The Real News: Not The Censored, Sanitized or Fictional Type.
All Media Have Been Banned From Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill Cleanup Sites
In an amazing development, all media have been banned from Gulf of Mexico oil spill cleanup sites. Yes, you read that correctly. All media have been banned. In yet another sign of just how far free speech rights in the United States have fallen, "National Incident Commander" Thad Allen has banned all media access to oil clean up sites in or around the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of devoting all of their energy to trying to save the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and the U.S. government seem absolutely obsessed from keeping people away from seeing what is really going on. It is now a class B felony that carries a fine of up to $40,000 for any media representative to come within the 65 foot "exclusion zone" that has been established. That means that all members of the media - print, television, radio and bloggers - are banned from coming within 65 feet of anything important down in the Gulf of Mexico.
The media are being treated like the enemy. Already there have been many reports of how the media have been harassed and intimidated down in the Gulf of Mexico. But now BP and the U.S. government have just decided to shut free speech down altogether in the Gulf. Apparently they are much more comfortable when their inaction and incompetence is not exposed for the entire world to see.
But what harm is the media really doing down there in the Gulf? Well, other than showing how badly the U.S. government and BP are handling the situation. The truth is that the American people deserve to know what is going on. But now the media will not be able to get pictures or video of anything important.
In a recent article, columnist Yobie Benjamin described the dramatic impact that this new order is going to have on media coverage of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill crisis....
Allen's orders effectively bans all media - print, television, radio and Internet bloggers from talking to to any clean-up worker or to even come close to take pictures or videos of booms, clean-up workers, oil soaked birds, dead dolphins, dead marine life, burned and dead endangered sea turtles.
Needless to say, many in the media are absolutely outraged. Not being able to get within 65 feet of any oil spill clean up site is going to severely restrict media personnel from doing their jobs. Not that they were doing such a great job of covering this oil spill crisis anyway, but now they are basically going to have no access.
Needless to say, many in the media are absolutely outraged. Not being able to get within 65 feet of any oil spill clean up site is going to severely restrict media personnel from doing their jobs. Not that they were doing such a great job of covering this oil spill crisis anyway, but now they are basically going to have no access.
Why Has China Stepped Aside?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
(This Is So Screwed Up That Hillary Should Have Opened Her Remarks With: “Once Upon A Time…Ed.)
The BBC reported on July 4 that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the US ballistic missile base in Poland was not directed at Russia. The purpose of the base, she said, is to protect Poland from the Iranian threat.
Why would Iran be a threat to Poland? What happens to US credibility when the Secretary of State makes such a stupid statement? Does Hillary think she is fooling the Russians? Does anyone on earth believe her? What is the point of such a transparent lie? To cover up an act of American aggression against Russia?
In the same breath Hillary warned of a “steel vise” of repression crushing democracy and civil liberties around the world. US journalists might wonder if she was speaking of the United States. Glenn Greenwald reported in Salon on July 4 that the US Coast Guard, which has no legislative authority, has issued a rule that journalists who come closer than 65 feet to BP clean-up operations in the Gulf of Mexico without permission will be punished by a $40,000 fine and one to five years in prison. The New York Times and numerous journalists report that BP, the US Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and local police are prohibiting journalists from photographing the massive damage from the continuing flow of oil and toxic chemicals into the Gulf.
On July 5 Hillary Clinton was in Tbilisi, Georgia, where, according to the Washington Post, she accused Russia of “the invasion and occupation of Georgia.” What is the point of this lie? Even America’s European puppet states have issued reports documenting that Georgia initiated the war with Russia that it quickly lost by invading South Ossetia in an effort to destroy the secessionists.
It would appear that the rest of the world and the UN Security Council have given the Americans a pass to lie without end in order to advance Washington’s goal of world hegemony. How does this benefit the Security Council and the world? What is going on here?
After President Clinton misrepresented the conflict between Serbia and the Albanians in Kosovo and tricked NATO into military aggression against Serbia and after President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the secretary of state, the national security advisor and just about every member of the Bush regime deceived the UN and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, thus finagling an invasion of Iraq, why did the UN Security Council fall for Obama’s deception that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?
In 2009 all sixteen US intelligence agencies issued a unanimous report that Iran had abandoned its weapons program in 2003. Was the Security Council ignorant of this report?
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s weapons inspectors on the ground in Iran have consistently reported that there is no diversion of uranium from the energy program. Was the Security Council ignorant of the IAEA reports?
If not ignorant, why did the UN Security Council approve sanctions on Iran for adhering to its right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to have a nuclear energy program? The UN sanctions are lawless. They violate Iran’s rights as a signatory to the treaty. Is this the “steel vice” of which Hillary spoke?
As soon as Washington got sanctions from the Security Council, the Obama regime unilaterally added more severe US sanctions. Obama is using the UN sanctions as a vehicle to which to attach his unilateral sanctions. Perhaps this is the “steel vice of oppression” of which Hillary spoke.
Why has the UN Security Council given a green light to the Obama regime to start yet another war in the Middle East?
Why has Russia stepped aside? At Washington’s insistence, the Russian government has not delivered the air defense system that Iran purchased. Does Russia view Iran as a greater threat to itself than the Americans, who are ringing Russia with US missile and military bases and financing “color revolutions” in former constituent parts of the Russian and Soviet empires?
Why has China stepped aside? China’s growing economy needs energy resources. China has extensive energy investments in Iran. It is US policy to contain China by denying China access to energy. China is America’s banker. China could destroy the US dollar in a few minutes.
Perhaps Russia and China have decided to let the Americans over-reach until the country self-destructs.
On the other hand, perhaps everyone is miscalculating and more death and destruction is in the works than the world is counting on.
Like the Gulf of Mexico.
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Rice Stresses War-Crimes Accountability Under International Law
[TAMILNET, FRIDAY, 9 JULY 2010 14:58
"Governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting civilians, but other parties to armed conflict must also comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. And all too often, they do not," said Dr Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, during a Security Council Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Wednesday. "Those legal obligations should have legal consequences. It’s incumbent upon the international community to end impunity—by helping governments create, maintain, and operate credible and effective national courts where possible, or by supporting international and other mechanisms where necessary. The International Criminal Court can also be useful in the fight against genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity," Rice added.
Full text of Dr. Rice’s statement follows:
Tom Tancredo: Like The Civil War And Soviets And Al Qaeda, President Obama Is 'The Greatest Threat To The United States Today'
Tom Tancredo: Like The Civil War And Soviets And Al Qaeda, President Obama Is 'The Greatest Threat To The United States Today'
You can always count on Tom Tancredo to say all kinds of insane things, but sometimes it's hard to tell if he just says them to get attention, which he obviously craves, or if he really believes the things he says.
Well, the other day at a campaign event for his pal, Republican Senate candidate and renowned Tea Partier Ken Buck (a favorite of Erick Erickson, too), Tancredo seemed quite aware of this confusion, and did his best to clear it up for us all:
Tancredo: What could be more important for you to do, really, if you think about this? Everything is at stake here. Everything.
I firmly believe with all my heart, you guys, although we have had many threats to our nation -- and we have gone through a whole lot of things, and survived many things. We -- I always say, you know, we survived the Civil War, we survived the Depression, we went through all -- we survived Bill Clinton, for heaven's sake!
But nothing -- I do not believe -- not the Soviet Union, when we were in, you know, that thirty-five year period leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union, thanks to Ronald Reagan, God bless him. [Applause]
...
But we had that threat, we survived it. Later, we found out we had another threat to our way of life, and that was Al Qaeda, and we found that out on 9/11.
But I firmly believe this -- it's not just, you know, some dramatic statement a person would make to get press or something or ink. I believe this with all my heart -- that the greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers, is the guy that is in the White House today.
It's actually a bit scarier to realize that people like Tancredo (and Beck, and Limbaugh, and Weiner Savage, and Palin, et al et al) really believe the things that come out of their mouths.
And you'll notice that everyone applauded.
No comments:
Post a Comment