Japan's Apocalypse

Despite a disaster multiples worse than Chernobyl, major media reports all along downplayed it. Now they largely ignore it, moving on to more important things like celebrity features and baseball's opening day, besides pretending American-led Libya bombing is well-intended when, in fact, it's another brazen power grab - an imperial war of conquest, explained in numerous previous articles. The horror of all wars aside, waged solely for wealth and power, never humanity, Japan deserves regular top billing, given its global implications and potential millions of lives affected. Ignoring it is scandalous, yet it's practically disappeared from television where most people get news, unaware only managed reports are aired omitting vital truths.

Over three weeks and counting, Japan's crisis worsens. Radiation levels in Fukushima's underground tunnel water reached 10,000 times above normal and rising. In nearby seawater, they're 4,385 times too high. Heavy rainfall exacerbates the problem. Food, water, air and soil contamination is spreading.

On March 31, New York Times writer Henry Fountain headlined, "Cleanup Questions as Radiation Spreads," saying:

At issue is "how to clean up areas that have been heavily contaminated by radioactivity," stopping short of suggesting they're dead zones that may affect all northern Japan, an area comparable to Pennsylvania, potentially making it uninhabitable.

On March 31, the IAEA (the industry's global promoter) "said a soil sample from Iitate, a village of 7,000 about 25 miles northwest of the plant, showed very high concentrations of cesium-137," a harmful gamma ray-producing isotope, contaminating air, water and soil for decades.

Levels found are "double" those in Chernobyl's dead zone, raising concerns about extending Japan's evacuation, not done so far. Moreover, they're rising daily and will continue for months, perhaps years, creating permanent contamination combined with uranium, plutonium, and other hazardous toxins.

On April 1, Al Jazeera headlined, "Japan nuclear evacuation will be 'long term,' " saying:

"Residents of evacuated areas....have been warned that they may not be able to return to their homes for months," if ever, given increasing hazardous contamination levels. Cleanup will take decades and fall far short of making areas toxin-free.

Experts call conditions "unchartered territory," wondering what, if anything can be done. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The imponderables are huge, and potential implications staggering.

On March 25, Helen Caldicott highlighted "a medical problem of vast dimensions," saying "the situation has grown increasingly grave." A week later, it's worse with no end of crisis in sight, Caldicott calling nuclear power's harm "the greatest public health hazard the world will ever see."

On March 31, physicist Michio Kaku said "three (Fukushima) raging meltdowns" plus one or more (melting) spent fuel ponds opened to the air are ongoing, adding:

"This is huge," involving "uncontrolled radiation releases into the environment," including plutonium, the most toxic substance known. "A speck of plutonium, a millionth of a gram, can cause cancer if ingested." Moreover, if the plant site is abandoned, "we could be in free fall." Before it ends, Kaku believes it may far exceed Chernobyl. Perhaps it already has, though no one's admitting it or knows for sure.

Every Radiation Dose Is an Overdose

Experts like Harvey Wasserman agree. On March 27, he headlined, " 'Safe' Radiation is a Lethal TMI Lie," saying:

-- No amount of radiation is safe; they're harmful, cumulative, permanent and unforgiving;

-- It's why pregnant women aren't x-rayed;

-- "Any detectable fallout can kill;"

-- Fukushima's "serious danger" requires everyone to "prepare for the worst;"

-- "Fukusima is deadly to Americans;"

-- Minimally, "it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed;"

-- There's "no defense against even the tiniest radioactive assault;"

-- "Science has never found such a 'safe' threshold, and never will;"

-- "All doses, 'insignificant' or otherwise, can harm the human organism;"

-- Three Mile Island (TMI) victims experienced "cancer, leukemia, birth defects, stillbirths, sterility, malformations, open lesions, hair loss, a metallic taste and much more....;"

-- Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture also documented the farm and wild animal death and mutation rate;

-- TMI was minor compared to Fukushima; its radiation is "pouring into the air and water;" operators reported levels "a million times normal, then retracted the estimate to a 'mere' 100,000;"

-- Most frightening is what's unrevealed; coverup after TMI and Chernobyl was scandalous;

-- All North America and Europe are affected, especially by rain, increasing soil and water contamination;

-- "Fukushima's worst may be yet to come," by far the worst ever environmental and human disaster;

-- "The response of the Obama Administration has been beyond derelict," claiming Americans face no threat; he lied and now remains silent;

-- " 'Impossible' accidents continue to happen, one after the other, each of them successively worse."

What will it take to stop this monster? Because of enormous industry profits, perhaps it will take ending human life to convince skeptics.

Candidate v. President Obama

In 2008, candidate Obama was skeptical about nuclear power, telling NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert on January 15, 2008:

Unless a "safe way to produce (and store) nuclear energy (is found), then absolutely we shouldn't build more plants."

At a January 13, 2008 town hall meeting, he said:

"Nuclear is bad because we don't know how to store it. And it poses security hazards."

On December 30, 2007, he said:

"....(N)uclear energy is not optimal so I am not a nuclear energy proponent....I am much more interested in solar and wind and bio-diesel (to produce) clean energy and (new) jobs....I have not ruled out nuclear (but) only so far is it is clean and safe."

Earlier he said:

-- "Nuclear power is not working for us right now;"

-- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is "a moribund agency that needs to be revamped, and it's become captive of the industries that it regulates and I think that's a problem."

He also called storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain "a bad idea." Nuclear power "has a host of problems that have not been solved," and "I don't think there's anything that we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up....and irradiate us....and kill us. That's the problem."

Even candidate Obama was less than candid. On July 4, 2007, CounterPunch co-editor Jeff St. Clair and contributor Joshua Frank called him "another automaton of the atomic lobby" in their article headlined, "Barack Obama's Nuclear Ambitions," saying:

During the 1990s, "the atom lobby....had a stranglehold on the Clinton administration and now they seem to have the same suffocating grip around (Obama's) neck, (the Democrat's) brightest star...."

It showed (and still does) in generous industry contributions. As of late March 2007, he "accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator." They previously funded his 2004 Senate campaign, contributing $74,350.

In return, he helped kill an amendment to stop large industry loan guarantees "for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will also risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default."

In 2005, Nuclear News praised him for "keeping an open mind" on nuclear power. In other words, for supporting it despite the unforgiving hazards. "The atom lobby must certainly be pleased." Why else would they help elect him president.

A previous article explained Obama's longstanding industry ties, including with Chicago-based Exelon. Its web site says it operates 17 reactors at 10 stations in Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, providing 20% of US nuclear capacity.

In addition, Obama's former top political aide, David Axelrod, once lobbied for Exelon, and Rahm Emanuel, his former White House chief of staff (now Chicago's mayor-elect), profited handsomely as an investment banker, arranging mergers that created the company.

In his proposed budget, Obama includes $36 billion in industry loan guarantees for new facilities - free money. He's committed to jump-start new construction, halted since Three Mile Island in 1979. Already takers are lining up, 20 or more applications pending before the NRC.

In fact, he and Energy Secretary Steven Chu downplay Fukushima, ignoring industry hazards, including 23 US nuclear plants at 16 locations using the same failed GE-designed Mark 1 containment vessels. Earlier, the NRC called them susceptible to explosions and failure because of cost-cutting design features.

Its 1985 study warned that failure within the first few hours after a core meltdown was very likely. Its top safety official at the time said it had a 90% probability of failing if an accident caused overheating and melting. When reactor cooling is compromised, the containment vessel is the last line of defense. However, GE's design is hazardous and unsafe.

Today, Obama supports the NRC, the same agency Karl Grossman calls "an unabashed promoter of nuclear power," the one candidate Obama called "moribund, (a) captive of the industries it regulates." The one with a perfect record - never having denied applicants new plant licenses. The one now dangerously extending operating lives of aging, poorly maintained plants with deplorable safety records to 80 years, assuring multiple likelihoods of trouble.

It now says no new regulation or oversight is needed. No moratorium on new construction or old plants will be instituted, and, in fact, Vermont's trouble-plagued Yankee plant (using the same type Fukushima reactor) got a 20-year extension instead of being shut down.

That in spite of recent reports highlighting serious industry "near misses," safety violations, failures to reveal legally-required information regarding defective equipment, electrical supply system inadequacies, and other examples of industry mismanagement and criminality, risking an American Fukushima disaster.

According to nuclear technician Tom Saporito:

"The administration, including the president of the United States, is recklessly endangering the population by promoting the construction of nuclear plants and by not taking affirmative action to deal with known safety problems."

In fact, shutting the industry down is crucial, especially as Grossman, a longtime industry expert, says:

"Safe, clean, renewable energy technologies fully implemented can provide all the power we need - and energy that we can live with" safely, unlike the hazardous nuclear roulette played each day these ticking time bombs operate.

As president, however, Obama fronts for Wall Street, war profiteers, Big Oil, Big Pharma, other corporate favorites, and his nuclear industry friends, risking a major disaster to assure generous 2012 campaign contributions for another four years to complete wrecking America and other nations globally. That's his "change we can believe in" plan, not the one sold to constituents.

By Stephen Lendman

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/04/02/japan-s-apocalypse

Libya and Obama’s Defense of the ‘Rebel Uprising’

Over the past two weeks Libya has been subjected to the most brutal imperial air, sea and land assault in its modern history. Thousands of bombs and missiles, launched from American and European submarines, warships and fighter planes, are destroying Libyan military bases, airports, roads, ports, oil depots, artillery emplacements, tanks, armored carriers, planes and troop concentrations. Dozens of CIA and SAS special forces have been training, advising and mapping targets for the so-called Libyan ‘rebels’ engaged in a civil war against the Gaddafi government, its armed forces, popular militias and civilian supporters (NY Times 3/30/11).

Despite this massive military support and their imperial ‘allies’ total control of Libya’s sky and coastline, the ‘rebels’ have proven incapable of mobilizing village or town support and are in retreat after being confronted by the Libyan government’s highly motivated troops and village militias (Al Jazeera 3/30/11).

One of the most flimsy excuse for this inglorious rebel retreat offered by the Cameron-Obama-Sarkozy ‘coalition’, echoed by the mass media, is that their Libyan ‘clients’ are “outgunned” (Financial Times, 3/29/11). Obviously Obama and company don’t count the scores of jets, dozens of warships and submarines, the hundreds of daily attacks and the thousands of bombs dropped on the Libyan government since the start of Western imperial intervention. Direct military intervention of 20 major and minor foreign military powers, savaging the sovereign Libyan state, as well as scores of political accomplices in the United Nations do not contribute to any military advantage for the imperial clients – according to the daily pro-rebel propaganda. The Los Angeles Times (March 31, 2011), however described how “…many rebels in gun-mounted trucks turned and fled…even though their heavy machine guns and antiaircraft guns seemed a match for any similar government vehicle.” Indeed, no ‘rebel’ force in recent history has received such sustained military support from so many imperial powers in their confrontation with an established regime. Nevertheless, the ‘rebel’ forces on the front lines are in full retreat, fleeing in disarray and thoroughly disgusted with their ‘rebel’ generals and ministers back in Benghazi. Meanwhile the ‘rebel’ leaders, in elegant suits and tailored uniforms, answer the ‘call to battle’ by attending ‘summits’ in London where ‘liberation strategy’ consists of their appeal before the mass media for imperial ground troops (The Independent (London) (3/31/11).

Morale among the frontline ‘rebels’ is low: According to credible reports from the battlefront at Ajdabiya, “Rebels …complained that their erstwhile commanders were nowhere to be found. They griped about comrades who fled to the relative safety of Benghazi…(they complained that) forces in Benghazi monopolized 400 donated field radios and 400 more…satellite phones intended for the battlefield…(mostly) rebels say commanders rarely visit the battlefield and exercise little authority because many fighters do not trust them”(Los Angeles Times, 3/31/2011). Apparently ‘Twitters’ don’t work on the battlefield.

The decisive issues in a the civil war are not weapons, training or leadership, although certainly these factors are important: The basic difference between the military capability of the pro-government Libyan forces and the Libyan ‘rebels’, backed by both Western imperialists and ‘progressives,’ lies in their motivation, values and material advances. Western imperialist intervention has heightened national consciousness among the Libyan people, who now view their confrontation with the anti-Gaddafi ‘rebels’ as a fight to defend their homeland from foreign air and sea power and puppet land troops - a powerful incentive for any people or army. The opposite is true for the ‘rebels’, whose leaders have surrendered their national identity and depend entirely on imperialist military intervention to put them in power. What rank and file ‘rebel’ fighters are going to risk their lives, fighting their own compatriots, just to place their country under an imperialist or neo-colonial rule?

Finally Western journalists’ accounts are coming to light of village and town pro-government militias repelling these ‘rebels’ and even how “a busload of (Libyan) women suddenly emerged (from one village)…and began cheering as though they supported the rebels…” drawing the Western-backed rebels into a deadly ambush set by their pro-government husbands and neighbors (Globe and Mail (Canada)3/28/11 and McClatchy News Service, 3/29/11).

The ‘rebels’, who enter their villages, are seen as invaders, breaking doors, blowing up homes and arresting and accusing local leaders of being ‘fifth columnists’ for Gaddafi. The threat of military ‘rebel’ occupation, the arrest and abuse of local authorities and the disruption of highly valued family, clan and local community relations have motivated local Libyan militias and fighters to attack the Western-backed ‘rebels’. The ‘rebels’ are regarded as ‘outsiders’ in terms of regional and clan allegiances; by trampling on local mores, the ‘rebels’ now find themselves in ‘hostile’ territory. What ‘rebel’ fighter would be willing to die defending hostile terrain? Such ‘rebels’ have only to call on foreign air-power to ‘liberate’ the pro-government village for them.

The Western media, unable to grasp these material advances by the pro-government forces, attribute popular backing of Gaddafi to ‘coercion’ or ‘co-optation’, relying on ‘rebel’ claims that ‘everybody is secretly opposed to the regime’. There is another material reality, which is conveniently ignored: The Gaddafi regime has effectively used the country’s oil wealth to build a vast network of public schools, hospitals and clinics. Libyans have the highest per capita income in Africa at $14,900 per annum (Financial Times, 4/2/11. Tens of thousands of low-income Libyan students have received scholarships to study at home and overseas. The urban infrastructure has been modernized, agriculture is subsidized and small-scale producers and manufacturers receive government credit. Gaddafi has overseen these effective programs, in addition to enriching his own clan/family. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels and their imperial mentors have targeted the entire civilian economy, bombed Libyan cities, cut trade and commercial networks, blocked the delivery of subsidized food and welfare to the poor, caused the suspension of schools and forced hundreds of thousands of foreign professionals, teachers, doctors and skilled contract workers to flee.

Libyans, who might otherwise resent Gaddafi’s long autocratic tenure in office, are now faced with the choice between supporting an advanced, functioning welfare state or a foreign-directed military conquest. Many have chosen, quite rationally, to stand with the regime.

The debacle of the imperial-backed ‘rebel’ forces, despite their immense technical-military advantage, is due to the quisling leadership, their role as ‘internal colonialists’ invading local communities and above all their wanton destruction of a social-welfare system which has benefited millions of ordinary Libyans for two generations. The failure of the ‘rebels’ to advance, despite the massive support of imperial air and sea power, means that the US-France-Britain ‘coalition’ will have to escalate its intervention beyond sending special forces, advisers and CIA assassination teams. Given Obama-Clinton’s stated objective of ‘regime change’, there will be no choice but to introduce imperialist troops, send large-scale shipments of armored carriers and tanks, and increase the use of the highly destructive depleted uranium munitions.

No doubt Obama, the most public face of ‘humanitarian armed intervention’ in Africa, will recite bigger and more grotesque lies, as Libyan villagers and townspeople fall victims to his imperial juggernaut. Washington’s ‘first black Chief Executive’ will earn history’s infamy as the US President responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of black Libyans and mass expulsion of millions of sub-Saharan African workers employed under the current regime (Globe and Mail 3/28/11).

No doubt, Anglo-American progressives and leftists will continue to debate (in ‘civilized tones’) the pros and cons of this ‘intervention’, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the French Socialists and US New Dealers from the 1930’s, who once debated the pros and cons of supporting Republican Spain... While Hitler and Mussolini bombed the republic on behalf of the ‘rebel’ fascist forces under General Franco who upheld the Falangist banner of ‘Family, Church and Civilization’ – a fascist prototype for Obama’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ on behalf of his ‘rebels’.

By James Petras

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/04/02/libya-and-obama-s-defense-of-the-rebel-u#more17154

No surveillance without oversight

Given the FBI's record of fallibility – and without genuine safeguards for citizens – this $1bn biometrics project is alarming

I spy for the FBI: Lockheed Martin has a $1bn contract for a new biometrics project for the bureau. Photograph: Ian Waldie/Getty Images

The FBI recently announced that its Next Generation Identification System (NGIS) has "reached its initial operating capacity". This vast new biometrics project, for which Lockheed Martin won a $1bn contract in 2008, encompasses not only fingerprints but also, possibly, such biometrics as iris scans, face recognition, bodily scars, marks and tattoos.

Such a system raises a number of concerns from a civil liberties perspective. Many types of biometrics are of particular concern because they allow individuals to be tracked secretly and at a distance. For instance, facial recognition may allow a person to be tracked by various CCTV cameras across a city. Worse, in the future, this may be automated and done by computers.

The FBI is rushing ahead with this system in a larger context that is very troubling. Since 9/11, we've repeatedly seen the government throw together new identity and tracking systems without building in the necessary protections to make sure innocent people aren't caught up in them. A good example is aviation watchlists. Countless travelers have found themselves trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare – improperly listed as suspected terrorists, hassled, arrested or worse, and with no way to clear their names in the eyes of the government's secretive security bureaucracies. The problem is not just errors and mistaken identification, or the lack of due process or rigorous procedures for keeping the lists accurate, but also the possibility that government bureaucrats have used a "when in doubt, thrown a name on the list" approach.

We don't want to see the NGIS operate that way. Unfortunately, the FBI's record does not inspire confidence. In 2003, the bureau exempted its main criminal database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), from a requirement under the Privacy Act that agencies maintain records with "such accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual". Some people have experienced the reality of this, such as a Maryland woman named Amy Studnitz who was fired from her job after an NCIC background check erroneously reported that she had a criminal record (even after the error was discovered, she was not rehired).

The experience of Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield is also a cautionary tale. Considered a suspect in the 2004 bombing of a Madrid train due to a faulty fingerprint match, the FBI spied on Mayfield without a warrant, broke into his home several times and arrested him under the "material witness" statute. The FBI also investigated 19 other individuals whose fingerprints, like Mayfield's, were deemed similar to those found on evidence in Madrid.

Finally, the FBI's giant biometric project is taking place in a context where the United States – almost alone in the industrialised world – has no strong, overarching privacy laws, and no robust, independent institutions to enforce such laws. In another country where such institutions existed to protect people from error and abuse, this kind of programme might be cause for less concern. But rather than building such institutions, the US government has instead been granting sweeping new powers to our security agencies, and dismantling the checks and balances that are needed to ensure those powers are not misused.

Most technologies have good and bad uses, and limited uses of biometrics can be fine. But these databases need strict oversight, and now is the time to make sure the proper safeguards are in place. As the use of biometrics expands and our law enforcement moves into the future, so too should our privacy rights.

By Jay Stanley

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/30/fbi-civil-liberties-international

Statement of Cynthia McKinney, Newseum Press Conference on Libya

Cynthia McKinney

I am pleased to stand with my colleagues today who are outraged at Nobel Peace Laureate President Obama’s decision to wage war on Africa in Libya. At the outset, let me state that Libya is home to tens of thousands or more of foreign students and guest workers. The students come from Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The messages I have received from concerned Africans state that these young innocent people, inaccurately labeled by the U.S. press as “black mercenaries,” have been trapped in hostile territory and are hated by the U.S.-allied Al Qaeda insurgents. The press forgot that Libya is in Africa and that Libyans are Black! I would also like to acknowledge the outrage of the Women International Democratic Federation of Brazil that repudiates the invasion of Libya. They point specifically to the depressed state of women in pre-Qaddafi Libya and how women now have positions that had once been denied to them. They note in their communiqué that the National Front of the Salvation of Libya has been financed by the C.I.A. since 1981 and that its headquarters is in Washington, D.C.

In fact, I have received messages and phone calls from people literally all over the world who are outraged at this action. And because the media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth, I repeat the call that I received directly from Libya yesterday for international observers to go to Libya to tell the world the truth. I would go.

Sadly, President Obama’s justification for war provides answers that don’t answer, explanations that don’t explain, and conclusions that don’t conclude. Reports continue to emerge of the US ties to the so-called rebel leaders: the latest being that Khalifa Hifter, latest leader of the rebel army, spent much of the past 20 years in Langley, Virginia. He didn’t even move to Baltimore to disguise the relationship! Moreover, General Wesley Clarke told us that Libya was on the U.W. hitlist ten years ago!

This is nothing new. This operation smells very much like so many other Africa operations fueled by U.S.-supported individuals who become a rebel force able to threaten an inconvenient leader who stands up to the U.S. This particular play has been repeated in Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Angola and Mozambique before them. We are not blind; we recognize this play. And the use of depleted uranium will cause health effects for generations to come.

Pentagon Secretary Gates said “Libya is not part of our vital interest.” Then why are we there? Herein lies the conundrum. President Obama has authorized secret support for its rebels in Libya, just like Miami’s Cuban community has received for decades.

Sadly, our President has chosen to spend $600 million per week in addition to other war costs at a time when the Black community is melting. As of the most recent Economic Policy Institute study, average Black family wealth was $2,000 while that of Whites was $94,600. President Obama has done nothing to address the disparities that have existed in this country since slavery. Clearly, our President should focus on home and improving the lot of the people of this country before launching another war.

Finally, I must say something about the ugly hate language that is emanating more and more from Black political voices. Any politician seeking votes by exacerbating divisions in our country does not deserve our votes. I’m speaking specifically about the unfortunate remarks of Herman Cain who should know better.

I stand with those who support the right of self-determination of the Libyan people, including their right to resolve differences without interference from outsiders.

-###-

By Cynthia McKinney

http://dignity.ning.com/
http://www.enduswars.org
http://www.livestream.com/dignity
http://www.twitter.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/runcynthiarun
http://www.twitter.com/cynthiamckinney
http://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinney
http://www.youtube.com/runcynthiarun

Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/04/01/statement-of-cynthia-mckinney-newseum-pr#more17143

COALITION AIR STRIKES: NOW THE BODY BAGS BEGIN PILING UP IN LIBYA

It was only a matter of time before gungho western audiences and pundits would have to face the harsh reality that overwhelming military power produces: 1,400 air sorties and 700 Tomahawk cruise missiles later, the civilian body bags are beginning to mount up. And the political ramifications for the acting war parties in Washington, Britain and Paris are inescapable.

According to yesterday’s report from Reuters, at least 40 civilians were killed in air strikes by Western forces on Tripoli, a top Vatican official in the Libyan capital told a Catholic news agency on Thursday, quoting witnesses. “The so-called humanitarian raids have killed dozens of civilian victims in some neighborhoods of Tripoli,” said Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli. Martinelli goes on to add, “I have collected several witness accounts from reliable people. In particular, in the Buslim neighborhood, due to the bombardments, a civilian building collapsed, causing the death of 40 people”.

SHOCK AND AWE 2.0 : Coalition countries are able to show off their new hardware in Libya.
NATO has said it will investigate reports that up to 40 civilians were killed in the Coalition bombing strike near Tripoli, a Press TV correspondent reported. In addition, medical sources said at least seven more civilians were slain in Wednesday’s raid on the village of Zawia el Argobe, 15 km (9 miles) from Brega. The airstrike also wounded more than 25 civilians and destroyed several nearby homes.

The Libyan government on Thursday night claimed close to 100 civilians had died in air strikes since Allied hostilities began last weekend.

The final bill in human lives cannot really be tallied until a much later date. There is little doubt though, that given the current frequency of Allied bombs and missiles and what we have learned from the West’s fabled “surgical strike” operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the final number of confirmed civilian body bags will certainly exceed 1,000 within a week or two.

BODY COUNT: Allied air strikes are snuffing out scores of innocent Libyan lives.
COALITION USING DEPLETED URANIUM

Only a few days into the US-led attacks on Libya, there have already been reports of forty-five 2,000 pound bombs containing depleted uranium (DU) being dropped down on Libya by the U.S. B-2s during the first 24 hours of the attack, say Stop the War Coalition.

Additionally, American journalist Dave Lindorff reports, ”The British-built Harrier jets used by British naval air forces and also by U.S. Marine pilots, are often equipped with pod-mounted cannons that fire 20 mm shells–shells that often have uranium projectiles designed to penetrate heavy armor”.

The use of DU has been a major feature in US-led Coalition and Israeli war efforts since 2001, even though it has been banned through an international treaty signed by all UN security council member states at the Geneva Convention. The damage it does is well documented, long-lasting and horrific to say the least. Deaths could be calculated over many years, as radioactive dust continues to blow throughout the region. Its use is classed as a war crime under international law, so when will the US, Britain and Israel be called to explain these actions in the dock?

WESTERN POLITICAL DILEMMA

Here is where we come to the fundamental moral and legal dilemma for the Western aggressors in Libya. When the number of civilian deaths by Allied strikes exceeds the number of alleged civilian deaths by Libyan Leader Moumar Gaddafi, the political pressure cooker will begin to boil- some say it already has. Interestingly enough, all of the sensational reports of Gaddafi “gunning down his own people”, a rallying cry used by everyone from Barrack Obama to the BBC, have yet to be corroborated by any independent human rights or aid agency, leaving media audiences with mostly hearsay and rumour generated from White House and Whitehall press briefings a few weeks ago. The truth is, we will never know.

This also includes past allegations that the Libyan military had launched an air strike on demonstrators in the capital Tripoli, Al Arabiya quoted by witnesses in late February. Surprisingly, or not, we are left with the fact that an entire multi-billion dollar Coalition military operation has been based on these same, non-specific reports- about what Gaddafi has allegedly done, or is about to do.

According to the UN Resolution which effectively gave the green light to bomb Libya, “The Council specified that the flight ban would not apply to flights that had as their sole purpose humanitarian aid, the evacuation of foreign nationals, enforcing the ban or other purposes “deemed necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people”. What has actually transpired is, of course, miles away from the cloudy humanitarian intent which its writers have woven into the language of this UN document.

Legally speaking, aside from any civilians that Gaddafi is alleged to have “gunned down”, any armed rebels who met their demise during the initial days of the uprising, according to the newly revised American and British rule books, would be classed as “enemy combatants” and “domestic terrorists”- and not as civilians.

Using the same moral imperative, thus far, both the American and the British governments have been able to avoid the same UN disciplinary measures they have imposed on Libya, even though they have been found guilty of multiple documented incidences since 2001. The list is long: falsifying intelligence claims to the UN, false imprisonment of innocent civilians, the use of illegal DU munitions, mass torture and that little problem of over 1 million dead Iraqis since 2003.

It is obvious now that state participants in the recent UN Resolution 1973 were unable (or unwilling) make the intellectual or legal leap needed in order to differentiate who were, and how many of these so-called civilian victims there actually were in Libya.

Following the complete and abject failure on the part of Washington and London to convince the public that Saddam Hussein had massive caches of WMDs in 2003, spin doctors and speech writers have upgraded their public relations and public opinion-forming approach to fit their new, lighter framework for the out-dated “pre-emptive strike”. Enter the humanitarian strike, based on any number of unsubstantiated reports and guesswork, a new political term that is ultimately more profound than its predecessor because the term effectively disarms endless columns of liberal gatekeepers and mainstream pundits who previously targeted the Bush-led wars.

But do not be fooled. These contrived PR terms are designed to cover the same long-range foreign policy goal which we have already witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan… regime change. Once this is achieved, the major players can begin carving up the natural resource and financial assets of this once sovereign nation.

By Patrick Henningsen

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php

Romans 1 (New American Standard Bible)

Born Gay?

Debunking the myth that leads many to support same-sex marriage

Pro-family advocates work to restore the definition of marriage for the sake of children and family life. As such, it's easy to explain the pro-family position without referring to homosexuality. However, many Canadians cannot see beyond the emotional "gay rights" argument, to the real impact of homosexual "marriage" on society. Many people reason, "Gee, if gay people are born that way, isn't it unfair to stand in the way?" On this basis alone, many Canadians support same-sex marriage. Most Canadians actually believe that scientists have found a "gay gene". That myth is aggressively promoted by gay lobbyists and the media, but it has no foundation in science. Hence the need to address homosexuality directly.

In fact, scientists have NEVER found a gay gene or any genetic cause for being "gay". IN FACT, most scientific research on this question points us to the opposite conclusion - that it's not genetic but rather, develops in early childhood by a combination of environmental factors and temperament.
The widespread belief that that there is a "gay gene" can largely be traced to the publicity surrounding three scientific studies in the 1990's: one studying brains, one studying twins, and one studying genes⁽¹⁾.

Study # 1. The Brain Study, 1991

Following the death of his gay lover from AIDS, researcher Simon LeVay conducted a test to compare the size of a brain structure known as INAH3, which has been linked to sexual behaviour in animals. He studied brains from cadavers of 6 women (presumed to be heterosexual), 18 men known to have been homosexual, and 16 men presumed to have been heterosexual. LeVay reported that INAH3 was larger in heterosexual men than in women, but also larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. This result LeVay concluded, "suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate".⁽²⁾
Other researchers, however, had numerous problems with his interpretation. For example, 6 of the 16 supposedly "heterosexual" male subjects had died of AIDS-an extraordinarily large percentage, given this was a period when AIDS was still contained mostly to the gay community. As one researcher said "It seems quite possible that LeVay...classified some homosexuals as heterosexuals."⁽³⁾
Other problems included the significant overlap in the overall range of INAH3 sizes between the "homosexual" and "heterosexual" groups, the possibility that sexual behaviour could influence brain structure (rather than vice versa), and the possibility that the observed effect was a result of AIDS (which caused the death of all of LeVay’s "homosexual" subjects), rather than a determinant of sexual orientation⁽⁴⁾.

Study # 2. The Twins Study, 1991

Two researchers (Bailey & Pillard) identified homosexuals who had identical twin brothers. They then surveyed the sexual orientation of these twins. They theorized that if identical twins share the same trait of homosexuality at a higher rate than, say, fraternal twins, non-twin siblings, or adoptive siblings, then that could be taken as evidence of a genetic component.⁽⁵⁾ In their study they found that when one identical twin was homosexual, 52% of the time his identical twin was too.
This study had problems also, is contradicted by other studies, and falls down on its own evidence. On the last point, if you did a study of identical twins, you would find that 100% of black identical twins would be black, 100% of male identical twins would be male,100% of redheaded identical twins would be redheads, and 100% of blue-eyed identical twins would have blue eyes. Remember, identical twins have a completely, 100% identical genetic makeup. Therefore a study showing that 52% of the identical twins of homosexuals are also homosexual proves only one thing - that homosexuality is not genetic!⁽⁶⁾

Study # 3. The Gene Study, 1993

A study by geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer, theorized the existence of a gene influencing the development of homosexuality that is transmitted on the X chromosome. The study made headlines and was promoted by the media as "proof".
What the media did not report, was Hamer’s own statements that this was not conclusive proof of a gay gene. In an interview in Gene magazine, Hamer stated, "We have not found the gene - which we don't think exists - for sexual orientation... There will never be a test that will say for certain whether a child will be gay. We know that for certain."
Hamer's findings remain suspect for another reason - other scientists have been unable to replicate it. In 1999, the journal Science, published a report by a team of researchers (Rice et al) who tried to confirm Hamer's findings using a larger test. They reported "We certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study...the results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality".⁽⁷⁾

Conclusion: the scientific evidence does not show that homosexuality is inborn. In fact, it suggests the opposite, that it is not inborn.

The Psychological Causes of Homosexuality

Watch Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, licensed psychologist, explain the clinical evidence & research on same-sex attraction.
Dr. Nicolosi is president of a psychological association called The National Association For the Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The interview was conducted by Canadian journalist Michel Lizotte.

Evidence from ex-gays

Thousands of men and women have changed their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, with the help of spiritual and psychological counseling. The fact that these individuals exist is powerful evidence that same-sex attracted people are not "born that way". It must be admitted that, at the very least, some gay people are not born that way.

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Born_Gay%253F

Footnotes:

1. Peter Sprigg, "Outrage: how gay activists and liberal judges are trashing democracy to destroy marriage," Regnery Publishing, 2004, p.37
2. Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men", Science, 253, August 1991
3. Stein, 197.
4. LeVay, 1035-36.
5. J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,", Archives of General Psychiatry 48, Dec 1991.
6. Peter Sprigg, Outrage, p.40.
7. George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch and George Ebers, "Male Homosexuality: absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,", Science 284, April 1999.

Myth Buster Monday: Is homosexuality genetic, immutable and unchangeable?

February 28, 2011

No scientist or researcher has ever proven that homosexuality is genetic, immutable or unchangeable. In fact many of the so-called gay gene studies, such as the Bailey/Pillard “twin studies,” prove the exact opposite – homosexual behavior is not genetic. Homosexual advocates and the media have pushed the “there is a gay gene” myth for over a decade and a large share of the public has bought into this misinformation.

Even the American Psychological Association (APA) now acknowledges that there is not a gay gene. In their “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” they state the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

It is necessary for homosexual advocates to equate homosexual behavior to an immutable and unchangeable trait (like race or sex) in order to claim the “gay rights” movement is a Civil Rights issue. But can those who deal with homosexual tendencies and behavior change? Yes, thousands of former-homosexuals are testimony to the fact that change is possible. Gay advocates and psychological associations are particularly eager and aggressive in their efforts to discredit reparative/reorientation therapy groups who work to aid individuals who wish to escape homosexual behavior and lifestyle.

The success of the gay movement seems to hinge upon their ability to convince the public that change is impossible. That National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has an informative white paper explaining the success and challenges of reorientation therapy. See it here. Again, homosexual behavior is neither immutable nor unchangeable and thus not a Civil Rights issue. Some famous African American Civil rights figures have made that point as well:

“The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” (Rev. Jesse Jackson, address at Harvard Law School)

The recent refusal of the Obama administration to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) included a perpetuation of the myth that homosexual behavior is immutable and changeable when the Justice Department’s claimed that “sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny” in the courts – a classification reserved for cases involving discrimination on the basis of such things as race or sex.

This particular myth is pretty deeply entrenched and requires each one of us to become educated on the topic and not allow the misinformation and misconceptions to continue. Spread the word.

For a list of studies related to this topic, go to UFI’s Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation (pg. 26-28)

https://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/myth-buster-monday-is-homosexuality-genetic-immutable-or-unchangeable/

The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics Running the Asylum?

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. "Doctor," he says, "I'm suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman."

The psychologist responds: "No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you're still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved."

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. "Doctor," he says, "I feel terrible. I'm a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual." The psychologist responds: "Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!"

The irony of this little tale is that, while reading like a joke, it is in reality an accurate description of the mental health professions today. While dismissing and condemning reparative therapy for homosexual orientation, the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists in Anglophone North America have embraced the concept of "sex change," a procedure that does nothing more than mutilate the patient to appease his confused mind.

The American Psychological Association Perpetuates the Madness

In its most recent statement on the topic, the American Psychological Association (APA) has softened its tone somewhat against psychologists who do reorientation therapy for homosexuals. However it maintains that, "Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation".

The refusal of the organization to accept the increasingly strong evidence against its position is another reminder of how entrenched the sophistry of sexual hedonism has become among the leaders of the organization.

In recent years, a number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals, indicating that significant numbers of patients who voluntarily participate in therapy to change their sexual orientation are successful and happy with the results. Combined with numerous individual testimonies by former homosexuals, evidence in favor of the practice is overwhelming.

However, in its new report, "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation," the APA's leadership declares that all of those studies can be dismissed because, in its words, "None of the recent research (1999-2007) meets methodological standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety."

The report therefore conveniently disposes of the most recent studies on the topic—the ones that undermine the APA's position. The only studies that remain are ones done before the resurgence of the reparative therapy movement, in the 1970s, when the APA declared that homosexual orientation and sodomy really weren't unhealthy after all. New research is rejected in favor of research that is now over 30 years old, applied to therapeutic practices that may no longer be in use.

However, the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA's leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy.

The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, "While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003)."

The APA's latest report, done by a task force composed of psychologists with long records of homosexualist activism, also claims as "scientific facts" that "same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality-in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders" and "no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma."

These unbelievable statements fly in the face of more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors.

Studies have shown that homosexuals disproportionately come from families in which sons or daughters lack a healthy relationship with one or both of their parents, or in situations in which the homosexual was the victim of child sex abuse by a same-sex adult.

Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships,anxiety disorders,depression and suicide,alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death.

Even the homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease and self-destructive behavior.

Although the homosexualist leadership at the APA tries to rationalize these relationships by claiming that they are caused by social stigma or other factors, their claims ring hollow. Many stigmitized groups exist in society that display none of the pathological tendencies of homosexuals, and these tendencies appear even in countries that are very tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands.

Homosexualism on the Defensive

The very existence of the report, however, is evidence that the homosexualist establishment currently in power at the APA is on the defensive, and seeking to preserve its ideology of sexual permissiveness as a paradigm in the psychology profession.

After surrendering itself to a hedonistic ethos in the 1970s and 80s, the American psychological practice has been transformed into a vehicle for patients to rationalize and reconcile themselves with self-destructive, irrational, and narcissistic behavior, paying an "expert" to soothe their consciences by assuring them that "science" is on their side.

However, an increasing number of mental health professionals whose institutions were stolen from them by political activists in the 1970s are now rising up to take back their profession in the name of true science, and patient health.

Former APA President Dr. Robert Perloff has publicly endorsed the National Organization for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), the largest American organization devoted the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions, and has denounced the APA's campaign against such treatment.

"The ideology of those who oppose efforts to try to facilitate transfers from SSA, that is, Same Sex Attraction, to heterosexual attraction, must not, must not stand in the way of those homosexual persons who desire to live their lives heterosexually, a choice which is unarguably theirs to make," he said in a videotaped statement played at NARTH's 2008 annual meeting.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, who has been been called the "architect" of the American Psychiatric Association's normalization of homosexuality in the 1970s, provoked outrage from the homosexualist establishment when he admitted in 2001 that his own investigations had convinced him that sexual reorientation therapy can work.

His study, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Mental Health in 2003, found that a majority of his sample of 247 people had developed heterosexual urges or had ceased to be predominantly homosexual after only one year of therapy. None of the subjects said that they had been harmed in the process.

After presenting his paper before the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer said: "I'm convinced from people I have interviewed…many of them…have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

Other prominent figures in psychiatry and psychology have also raised their voices in protest, including Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and physicist who has testified before Congress in favor of reparative therapy, and has denounced the hijacking of the mental health professions by homosexualist ideologues in his book, the "Trojan Couch".

"Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past 35 years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public's belief that these robes exist," Satinover said in a recent interview .

"The diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction," he added.

"The question isn't just homosexuality, said Satinover, "but rather, freedom from all sexual constraint. This has been an issue for civilization for thousands of years…We now have so little of a moral compass that we're really completely at sea. We're awash in the tide of unconstrained instinctive behaviors which are all being labeled 'okay' because nobody really has a sense, any more, as to what's right and what's wrong."

Whither Psychology?

The debate over reparative therapy for homosexuality runs deeper than the issue itself. It is arguably a debate over the future of the psychological professions as a whole.

Although there are signs that an increasing number of mental health experts are taking an honest look at the facts regarding homosexual behavior and sexual orientation therapy, there are other signs that portend an even darker future for the profession.

In 1998, the APA released a study by three psychological researchers from Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan, claiming that the "negative potential" of adult sex with children was "overstated" and that "the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences." It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were "positive," and suggested that the phrase "child sex abuse" be replaced with "adult-child sex."

The APA not only passed the paper through its peer review process where it was approved by multiple psychologists associated with the organization, but actually published it in one of its journals, Psychological Bulletin. Moreover, when objections were raised by radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and various pro-family groups, the organization defended the article for an entire year. It was also defended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which chillingly stated that it "saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors."

Although the sheer insanity and destructiveness of the content should have prevented the APA from publishing the article in the first place, the sexual libertines in charge of the organization only issued a muted retraction after the U.S. Congress joined the fray, passing an unprecedented resolution condemning the study.

The publication of the paper was only one example of such lunacy by mental health professionals in peer-reviewed journals. One of the three authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, has a history of publishing pedophilia-advocacy "studies," including one for the now-defunct journal Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, whose editors admitted to being pedophiles.

Since the 1998 article, Bauserman and fellow author Bruce Rind have gone on to write more articles defending child sex abuse, which have appeared in such mainstream journals as the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2001) and Clinical Psychology (2003). Apparently, the psychology profession is comfortable with Bauserman and Rind's work, and intends to continue publishing it.

Another apologist for child sex abuse who has received acceptance, affirmation, and recognition from the mental health professions is Dr. Theo Sandfort , who is currently an Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) at Colombia University. Sandfort published a study in 1981 that claimed that boys as young as 10 years old had "positive" experiences in their "sexual relationships" with adults.

While he was co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, Sandfort interviewed 25 boys from between the ages of 10 and 16 who were in such "sexual relationships"—that is, they were being sexually abused by adults. In fact, the abusers themselves took Sandfort to their victims so he could interview them. When the victims gave Sandfort their "positive" responses, he duly recorded them.

"For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively," Sandfort wrote, without a hint of irony.

The fact that Sandfort was promoting the sexual abuse of minors with the help of their victimizers didn't seem to faze him. Nor did it faze his then-employers at the University of Utrecht. Nor did it faze the prestigious University of Colombia, which later gave him a professorship, even after he went on to write articles such as "Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative Lifestyles for Children?" and books such as "Childhood Sexuality: Normal Sexual Behavior and Development" (2000).

It hasn't fazed the APA either, which has named Sandfort a "fellow" of the organization since 2002.

The defense and even the promotion of mental health experts who defend child sex abuse is a terrifying, but expectable movement down the slippery slope of sexual hedonism embraced by the powers that be at the APA. It not only threatens homosexuals, who are deceived by the seductive argument that their orientation is nothing to worry about, but psychology and psychiatry themselves.

The outcome of the current battle over the science of homosexuality may well determine the future of the mental health professions as a whole. Will they turn back from the brink, or plunge into the abyss? And what will become of the societies that heed their counsel?

Special Report Commentary by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09081407