Global
My, my. The coverup starts in the Columbus Dispatch Metro section lead which begins, “[Franklin] County election officials say they think a clerical error is to blame for 19 Columbus police officers having their voting addresses listed as the Downtown police headquarters.”
Now, if a lower-class black male had used his work address as a voting address, and tried to vote in the inner-city Driving Park area, the headline would have read: “Massive voter fraud uncovered in urban inner-city precinct: ACORN is suspected.”
It is a fifth-degree felony to intentionally register to vote at your work address instead of your residence. The police might enforce the laws, but it doesn’t mean they obey them.
As the Dispatch pointed out, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who supervises the vote in Ohio, “…isn’t particularly concerned about police officers registering their work address.”
The Free Press has been getting it right since 1970. When no one else would champion the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, the Free Press editorialized on behalf of the gay community and universal human rights. When environmentalists were considered crazy tree-huggers on acid, the Free Press pointed out how they were right on sustainability. When no one would take on this town's modern day robber barons and their wholly owned political subsidies, the Free press exposed the secret world of the power elite. The work of the Free Press has been so valuable to the public its contents have been archived by no fewer than three major data bases for more than two decades. In honor of that tradition the Free Press offers articles from the archive.
Opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Syria is growing rapidly in Europe and the United States, drawing its strength from public awareness that the case made for attacking Iraq had holes in it.
A majority in the United States, still very much aware of Iraq war deceptions, opposes arming the "rebel" force in Syria, so heavily dominated by foreign fighters and al Qaeda. And a majority opposes U.S. military action in Syria.
But that public opinion is only just beginning to get expressed as activism. With Republicans more willing to actively oppose a war this time, and some section of Democrats still opposed, there's actually potential to build a larger antiwar movement than that of 2003-2006.
Thus far, however, what's discouraging an attack on Syria is the public uproar that was created back then over the disastrous attack on Iraq.
President Barack Obama's preferred method for dealing with targeted individuals is not to throw them into lawless prisons. But it's also not to indict and prosecute them.
On June 7th, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but "they never asked us." In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted.
A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he'd attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested -- had he been charged with some crime.
Missile-strike law enforcement is now being applied to governments as well. The Libyan government was given a death sentence. The Syrian government is being sentenced to the loss of some citizens, buildings, and supplies.
Now a decade later, President Obama is telling the world that the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Assad government must be answered by other weapons, even though the results of the UN inspection team have not been compiled—just as the Bush administration refused to wait for the UN report by the inspectors who had been looking for WMD in Iraq.
Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that the UN inspectors “can’t tell us anything that we don’t already know.” President Obama says that any U.S. attack on the Assad government will be as punishment, not regime change. The strike will be “limited”—but tell that to the civilians who inevitably die when military attacks take place.
President Bush and his advisors either didn’t know or didn’t care about the probable consequences of their decision to invade and occupy Iraq:
It’s a crucial question -- but President Obama intends to render it moot with unwavering contempt for the war authority of Congress. Like his predecessors. Even with war votes on Capitol Hill, the charade quotient has been high. The Gulf War began in early 1991 after the Senate vote for war was close: 52 to 47. But, as the PBS “Frontline” program reported years later, President George H.W. Bush had a plan in place: if Congress voted against going to war, he’d ignore Congress.
Surely, the objective has got to be more than simply giving Secretary of State John Kerry a chance to brag, in the manner of his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, regarding Gaddafi, “We came, we saw, he died.” And, there is little expectation – however many Cruise missiles the United States fires at Syrian targets in a fury over disputed claims about chemical weapons – that lives are likely to be saved.
So, what are Iran’s new leaders likely to see as the real driving force behind Obama’s felt need to acquiesce, again, in a march of folly? And why does it matter?
Every president who wants to launch another war can’t abide whistleblowers. They might interfere with the careful omissions, distortions and outright lies of war propaganda, which requires that truth be held in a kind of preventative detention.
By mid-week, media adrenalin was at fever pitch as news reports cited high-level sources explaining when the U.S. missile attacks on Syria were likely to begin, how long they might last, what their goals would be. But what about other (potential) sources who have documents and other information that contradict the official story?
It’s never easy for whistleblowers to take the risk of exposing secret realities. At times like these, it’s especially difficult -- and especially vital -- for whistleblowers to take the chance.
In this case, the tiny group of wealthy financiers, tea party supporters and out of town petitioners sponsoring this ridiculous proposal are calling it by the misleading name of “Cincinnatians for Pension Reform” (CPR). However, unlike the medical procedure by the same name, this one would kill its patient!
WHO IS BEHIND CPR?
If you said; “It can’t be Cincinnatians, our own home town folks would never push something this bad, then you are actually right on the money!
What about the 7,000 signatures filed by the so-called “Cincinnatians for Pension Reform?” Actually, that phony group paid nearly $70,000 to the California Company Arno Petition Consultants to bring in and put up out of town petitioners in order for them to collect the signatures needed to qualify for ballot status.
YouTube