VIDEO — Kiev Face-Off: Ukraine opposition urges snap elections, refuses president’s offer
RT
Jan 25, 2014
Opposition leaders called for an early presidential election following a Saturday meeting with the government, where top government posts were offered to protest leaders and a review of the constitution was promised. Around two hundred policemen, besieged in a convention center in Kiev, have been allowed to leave the building. RT’s Peter Oliver has more from Kiev. READ MORE http://on.rt.com/98vkah
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Senate Challengers Bring NDAA Issue to the Forefront
by Dan Johnson
P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA
Jan 26, 2014
BOWLING GREEN – Activists around the nation have raised warnings about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)’s detention provisions, sections 1021 and 1022, since the law was signed on December 31st, 2011. Alarm about those citizen detention provisions has now reached a Texas Senate race, and two challengers are vying for the support of the NDAA Resistance.
Dwayne Stovall, a candidate for U.S. Senate, released a public statement standing with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) against the “fast-tracked” 2014 NDAA on January 25. Senator Cruz opposed the 2014 NDAA because there was no fix to the detention provisions in 2012:
“The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.”
Stovall noted:
“(January 25, 2014) – Tea Party-endorsed candidate for U. S. Senate, Dwayne Stovall, vigorously opposes the NDAA legislation recently fast-tracked through the Senate and passed with Sen. John Cornyn’s approval. The 493-page legislation embodies much of what is wrong with the federal government and highlights the reason that John Cornyn frequently gets it wrong for Texas…”
Yet although Stovall is challenging current Senator John Cornyn, a pro-NDAA Senator, he will be facing a further challenge from Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX). Congressman Stockman is an amici curiae on Hedges v. Obama, a Federal lawsuit challenging the 2012 NDAA, section 1021, as unConstitutional. Though it is implied, Stovall does not go so far as to mention the detention provisions in his press release, while Congressman Stockman has put words to action. It remains to be seen which candidate takes a stronger stance against the 2012 NDAA this election.
In either case, thanks to the work of activists and grassroots organizers throughout the country sounding the alarm, it appears the NDAA will be a key issue in the minds of both voters and candidates in at least one U.S. Senate race.
You can make it an issue in every race. Show up at your town hall, ask hard questions, and show up at the debates. Make the NDAA a key issue in every race, and little by little, town by town, city by city, we can win this.
Until then, the Resistance marches on.
http://pandaunite.org/takeback
Dan Johnson is the Founder and National Director of People Against the NDAA
Towards the Destabilization and Breakup of Thailand?
by Tony Cartalucci
Global Research
Jan 25, 2014
The Economist has recently floated a narrative that the current Thai regime could flee to the north and “separate” the region from Thailand. Far from a legitimate government seeking to “preserve democracy,” it a Western-backed proxy regime carrying out the tried by true modern imperial agenda of divide and rule.
First, it should be remembered that the Economist publishes paid-for op-eds. It is not news, it is not analysis, it is simply the message told by the highest bidders – the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London. These interests are passed to the Economist via their impressive network of lobbying firms. The Economist itself sits among the corporate membership of large Wall Street-London policy think-tanks like the Chatham House, right along side these lobbying firms.
In their latest article, “Political crisis in Thailand: You go your way, I’ll go mine,” one of these lobbying firms comes to mind – fellow Chatham House corporate member Amsterdam & Partners. Robert Amsterdam is currently representing deposed dictator, accused mass murderer, and convicted criminal Thaksin Shinawatra, as well as his “red shirt” enforcers. It claims:
Indeed, many red shirts say Bangkok is already lost. Mr Suthep has nearly free rein there, closing down most government offices. The police have charged him with insurrection and seizing state property, but no attempt has been made to arrest him. The imposition of a state of emergency for 60 days may not make much difference.
Thus most red shirts in the north and north-east now contemplate—indeed they seem to be preparing for—a political separation from Bangkok and the south. Some can barely wait. In Chiang Mai a former classmate of Mr Thaksin’s says that in the event of a coup “the prime minister can come here and we will look after her. If…we have to fight, we will. We want our separate state and the majority of red shirts would welcome the division.” Be afraid for Thailand as the political system breaks down.
Thaksin Shianwatra is at the very center of Thailand’s current political crisis which includes the ongoing “Occupy Bangkok” campaign that has paralyzed the government for now nearly 2 weeks, and has drawn out the largest street protests in decades. Pro-government rallies have fizzled and many of the regime’s supporters, including rural farmers have in fact joined the opposition after being cheated in a vote-buying rice subsidy scam that has gone bankrupt and left them unpaid now for nearly half a year.
Why Secession is Impossible & Why the Lie is Being Repeated in Economist
It was in 2010 that the Asia Foundation conducted its ”national public perception surveys of the Thai electorate,” (2010′s full .pdf here). In a summary report titled, “Survey Findings Challenge Notion of a Divided Thailand.” It summarized the popular misconception of a “divided” Thailand by stating:
“Since Thailand’s color politics began pitting the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s (PAD) “Yellow-Shirt” movement against the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship’s (UDD) “Red-Shirt” movement, political watchers have insisted that the Thai people are bitterly divided in their loyalties to rival political factions.”
The survey, conducted over the course of late 2010 and involving 1,500 individuals, revealed however, a meager 7% of Thailand’s population identified themselves as being “red” Thaksin supporters, with another 7% identifying themselves only as “leaning toward red.”
Graph: Up from 62% the year before, the public perception of the military as an important independent institution stood at 63%. Even in in the regime’s rural strongholds, support stood at 61%. The only individually polled group that did show majority support for the military, was the regime’s tiny “red” minority, but even among them, 30% still supported the army. .
Beyond Kyiv: Ukrainian Protesters Seize Control Of Regional Administrations
End the Lie – Independent News
Jan 25, 2014
Protests are spreading to Ukraine’s regions with demonstrators seizing control of administrative buildings and, in some cases, forcing governors, who are appointed by President Viktor Yanukovych, to resign. In some cases, particularly in western Ukraine, they are meeting little — if any — resistance from police. In some western regions, elected regional councils, which are often dominated by the opposition, are passing legislation in support of Euromaidan protesters. The situation is fluid and is developing rapidly. Below is a brief rundown, compiled from Ukrainian media reports, of some of the key regions where protesters have seized control of regional administration buildings.
Lviv Oblast – The Lviv regional legislature on Saturday (January 25) passed a measure disbanding the office of the regional governor and banning police, military, and security services from using force to disband protests. Chanting “revolution,” protesters on Thursday (January 23) stormed and seized control of Lviv’s regional administration and forced the governor, Oleh Salo, who was appointed by President Yanukovych, to write a statement of resignation. Protesters built barricades around the administration building and hundreds camped out inside.
Ternopil Oblast – In the western region of Ternopil, which neighbors Lviv Oblast, protesters seized control of the Ternopil regional administration with little resistance from police.
Rivneska Oblast – In the northwestern Rivneska Oblast approximately 2,000 people faced little resistance from police as they seized the regional administration building on Thursday (January 23). Anatoliy Yukhimenko, acting head of the regional administration, resigned shortly thereafter.
Khmelnitsky Oblast — After 30 minutes of clashes with police on Friday (January 24), protesters in Khmelnitsky Oblast, located to the south of Rivneska, seized control of the regional administration building. After negotiations between Yuriy Smal, a leader of the local Euromaidan movement, and regional authorities, Governor Vasiliy Yadukha resigned.
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast — Approximately 4,000 on Saturday (January 25) stormed and occupied the regional administration building in Ivano-Frankivsk in western Ukraine. On Friday (January 24), about 1,000 protesters held a vigil outside the building and demanded that the governor, Vasily Chudnova, resign, but he has thus far refused.
Chernivtsi Oblast — Thousands of protesters on Friday (January 24) stormed and occupied the regional administration building in Chernivtsi, near the Ukrainian-Romanian border, and forced Governor Mykhailo Papiev to tender his resignation.
Volynska Oblast — Governor Boris Klimchuk resigned on Friday after more than 1,000 protesters marched on and surrounded the Volynska administration building in the regional capital, Lutsk, in northwestern Ukraine. When a protest leader asked police guarding the building to stand back, one officer replied, “We are Ukrainians –we are with the people.” The protester and the officer then embraced. Police then allowed demonstrators to enter the building.
See a map of the regions that have been taken over here.
Copyright (c) 2013. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 400, Washington DC 20036.
Source: RFE/RL
[related video: Ukraine president offers opposition leader PM post, agrees to change Constitution]
VIDEO — Ukraine rioters brutally beat police, storm local admin building
RT
Jan 25, 2014
Protesters have stormed local administrative buildings in Vinnitsa, central Ukraine. The authorities have started criminal investigations into the seizure.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
When Net Neutrality Becomes Programmed Censorship
by SARTRE
Global Research
Jan 21, 2014
The worst fears of all free speech proponents are upon us. The Verizon suit against the Federal Communications Commission, appellate decision sets the stage for a Supreme Court review. The Wall Street Journal portrays the ruling in financial terms: “A federal court has tossed out the FCC’s “open internet” rules, and now internet service providers are free to charge companies like Google and Netflix higher fees to deliver content faster.”
In essence, this is the corporate spin that the decision is about the future cost for being connected.
“The ruling was a blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed the idea of “net neutrality.” And it sharpened the struggle by the nation’s big entertainment and telecommunications companies to shape the regulation of broadband, now a vital pipeline for tens of millions of Americans to view video and other media.
For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up.
“It takes the Internet into completely uncharted territory,” said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor who coined the term net neutrality.”
What the Journal is not telling you is that this “uncharted territory” is easy to project. If ISP’s will be able to charge varied rates or decide to vary internet speed, it is a very short step towards selectively discriminate against sites based upon content. Do not get lulled into thinking that constitutional protective political speech is guaranteed.
Once again, the world according to the communication giants paint a very different interpretation as the article, Verizon called hypocritical for equating net neutrality to censorship illustrates.
“Verizon’s argument that network neutrality regulations violated the firm’s First Amendment rights. In Verizon’s view, slowing or blocking packets on a broadband network is little different from a newspaper editor choosing which articles to publish, and should enjoy the same constitutional protection.”
The response from advocates of the Net Neutrality standard, that is about to vanish, sums up correctly.
“The First Amendment does not apply, however, when Verizon is merely transmitting the content of third parties. Moreover, these groups point out, Verizon itself has disclaimed responsibility for its users’ content when it was convenient to do so, making its free speech arguments ring hollow.”
Next, consider the implication that search engines will use this decision to re-work their algorithms lowering their spider bots selection of sites that challenge the “PC” culture. Restrictive categorization used for years by Google, Yahoo and Bing can use this decision as cover to purge dissenting sites even more from their result rankings.
“Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online – and easier for companies to censor our speech.”
Corporate gatekeepers will control “where you go and what you see.”
Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable “will be able to block content and speech they don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic…”
They’ll be able to “reserve the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders (while) sticking everyone else with the slowest.”
Doing so prohibits free and open communications. Censorship will become policy. Net Neutrality is too important to lose.”
“In the U.S., there’s no practical competition. The vast majority of households essentially have a single broadband option, their local cable provider. Verizon and AT&T provide Internet service, too, but for most customers they’re slower than the cable service. Some neighborhoods get telephone fiber services, but Verizon and AT&T have ceased the rollout of their FiOs and U-verse services–if you don’t have it now, you’re not getting it.
Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that’s who. The agency’s dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as “information services” rather than “telecommunications services,” eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn’t long in coming.”
In a digital environment, access to an internet that provides uncensored content at the lowest costs is a direct threat to the corporate economy. Innovation and creative cutting-edge services are clearly marked as competing challenges to the Amazon jungle of merchandising. The big will just get bigger.
Then the unavoidable effects from the “all the news fit to report” mass medium, intensifies their suppression of honest investigative journalism. Filtering out the alternative and truth media is the prime objective of this ruling. Eliminating political dissent from the internet is the ultimate implication. What would the net be like without access to the Drudge Report?
VIDEO — Operation Mockingbird Exposed: Congressional Hearing Proves The CIA Controls Mainstream Media!!!
Mark Dice
Jan 25, 2014
Operation Mockingbird Exposed: Congressional Hearing Proves The CIA Controls Mainstream Media!!!
*SUBSCRIBE* for more great videos!
PN 