“The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus” The New York Times announced that the Obama Administration had sent an important letter to the leadership of Iran on January 12, 2012. [1] On January 15, 2012, the spokesperson of the Iranian Foreign Ministry acknowledged that the letter had been delivered to Tehran by way of three diplomatic channels: (1) one copy of the letter was handed to the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Khazaee, by his U.S. counterpart, Susan Rice, in New York City; (2) a second copy of the letter was delivered in Tehran by the Swiss Ambassador to Iran, Livia Leu Agosti; and (3) a third copy went to Iran by way of Jalal Talabani of Iraq. [2] In the letter, the White House spelled out the position of the United States, while Iranian officials said it was a sign of things as they really are: the U.S. cannot afford to wage a war against Iran.
Within the letter written by President Barak Hussein Obama was a U.S. request for the start of negotiations between Washington and Tehran to end Iranian-U.S. hostilities. “In the letter, Obama announced readiness for negotiations and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” Ali Motahari, an Iranian parliamentarian, told the Mehr News Agency. [3] According to another Iranian parliamentarian, this time the Deputy Chairperson of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Hussein Ebrahimi (Ibrahimi), the letter went on to ask for Iranian-U.S. cooperation and negotiations based on the mutual interests of both Tehran and Washington. [4]
Category: Head Stories
For decades, lobbies and special interests have ruled Capitol Hill, with PACs effectively steering the outcome of every major political campaign by injecting money and buying influence. Now we find out that Texas Congressman and GOP candidate Ron Paul has been targeted by a new breed of PAC, this time with foreign backing. In recent years, activists and advocates have won back some ground in terms of placing limits and disclosure on campaign donations from individuals, businesses and have attempted to rein in some of the financial influence of political action committees (PACs). Just when one dragon was slayed, another, more menacing one was born. Enter the world of the Super PAC. As 501c organizations, these new Super PACs take advantage of recent election funding rulings which allow corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to operate totally independently – and spend as much as they wish on election campaign media packages. Super PACs can also hold fundraisers to solicit money from donors – with no limits. The rise of the Super PAC has meant a complete runaround of any campaign ethics, or campaign finance regulation.
The Chinese government recently issued new rules to strengthen Internet regulations. Most notable is the real-name requirement for micro-blog (Weibo) accounts – China’s equivalent of Twitter. Some Weibo users have attested to an increase in government monitoring and self-censorship by hosting companies. Many are decrying this as China’s further violation of freedom of expression. The reality is far more complicated. More than a decade ago, when China’s Internet was in its infancy with a few million users, the government made it clear that it would exercise political oversight on the nascent cyberspace while allowing it to grow. Many experts then predicted that such efforts were doomed to fail. The Internet, they said, was to be a brave new world that could not be controlled. There were only two possible outcomes: A freely expanding Internet beyond the reach of political authority and subverting it, or an Internet stifled by government control and unable to realize its social and economic benefits. Rupert Murdoch famously proclaimed that advances in communications technology posed an “unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere.”
I had an epiphany today. The Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, was not written by people who fundamentally misunderstand how the web works. They understand all too well, and want to change it forever. Behind the almost unreadable (yet truly scary) text of SOPA (and its Senate doppelganger, PIPA, or the Protect Intellectual Property Act) is a desire, likely fueled by powerful media conglomerate backers, to take us all back to the thin-pipe, content-distribution days of 1994 — right before the World Wide Web launched. From the moment the Internet and websites arrived, a veritable Pandora’s box of opportunities have opened to every average Joe and Josephine in the world. Everyone became a content creator. Everyone had an audience. The Internet also almost immediately became the transport mechanism for a steady flow of pirated content — first images, then music and, when the pipe got fat enough, movies. Major media companies, which once upon a time had sole control of the creation and distribution of popular entertainment, were appalled — and also powerless to stop it.
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012, NaturalNews.com went “dark” to protest SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” that is actually a thinly-veiled government censorship effort. We are also protesting PIPA, the “Protect IP Act,” which is similarly destructive in its effects. You may have arrived at this page from our mock “seizure” index page which depicts what might happen if SOPA becomes law. This is crucial for all NaturalNews readers and fans to understand: If SOPA becomes law, NaturalNews.com will be shut down. In fact, the proposed law contains a specific provision — section 105 — which allows the U.S. government to shut down websites it claims “endanger public health.”
The year 2012 may become known as a watershed for humanity – the year when mankind was precipitated into a global conflagration involving nuclear weapons. The signs are indeed grimly ominous as formidable military forces converge on the Persian Gulf in the long-running stand-off between the United States and Iran. On side with the US are its European allies in NATO, primarily Britain, Washington’s Middle East client states: Israel and the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf – all bristling with weapons of mass destruction. Recent naval exercises by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz have also displayed a fierce arsenal of missiles and military capability, and Iran has strategic alliances with Russia and China, both of whom will not stand idly by if their Persian partner is attacked.
The program manifesto US President Barack Obama voiced in the Australian parliament on November 17 and his statements on January 5 make it clear for everyone that Washington has outlined the new strategy of its foreign policy. “After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, the US is turning its attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific”, the president said. The decision of the commander of the US military forces Obama to deploy 2,500 marines in the Northern Territories (an administrative district in Australia, which borders the Southern Asia) became the first concrete manifestation of the new course. The change of priorities predicts serious international shifts. It predicts the completion of the military operations against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which gave no result, a partial retreat from Iraq and reorientation on new external enemies both real and imaginary ones.
You’ve heard about the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex. But there was another Japanese nuclear accident last year.
As I explained in March of last year: The 6 problem reactors which have gotten all of the press are located within the Fukushima Daiichi complex.
However, the same nuclear power plant operator that runs the Daiichi complex – Tepco – runs a separate nuclear complex 7 miles away, called Fukushima Daini. There are 4 reactors located at the Daini complex.
On March 12th, Tepco reported: Unit 1 – At 8:19am, there was an alarm indicating that one of the control rods
was not properly inserted, however, at 10:43am the alarm was automatically called off. Other control rods has been confirmed that they are fully inserted (reactor is in subcritical status)
“Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” Officially, America is now bankrupt: financially, economically, politically – and morally. Its criminal aggression towards Iran is just one of many parts of a jigsaw that add up to a clear and grotesque picture of what the United States of America now represents in the 21st Century world. The numbers and pictures for these constituent parts of this odious jigsaw puzzle are well known. But what has become glaringly clear is just how integrated the official image of the US now is. Bankrupt. Terminally in debt, mass poverty at record levels, rampant militarism, draconian curbs on civil liberties, government by the rich for the rich, and lately the reactionary, debased cat-fight that passes for political debate among Republican contenders for the Presidency. Cringing is the sight of super wealthy career politicians throwing sand in each other’s eyes to scrabble up the pole for yet further personal accumulation of capital; disturbing is the easy way that psychopathic targeting of imagined enemies whether at home or abroad is worn like a badge of honour. It is a sign of how depraved the American political mind has become when would-be presidents can so openly talk of conducting foreign policy in terms of unquestioned international aggression. Of course, this kind of political and moral bankruptcy is not just confined to those seeking office. It is the coin of those who are already in office. In a report in the New York Times Monday we have the startling admissions that, taken together, show that the US government should be certified as criminal (if further proof were needed) [1].
In a series of his public speeches Hugo Chaves called an “epidemic” of cancer among Latin American presidents a strange and alarming phenomenon. This hard to cure desease was identified in case of Chavez himself, Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo, Dilma Rouseff and Lula da Silva (Brazil), Crisitina Fernandez (Argentina). All of them are known as left of the center politicians struggling to expedite Latin America’s integration process and to get rid of the US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Chavez let drop words about empires that go to any length to achieve their goals. The Washington’s response didn’t keep waiting. Victoria Nuland, US State Department official spokesperson, said the Chavez’ words were “horrific and reprehensible.” That is they were perceived by the Obama administration as imputation of using special biological technologies to cause cancer among Latin American leaders not friendly towards the USA.