END DEATH PENALTY IN UNITED STATES

Stop the death penalty in the United States!

Florida is preparing to execute a man diagnosed with schizophrenia next Thursday, Ed Pilkington of The Guardian reports on-line:

"David Glant, a judge with Florida's eighth circuit, has found that John Ferguson, 64, can be given lethal injections next Thursday despite a US supreme court injunction that prohibits executions of the insane. In his concluding remarks, the judge agrees with the prisoner's defence lawyers that Ferguson is a paranoid schizophrenic who genuinely believes he is "Prince of God"."

HOW CAN ANY WOMAN IN THE U.S. VOTE REPUBLICAN?

How could any woman in the U.S. vote for someone like Republican Todd Akin, running for U.S. Senate in Missouri?

First, he defines some rapes as "legitimate," casting doubt on all other violent assaults on women which are not "legitimate."

Then, a few days ago, he says that his female opponent, Claire McCaskill, has not acted 'ladylike."

Here's a report by Karen McVeigh in The Guardian online.  Writes McVeigh:

"The furore caused by Akin's now infamous and much-criticised "legitimate rape" comments – suggesting that victims of rape can "shut down' potential pregnancies – shows little sign of abating. Despite signs of a U-turn from the Republican party who abandoned him over the comments, Akin, who believes abortion should be banned even in cases of rape, has become associated with bad science and an anti-woman agenda.

Akin did nothing to overcome that perception on Thursday, when he said that his Democratic opponent Claire McCaskill had not acted "ladylike" during a recent debate. Patty Murray, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, described the remark as "demeaning to women and offensive to all".

Let me ask the question again, but this time extend it to all Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney.  How could any woman in the U.S. vote for any Republican candidate anywhere in the country?

NETANYAHU CLAIMS PALESTINIAN CHARGE OF ETHNIC CLEANSING IS WITHOUT BASIS, YET AT THE SAME TIME ACCUSES IRANIANS OF TRYING TO BUILD NUCLEAR BOMBS

For sheer exaggeration and hyperbole, Bibi Netanyahu has outdone Ahmadinejad of Iran and Morsi of Egypt.  Bibi claims the end is near.  Any nuclear bombs made by Iran will be equivalent to nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Forget for a minute that Al Qaeda and the Shiites of Iran have nothing in common.  Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iranians are Shia.  Even more importantly, the Arabs of Al Qaeda despise the Iranians for being Persian, not Arabic.

Bibi's statements are inflammatory and wild.

Tom Clancy reports on Netanyahu's speech today in The Guardian online.  Writes Clancy:

"Netanyahu's bomb drawing was like a crude, almost a spoof, version of Colin Powell's notorious presentation of Iraqi WMD in 2003, but for all its crudity and questionable assumptions, it without doubt succeeded in distracting almost all attention from Mahmoud Abbas's plaintive description of 'ethnic cleansing' in occupied Palestinian territories. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for decades been centre stage at the UN General Assembly, but not this year, in the febrile atmosphere around the Iranian nuclear programme."

Note that, as Tom Clancy reports, Mahmoud Abbas charges Israel and Netanyahu with "ethnic cleansing," and Bibi facilely dismisses the objection, according to The Daily Beast, "We won't solve our conflict with libelous speeches."  The irony is thick.  Bibi accuses Iran of making nuclear weapons, contrary to the evidence and the protestations of the Iranians.  Yet he tries to avoid the charge by the Palestinians by claiming that the objection is without basis.

SUPPORT PEOPLE OF GREECE AND SPAIN IN REJECTING BANKRUPT POLICY OF AUSTERITY

If I were in Spain or Greece today, I would be joining the protesters against any further implementation of the crazy and discredited Germanic-inspired economic policy of "austerity." 

Helena Smith reports on Greek demonstrations for The Guardian online.  Writes Smith:

"Hundreds of thousands of anti-austerity protesters took to the streets of Greece on Wednesday as the country was paralysed by a general strike in the first mass confrontation with Athens's three-month-old coalition government.
In one of the biggest demonstrations in the capital in recent years, as many as 200,000 marched on the Greek parliament, according to unions in the public and private sector, which called the strike to oppose new wage and pension cuts – the price of further rescue funds from international lenders."

No economists, other than maybe crazy Republicans in the U.S., would subscribe to a policy of cutting government jobs and pensions in an attempt to foster economic growth and prosperity.  Spain and Greece are mired in a deep recession, maybe even a depression.  Now is not the time to impose cuts on people's salaries and benefits.  Now is not the time to put government workers out of their jobs.

Stop this insane and cruel policy of austerity.  Enough of this madness!

NETANYAHU MEDDLES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I find it disconcerting and inappropriate that Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, is inserting himself into the American presidential election.

Everyone knows that Bibi wants Mitt Romney to win.  And that Netanyahu doesn't like Obama because Obama refuses to go along with the stupid "red line" demand of bully Netanyahu.

Netanyahu badly wants to start a war against Iran in order to divert the world's view from the miserable state that Israel has forced upon the Palestinians.

Harriet Sherwood writes in today's online The Guardian:

"The political TV advertisement featuring Binyamin Netanyahu and the slogan "The world needs American strength, not apologies" is likely to fuel claims that the Israeli prime minister is interfering in the US presidential election in support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney."

Additionally, the Democrats have conveyed to Netanyahu that his meddling is unwelcomed.

Writes Sherwood:

"But, according to Yossi Verter writing in Haaretz recently, US officials had relayed to a "very senior Israeli figure" that "in the eyes of the Democratic administration, Netanyahu is perceived as campaigning on behalf of Mitt Romney." To the president and his aides, the Israeli prime minister's actions look like "crude, vulgar and unrestrained intervention in the US election campaign".

"Joe Klein of Time magazine described Netanyahu's recent behaviour as "an unprecedented attempt by a putative American ally to influence a US presidential campaign".

"The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, said Netanyahu seemed "determined, more than ever, to alienate the president of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney's campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election"."

ROMNEY PUTS ALL THE BLAME ON PALESTINIANS - HAS HE BEEN FOLLOWING THE ISRAELI CRUELTIES ON THE NEWS?

Ewen Mac Askill writes in The Guardian online about Mitt Romney's comments blaming the Palestinians for not wanting peace with Israel.  Writes Mac Askill:

"The latest clip shows Romney dismissing the chances of peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not an unusual view, but he then goes on to firmly put the blame solely on the Palestinians.

"He contentiously described the the Palestinians as "committed to the destruction and elimination" of Israel and indicated he was unlikely to pursue, as president, the creation of a Palestinian state, warning that Iran would use it as a base for attacks on Israel."

I guess that Romney, in putting the blame on the Palestinians, has never heard of Israeli soldiers firing tank shells at Palestinian civilians, or Israeli warplanes wantonly destroying essential infrastructure in Gaza, or Israeli hardliners cruelly forcing Palestinian families off their land, so that Jewish settlers can illegally and immorally move in.

STOP ISRAELI MARCH TOWARDS BOMBING IRAN

There have been many articles recently about statements from Israeli leaders that they are getting close to mounting an attack against Iran.

Here's a blog posted by Harriet Sherwood of The Guardian.  Writes Sherwood:

"In the past few days, the Israeli public has been hit by a blizzard of speculative articles suggesting a military strike against Iran's nuclear sites is imminent."

The reckless talk by people like Netanyahu and Barak is out-and-out warmongering.  It seems that the Israeli government wants to pave the way towards a military attack.

Stop this talk of bombing Tehran.  Obama should condemn Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders for their push towards war.

BASHAR AL ASSAD NOW PLEADS FOR KOFI ANNAN'S PEACE PLAN

Bashar al Assad now calls the UN general, Robert Mood, pleading for a ceasefire, this according to a report in today's The Guardian on line, written by Ian Black and Luke Harding.

Report Harding and Black:

"Diplomats revealed that Assad had phoned the head of the UN monitoring mission, General Robert Mood, pledging to implement Kofi Annan's peace plan shortly after Wednesday's devastating bomb attack in Damascus, which killed four senior members of his military-security command. The UN says Assad and the rebels have failed to observe a ceasefire."

By the way, yesterday, one of Iran's ministers complained that the United States has a double standard, complaining about some assassinations and not others. (Sorry, no cite for this.)  Why, for example, had the U.S. not condemned the bombing assassination of the four senior members of the Syrian government's defense department?

This criticism seems misplaced and totally not germane.  The men who were killed in Syrian Defense headquarters were the very ones responsible for ordering and putting into effect the shelling of civilian populations in Homs and Idlip and many other cities where there have been anti-government demonstrations.  They approved bombing civilian homes and killing civilians indiscriminately.  These were war crimes.  The fact that they were the targets of a bombing planted by the insurgents prompts musings that they themselves received justified punishment for their egregious war crimes.

As to the progress of the insurgents in fighting the Syrian government, Harding and Black write:

"The capture of Syria's borders by the opposition was an important moment, analysts said, and showed Syria's 16-month conflict was now a fast-moving guerilla war. Fawwaz Traboulsi, a Beirut-based historian and columnist, said the tactics and strategy of the Free Syrian Army had improved, in contrast to the early days of the uprising.

"It's conducting a war that is very close to a guerrilla war. The FSA can move very easily. It can withdraw. It is taking whole regions and holding them," he said."

CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MORMON CHURCH'S INFLUENCE ON BOY SCOUTS' DECISION TO BAN ELEVEN YEAR OLD BOYS SHOWING HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES

The Boy Scouts of America, in what was crafted to sound high-minded and principled, announced that it would refuse to accept boys who showed homosexual tendencies or publicly admitted they were gay.

How old does a boy have to be join the Scouts?  Eleven or twelve?  So if he has "homosexual tendencies, the Scouts will not allow him to join?

How about some equal protection for eleven-year olds?  Who is to say that another person has homosexual tendencies?  And even if he does, why are the Scouts afraid of him?

Is it because the Boy Scouts of America have a problem with straight adult leaders who have abused boys in their charge?  Perhaps the Boy Scouts are trying to deflect justified criticism that the organization has not done nearly enough to protect young boys from sexual adult predators.

Nancy Goldstein writes in The Guardian that the Boy Scouts share many similarities with the  Catholic Church when it comes to treatment of sexual predation among their leaders.  They try to conceal, deny and cover up.  What they don't do is allow the public to see evidence of their acceptance of predators in their organization.

Goldstein writes that the decision of the Boy Scouts to ban children who they perceive to show homosexual tendencies stems from the pressure of two religious groups, the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church.

Writes Goldstein:

"Ignore all of the Scouts' official mumbo-jumbo about the (unidentified) leaders who comprised the special committee of top Scout leaders that made this decision, especially the part about their alleged "diversity of perspectives and opinions". As the LA Times notes, what's really happening here is a business decision about the organization's sustainability, driven by the influence of two of the Scouts' most powerful benefactors: the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches. About 400,000 of the 2.7 million members left in the dwindling organization, "belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which "encourages members to become involved in the Boy Scouts, and has its own section on the Boy Scouts of America webpage. "

UN INVESTIGATOR SAYS U.S. DRONE ATTACKS VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Guardian has an article today about how U.N. investigators believe that drone attacks make shambles of international law.  This of course assumes that international law is real and not a fiction.

Owen Bowcott writes:



"The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

"Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards."

The drone attacks subject Obama (and the war monger Panetta) to charges of war crimes.

Writes Bowcott:

"In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)."

OBAMA: RESIST THE ISRAELI PUSH TO WAR AGAINST IRAN

The Guardian carries an editorial today that warns of the terrible outcome if Israel mounts a bombing attack on Iranian nuclear development sites.

When Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, visits Washington in March to attend the national convention of AIPAC, the biggest and most bellicose Jewish organization unreservedly backing Netanyahu's Greater Israel policies, the U.S. president Barack Obama needs to tell him in no uncertain ways that the U.S. government will not participate in such illegal attack.

If Israel attacks Iran, there will be no peace in the Middle East, or in the world, for the next 500 years.  Stop the constant drumbeat telling the Iranian people that "all options are on the table."  That's only a euphemism for all-out war and destruction of the Iranian people and civilization.

OBAMA SHOWS TILT TOWARDS ISRAEL IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

I thought the U.S. government under Pres. Barack Obama would take a fair approach to solving the Middle East crisis. Instead the Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera and The Guardian show that Obama's policy has been one of pressuring the Palestinians to make concessions, and, at the same time, no corresponding pressure on Israel and the Israeli government to make concessions in return, especially about settlements and the right of return of Palestinians to come back to their ancestral homeland.

SPOKESMAN FOR MOUSSAVI EXPLAINS HIS APPROACH IN THE GUARDIAN

Here is an amazing article in The Guardian by Mohsen Makhmalbaf speaking on behalf of Mir Hussein Moussavi.

Makhmalbaf writes:

"The world views us as a terrorist nation on the lookout for war. When Khatami was president of Iran, Bush was president of the US. Now the Americans have Obama and we have our version of Bush. We need an Obama who can find solutions for Iran's problems."

Moussavi, according to Makhmalbaf, has changed from being a revolutionary to a leader who is looking not to confront other nations but to integrate Iran into the world community:

"Previously, he was revolutionary, because everyone inside the system was a revolutionary. But now he's a reformer. Now he knows Gandhi – before he knew only Che Guevara. If we gain power through aggression we would have to keep it through aggression. That is why we're having a green revolution, defined by peace and democracy."

JUAN COLE ON NEO-CONS' FICTITIOUS ARGUMENTS AGAINST IRAN

We know that many neo-cons and their supporters would like nothing better than a war against Iran, that evil Islamist empire. Here is Juan Cole today demolishing sophomoric arguments in an article in The Guardian by Simon Tisdall on why Iran is the bogey man.

"At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it. And, it claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are shelling the Green Zone. The parliament building that was hit to day by such shelling is dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its paramilitary, the Badr Organization. Who trained Badr? The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are trying to hit their own guys . . . why?

"By the way, the US has 16,000 suspected insurgents in custody. Tisdall should ask how many of them are Iranian. (Hint: close to none. What, do they just run faster than the others?)

"The article even traffics in the ridiculous assertion that Iran is backing hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing Taliban in Afghanistan. Why not just cut to the quick and openly say that Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei is in reality . . . Satan!

"It really is discouraging that Tisdall didn't report instead on what crazy things the US military spokesmen in Iraq told him. US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?"