Archive | July 23, 2015

George Clooney Paid to Oppose War Profiteering by Africans Disloyal to the U.S. Agenda*

George Clooney Paid to Oppose War Profiteering by Africans Disloyal to the U.S. Agenda*

Let’s be clear here…. the U.S. military complex is built on war-profiteering, and hasn’t survived without it, so the issue here is not the corrupt and evil practice of profiteering from war, but Africans profiteering from war whilst anti-Washington agenda albeit profiteering from American war-mongering supports the Washington Agenda…

 

By David Swanson

George Clooney is being paid by the world’s top two war profiteers, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, to oppose war profiteering by Africans disloyal to the U.S. government’s agenda.

Way back yonder before World War II, war profiteering was widely frowned on in the United States. Those of us trying to bring back that attitude, and working for barely-funded peace organizations, ought to be thrilled when a wealthy celebrity like George Clooney decides to take on war profiteering, and the corporate media laps it up.

Real leverage for peace and human rights will come when the people who benefit from war will pay a price for the damage they cause,” said Clooney — without encountering anything like the blowback Donald Trump received when he criticized John McCain.

Really, is that all it takes to give peace a chance, a celebrity? Will the media now cover the matter of who funds opponents of the Iran deal, and who funds supporters of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.?

Well, no, not really.

It turns out Clooney opposes, not war profiteering in general, but war profiteering while African. In fact, Clooney’s concern is limited, at least thus far, to five African nations: Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, though these are not the only nations in Africa or the world with serious wars underway.

Of the top 100 weapons makers in the world, not a single one is based in Africa. Only 1 is in South or Central America. Fifteen are in Western allies and protectorates in Asia (and China is not included in the list). Three are in Israel, one in Ukraine, and 13 in Russia. Sixty-six are in the United States, Western Europe, and Canada. Forty are in the U.S. alone. Seventeen of the top 30 are in the U.S. Six of the top 10 mega-profiteers are in the U.S. The other four in the top 10 are in Western Europe.

Clooney’s new organization, “The Sentry,” is part of The Enough Project, which is part of the Center for American Progress, which is a leading backer of “humanitarian” wars, and various other wars for that matter — and which is funded by the world’s top war profiteer, Lockheed Martin, and by number-two Boeing, among other war profiteers.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in the most recent edition of an annual report that it has now discontinued, 79% of all weapons transfers to poor nations are from the United States. That doesn’t include U.S. weapons in the hands of the U.S. military, which has now moved into nearly every nation in Africa. When drugs flow north the United States focuses on the supply end of the exchange as an excuse for wars. When weapons flow south, George Clooney announces that we’ll stop backward violence at the demand side by exposing African corruption.

The spreading of the U.S. empire through militarism is most often justified by the example of Rwanda as a place where the opportunity for a humanitarian war, to prevent the Rwanda Genocide, was supposedly missed. But the United States backed an invasion of Rwanda in 1990 by a Ugandan army led by U.S.-trained killers, and supported their attacks for three-and-a-half years, applying more pressure through the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and USAID. U.S.-backed and U.S.-trained war-maker Paul Kagame — now president of Rwanda — is the leading suspect behind the shooting down of a plane carrying the then-presidents of Rwanda and Burundi on April 6, 1994. As chaos followed, the U.N. might have sent in peacekeepers (not the same thing, be it noted, as dropping bombs) but Washington was opposed. President Bill Clinton wanted Kagame in power, and Kagame has now taken the war into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with U.S. aid and weapons, where 6 million have been killed. And yet nobody ever says “We must prevent another Congo!”

What does George Clooney’s new organization say about the DRC? A very different story from that told by Friends of the Congo. According to Clooney’s group the killing in the Congo happens “despite years of international attention,” not because of it. Clooney’s organization also promotes this argument for more U.S. war-making in the DRC from Kathryn Bigelow, best known for producing the CIA propaganda film Zero Dark Thirty.

On Sudan as well, there’s no blame for U.S. interference; instead Clooney’s crew has produced a brief for regime change.

On South Sudan, there’s no acknowledgement of U.S. warmongering in Ethiopia and Kenya, but a plea for more U.S. involvement.

The Central African Republic gets the same diagnosis as the others: local ahistorical spontaneous corruption and backwardness leading to war.

Clooney’s co-founder of the Sentry (dictionary definition of “Sentry” is “A guard, especially a soldier posted at a given spot to prevent the passage of unauthorized persons”) is John Prendergast, former Africa director for the National Security Council. Watch Prendergast find himself awkwardly in a debate with an informed person here.

Clooney’s wife, incidentally, works for U.S.-friendly dictators and brutal killers in places like Bahrain and Libya.

More nations could soon be spotted by The Sentry. The President of Nigeria was at the U.S. Institute of “Peace” this week pleading for weapons. U.S. troops are in Cameroon this week training fighters.

If the peace organization I work for had 0.0001% the financial support of The Sentry, perhaps the debate would change. So, one thing you can do is support the right antiwar efforts.

Another is to let The Sentry know what it’s missing. It asks for anonymous tips when you spot war profiteering. Have you ever turned on C-Span? If you see something, say something. Let The Sentry know about the Pentagon.

Source*

Related Topics:

Sponsoring Terrorism in Burundi to Rebalkanize Resource-rich Great Lake’s Region*

US and UK Second Stage of Re- Colonizing South Sudan*

The Imperial Vultures to Gather for the U.S.-Africa Summit*

USA Drone Base in North Africa*

The US Razing Hell through 35 African Countries*

AFRICOM’s Tentacles Across Africa*

NWO Imperial Destabilization of Africa Unabated*

South Africa Delays Court Decision on Black Ownership of Mines*

Why Are They Hosting a Shiva Dance Opera Inside CERN?

Why Are They Hosting a Shiva Dance Opera Inside CERN?

If this is a lie, forget it, but if this is true it is an extremely worrying sign of what the hell ‘they’ are up to ‘playing’ with ‘dark matter’ and leaks of satanic forces…

By Melissa Dykes

Shiva statue at CERN

Many have already pointed out how strange (or absolutely fitting but in a chilling way) it is that they decided to put up a statue of Nataraj, the dancing form of the Lord Shiva that some have called the “dance of destruction,” outside of the large hadron collider CERN.

You can listen to Brave New World author Aldous Huxley explain the symbolism of that statue here.

Now ask yourself why they are allowing bizarre occultic dance opera performances inside the collider itself.

Guess searching for that God particle is so important they would build a multi-billion-dollar facility but take time out in their scientific pursuits for… performance art?

Even if you are not inclined to believe there is anything conspiratorial going on at CERN, you have to admit… at the very least, this is really, really bizarre.

Source*

Related Topics:

Is there a Link between CERN’s Large Hadron Collider and Recent Earthquakes?*

CERN: Connection between Particles and Influenced Human Consciousness*

Is There an Esoteric Agenda or Just an Agenda of the Elite!?

Europe’s Vindictive Privatization Plan for Greece*

Europe’s Vindictive Privatization Plan for Greece*

By Yanis Varoufakis

On July 12, the summit of eurozone leaders dictated its terms of surrender to Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who, terrified by the alternatives, accepted all of them. One of those terms concerned the disposition of Greece’s remaining public assets.

Eurozone leaders demanded that Greek public assets be transferred to a Treuhand-like fund – a fire-sale vehicle similar to the one used after the fall of the Berlin Wall to privatize quickly, at great financial loss, and with devastating effects on employment all of the vanishing East German state’s public property.

This Greek Treuhand would be based in – wait for it – Luxembourg, and would be run by an outfit overseen by Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, the author of the scheme. It would complete the fire sales within three years. But, whereas the work of the original Treuhand was accompanied by massive West German investment in infrastructure and large-scale social transfers to the East German population, the people of Greece would receive no corresponding benefit of any sort.

Euclid Tsakalotos, who succeeded me as Greece’s finance minister two weeks ago, did his best to ameliorate the worst aspects of the Greek Treuhand plan. He managed to have the fund domiciled in Athens, and he extracted from Greece’s creditors (the so-called troika of the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) the important concession that the sales could extend to 30 years, rather than a mere three. This was crucial, for it will permit the Greek state to hold undervalued assets until their price recovers from the current recession-induced lows.

Alas, the Greek Treuhand remains an abomination, and it should be a stigma on Europe’s conscience. Worse, it is a wasted opportunity.

The plan is politically toxic, because the fund, though domiciled in Greece, will effectively be managed by the troika. It is also financially noxious; because the proceeds will go toward servicing what even the IMF now admits is an unpayable debt. And it fails economically, because it wastes a wonderful opportunity to create home-grown investments to help counter the recessionary impact of the punitive fiscal consolidation that is also part of the July 12 summit’s “terms.”

It did not have to be this way. On June 19, I communicated to the German government and to the troika an alternative proposal, as part of a document entitled “Ending the Greek Crisis”:

The Greek government proposes to bundle public assets (excluding those pertinent to the country’s security, public amenities, and cultural heritage) into a central holding company to be separated from the government administration and to be managed as a private entity under the aegis of the Greek Parliament, with the goal of maximizing the value of its underlying assets and creating a home-grown investment stream. The Greek state will be the sole shareholder, but will not guarantee its liabilities or debt.

The holding company would play an active role readying the assets for sale. It would “issue a fully collateralized bond on the international capital markets” to raise €30-40 billion ($32-43 billion), which, “taking into account the present value of assets,” would “be invested in modernizing and restructuring the assets under its management.”

The plan envisaged an investment program of 3-4 years, resulting in “additional spending of 5% of GDP per annum,”

with current macroeconomic conditions implying

“a positive growth multiplier above 1.5,” which “should boost nominal GDP growth to a level above 5% for several years.”

This, in turn, would induce “proportional increases in tax revenues,” thereby “contributing to fiscal sustainability, while enabling the Greek government to exercise spending discipline without further shrinking the social economy.”

In this scenario, the primary surplus (which excludes interest payments) would “achieve ‘escape velocity’ magnitudes in absolute as well as percentage terms over time.” As a result, the holding company would “be granted a banking license” within a year or two, “thus turning itself into a full-fledged Development Bank capable of crowding in private investment to Greece and of entering into collaborative projects with the European Investment Bank.”

The Development Bank that we proposed would “allow the government to choose which assets are to be privatized and which not, while guaranteeing a greater impact on debt reduction from the selected privatizations.” After all, “asset values should increase by more than the actual amount spent on modernization and restructuring, aided by a program of public-private partnerships whose value is boosted according to the probability of future privatization.”

Our proposal was greeted with deafening silence. More precisely, the Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers and the troika continued to leak to the global media that the Greek authorities had no credible, innovative proposals on offer – their standard refrain. A few days later, once the powers-that-be realized that the Greek government was about to capitulate fully to the troika’s demands, they saw fit to impose upon Greece their demeaning, unimaginative, and pernicious Treuhand model.

At a turning point in European history, our innovative alternative was thrown into the dustbin. It remains there for others to retrieve.

Source*

Related Topics:

Wildfires Rage across Greece*

Hollande Calls for Transfer of Sovereignty to a United States of Europe*

The E.U.’s Dictatorship*

Greek Civil Servants: the EU is Like a Noose Strangling People’*

The Return of Feudalism

Global Pathocracy*

Police Killing Indigenous Americans at Astounding Rate*

Police Killing Indigenous Americans at Astounding Rate*

By Ruth McCambridge

A recent report by the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice reports that Native Americans are killed by police at a higher rate than any other ethnic group.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that Native Americans make up almost 2% of those killed by police though they are only 0.8% of the population. While police kill young black men more than any other group, they kill Native Americans at a higher rate.

As with African Americans, these killings are not isolated from the larger problem of police and societal violence, as this devastating article in Counterpunch discusses in the particular context of New Mexico, which in 2014 had the highest rate of police killing in the country.

That article reports that “according to a 2003 study by the New Mexico Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Native people experience ‘acts of ethnic intimidation; threats of physical violence, assaults, and other potential hate crimes’ as part of everyday life in border towns like Gallup, Farmington and Albuquerque.”

Chase Iron Eyes is an attorney with the Lakota People’s Law Project in South Dakota, which published a report called “Native Lives Matter” early this year. He says that the DOJ needs to address police violence against Native Americans.

“You can tell they’re shooting out of fear,” he said.

“If it’s not out of hate, for some reason they’re pulling the trigger before determining what the situation actually is. Something does need to happen. Somebody does need to take a look and we need help.” —Ruth McCambridge

Source*

Students participate in a “die in” outside Colorado’s state capitol in Denver in December 2014 as one of many nationwide in the wake of officer Darren Wilson shooting and killing Michael Brown in August 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. The subsequent national conversation about police brutality in the US has largely ignored the suffering of the Native American community at the hands of police. Michael Rieger/ZUMA

Related Topics:

Apache Stronghold Convoy nears DC for Desecration of Oak Flat*

Idle No More: New Shift to an Indigenous Reality

The Hopi Call for Water Rights

HOPI ELDERS STATEMENT *

Calling for Indigenous Sovereignty – support the ‘Idle No More’ movement

Mining and the Return of Indigenous Americans Ancestors’ Bones*

Indigenous View on Thanksgiving

Australia Still Stealing Indigenous Children*

Disappearing and Murdered: Canada’s Indigenous Women*

Indigenous Canadians Sue Government over White Adoptions*

Bush’s War on Terror in the Philippines*

Bush’s War on Terror in the Philippines*

A largely forgotten front in George W. Bush’s “global war on terror” has been the Philippines where military campaigns to crush various rebel groups and political activists have led to charges of extrajudicial killings, torture and other war crimes, reports Marjorie Cohn.

By Marjorie Cohn

After Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush declared the Philippines a second front in the war on terror (“Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines”). The Philippine government used this as an opportunity to escalate its war against Muslim separatists and other individuals and organizations opposing the policies of the government. The egregious human rights violations committed by the Philippine military and paramilitary forces are some of the most underreported atrocities in the media today.

The International Peoples’ Tribunal on Crimes against the Filipino People, held July 16-18 in Washington, D.C., drew upward of 300 people. An international panel of seven jurors heard two days of testimony from 32 witnesses, many of whom had been tortured, arbitrarily detained and forcibly evicted from their land.

Some testified to being present when their loved ones, including children, were gunned down by the Philippine military or paramilitary. I testified as an expert witness on international human rights violations in the Philippines, many of which were aided and abetted by the U.S. government.

Thirty-one-year-old Melissa Roxas was a community health adviser who went to the Philippines in 2009 to conduct health surveys in central Luzon, where people were dying from cholera and diarrhoea. In May of that year, 15 men in civilian clothes with high-powered rifles and wearing bonnets and ski masks forced her into a van and handcuffed and blindfolded her. They beat her, suffocated her and used other forms of torture on her until releasing her six days later. Roxas was continually interrogated and even threatened with death during her horrific torture. She was likely released because she is a U.S. citizen (she has dual citizenship).

But WikiLeaks revealed that although the U.S. Embassy was aware of Roxas’s torture and abduction, it did nothing to secure her release. Roxas convinced the Philippines Court of Appeals to grant her petition for writ of amparo, which confirmed she had been abducted and tortured. Nevertheless, the Philippine government refuses to mount an investigation into her ordeal. And although she lives in the United States, Roxas remains under surveillance.

“Whenever you work with communities,” Roxas testified,

“[the Philippine government] vilifies you as a member of the New Peoples Army [NPA].” Ironically, the Philippine military claimed it was the NPA, the armed wing of the Philippine Communist Party that abducted Roxas. Her physical and emotional scars remain. But, Roxas told the tribunal,

“I have the privilege of being in the United States,” unlike many other Filipino victims of human rights violations.

People and groups have been labelled “terrorists” by the Philippine government, the U.S. government and other countries at the behest of the U.S. government. The Philippine government engages in “red tagging” — political vilification. Targets are frequently human rights activists and advocates, political opponents, community organizers or groups struggling for national liberation. Those targeted for assassination are placed on the “order of battle” list.

The tribunal documented 262 cases of extrajudicial killings, 27 cases of forced disappearances, 125 cases of torture, 1,016 cases of illegal arrest, and 60,155 incidents of forced evacuation — many to make way for extraction by mining companies — from July 2010 to June 30 of this year by Philippine police, military, paramilitary or other state agents operating within the chain of command.

As part of the U.S. “war on terror,” in 2002 the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo government created the Oplan Bantay Laya, a counterinsurgency program modelled on U.S. strategies, ostensibly to fight communist guerrillas. After 9/11, the Bush administration gave Arroyo $100 million to fund the campaign in the Philippines.

A Filipino anti-war protester pelts a poster of George W. Bush and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo with tomatoes during a rally near the U.S. embassy in Manila.

The government of Benigno Aquino III continued the program in 2011 under the name Oplan Bayanihan. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, which is considered a war crime under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.

Oplan Bayanihan has led to tremendous repression, including large numbers of extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cruel treatment. Many civilians, including children, have been killed. Hundreds of members of progressive organizations were murdered by Philippine military and paramilitary death squads. Communities and leaders opposed to large-scale and invasive mining have been targeted. Even ordinary people with no political affiliation have not escaped the government’s campaign of terror.

One witness testified that although the counterinsurgency program was presented in the guise of “peace and development,” it was really an “operational guide to crush any resistance by those who work for social justice and support the poor and oppressed.”

Philippine military and paramilitary forces apparently rationalize their harsh treatment as necessary to maintain national security against people and organizations that seek to challenge, or even overthrow, the government.

However, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) says,

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification for torture.”

Both the Philippines and the United States are parties to the convention on torture.

A 14-year-old boy testified that as he was walking with family members to harvest their crops, “We were fired upon” by soldiers. “We said, ‘We are children, sir.’ ” But the soldiers killed his 8-year-old brother.

“I embraced him. The soldier said we were enemies. He was bleeding, the bullet exited in the back. He was dead when my mother saw him. We made an affidavit against the soldiers but it was dismissed by the prosecutor.”

Raymond Manalo was an eyewitness to kidnapping, torture, rape and forced disappearances. He testified that he saw civilians burned alive by soldiers and paramilitary forces. Two women were hit with wooden sticks and burned with a cigarette. Sticks were inserted into their genitals. The two women disappeared and have not been seen since. Although a case was filed, there has been no resolution.

Cynthia Jaramillo testified that her husband, Arnold, was one of nine unarmed men killed in a massive military operation that lasted almost a month. Although Arnold was a member of the NPA,

“They were not killed during a legitimate running battle,” she said.

“The state of their bodies when recovered clearly indicated the torture, wilful killing and desecration of the remains.”

Arnold was taken alive and killed at close range by multiple gunshot wounds, his internal organs lacerated, his jaws and teeth shattered. This violates the Geneva Conventions and constitutes illegal extrajudicial killing off the battlefield.

Continuing the Bush policy of the pivot to Asia-Pacific, as a counterweight to China, President Barack Obama enlisted the Aquino government last year to negotiate the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. While paying lip service to the Philippines’ maintaining sovereignty over the military bases in their country, it actually grants tremendous powers to U.S. forces.

A school funded by USAID and Philippine oil company Petron is seen in oil-rich Datu Piang, Maguindanao province, August 29, 2011. As an integral part of the American ‘War on Terror’ in the Philippines, USAID is used as soft power, spending nearly $40m a year on various projects in Mindanao, especially in conflict areas to address the root causes of terrorism and help alleviate poverty [Joe Penney/Al Jazeera]

The United States also wants to return to its two former military bases at Subic Bay and Clark, which it left in 1992. Those bases were critical to the U.S. imperial war in Vietnam. A U.S. return would violate the well-established right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) includes a prohibition on aiding and abetting liability for war crimes. An individual can be convicted of a war crime in the ICC if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission or attempted commission of the crime. This includes “providing the means for its commission.”

Between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. government furnished more than $507 million in military aid to the Philippine government, enabling it to commit war crimes. U.S. political and military leaders could be liable in the ICC for war crimes as aiders and abettors.

The United States planned and helped carry out the botched Mamasapano raid on Jan. 25, 2015. Dozens died when commandos from the Special Action Force of the Philippine National Police entered Mamasapano, where the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front had a stronghold.

The Obama administration had put a $5 million bounty on terror suspect Marwan’s head. According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, U.S. drones identified Marwan’s hiding place, led the commandos to it, and provided real-time management capacity for the operation off the battlefield. Marwan was killed but his finger was severed and disappeared. It then appeared at an FBI lab in the United States a few days later. DNA tests on the finger confirmed it was Marwan who had been killed.

A small-scale gold mine is seen at Panganason village in the resource-rich mountains of the Compostela Valley, August 22, 2011. A senior government official described Mindanao as a treasure trove, according to a leaked diplomatic cable sent from the American embassy in Manila in 2006. The cable also noted that up to 70 per cent of the Philippines’ mineral resources may be in Mindanao, and that multinational firms are already eyeing areas in Mindanao for possible projects [Joe Penney/Al Jazeera]

Murder, torture and cruel treatment constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions. Both the United States and the Philippines are parties to the Geneva Conventions. But although the Philippines is a party to the Rome Statute, the United States is not. In fact, the U.S. government offered the Philippine government $30 million in additional military aid to secure an agreement that U.S. soldiers in the Philippines would not be turned over to the ICC.

The jury in the tribunal found defendant Aquino and defendant Government of the United States of America, represented by Obama, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. “Indeed,” the panel wrote,

“the Prosecution has satisfied the burden of proving satisfactorily that the Defendants, in concert with each other, wilfully and feloniously committed gross and systematic violations of Filipino people’s basic human rights.”

The jurors decided,

“The killings and disappearances follow a pattern. The victims are vilified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and subjected to red tagging … after vilification, the victims are subjected to surveillance and then later killed or abducted.”

The panel noted,

“These are not random violations.” They are

“not isolated, but state-sponsored, part of a policy deliberately adopted to silence the critics of the government.” The jurors called it “state terror,” drawing an analogy with the military and authoritarian regimes in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, which were also supported by the United States.

“Terrorist tagging,” according to the jurors, is not just intended to define military targets but also to “sabotage the peace process between the National Democratic Front (NDF) and the Philippine government.”

In fact, Jose Maria Sison, the NDF’s chief political consultant, has been classified by the United States as a “person supporting terrorism.” Sison’s assets have been frozen and he is forbidden to travel, in violation of the ICCPR. The European Union’s second-highest court ruled to delist Sison as a “person supporting terrorism” and reversed a decision by member governments to freeze assets. Yet he remains on the U.S. terrorism list.

Moreover, the jury determined,

“the failure of the Philippine government through Defendant Aquino to identify, investigate and/or prosecute the perpetrators of these violations is among the contributing factors to the prevailing impunity in the Philippines.”

The jury urged the defendants to undertake “proper remedial measures to prevent the commission or continuance of such illegal and criminal acts, to repair the damages done to the Filipino people and their environment, compensate the victims and their families for their atrocities, and to rehabilitate the communities, especially indigenous communities that have been destroyed by the criminal acts of the Defendants.”

The panel concluded,

We also encourage the peoples of the world to seek redress, to pursue justice [under universal jurisdiction], and to transform this oppressive, exploitative and repressive global state of affairs exemplified by the experience and plight of the Filipino people, to challenge the international ‘rule of law,’ and to construct a global order founded on full respect for the rights of all peoples, everywhere.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Philippines Indigenous Excluded from Peace and Development Agenda*

The Treasure at the Heart of Iraq

Why the U.S. won’t get the Hell out of Afghanistan*

A New Puppet so the Cabal Can Rape Afghanistan of its Rare Earth Mineral Wealth*

A Court Win against BBC 9/11 Cover-up*

To Inspire Artists to Become Activists*

To Inspire Artists to Become Activists*

By John Vibes
While it is very rare for celebrities to speak out against the establishment, if this does happen then they are vilified in the media and will face many obstacles in their career as a result of their dissent. One of the most successful celebrities in the past few years to take a stand was Dave Chappelle.

His years in the entertainment industry had shown him the corruption that exists behind the scenes and how entertainers are used as pawns to advance the agenda of the ruling class.

When leaving his show and turning down a 20 million dollar deal he said,

“I was doing sketches that were funny but socially irresponsible. I felt I was deliberately being encouraged and I was overwhelmed” and

“I felt in a lot of instances I was deliberately being put through stress because when you’re a guy who generates money, people have a vested interest in controlling you.”

I cannot speak for Chappelle, but from an outsiders perspective it seems that he came to realize that the ideas that are put forth through the mainstream media are intended to make the population more disorderly, materialistic and obedient. It is possible that he began to see these kinds of degrading ideas in the scripts that he was getting from comedy central and wanted no parts in it, regardless of how much money they were offering him.

Now, years later Chappelle is promising to make a comeback, but this time around he wants to inspire other artists to become activists.

At a recent appearance, Chappelle told the audience that

The biggest enemy of an artist is apathy. A kid gets killed by the police and I buy a T-shirt and before I can wear that one, there’s another kid (killed) and I’m running out of closet space.”

After the appearance, Chappelle told the Associated Press that

I think it is important to be out now, but what’s going on in the world isn’t why I initially came back out. This is a very surprisingly emotionally charged time, so people like me, I think, are very relevant and necessary in sorting through all this information and emotional content, and when we are at our best, hopefully, we are doing a great service to many people.”

Artists truly do have a responsibility to be activists, as Chappelle alluded to in his comments, and hopefully his return will inspire other artists to follow in his footsteps and get involved in important issues.

Chappelle was even out in the protests last year at Ferguson, as he revealed in an appearance earlier this year:

Source*

Related Topics:

A Phone-Call Stops Interrupts Jim Carrey in his Take on the Illuminati*

MKUltra, Michael Jackson and Widespread Assassinations*

Cosby Lawyer: Accuser Is Lying Criminal*

Robin Williams Raised 50,000K for a Food Bank and Nobody Knew*

Actor-Producer Ben Affleck Furiously Defends Islam on TV*

As Actor and Singer Could be Charged for Treason, a Leak inside Sisi’s Office Take the Truth Further*

US Firms Claim Compensation for Nationalized Property in Cuba from Colonization*

US Firms Claim Compensation for Nationalized Property in Cuba from Colonization*

By Alexander Mosesov

While US companies are seeking compensation for the nationalization of their property, Cubans are ready to demand compensation for the years under the trade embargo.

Following the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Washington and Havana, US companies began seeking compensation for property nationalized by the Cuban government over 50 years ago, the president of the Public Diplomacy Council told Sputnik Tuesday. The US sanctions against Cuba were introduced after the 1959 nationalization of over $1 billion-worth of US assets on the island. In 1961, the United States broke off relations with Cuba and imposed a trade and travel embargo.

In December 2014, US President Barack Obama announced his administration would pursue a policy of normalizing relations with Cuba. On Monday, Washington and Havana officially re-established diplomatic relations by reopening embassies.

“We are already seeing claims by US companies that they should be compensated for nationalization decades ago of their businesses and property by the Cuban government,” Adam Clayton Powell III said, adding that claims by Cubans for US compensation for the trade embargo “would almost certainly be raised.”

“This [lifting the embargo] is enmeshed in US politics, involving Congress, which must approve it, and candidates for President, some of whom are critical of any closer ties to Havana,” Clayton Powell III said.

On Monday, the White House said that the mutual reopening of US-Cuban embassies does not abolish existing US restrictions on the island nation.

Source*

Related Topics:

‘US Employs Trojan Horse Strategy With Cuba’*

Cuba Insists US Drop Blockade Ahead of Embassy Reopening*

U.S. Refuses to Return Guantanamo to Cuba*

Cuba to Export Cancer Vaccine to U.S.*