Washington Post - IMPORTANT - Rio de Janeiro drug dealers saying no to crack, planning a ban on the destructive drug - Felipe Dana/ Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/rio-de-janeiro-drug-dealers-saying-no-to-crack-planning-a-ban-on-the-destructive-drug/2012/08/18/28c647bc-e94a-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

The Americas

 

Rio de Janeiro drug dealers saying no to crack, planning a ban on the destructive drug

(Felipe Dana/ Associated Press ) - ADVANCE FOR USE SUNDAY, AUG. 19 AND THEREAFTER - In this Aug. 12, 2012 photo, a crack user leaves a crack house near the Manguinhos slum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Some drug bosses say they have stopped selling crack because it destabilizes their communities, making it harder to control areas long abandoned by the government. City authorities take credit for the change, arguing that drug gangs are trying to create a distraction and make police back off their offensive to take back the slums.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

By Associated Press, Published: August 18

RIO DE JANEIRO — Business was brisk in the Mandela shantytown on a recent night. In the glow of a weak light bulb, customers pawed through packets of powdered cocaine and marijuana priced at $5, $10, $25. Teenage boys with semiautomatic weapons took in money and made change while flirting with girls in belly-baring tops lounging nearby.

Next to them, a gaggle of kids jumped on a trampoline, oblivious to the guns and drug-running that are part of everyday life in this and hundreds of other slums, known as favelas, across this metropolitan area of 12 million people. Conspicuously absent from the scene was crack, the most addictive and destructive drug in the triad that fuels Rio’s lucrative narcotics trade.

Once crack was introduced here about six years ago, Mandela and the surrounding complex of shantytowns became Rio’s main outdoor drug market, a “cracolandia,” or crackland, where users bought the rocks, smoked and lingered until the next hit. Hordes of addicts lived in cardboard shacks and filthy blankets, scrambling for cash and a fix.

Now, there was no crack on the rough wooden table displaying the goods for sale, and the addicts were gone. The change hadn’t come from any police or public health campaign. Instead, the dealers themselves have stopped selling the drug in Mandela and nearby Jacarezinho in a move that traffickers and others say will spread citywide within the next two years.

The drug bosses, often born and raised in the very slums they now lord over, say crack destabilizes their communities, making it harder to control areas long abandoned by the government. Law enforcement and city authorities, however, take credit for the change, arguing that drug gangs are only trying to create a distraction and persuade police to call off an offensive to take back the slums.

Dealers shake their heads, insisting it was their decision to stop selling crack, the crystalized form of cocaine.

“Crack has been nothing but a disgrace for Rio. It’s time to stop,” said the drug boss in charge. He is Mandela’s second-in-command — a stocky man wearing a Lacoste shirt, heavy gold jewelry and a backpack bulging with $100,000 in drugs and cash. At 37, he’s an elder in Rio’s most established faction, the Comando Vermelho, or Red Command. He’s wanted by police, and didn’t want his name published.

He discussed the decision as he watched the night’s profits pile up in neat, rubber-banded stacks from across the narrow street. He kept one hand on his pistol and the other on a crackling radio that squawked out sales elsewhere in the slum and warned of police.

The talk of crack left him agitated; he raised his voice, drawing looks from the fidgety young men across the road. Although crack makes him a lot of money, he has his own reasons to resent the drug; everyone who comes near it does, he said.

His brother — the one who studied, left the shantytown and joined the air force — fell prey to it. Crack users smoke it and often display more addictive behavior. The brother abandoned his family and his job, and now haunts the edges of the slum with other addicts.

• Continued
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page

 

IMPORTANT - Drug dealers impose crack trade ban in two Rio favelas - María Dupin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19322863

LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN

Drug dealers impose crack trade ban in two Rio favelas

20 August 2012 Last updated at 18:49Help

Drug-dealers in two Rio favelas have stopped selling crack, claiming it has too devastating an impact on the local community.

Local druglords, affiliated to the Commando Vermelho gang, have decided that crack addicts are destroying the neighbourhoods.

But authorities point out that their change in conscience could in fact be because dealing cocaine and marijuana draws less attention from police.

María Dupin reports.

The Rabbit Hole of ‘Legitimate’ Rape - Ayanna Nahmias - 20/08/2012

http://ayannanahmias.com/2012/08/20/todd-akin-legitimate-rape/

The Rabbit Hole of ‘Legitimate’ Rape

20/08/2012

Gender Issues, Health, News, Religion, Social Commentary, United States, Women's Rights

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-Chief
Last Modified: 22:22 PM EDT, 20 August 2012

Globally women are under assault and their rights are constantly under attack by religious extremists, misogynists, and cultures in which they are viewed as chattel.

Americans by and large think of the challenges these women face as daunting, yet far removed from the realities of most women living in the U.S. for whom protections of women’s reproductive rights has been legislated by law.

That was until Saturday, 19 August 2012, when Republican Congressman Todd Akin stated a position that is widely held by conservative Americans but rarely voiced. The belief that a woman cannot get pregnant through rape, with a subtext that is much more revealing because it implies that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant then she must have wanted it and is only afterwards crying foul.

This is straight out of the text book of religious extremists of any faith who believe that if a woman is raped she caused it by dressing provocatively, by engaging in risky behavior such as walking to her car after work, going out to have a drink with her girlfriends, coming home late, or being sexually active.

When the Afghanistan Taliban executed a woman last month because of accusations of adultery, the world was outraged, but it was expected as par for the course for those ‘crazy Muslims who treat their women like animals and make them completely cover up.’

But, there is no difference between the Taliban and the Republican conservatives who are running for election during this 2012 American election cycle who hold extreme views on women’s reproductive rights and in particular the rights of rape victims. The definition of rape has been continuously narrowed to only include ‘legitimate forcible,’ which can be extrapolated to exclude statutory rape, date rape, and incest.

Thus, by this definition any woman who cannot prove that she has been raped by a preponderance of evidence of being physically and violently assaulted is deemed to be lying and therefore not deserving of the assistance. In fact, according to Akin, if a woman is raped and conceives then she can’t possibly have been raped.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare…If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” ~ Republican Congress Todd Akin

Under this premise, not only should the woman suffer further indignity by carrying to term the child of the man who raped her, the child must come into the world baring the stigma of being the product of rape, and thus the woman and the child are given a lifetime sentence simply because they were the unfortunate victim of a sexual assault.

According to the Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network (RAINN), “In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.”

A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found “rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency” and is “a cause of many unwanted pregnancies” — an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.”  (Source: The New York Times)

The only thing that makes this case more alarming is that it revealed the extent to which women’s rights in this country have been under quiet but aggressive attack by a group of men who desire to control women’s reproductive rights. There is no difference between these American politicians and members of the Taliban and other extremists who believe that a woman does not have the inalienable right to self-determination and reproductive choice.

Related articles

• Congressman’s Remarks About Rape and Pregnancy Rebuked on Twitter(mashable.com)
• Politician Says “Legitimate Rape” Blocks Pregnancy (cosmopolitan.com)
• Republican Senate Nominee Todd Akin: Victims Of “Legitimate Rape” Don’t Get Pregnant (forbes.com)
• Todd Akin’s Immoral Ethics About Women (bigthink.com)

WikiLeaks and Free Speech By MICHAEL MOORE and OLIVER STONE Published: August 20, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

WikiLeaks and Free Speech

By MICHAEL MOORE and OLIVER STONE

Published: August 20, 2012

WE have spent our careers as filmmakers making the case that the news media in the United States often fail to inform Americans about the uglier actions of our own government. We therefore have been deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, and applaud Ecuador’s decision to grant diplomatic asylum to its founder, Julian Assange, who is now living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

Enlarge This Image

Keith Negley

 

Related

• Assange Accuses U.S. of a ‘Witch Hunt’ (August 20, 2012)

• Ecuador Grants Asylum to Assange, Defying Britain(August 17, 2012)

• Times Topic: WikiLeaks

Related in Opinion

• Op-Ed Contributor: It’s Not About Assange (August 20, 2012)

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Ecuador has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights. Indeed, nothing could demonstrate the appropriateness of Ecuador’s action more than the British government’s threat to violate a sacrosanct principle of diplomatic relations and invade the embassy to arrest Mr. Assange.

Since WikiLeaks’ founding, it has revealed the “Collateral Murder” footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter; further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; United States collusion with Yemen’s dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there; the Obama administration’s pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture; and much more.

Predictably, the response from those who would prefer that Americans remain in the dark has been ferocious. Top elected leaders from both parties have called Mr. Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has demanded that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.

All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.

Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.

Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the United States. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that Sweden would not make such a pledge. The British government would also have the right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange’s extradition to the United States from Sweden, and has also refused to pledge that it would use this power. Ecuador’s attempts to facilitate that arrangement with both governments were rejected.

Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges. Mr. Assange has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February state that “the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year.” WikiLeaks itself has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. And history indicates Sweden would buckle to any pressure from the United States to hand over Mr. Assange. In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the C.I.A., which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them.

If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.

We urge the people of Britain and Sweden to demand that their governments answer some basic questions: Why do the Swedish authorities refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the United States? The citizens of Britain and Sweden have a rare opportunity to make a stand for free speech on behalf of the entire globe.

Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are Academy Award-winning filmmakers.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 21, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: WikiLeaks and Free Speech.

 

GENERALSTRIKEUSA Stop calling your Congressmen. THEY don't listen! Shut It Down These are the facts your government does NOT want you to see

GENERALSTRIKEUSA

Stop calling your Congressmen. THEY don't listen! Shut It Down

 

These are the facts your government does NOT want you to see

http://generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/these-are-the-facts-your-government-does-not-want-you-to-see/

Posted: August 20, 2012 in Banks, Congress, Consumer Fast, Corporations, FED, General Strike,Liberty, Obama, Senate, Strike Updates, Taxes
Tags: AIG, Apple, bailout, BofA, boycott, Bush, civil_disobedience, Congress,Congress_millionaires, consumer_fast, corporate_tax_rate, debt, deficits, Democrat, Digg,drop-outs, elections, Exxon_Mobil, Facebook, Federal Reserve Bank, federal_tax, GE,general_strike, Goldman_Sachs, inflation, IRS, JPMorgan Chase, lobbyist, media, Microsoft,Myspace, national_debt, non_compliance, Obama, Pelosi, Reddit, Republican, schools, Senate,social_security, Supreme Court, TARP, taxes, taxpayer, tax_code, tax_rate, Twitter, U.S. Treasury, Verizon, Warren_Buffet, WellsFargo, Youtube

0

While some of America’s biggest corporations may complain that they pay too much in taxes, a recent analysis shows that many are actually getting off pretty easy.

The 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent last year. The group includes heavyweights Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric.

Some of these companies paid more than 9 percent — JPMorgan earned $26.7 billion in 2011, for example, and paid $3.7 billion of it, or 14 percent, to the federal government — and some paid less, like Exxon Mobil, which only sent 2 percent of its $73.3 billion earnings to the IRS.

But the 10 companies all paid much less than the nominal corporate tax rate of 35 percent — a number that investor and tax-the-rich advocate Warren Buffett has dismissed as “a myth,” but one that presidential front-runners Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both proposed to lower.

Copy this, make copies and pass them out everywhere.

The effective corporate tax rate has been on its way down for decades, recently hitting a 40-year low even as corporate profits have reached an all-time high. Many of the companies that have seen their tax rates fall in recent years — including Exxon Mobil, Verizon, General Electric and AT&T — are among the biggest spenders when it comes to lobbying.

Fact: Corporations move our jobs overseas to take advantage of slave labor wages, lax environmental laws and no taxes. Yes, no taxes! “Free trade” allows giant multinational corporations to pay zero taxes overseas and zero taxes in America. In 2010, corporate giant GE made a profit of $14.2 billion but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

The 2008-2010 report reveals:

Pepco Holdings, a Washington, D.C.-area power company, had the lowest effective tax rate, at negative 57.6 percent, among the 280 Fortune 500 companies studied.

General Electric Co, Paccar Inc., PG&E Corp, Computer Sciences Corp and NiSource Inc. as among the 30 that paid no taxes. All 280 corporations examined were profitable over the period.

Fact: [Tax] breaks cost the government about $102 billion in lost revenues in 2011, a year when the federal deficit was an estimated $1.3 trillion.

Power group Duke Energy Corp was one of the 30 companies listed as paying no income taxes in 2008-2010.

Fact: Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010. Twenty-five of these companies enjoyed multiple no-tax years, bringing the total number of no-tax years to 108. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.

These are the facts your government does NOT want you to see.

The government could have a surplus – roads, dams, hospitals and schools would not be in disrepair or overcrowded because the government would have plenty of money for all these things as they once did and would not be looking for ways to cut social security or other social programs.

You and I, however, CANNOT compete with the money corporations spend to buy off congress, (i.e. our politicians) and voting only replaces one corrupt party with the other corrupt party.

Fact: These tax-breaks have occured under Democrat and Republican administrations! Both are corrupt!

Fact: The U.S. was the largest creditor in the world. Now the debt is in the trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars transferred from the worlds richest & most powerful country. This is a form of destructive economic management at a level of graft & corruption that has NO parallel. There’s nothing comparable to that in history. Upcoming elections do us no good. Corruption has entered every institution.

Fact: As things stand now, with federal taxes, state taxes, county tax, sales tax, property taxes, car tax, gas tax, phone taxes, etc., the governmnent  takes 4 months of our wages every year in taxes. For that kind of money we should have the best schools on the planet, right? But every year 30 to 50% of our kids get LEFT BEHIND. Let me repeat, taxes take 4 months of your wages away from you every year. That’s true under Republican or Democrats.

These are the facts your government does NOT want you to see.

Fact: 237 Millionaires in Congress

Even in tough times, it’s good to be a lawmaker: According to a report released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 237 millionaires serving in Congress.

It  reflects the fact that the average lawmaker is far wealthier than his or her typical constituent. While about one percent of Americans are millionaires, 44 percent of those serving in Congress can claim as much.

In some cases, [lawmakers'] wealth is being derived from the very companies that in many cases benefit from the taxpayers.

The top companies at which members of Congress are investing, many of them are TARP recipients that have received billions and billions of dollars from you and me.

Among the companies in which members of Congress hold assets are Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

RECESSION – HIGH GAS PRICES – OUT-OF-CONTROL MEDICAL COSTS – FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE…WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? If all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, have you ever wondered why we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices- 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I exclude the members of the Federal Reserve Board because the Congress created that problem. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I exclude all the special interest and lobbyist for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressmen or a president. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he/she votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Nancy Pelosi, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives the sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for appropriations and taxes.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted – by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility. There is not a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, not directly traceable to those 545 people and their predecessors..

Sooner or later all freedom loving Americans will realize that the only way to stop those who would bleed our nation dry, dismantle our constitution, and dissolve our national sovereignty is to say: I will NOT work for you, buy from you, fight for you, or die for you, until the criminals are gone from the halls of our government.

Stop calling your Congressmen. THEY don’t listen! Shut It Down.

General Strikes shut down the normal operations of a city, state, or nation for a period of time. These strikes aim to force action on a single issue or broader set of concerns.

The reason for this shutdown is not to hurt this country in any way shape or form, but is, in fact, a peaceful method of sending a message to Washington, D.C.

We would like to raise awareness about steps we can all take and solutions we can all participate in.

You can take part in this exchange of information and, at the same time, contribute to Global Non-Compliance against Corruption, Theft, Fraud, and Murder.

We have always had the power to stop these crimes.

Stop the funding to all criminal activity in the corporate/political sector.

Small changes in how you spend your money will make a huge difference to the profiteers of misery.

This will not happen overnight, but in time, we could affect real change.

GeneralStrikeUSA is engaged in what could be called “the people’s sovereignty movement.” We challenge the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court, or any other arm of government, “to bestow upon corporations the immense governing authority” implicit in the conferral of constitutional rights. We base this challenge on a solid founding principle; no governing entity may grant away the people’s right to a functional republican form of government. We contend that excessive corporate power has undermined this basic right of the people. (POCLAD, 2003) (See Also, Grossman, et, al, 2003).

Rather than try to change Supreme Court decisions, the people’s sovereignty movement is building popular support for eliminating corporate constitutional rights; they are urging their fellow citizens to effectively say, “We hold ultimate authority, and despite what the Supreme Court says, we did not grant away our sovereignty over you when we made you a corporation.” So, what concrete steps does one take to make this tangible?

We live in a time when elected politicians ignore the needs of their constituents; where the judiciary and police institutions will not uphold the rights of citizens; where the media are afraid to report the truth; where lawlessness abounds and ordinary people are left unprotected and defenseless against the rapacity of a few. The answer to our dilemma is for people of courage to actively help each other. Only if we unite can we succeed. That is the only way. There is no other way. People, get up, stand up! ORGANIZE!

The General Strike is a national call to action, from citizens to other citizens.

The strike targets key issues facing the American public, issues that have not been addressed in any meaningful way by any branch of government.

Unions, corporations and the major parties have failed to deal with pressing matters of war and peace, income inequality, crime and punishment and the meaning of citizenship itself. It has fallen to the American people to set things right!

Public protest is an important part of democracy, just as much as a free press, a judiciary, and congress. A general strike does NOT have to be violent. It is a matter of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, NOT VIOLENCE. You are NOT going to school. You are NOT going to work. You are NOT shopping. You do NOT have to be violent to NOT do those things. March legally. Protest legally.

Our causes are many but our voices are one.

You will need to plan, set up and hold your own local protest. Vigorously promote your protest via local activist and church groups. Also on social networking sites- Facebook, Meetup, Tribe, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Call in to talk radio shows, print and distribute this flyer, create freeway banners, write OPEDs, etc., etc. You will need to organize enough people to shut down, disrupt normal operations of your local city, town, county and state.

There will be ZERO mainstream media discussion of this protest BEFORE it happens. ZERO. So, we must BE OUR OWN MEDIA and promote it. Post this link to blogs, forums, etc. VIDEO LINK: http://www.onetruemedia.com/shared?p=e6d59c26c710c41ad8703b&skin_id=1602&utm_source=otm&utm_medium=text_url 

PROMOTE IT!

Put it on your personal pages, send this URL to your friends, mention it with links in your comments. PROMOTE IT:http://www.generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com

Join the Consumer Fast already underway:

If you do any banking with BofA, Wells Fargo or other large banks CLOSE those accounts NOW. Move all banking to small local independent banks or Credit Unions.

BOYCOTT CORPORATE MEDIA.

Copy this and pass them out everywhere.

Republicans, Democrats, Independents and non-voters UNITE. Your Americans first!

NO SPEND PROTEST.

This is NOT just about RECESSION, GAS PRICES, or FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE. This is NOT just about inflation and high taxes. This is NOT just about bailouts, corrupt media or out of control spending. The WHOLE system is CORRUPT.

Stop calling your Congressmen. THEY don’t listen! Shut It Down.

Copy this, make copies and pass them out everywhere.

Sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558#.TtaLu2Axcmk

http://news.yahoo.com/thirty-companies-paid-no-income-tax-2008-2010-042531293.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/most-profitable-corporations-tax-rate_n_1746817.html?ir=Business#comments

Center for Responsive Politics

CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

 

Assange is in no greater danger of being extradited from Sweden than from the UK « on: Today at 09:46:03 PM » _ The Official WikiLeaks Forum August 20, 2012, 10:07:34 PM

http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php?topic=14036.0

 

Assange is in no greater danger of being extradited from Sweden than from the UK

« on: Today at 09:46:03 PM »

Assange is in no greater danger of being extradited from Sweden than from the UK

Here is the explanation why it would not be any easier to extradite Assange to the US from Sweden than it would be from the UK: 

1. It is frequently suggested that ONLY Sweden has got a special extradition treaty with the USA. Of course, this is not true. Here is a list of all countries which have signed such a contract with the US:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

2. As can be seen above, the UK is also on this list. Interestingly, the treaty between the UK and the USA contains exactly the same clause about “temporary surrender” as the treaty between Sweden and the US. So, if this clause is supposed to mean that Assange could be sent to the US without further ado, then why would the Americans be waiting for him to  come to Sweden even though they could already have requested “temporary surrender” while Assange is in the UK:  

UK treaty: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf  (Art. 14)

Sweden treaty: http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf (Art. VI)

3. As for the „temporary surrender“ clause: It does NOT mean that somebody can temporarily be taken to the US "quickly and secretly", as we are made to believe. “Temporary surrender” is, along with “deferred surrender”, a measure which is meant for the extradition of people who have been charged with another crime or sent to prison in the country where the extradition is being requested. 

Quote

Article VI
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States.

4. So, if the US has to request the extradition in any case, regardless of where Assange is or whether he is free, charged with a crime or sentenced, then why are the US waiting for him to be extradited to Sweden and for proceedings which might then possibly be instituted against him? 

The mystery remains - why are all these facts being concealed by Assange and his legal team, and what is the real reason why Assange does not want to go to Sweden? All rumors that Sweden is planning to secretly hand overAssange  to the CIA are pure speculations. 

Translate

Atos doctors could be struck off Twelve medics at the disability assessment centre are under investigation by the GMC over allegations of improper conduct Daniel Boffey, policy editor guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 August 2011 23.21 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/13/atos-doctors-improper-conduct-disability?CMP=twt_gu

 

Atos doctors could be struck off

Twelve medics at the disability assessment centre are under investigation by the GMC over allegations of improper conduct

• Daniel Boffey, policy editor
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 August 2011 23.21 BST

Atos practices concerning welfare and disability assessment have come under intense criticism. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Twelve doctors employed by the firm that is paid £100m a year to assess people claiming disability benefit are under investigation by the General Medical Council over allegations of improper conduct. The doctors, who work for Atos Healthcare, a French-owned company recently criticised by MPs for its practices, face being struck off if they are found not to have put the care of patients first.

The Observer has found that seven of the doctors have been under investigation for more than seven months. The other five were placed under investigation this year following complaints about their conduct.

It is understood that the majority of allegations concern the treatment of vulnerable people when the government's controversial "work capability assessments" were carried out, but the GMC refused to comment on individual cases. The development will add to fears over the pace and radical agenda behind the government's welfare-to-work policy, which led to protests in Westminster in May by thousands of disabled people. It will also raise concerns about ministers' commitment to Atos Healthcare, which was recently granted a three-year extension on its contract.

The government has repeatedly publicised figures showing that the "vast majority" of claimants for employment support allowance (ESA), which has replaced incapacity benefit, are fit for work. But four out of 10 of those who appealed the decision by Atos - whose parent company is run by a former French finance minister, Thierry Breton - to deny thembenefits are successful on appeal, a process that costs the taxpayer £50m a year.

Last month Atos, whose staff assess around 11,000 benefit claimants a week, was savaged by the cross-party work and pensions select committee after it found that many people had "not received the level of service from Atos which they can reasonably expect".

MPs further claimed that a combination of the company's conduct and the test itself had prompted "fear and anxiety among vulnerable people".

One GP who attended an Atos recruitment fair told the Observer she feared doctors could become "agents of the state" who were deprofessionalised by involvement in a system that did not make patient care its first concern.

Campaigners for the disabled seized upon the development, claiming the government needed to go back to the drawing board. Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the charity Scope, said: "If the government wants to get disabled people off benefits and into work then it needs to get its assessment right. The test should be the first step on the road to employment. But disabled people's confidence in the work capability assessment is extremely low – and today's news will send it to rock bottom.

"The test is massively flawed. Now it appears that it is being carried out by a large number of doctors who are under serious investigation."

Neil Bateman, a solicitor who handles ESA appeals, said on two occasions his clients had been successful because, among other reasons, the doctor assessing them had qualified in Romania and registered with the GMC but had not been licensed to practise in Britain.

Citizens Advice told the Observer it was compiling a dossier showing the problems being faced by those assessed by Atos staff, who can be nurses or physiotherapists in cases where there are no potential neurological disorders. It said it regularly found inaccuracies in many of the medical reports featured in ESA appeal papers that could affect people's chances of receiving benefits. It also found a lack of consideration for those being assessed.

A spokesman said a barrister who was unable to practise because of cancer and lymphoma had described the assessment as being like an "interrogation" led by a computer. The assessor moved the client's legs, which caused her great pain, even though the client had warned that this would happen. In another case a claimant with learning difficulties who went for an assessment was found fit for work because he had found his way to the assessment centre on his own.

When asked about this by Citizens Advice, he reluctantly explained that he had got up very early, taken the bus to the town centre, and then kept asking passersby for directions. He couldn't follow their instructions, so he would show the letter, walk in the direction they pointed, then ask again until he arrived.

Two doctors employed by Atos have already been taken by the GMC to an independent panel for adjudication on their fitness to practise. Dr Alexandros Mallios, who it was claimed had not carried out a proper examination of his patient during an assessment, was cleared by the panel last October. Dr Usen Samuel Ikidde, who qualified in Nigeria, was given a formal warning in January, to lay on his records for five years, after he was found to have worked for Atos while on sick leave from an accident and emergency department.

An Atos spokesman said: "Atos Healthcare is committed to providing a high-quality, professional service and requires these standards of all its employees. While we cannot comment on individual cases, any complaint made about an employee is taken extremely seriously.

"In addition to our own rigorous internal investigations we will co-operate with any external investigation to ensure all facts are properly established and the appropriate action taken."

The Labour government introduced work capability assessments in 2008 when it replaced incapacity benefit and income support for new claimants with employment and support allowance. The government has accelerated the changes and started retesting all 1.5 million incapacity benefit claimants to see whether they are eligible for the new benefit.

A GMC spokesman said: "We can and do take action to remove or restrict a doctor's right to practise if there have been serious failures to meet our standards."