Kissinger plan of utter fragmentation still at work..., hundreds of Tribes with Flags in MENA and beyond

It's the same Kissinger plan of utter fragmentation still hard at work...,
hundreds of Tribes with Flags in MENA and beyond....

Russian President Medvedev has just made an unannounced visit to the National Anti-Terrorist Committee meeting in the North Ossetian city of Vladikavkaz. He made a number of interesting, if very debatable comments.

a) President Medvedev began by saying that what is now taking place in the Arab world is a "scenario which was first attempted in Russia but which was defeated".

b) He described the situation in the Arab world as "extremely serious" and he said that major difficulties lie ahead. According to him, there is a real risk of a "disintegration into small fragments of large, highly populated countries".

c) He said that very serious developments are likely including, quote, the accession to power by "fanatics". That, according to Medvedev, would results in "fires for decades and a dissemination of extremism". He repeated that this was the "scenario" which "they" (unnamed) were "preparing for" Russia and he added that now "they" (unnamed) would re-double the efforts to realize it in Russia.

d) Medvedev adamantly restated that "this scenario will not happen here" but he also added that "everything which happens there will have a direct impact on our situation". He added that this is a long term issue which Russia will have to tackle for "many decades".

e) Medvedev then proceeded to declare that "it is quite obvious that nobody besides us can restore order in this situation". The plan to respond to this situation would, according to Medvedev, include all the following components:

1. A merciless destruction of any caught terrorists; according to Medvedev, "these degenerates show no mercy to women and children and we shall show them no mercy either".
2. A systematic effort to prevent and preempt terrorist attacks before they occur.
3. A multi-sectoral effort to revive and expand the economies of the Caucasus.
4. A expansion of social programs.
5. The creation of many workplaces
6. The development of educational programs
7. A maximal support for indigenous Islam

He added that "he who is willing to change should get a chance to do so but the one who seeks blood will drawn in his own blood; no other approaches are possible".

First, when I listened to him I though "there he goes again, parroting the Israeli-US line", but then I reconsidered. I think that a lot was *not* said in this statement, but that we could try to make some educated guesses about what this statement was all about. Here is my take on it:

First, it appears Medvedev is clearly supporting the Israeli-US position on the situation in the Arab world. But then, what does he mean when he says that "they" attested to realize this "scenario" in Russia and that "they" will try again.

One interpretation is that the Arab revolutions are all directed by the CIA, MI6, Mossad, George Soros, the Bilderbergers, etc. I really do not believe that this is what he means. The other interpretation is that the aforementioned organizations will attempt to *use* the events in the Arab world to re-start wars in the Caucasus. Now that is a FAR more likely explanation (just remember the recent DoS "tweets" in Farsi to try to re-ignite Iran and you will see what I mean).

If I am correct in my interpretation, then this is the very first time that I see an admission from Medvedev that what happened in the North Caucasus was indeed a massive destabilization plan organized and executed by Western interests via such Jewish oligarchs like Berezovsky and crackpot mass murders like Dudaev, Maskhadov & Co. Yes, he does not name names, but the "they" he refers to is rather clear to any Russian.

The second element which I find interesting is Medvedev's prediction that "fanatic" elements might come to power. I do not think that he refers to secular or Buddhist "fanatics", so the only conclusion is that he is referring to Wahabi extremists (they are often referred to as "fanatics" in Russia). But why does he say that? Tunisia is far from being a Wahabi-influenced country, the Egyptian revolution had a very strong secular component and the Egyptian MB does not at all look like a "Wahabi" movement, in Bahrain a central force against the regime is Shia, while in Yemen is predominantly Shafi'i and Shia while the regime is totally dependent on Saudi Arabia. I am frankly confused as to how Medvedev can come to the conclusion that Wahabis can come to power in these states. Does he refer to Libya?!

Then, he speaks of the disintegration of a "large and highly populated" country/countries. Since Yemen or Bahrain are neither large nor highly populated, is he hinting that Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya are going to fall apart?

Medvedev is not Reagan. He is an intelligent man and he gets the very best intelligence and analysis one can imagine. So what is this all about? Is he just trying to scare the Russian audience by hinting that the breakup of some yet undefined major and highly populated country would serve as trigger for a similar development in the Caucasus or even Russia? Or is there much more to this. Remember the apparently equally strange declaration by Prime Minister Putin about the bombing in Domodedovo not being linked the Chechnia? Clearly, both Medvedev and Putin are referring to some non Chechen "they" who is trying to destabilize Russia. I wonder whom they are really referring to...

Lastly, I have to say that I am reassured to see that Medvedev seems to realize the need for the Federal government to carefully balance a merciless extermination of foreign-controlled Wahabi crazies with a simultaneous support for indigenous Islam in Russia. I just hope that he means more than just to build a huge mosque in Grozny and in Saint Petersburg, and that this program will include the promotion and financing the forms of Islam traditional to the Caucasus and the rest of Russia.

I strongly believe that the real solution to the crisis in the Caucasus can only come from the Muslim world. Sadly, I do realize that 99.99999% of Muslims are still stuck into a deceptive myth combining a narrative about "Muslims always being the victims" with a blind "my umma - right or wrong" attitude. Yet, I do also know that this is not true of a majority of Muslims living in Russia. They all saw bloodbath which the Chechen "Islamic Peacekeeping Brigade" created in Dagestan during its aborted invasion in the hope of creating an "Islamic Caliphate" in the Caucasus. Russian Muslims are also quite aware of the regular terrorist attacks which continue nowadays. So while many of them will be very critical of the Kremlin and will be often disgusted and outraged by some of the gross human rights violations committed by Federal forces in Chechnya, I believe that they know that Wahabism is the main cause of all these horrors. Bottom line: the Kremlin needs to support Islam in Russia but without attempting to control or use it. This is a difficult balance which I do not believe has been achieved yet.

Anyway, I think that these statement by Medvedev are intriguing and interesting and that while I might not agree with this take on the evens in the Arab world, it is well worth taking it into consideration....

I believe that Medvedev/Putin are right in what they are saying...It's the same Kissinger plan of utter fragmentation still at work... We saw it in the 90s with Yugoslavia, we are seeing it today in MENA and all over Africa soon...and I believe that Russia narrowly escaped that fate earlier... I see the USraeli plan of creating hundreds of Tribes with Flags in MENA and beyond...and in time I see that going all the way to China and India...starting in 2015.... They are still desperately trying to save the crumbling Empire...and that's the Plan they have espoused....

Japan reinforces It's Own formidable CIA....

Japan Creating Spy Agency For First Time After Second World War --

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/u-s-backs-japan-in-looming-confrontation-with-russia/

Japan is creating an espionage agency for the first time since the end of the Second World War, amid growing tensions with its superpower neighbor China and nuclear-armed North Korea.

The new unit, modeled on MI6 and the CIA, will also be tasked with gathering information to prevent terrorist attacks against Japanese targets, according to a US government cable obtained by WikiLeaks.

The cable, which records an October 2008 discussion between Hideshi Mitani, Japan’s Cabinet Office intelligence chief and Randall Fort, the former head of the US State Department’s Bureau of Research and Intelligence, reveals that Tokyo believes having a “human intelligence collection capability” has become a priority.

Read more ....

More News On Japan's Spy Agency

Japan building foreign spy service: WikiLeaks -- AFP

WikiLeaks unveils Japanese spy agency -- Sydney Morning Herald

Cable leak: Japan has spy agency -- Japan Times

Japan sets up secret spy agency: WikiLeaks -- IBTimes


Japan moved to create spy agency, Wikileaks documents say -- M&C

Comment: I was not surprised when I read this .... I always knew that Japan had a formidable spy agency...., especially when you look at the neighborhood that the country is in.....and the International exposure of the Empire of the Rising Sun.....

9/11 Whistleblower indicted on the Patriot Act, THE MOST UNPATRIOTIC ACT....

TEA PARTY CRASHES: THE MOST UNPATRIOTIC ACT....

By Susan Lindauer,

I confess that since November I've been holding my breath, watching the clock for how long Tea Party newcomers could hold out against the entrenched Republican elite on Capitol Hill. Collapse was inevitable, however I admit to feeling bitterly surprised at how rapidly they have thrown in the towel.

For the record, most of the Tea Party quit their principles of liberty on February 14, 2011—20 days into the new Congress—when Tea Party leaders abruptly abandoned their opposition to the Patriot Act and voted to extend intrusive domestic surveillance, wire tapping and warrantless searches of American citizens. In so doing, they exposed the fraud of their soaring campaign promises to defend the liberty of ordinary Americans, and fight government intrusions on freedom. All those wide eyed speeches that flowed with such thrilling devotions, all of it proved to be self-aggrandizing utter lies.

The Tea Party didn't even put up a fight. Briefly they rejected a sneak attack to renew three surveillance clauses of the Patriot Act on a suspension vote. That filled my heart with hope. One push from the Republican elite, however and they went down with a loud thud.

My disappointment is particularly acute. Rather notoriously, I am distinguished as the second non-Arab American to face indictment on the Patriot Act, after Jose Padilla.

My status was pretty close to an enemy non-combatant. One would presume that I must have joined some terrorist conspiracy? Or engaged in some brutal act of sedition, such as stock piling weapons and munitions to overthrow those crooks in Congress?

You would be wrong. I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq's cooperation after the obvious and deliberate barbaric inside Job of the 9/11 attacks, which were pulled by Dick Cheney and his US/Israeli goons.... In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft's private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an "emergency broadcast alert" across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001, I described the strike on the World Trade Center as "imminent," with the potential for "mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device."

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq's cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott's staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a "white supremacist group." Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged "civil rights violations."

All of these are American activists engaged in lawful disputes of government policy. All of them got victimized by the surveillance techniques approved by Tea Party leaders, because they pursued a policy agenda that contradicted current government policies. The Tea Party swore to defend the freedom of independent thinking in Congressional campaigns. One presumes those promises are now forgotten until the next election.

I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington --- independently and collectively verified my story--- then falsified testimony to Chief Judge Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed "classified."

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be "cured" of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. The Patriot Act would be right at the top of that list. Nobody who has supported that wretched law should ever be allowed to brag of defending liberty again. That goes for the Tea Party. By voting to extend surveillance of American citizens, they have abandoned the principles of freedom that brought about their rise to power. They have shown their true face.

It is a face that we, the people, will remember. I, for one, have no intention of allowing them to forget....

Susan Lindauer is the author of EXTREME PREJUDICE: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudice-Terrifying-Story-Patriot/dp/1453642757

Pretty Grim View in the World today in 2011....

CIA cargo seized on US Air Force C-17 plane in Buenos Aires. Argentina demands explanation, but as with Pakistan over CIA killer Raymond Davis, Argentina will not get one. More signs that the American Fascist empire is crumbling and Obama may be the "Last Ziocon Emperor...."

The "revolt wave" comes to America. Mass protests and student walk-outs in Madison, Wisconsin target fascista governor.

TSA screeners at JFK steal $160,000 from passengers. What else can you expect from people whose last job was running French fries stations at McDonald's?

CIA veteran and peace campaigner Ray McGovern beaten by police during Hillary Clinton human rights speech at George Washington University. There will come a day when We The People will be beating the police. And we will not show them any mercy. As for Hillary, get your fat ass out of DC and take that piece of crap lothario with you. John Kerry was passive as a student was tasered. Billary is passive as a veteran is assaulted by cops. These are vile standard bearers of the elite who we must run out of Washington...

Protesters take to streets in Djibouti. Demands that another dictator who hosts a US military base step down. Bye bye Camp Lemonier, maybe the US Fifth Fleet can pick you up after its evacuates from Bahrain....

GCHQ to raze Oakley facility. Staff to move to "toilet seat" headquarters....

Hell just froze over: U.S. to vote to condemn Israeli illegal settlements in UN Security Council. Did someone just throw some Israeli tea into Boston harbor?

Popular revolt hits southern Iraq. Protesters torch government building and governor flees. US puppet regime in Baghdad stands to be swept away with the others in the region.

Revolt hits Libya with government buildings attacked, protesters killed. Libyan security apparatus responds with deadly force. Over 15 Dead civilians....

Bahrain security forces launch bloody crackdown on protesters. Women and children among injured. Ministers resign in protest. Al Jazeera Live Report: Refrigeration truck removes protesters bodies from Manama square.

Obama offers support to Jordanian puppet king. Forget it Barky, the US Fascistic empire is crumbling....

Many injured in Sanaa clashes. Protesters killed by security forces in Aden.

How the Right Wing Stole the People's Media for the Big Corporations

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Those who defend the GOP/right wing assault on media and free speech defend media consolidation with an irrelevant 'factoid'. Before 'deregulation', they say, there were only three huge networks --CBS, NBC, ABC. This may be true on the surface but misses the point that throughout the nation there were several thousand locally owned television and radio stations; all of them were required by the FCC to 'serve local interests'. As a result, many radio stations in small and large 'market's maintained viable 'News' and/or 'Public Affairs Departments'. These stations had a finger on the pulse of the listening community like few if any have today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4MnVHf6c6A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The record refutes right wing spin. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most or all news media operating in the U.S. Nevertheless, Ben Bagdikian was labeled "alarmist" when he pointed out that fact in his book -- The Media Monopoly. He was no alarmist! His 4th edition [1992] stated: "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures' own and operate 90% of the mass media"! He was right. These 'extraordinary creatures' dominate and/or control almost all of America's media to include newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.

Before the GOP attacked the media, a 'network' was precisely that -- a network of locally owned radio or TV stations. A CBS or ABC affiliate station, for example, was 'affiliated' with ABC --not owned by it! For such an outlet, ABC was just a source of news. Many of these stations maintained very large and impressive news organizations. Early in my career, as I worked in a small radio station in Odessa, TX., I was given a tour of KRLD AM-TV, the CBS affiliate in Dallas, TX. KRLD was made famous world wide for its local coverage of the assassination of JFK. As large and as impressive were KRLD's facilities --both radio and TV --it was local!

It was not until the late sixties that many 'stations' began to automate; it was not until Ronald Reagan attacked the Fairness Doctrine that locally-owned outlets were no longer required to provide 'public affairs' airtime to local groups. In other words, they were no longer required to be responsible to a 'service' area. Interestingly, the term 'service' area is no longer used, replaced recently with the the term: 'coverage'. Ergo: you --as a person --are no longer 'served'. You are 'covered'!

The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers — which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate — face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.

The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until FCC chairman Mark Fowler began rolling it back during Reagan's second term — despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.

Time: A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine

It was not until Ronald Reagan waged war on a 'liberal media' (in fact, a 'local' media) that smaller stations were routinely bought out and or merged with increasingly larger media conglomerates, ergo: huge corporations. By the early 90s, some six or seven huge corporations were reported to own some 90 percent or more of all broadcast and/or cable programming in the United States.

It was not until Ronald Reagan and the GOP gave 'license' to big corporations, that the corporate owners began to 'clone' their programming among their properties. It was not until the Fairness Doctrine was trashed that ilk like Rush Limbaugh were given license to flout responsibility, public service, the pursuit of truth or, if not truth, accuracy in reporting. Ilk like Limbaugh were given a license to lie, propagandize, proselytize on behalf of the increasingly rabid, ideological and utterly absurd GOP and the increasingly rabid right wing in general.

It is interesting to note that the rising costs of electronic 'advertising' seems to have been concurrent with the rise of Ronald Reagan and the GOP. It had hard to tell which is the dog and which is the tale. In any case, one hand washed the other.

A candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from a district in metropolitan Chicago would find the economics of TV advertising impossible without heavy financial backing. The typical House district has 150,000 households. A Chicago-based television station that reaches a typical district also reaches three million households in thirty-five counties in four states. The candidate either pays for the 2,850,000 unwanted households or loses the television access to his or her district that a richer candidate can buy. (A prime-time, thirty-second commercial for a major sponsor can cost more than $250,000 to produce. Few political commercials cost as much, but the cost even for less elaborate political ads on television is so high that it has created an ominous barrier to entry into American politics.) Thirty-second commercials must be repeated to be effective. The thirty-second political ad on a Chicago station, repeated ten times, would cost more than $50,000 just for air time. The ad would then be broadcast over a station that reaches so large an audience that 95 percent do not vote in the candidate's district. --Ben H. Bagdikian, Democracy and the Media: The Media Monopoly

'Reagan Revolution' is a misnomer. It was, in fact, a reactionary counter-revolution which succeeded in undoing FDR's 'New Deal'. The broadcast industry in which I cut my teeth may be traced to the Federal Radio Act of 1927, an act which nationalized the airwaves, establishing the fact that the 'airwaves' are owned by the people collectively. A Federal Communications Act created the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to whom fell the task of allocating broadcast frequencies to those wishing to own and operate a radio or television facility.

The Communications Act of 1934 'refined' and 'expanded' this authority and empowered the FCC to administer the issuing of broadcast licenses to persons or entities wishing to broadcast on the 'airwaves' that the law had said belonged to the people collectively. The measure required that the FCC act responsibly in the 'public convenience, interest or necessity'. There are no such requirements today, thus the horror stories about small towns hit by tornadoes or worse because the so-called 'local' radio station had not issued warnings. In fact, most of those so-called radio stations are automated and/or owned by absentee owners or, worse, a huge corporation based hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles away. Such an owner feels no obligation to serve his/her/its 'coverage' area. They are in it for the bucks! They have no interest in tornadoes but for the loss of ad revenues they might represent.

Most repugnant to the huge corporations which are now placed above the law was a 'fairness doctrine' which required broadcast licensees to provide equal time to citizens believing that their positions or groups had been neglected. Not surprisingly, the largest broadcast companies --ABC, NBC for example --had lobbied Congress to establish very high fees for broadcast licenses. Interestingly, Congress deemed this a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech.

Media democracy is founded on two important notions: one, that public forums such as radio and television airwaves are public property, and two, that everyone has a right both to have their voice heard and to access a variety of viewpoints and information . Currently there is much debate over the benefits and downsides to media regulation. The FCC's proposed deregulations of media ownership laws are inciting this fiery debate between proponents and opponents of deregulation.

Proponents argue that deregulating current media ownership laws would increase media outlets by promoting more competition, while opponents argue that similar deregulations in the past which were supposed to increase competition (such as the 1996 Telecommunications Act) in fact had the opposite effect. These previous deregulations caused a surge of mergers that discouraged competition. Without competition, the two founding notions of media democracy have been significantly marginalized in recent years as the diversity of media sources shrink at an alarming rate.

The loss of diversity in media ownership is a concern for democracy in the U.S., as citizens need a variety of information on all sides of the spectrum in order to make educated, informed decisions that will affect both their lives and the future of democracy. It is essential to provide media forums in which people can speak for themselves and communicate with one another. This paper will explore the impending FCC decision, the history of communication regulations and the ramifications of potential deregulation. --Kristin Lee, The FCC and Media Democcracy, WIFP Associate

I don't believe that 'consolidated media' are serving or can serve 'public interests'. Nor can they be 'fully accountable and dependable'. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates dominate in a single market it is doubtful that a diversity of opinions will ever see the light of day. In fact, as research reveals increasing levels of consolidation, it likewise reveals that fewer issues are covered from increasingly narrow points of view.

The most notable effects are local. Reporters say their stories are often edited and worse --refused! 'Exposes' in which advertisers are threatened by 'potentially damaging information', are routinely re-written to ameliorate potential damage to advertisers' reputations. At the very worst the 'offending' material is re-written, edited or censored outright.

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation. In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. --Media Consolidation -- a Historical Perspective

The term "media consolidation" is clearly detrimental and problematic. There are numerous reports of networks refusing to air 'anti-war' ads though they were 'paid'. Routinely, news stories may be revised or dumped should they offend a sponsor. Money itself is allowed to slant the news --wealth as propaganda!

Over the past several years, NOW has consistently reported on the topic of media ownership. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations? The FCC continues to face such questions. Get background information on some of the FCC's more recent decisions below:

• The Fairness Doctrine
• Media Regulation Timeline
• Details of FCC Rule Changes
• Local and National Media
  Ownership

UPDATES: Since the FCC voted on the rule changes there have been developments in the courts and in Congress.

• October 8, 2003: NBC said it would purchase the entertainment arm of Vivendi Universal for $3.8 billion.
• September 3, 2003:
  a federal appeals court in Philadelphia issued an order blocking the rule changes from taking effect. (Read the ruling.)
• September
  4, 2003: The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill that contained a provision that would effectively block the ownership rule changes.
• July 23, 2003: The House voted 400-21 to approve a spending bill that included a provision to block the FCC decision to allow major television networks to own up to 45% of the country's viewers. The Bush administration has voiced opposition to the attempt to rescind the FCC ruling.

--Bill Moyers, NOW

'Wires and Lights in a Box':
Complete Murrow Speech From Good Night, and Good Luck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfwsfGqgPM&feature=player_embedded

It is time to overthrow our own US oligarchs....

It is time to overthrow our own US oligarchs....

When we mature enough as human beings to think rationally and to think for ourselves, we will become aware of the river of bullshit we swim in... We will then stop reacting like children every time something happens, no longer jumping every time we hear a loud noise, like that emanating constantly from the so-called "nightly news." Of course western elites are secretly building radical Islam, what do you think that we have been doing in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Bosnia and Pakistan and a dozen other places for the past fourty years? The people who are now building-up radical groups and governments, wherever they can, learned from their fathers, who secretly built-up the Third Reich, Hamas..., or from their grandfathers, who financed the rise of the Soviet Union.....

The Western elites have conducted a secret inter-generational war against all of us since before most of us were even born. They call their latest little creation of brown-skinned scary men, "Islamists." The following report pursues the new paradigm that we are being spoon-fed--increasing the fear of the "Islamist" bogeyman, in order to increase popular support for extreme military measures to wipe them all out, including anyone who secretly harbors Islamist thoughts....

Western Elites still building up Islam...?

It is clear that what is currently taking place in Tunisia is not a popular revolution. There were no clear demands from the demonstrators, there was no organized opposition leading the masses, and even Islamic voices have so far been silent. [The fact that there was no full scale revolution] is a positive sign…so what actually happened, and led to President Ben Ali going into exile? Of course, this pressing question will continue to be asked during the coming phase, and may take a long time to answer, considering that we are now facing conflicting information, and Tunisia remains a country that is somewhat ‘closed’ towards almost all of the Arab world, and its media. Our satellite channels seemed uninterested in reporting genuine facts. – India’s Issy

Dominant Social Theme: The Muslims are coming and must be confronted. Never mind that we provide the funding....

Free-Market Analysis: Is the war on terror a success? The Anglo-American elite needs an enemy if the authoritarianism that is rising in the West is to continue – because despotism (and globalism) is more easily created when there is an outside enemy. But fighting against 100 Al-Qaeda/Al-CIAda... soldiers in Afghanistan is not anybody’s idea of a substantive threat. And the Taliban are evidently and obviously fighting an occupying force.

What if the powers-that-be had decided to do what they could to expand the Muslim threat – and thus expand (in the Western mind anyway) the specter of resurgent, militant Islam? A cynical idea isn’t it, dear reader. It is merely speculation, but there are reasons to explore it further. Bear with us.

Just yesterday, the Bell offered an article that was somewhat skeptical of the “Jasmine Revolution” playing out in Tunisia. Since we presented our speculation others have weighed in (in the Blogosphere) with even more cynical perspectives. There have been reports that the Tunisian revolution was actually a CIA-related operation related to securing oil supplies for the US and furthering its strategic dominance in terms of the larger “great game.”

We believe such explanations are somewhat overwrought. The CIA does not call every tune. Oil in fact is present everywhere on earth and need not be secured by the West via revolution. The Tunisians evidently and obviously were not well-disposed to their (former) iron-handed ruler. And yet … revolutions can be manipulated and often are. In fact, Tunisia’s now-deposed president President Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali was firmly anti-Muslim and thus the Tunisian revolution seems to fit into a larger pattern of further Muslim-ifcation of that part of the world.

Is it a deliberate pattern? We would argue it might be, and that it is one that now serves the purposes of Western powers-that-be. The Anglosphere is notoriously unsentimental when it comes to overthrowing allies in pursuit of its large one-world objectives. Those who have ruled with America’s backing for decades may suddenly they are unsupported in their further prospects.

Where is the evidence? Again, we note the pattern. In the strife-torn West African nation of Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) the West is supporting Alassane Ouattara, a former prime minister, banker and leader of the opposition over incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo. Ouattara is Muslim; Gbagbo is Christian. The West advocates for the Muslim-linked faction over the Christian one.

Then there is the referendum in the Sudan, one of Africa’s largest states and most Northern ones. The referendum, being conducted on the auspices of the United Nations, aims to split the country, creating a predominantly Muslim Northern Sudan. According to CNN, President Omar al-Bashir has reportedly said that if Southern Sudan votes in favor of separation, “sharia will become the main source of Sudan’s Constitution, Islam the state religion and Arabic the official language.” The West, under the auspices of the UN, is in the process of creating a fundamentalist Muslim state. Finally, there is the sorry saga of the War in Kosovo in which the West backed Albanian Muslims over Serbian Christians.

All three of these examples might be termed “simplistic” in that there were (and are) many complexities involved in these confrontations that have nothing to do with religious affiliation. Nonetheless – inarguably – on three separate occasions, Western powers-that-be have thrown their weight behind Islam. Coincidence?

There is more to support the idea that the Anglosphere is covertly supporting resurgent Islam. The West has surely manipulated the price of oil to enrich Muslim countries for decades. And in return, Saudi Arabia has first created and then funded Wahhabism, a fierce fundamental strain of Islam that has found fertile soil in the Afghan-Pakistan region and in North Africa. Thus, we seem to see again that the West is funding the very enemies its leaders claim to be fighting against.

Dubai and the Arab Emirates should be mentioned within this paradigm. These Western-affiliated, Muslim countries have in our view been positioned to provide a “middle ground” between Islam and the West. They represent the fruition of an ongoing Hegelian dialectic – the model for a Westernized Islam. Al Jazeera is funded out of another tiny, Western-centric country, Qatar, and we have noted that initially Al Jazeera was staffed by BBC journos; Al Jazeera, far from being a radical Islamic mouthpiece, is in a sense another Western-controlled news outlet. You can see a previous article here:

http://www.thedailybell.com/383/Al-Jazeera-channel-coming-to-US-cities-.html

Those in the West, even close mainstream observers of the ongoing “war on terror,” live with this cognitive dissonance without showing much consciousness of it – which is strange itself. You would think those with degrees and pedigrees in this area would ask themselves why the West is supporting the world’s leading promoters of militant Islam all the while proclaiming undying resistance to “terrorists.”

The Western power elite always utilizes the Hegelian dialectic – the creation of two sides to an argument so that the resolution is resolved as much as possible on elite terms. But while most observers of the elite believe the dialectic applies to rhetoric, the facts-on-the-ground show us clearly that the dialectic is applied to conflict as well. Thus, there is significant evidence that Wall Street funded the “Red” faction of the Russian revolution that led to the formation of the USSR and the USSR in turn helped fund the creation of Communist China.

It is now well-acknowledged that Operation Gladio in Europe (a CIA black ops) produced a slew of violent incidents and rising fear among Western middle classes that the “Red Plague” was spreading. This was no doubt helpful in the creation of the meme of a “united Europe” that would provide an antidote to violence.

Of course today Europe is “united” – but that unification only seems to spawned yet more violence – and this is possibly a larger problem. Wars and revolution in the Internet era are not nearly so controllable as they once were. The risk is that having begun the conflagration and now perhaps encouraging its growth, the elite will end up burning itself, though how badly remains to be seen.

Conclusion: We are proposing a new stage in the manipulated war on terror. Having built up the Middle East through enormous cash infusions, the Anglosphere is continually expanding the role of fundamental Islam and may even be prepared to overthrow old and trusted allies to do so. The war on terror so far has not proven very terrible (except to Afghan and Iraqi citizens) but if the Jasmine revolution “spreads” throughout the Middle East, resurgent, fundamentalist Islam may indeed become a reality. All this is highly speculative of course and merely an exercise analyzing elite promotions. The reality may be far more mundane – and simply the result of current events with no additional resonance or meaning. And yet …

Have we already forgotten the cost of Bush/Cheney, the Inside Job of 9/11...and the Odious White House Murder INC, in the Levant and Worldwide....?

So far, all of Obama's answers have been re-runs of previously failed policies, seemingly dedicated to re-fighting all the lost political battles of the past. Will this new batch of "conservatives" and ultra-right-wing imbeciles that we have just elected be the equivalent of the crowd that was swept into office on Reagan's coattails? For those who remember, it was Reagan's and his "conservative revolution" and their war infamous "supply-side economics" (a call for the wealthy to loot the national treasury) that have brought our economy to the point of ruin. They started the actual "war against terrorism" as a secret low-level war against Communism in Afghanistan. They started secret little wars in at least a dozen other countries under the premise of looking for an imaginary link between Russia and "international terrorism" (even though there was no link, or even such a thing as an organized "international force" for terror, then, or now), giving justification for every nut with a grievance against the United States to look for ways to fight against the secret wars. Each president since Reagan has expanded the little secret wars wherever they could not get their way legally. All of this directly caused the next stage in the war against terror which we had started, the attack upon the American Homeland.

US elections big win for Israeli right...

By Rachelle Marshall

Now we have come full circle, with an angry "Tea Bag" boost to the reactionary forces bringing us a new wave of reactionary Republican congressmen, reactionaries who always side with Israel. Is the People's memory so short that they have already forgotten the cost of Bush/Cheney? Remember how we all complained about something called the "Israel Lobby," controlling Congress, when they led us into Iraq without a valid earthly reason? If this is just another layer of Zionist crud, then Israel will now have an even greater hold on our government.

This Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) seems to be owned completely by the lobby. She (along with Mr. Berman, whom she replaces) was a leading force in the popularly defeated scheme to pass the "Iran War resolution" and the foul attempt to create a naval blockade of Iran. The American destabilization plan now unfolding in Israel's neighborhood is putting the fear of "Islamization" into more and more people, making it more likely that, when push comes to shove, the American people will willingly swallow another war for Israel.

When there is no limit to what you will do to force the world to accept your demands, then it becomes possible to pull-off an audacious attempt to take the world by force. This is what we are seeing. Is this what we are willing to accept?

Israeli soldiers in Hebron’s occupied Old City stop a Palestinian family on its way to visit relatives for the Eid al-Adha holiday, Nov. 17, 2010.

Not since 9/11 has an event in the U.S. given Israel’s far-right leaders as much to cheer about as did the 2010 mid-term elections. The destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslim extremists in 2001 united former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush in a “war on terror” aimed as much at Hamas and Hezbollah as at violent religious extremists. It also gave the Bush administration an excuse to invade Iraq—Israel’s principal enemy at the time.

Two days after the Republicans’ sweeping victory last November, Knesset member Danny Danon predicted it would result in greater resistance by Congress to White House pressure on Israel. “The huge influx of newly elected representatives and senators to Washington,” Danon said, “includes strong friends of Israel who will put the brakes on the consistently dubious, sometimes dangerous policies of President Obama these past two years.” Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman under George W. Bush, noted gleefully that “The takeover of the House by Republicans is great news for Israel and her supporters. The House leadership and almost every GOP member is rock-solid behind Israel.”

Such news may not be good for America, however. In a November speech to the Jewish Federation of North America, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu urged the U.S. not to rule out military action if Iran fails to halt its nuclear activities, and implied that Israel would do so if international sanctions failed. An Israeli attack on Iran would be certain to have strong backing from the recently augmented pro-Israel wing of Congress, and as Israel’s chief arms supplier, the U.S. could find itself embroiled in war against yet a third Muslim country.

Right-wing zealots had even more reason to celebrate with the rise of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to head the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ros-Lehtinen is a spokesperson for Israeli nationalists, and obsessive in her hostility to the Palestinians. Democrat Howard Berman, whom she is replacing, was a steadfast supporter of Israel but unlike Ros-Lehtinen he did not urge that all PLO representatives be expelled from the U.S., and all funding for the Palestinian Authority be cut off, until Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Prime Minister Netanyahu wasted no time taking advantage of the election results. Within days of the Republican victory his government ordered the demolition of 88 more Palestinian homes in Arab East Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood, and announced plans to build 320 new units in the city’s Ramot section and 1,000 in Har Homa. All are in an area of the West Bank Israel captured from Jordan in 1967 and annexed in violation of international law. The Israelis now claim Har Homa is part of Jerusalem; to the rest of the world it is an illegal settlement.

When Israel began construction on the site during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister in the 1990s the U.S. raised a strong protest. This time the administration’s response was muted. “We were deeply disappointed by the announcement,” said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. “It is counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations.” But he referred to Har Homa’s location as one of the “sensitive areas of East Jerusalem,” rather than the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu’s response was defiant. “Jerusalem is not a settlement,” he said, “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”

It has long been evident that Netanyahu wants to expand the Jewish population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem far more than he wants peace. But instead of condemning the Israeli leader’s intransigence and threatening to end U.S. support, Obama caved in. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated America’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel, and in an 8-hour session with Netanyahu reached a tentative agreement that slowed but did not stop further settlement expansion.

In exchange for a mere 90-day “partial” halt, the U.S. would provide Israel with $3 billion worth of F-25 attack jets, make no further demands for a settlement freeze, and veto all U.N. resolutions critical of Israel as well as any attempt by the Palestinians to gain U.N. support for a declaration of statehood. Israel will therefore receive a payoff of $1 billion a month for the brief three months it refrains from building more settlements—money that might have been spent putting Americans back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges, caring for the elderly poor, or reducing class size in cash-strapped school districts.

A significant provision of the agreement excludes East Jerusalem from the proposed freeze, giving Israel a free hand to continue replacing the Arab population with Jews in a section of the city the Palestinians intend to be their future capital. The proposal amounted to a sell-out of the Palestinians, and President Mahmoud Abbas accordingly rejected it. He insisted that the moratorium apply to all Palestinian territories before he would resume negotiations. Netanyahu accepted Obama’s gift package only on condition that his cabinet approve, and that Obama put its terms in writing. Congress will see to it that the Israelis will receive its benefits regardless of their decision.

The Knesset gave Obama’s peace efforts a further battering when it voted in late November to require a national referendum before any Israeli territory could be ceded. This will make it almost impossible to include the return of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as part of a peace agreement. It will also be more difficult to include a trade-off of land within Israel for territory in the West Bank.

Marketing to Americans

Afghan children look on behind barbed wire at the site of a suicide attack near Camp Julien, in the ruins of the former Afhan Royal Palace in Kabul, Nov. 12, 2010.

Settlers meanwhile had made sure that construction would resume at a greater rate than ever when the previous freeze expired. According to Peace Now, between Sept. 26 and Nov. 15 construction was begun on 1,649 homes in 69 separate settlements, and plans made for hundreds more. Many of them will have a market in the U.S. A Nov. 7 real estate exposition in New York City put on by the Jewish Agency advertised property for sale in “Israel” that is in fact located in the illegal West Bank settlement of Efrat.

The mayor of Efrat described his community as “built on a high standard, with beautiful homes, gardens, playgrounds, and winning educational institutions.” He did not tell prospective buyers that Efrat is located on land stolen from the Palestinian village of al-Khadar, or that water for the gardens was diverted from Palestinian farmlands—land on which Efrat regularly dumps its raw sewage.

Such disconnects between Israel’s image and the reality of its occupation are parallelled by the mainstream media’s failure to report on the increasing violence directed at Palestinians and aimed at driving them off their land. Palestinian officials reported that at least 277 cases of settler violence took place between August and October. Settlers encroach on Palestinian land, attack Palestinian farmers, poison livestock and crops, and burn schools and mosques. During the October harvest they destroyed thousands of olive trees. The Israeli army seldom intervenes.

Palestinian children are not spared. Many have been beaten by settlers, and those caught throwing stones, no matter how young, are arrested and often beaten on the way to jail. According to the Israeli human rights organizations B’Tselem and HaMoked, children in detention centers are pressured to become informers and “subject to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.” In one such case two young boys, Muhammad Mukhalmer and Muhammad Radwan, were locked naked in a prison bathroom for two days with the air conditioner on. “The most awful thing that happened was when soldiers went to the bathroom they peed on us,” one of the boys reported.

Palestinians steadfastly resisting Israeli oppression are finding allies among Israelis. Joel Beinin, a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University, recently returned from Israel, where he gathered material on a small but growing resistance movement composed of young Israelis and Palestinians dedicated to nonviolence. Beinin, whose parents live in Israel, said in a recent talk in Palo Alto, California, that the new movement aims at protesting not only the separation barrier but also home demolitions and the takeover of Palestinian land by settlers.

The settlers’ freedom from government restraint, and the protection they get from the army, reflect the social change that is taking place in Israel, Beinin said. Religious Zionists now make up the army’s officer corps, and many of the reserve units are based inside the settlement blocs. The army has even aided developers by routing the separation wall through Palestinian villages in order to create sites for new settlements.

Israel’s campaign of repression against peaceful protestors has become increasingly harsh. IDF soldiers regularly raid Bil’in, Ni’ilin, Budrus, and Jayyous at night, breaking into homes and arresting hundreds of suspected demonstrators. At the weekly protests soldiers now attack Israelis as well as Palestinians with tear gas, rubber bullets, and occasionally live ammunition. Beinin took part in the protests during his visit, and admitted, “I was frankly terrified.”

The “new protest generation” Beinin described differs from the old in including Palestinian women as well as men and combining various strands of the Israeli peace movement, including animal rights supporters and environmentalists. After witnessing the spirit of equality that permeates the new protest movement, Beinin said he was more convinced than ever that the two sides can live together in peace if they do so as equals.

That prospect has dimmed for the time being, however, with an American president willing to appease Israel’s far right leadership and a Congress that wholeheartedly supports that leadership. The irony is that by providing Israel’s right-wing government with unconditional financial and diplomatic support, Obama and Congress may be endangering the security of both Israelis and Americans. The army’s repression of peaceful demonstrations, and its sweeping arrests of their organizers take out of action the moderate Palestinians who favor peaceful coexistence with Israel, and leave in their place a vacuum to be filled by extremists.

Afghanistan Withdrawal Postponed

The strategy the U.S. is pursuing in Afghanistan is similarly discouraging the rise of moderates and certain to prolong the conflict. Under pressure from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Obama has postponed the withdrawal of combat forces until 2014, with tens of thousands of soldiers remaining there indefinitely to provide training to the Afghan army and “economic, cultural and development support.” The Taliban immediately responded that there would be no peace negotiations while any foreign troops remained. Afghans, a Taliban spokesman said, “are not ready to tolerate foreign invasion and occupation of their country.”

Meanwhile, Petraeus has put into effect a strategy called “capture and kill,’” which is intended, in Obama’s words, “to break the Taliban’s momentum and deprive insurgents of their strongholds.” In practice it is being used to pick off the Taliban’s mid-level leaders, such as mayors, bookkeepers, and judges, regardless of the fact that such administrators are more likely than hardened fighters to accept reconciliation.

In line with the new strategy the military has sharply increased the number of drone attacks and pre-dawn house raids. The Pentagon reported that in one 90-day period this fall Special Operations Forces killed or captured 388 Taliban leaders, killed 968 insurgents, and captured 2,477. The number of civilian casualties was not reported. President Hamid Karzai complained bitterly in mid-November that such actions were intensifying the insurgency, and he urged that U.S. troops stay off the roads and out of Afghan homes.

Jeremy Scahill, writing in the Nov. 18 issue of The Nation, described how night raids undermine NATO’s stated aim of winning over low-level Taliban members. Scahill cited the killing of Mullah Sahib Jan, an imam and religious adviser to the government reconciliation commission, who was preaching to the Taliban in Logar province and encouraging them to come to the government and lay down their arms. Jan was killed on Jan. 14 in a pre-dawn raid by Special Operations Forces. According to his son Haidar, soldiers broke down the doors, roused the sleeping family, and blindfolded and handcuffed the women as well as the men. “They were beating us with both weapons and their hands,” Haidar said. Much of the family’s property was destroyed during the raid, and at the end of it Jan’s bullet-riddled body lay in the yard.

The head of Logar’s reconciliation commission, Mohammed Anwar, said Jan had been working with them for months as a religious adviser. “Only the U.S. soldiers know why they killed Sahib Jan,” Anwar said. “We are trying to build bridges between the Taliban and the government. How can we encourage reconciliation in good faith in the face of these American raids against the very people who agree to disarm?”

Some members of the Obama administration are skeptical of the policy of eliminating mid-level Taliban leaders. “Are they being replaced by guys less beholden to the senior leaders in Pakistan?” a White House official asked. If so, he said, in any future peace talks, “it’s possible that the leaders at the top could not deliver.” Doubts exist even within the military. A current assessment by the Pentagon acknowledges that security has deteriorated and resistance has increased this year because of NATO’s more aggressive military operations. A former CIA analyst said recent statements about progress reminded him of claims by the Russians before they withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988.

Like the American generals who boasted of body counts to justify sending more troops to Vietnam, Petraeus’ strategy is prolonging a war that is certain either to lead to humiliating defeat for the U.S. or doom it to endless conflict. America’s military ventures of the past nine years already have cost America thousands of lives and more than a trillion dollars, yet have not enhanced our national security. It is today more urgent than ever that Obama abandon policies that have made America an object of hatred and devote himself to pursuing peace in the Middle East and a return to sanity at home—both of which have suffered setbacks one can only hope are temporary....