state solution.
Kaine is no champion of Palestinian rights. Not long ago, he
was the running mate of Hillary Clinton, who had pledged to
have an even stronger relationship with Israel than Obama if
she were elected president.
Overall, the Democrats displeasure with Friedman was
encapsulated by Tom Udall, senator from New Mexico. Udall
complained that Friedman regarded anyone who doesnt
agree with the ambassador-in-waitings extreme views or
approach to Israel as an anti-Semite.
The posting of a settlement advocate as US ambassador to
Israel would certainly mark a new extreme. But it would not
be illogical.
For decades, the US political elite Democrats and
Republicans alike have advanced Israels colonialist project
by providing billions of dollars in military aid. This is simply
another step toward the US government normalizing the
illegal settlements it has watched grow over the last 50
years.
With President Trump indicating Wednesday that he does not
care whether Israel and the Palestinians choose one state or
two states, such settlements appear certain to grow and
soon the US will have to choose between accepting Israeli
apartheid or insisting on equal rights for all.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/why-
wont-democrats-call-out-friedmans-crimes?
utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=202e8e7e97-
RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e
802a7602d-202e8e7e97-299185473