229 Rabbi of Britain's oldest synagogue sacked for anti-Usury protest during Financial Crisis

Rabbi of Britain's oldest synagogue sacked for anti-Usury protest during Financial Crisis

(1) Rabbi of Britain's oldest synagogue sacked for anti-Usury protest during Financial Crisis
(2) Rabbi of East End synagogue sacked over protest against banks' high interest rates
(3) City financial interests behind Rabbi's sacking
(4) Bomb Iran call by Daniel Pipes in Jerusalem Post
(5) Will Obama opt for War on Iran? - Stephen Sniegoski
(6) Elie Wiesel ad in N.Y. Times calls for Iran sanctions
(7) Israel defrauded Palestinian workers of $2 billion in deductions for non-existent welfare benefits
(8) Australian woman arrested by Israeli forces
(9) When Israel joins NATO

(1) Rabbi of Britain's oldest synagogue sacked for anti-Usury protest during Financial Crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8311904.stm

Page last updated at 08:43 GMT, Saturday, 17 October 2009 09:43 UK

Rabbi quits job over City protest

By John McManus
BBC News

The rabbi of Britain's oldest synagogue has stood down after a row over his part in a demonstration against the role of banks in the financial crisis.

Rabbi Nathan Asmoucha allowed a protest march to begin at the Bevis Marks synagogue in the City of London.

He was recruited by Bevis Marks - built in 1701 - last year and was credited with creating a good community spirit.

But senior synagogue member said the march had upset members with links to the financial services industry.

Political campaign

Mr Asmoucha has now signed a compromise agreement, whereby he stands down as rabbi and agrees to move out of the accommodation provided for the postholder by next year.

A statement issued on Friday evening by the congregation's chief executive Howard Miller confirmed Rabbi Asmoucha's departure, and thanked him for his work in the Jewish community.

The synagogue's elders initially suspended the rabbi and brought disciplinary measures against him on the grounds that he should not have participated in a political campaign without their permission.

In addition, it was alleged that he had jeopardised the synagogue's security by allowing protesters inside without allowing adequate supervision.

Reverend Dr Gerry Barlow, who represents faith workers in the Unite union and has been advising Rabbi Asmoucha, said although there was a real security issue for Jewish buildings, the executive board of the congregation overreacted.

"Allowing the march to start from Bevis Marks was an incredibly good act of faith with other religions," he said.

'Insight'

Sam Dias, 77, who works as a warden at Bevis Marks, said 70 people turned up for the protest.

"I thought they were nice people, very polite. Some came out saying they were very impressed with the synagogue and how it had given them an insight into Judaism," he said.

He believes the protest may have angered some members who work in the financial industry and said most of the congregation at Bevis Marks was "bitterly upset" about Rabbi Asmoucha's departure.

He doubted the synagogue would get another rabbi, adding: "This may be the end of the road for the congregation after this debacle."

He said Bevis Marks worshippers were now pressing for a meeting with senior members of the congregation, which they hoped would take place in the next few months.

Several elders connected with Bevis Marks have refused to comment further.

(2) Rabbi of East End synagogue sacked over protest against banks' high interest rates

Rabbi quits job over City protest

Rabbi Nathan Asmoucha

http://thethirdestate.net/2009/08/progressive-rabbi-hauled-over-the-coals-in-move-that-could-stoke-anti-semitism/

Progressive Rabbi Hauled Over The Coals In Move That Could Stoke Anti-Semitism

THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BY DAVE ON AUGUST 10, 2009  

The rabbi of Britain’s oldest synagogue, Bevis Marks in the East End of London, has been suspended over his participation in a protest against banks charging high interest rates. Full detials of the story can be found at The JC here.

The rabbi Natan Asmoucha was helping lead the start of London Citizens anti-usury campaign – a combined effort across the atlantic to legislate against exploitative lending.

‘10% is Enough!’ Youtube Video

Dr. Maurice Glasman defended rabbi Nathan’s actions, arguing that, “Any anti-usury campaign without involvement from the Jewish community could quickly turn anti-semitic”. However, many in the synagogue believe that the elders have leapt upon the first excuse to settle old feuds, save money and kick out a highly thought of leader whom they believe to be displaying ‘activist tendencies’.

The appeal process continues.

(3) City financial interests behind Rabbi's sacking

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/21091/bevis-marks-rabbi-resigns

Bevis Marks Rabbi resigns

By Jessica Elgot, October 19, 2009

The rabbi of Bevis Marks has resigned amid continuing tensions at Britain’s oldest synagogue.

Rabbi Nathan Asmoucha was suspended by leaders of the Spanish and Portugese Jews' Congregation nearly three months ago.

The rabbi, who came from Zimbabwe to the City of London synagogue two years ago, was due to face a disciplinary hearing following his participation in an interfaith demonstration against high bank interest rates, organised by the charity London Citizens.

The row began after Rabbi Asmoucha allowed the demonstration to leave from the synagogue apparently without “authority from or prior notification” from the community’s spiritual head Rabbi Abraham Levy or the Community Security Trust.

Some reports say that the congregation's executive, the mahamad, believed this to be a high security risk.

Other sources said that there was concern because of the City financial interests of the leaders of the congregation.

Many members of the congregation are said to be bitterly upset by Rabbi Asmoucha’s departure and intend to stage a vote of no confidence in the mahamad.

The congregation's chief executive Howard Miller confirmed Rabbi Asmoucha's departure.

Last updated: 2:39pm, October 22 2009

(4) Bomb Iran call by Daniel Pipes in Jerusalem Post

From: Mark MacCuish <markmaccuish@hotmail.com> Date: 09.02.2010 01:54 PM

> How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran
> Daniel Pipes -- The Jerusalem Post (Israel)
> http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=167618

Regarding the "bomb Iran" article from Mr. Pipes, I have to ask one thing:

Why is it everyone is so supportive of an attack on Iran, yet NO ONE ever talks about the consequences of an attack ?

It's as if American's and Israeli's live in some TV/Hollywood/Video game:

Bomb Iran. Iran loses. America wins. GAME OVER.

This is certainly not the case. An attack on Iran is what analysts call a "game changer"

The world would never be the same. The consequences of an attack on Iran would be catastrophic to say the least. From millions affected from the fall out, from the explosion in the price of oil (due to the straights of Honruz being closed), to the aftermath of an attack, which would see Iran rebuild and create a nuclear weapon for deterrence, when the previous program was for civilian purposes.

It's funny Mr. Pipes fails to address that Iran is guaranteed it's rights to make civilian energy as a signatory of the NPT (something Israel is not). Iran does not have nuclear weapons -- yet Israel does. Iran has allowed HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of inspections, most of which were random, and never once has the IAEA produced one paper saying there is proof of nuclear weapons.

The sheer stupidity, arrogance and hypocrisy that Mr. Pipes is speaking of boggles the mind. So why does he say such stupid things? Is it because he is a Jew and only wants America to attack Iran to protect Israel ?

Does he not realize the devastating consequences of what an attack on Iran would do?

Of course not.

(5) Will Obama opt for War on Iran? - Stephen Sniegoski

From: chris lenczner <chrispaul@netpci.com> Date: 08.02.2010 11:26 PM

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/07/will-obama-opt-for-war-on-iran/

Friends,

Two articles, one by anti-war conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and the other by neoconservative Daniel Pipes, deal with the issue of Obama moving toward war on Iran for political reasons. In “Will Obama Play the War Card?,” Patrick Buchanan points out that this option is certainly a political temptation for Obama especially since Congress is pushing him in that direction. Buchanan cites Congress’ effort to impose very stiff sanctions on refined petroleum exports to Iran as a move toward war.

[On January 28, 2010, the U.S. Senate passed by voice vote the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009” (S. 2799). The bill now goes to conference committee to be reconciled with a similar bill from the House of Representatives, the “Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act” (H.R. 2194), which passed the House in December 2009. Because of the similarity of the two bills and the strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress, a final bill incorporating the essence of the Senate bill is almost guaranteed to be passed by both houses of Congress. The Obama administration has expressed objections, but there is no indication that Obama would dare to veto the final bill—and given the overwhelming congressional support, any presidential veto could be easily over-ridden.]

“Senate bill 2799,” Buchanan writes, “would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes.” He argues that “cutting off a country’s oil or gas is a proven path to war.” And he cites the examples of Japan attacking the US in 1941 after the US embargo on oil supplies and Israel attacking Egypt in 1967 after Nasser threatened to close the Straits of Tiran through which Israel received 95 percent of its oil. While the implementation of the current sanctions would not cause Iran to attack the United States, it certainly would increase tensions and help to lead to war. Iran will certainly try to get around the sanctions and any American naval efforts to prevent gasoline from entering Iran could precipitate war.

 “The Senate,” Buchanan writes, “is trying to force Obama’s hand, box him in, restrict his freedom of action, by making him impose sanctions that would cut off the negotiating track and put us on a track to war.”

Buchanan also hits the mark by pointing out that “U.S. interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West. But if that is our goal, the Senate bill, and a House version that passed 412 to 12, seem almost diabolically perverse.” The sanctions obviously will tend to unify the country behind the regime. Of course, the neocon/Israel goal is not to bring in the reformers—who also tend to support the Palestine resistance and seek to develop nuclear power—but to destabilize the country by war. This can best be achieved by keeping the demonized Ahmadinejad in power.

In the second article, “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran,” neocon Daniel Pipes naturally encourages Obama to opt for war. “He [Obama] needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

“Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.”

Pipes candidly admits that the imposition of “crippling” sanctions on Iran would not contribute to a peaceful settlement but would help to put the United States “on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war.”

Pipes correctly observes that “Obama’s attempts to ‘reset’ his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics.” There are no simply no easy answers for the economic problems that beset America.

Now Pipes is obviously not out to help Obama, but what he says about the political benefits of war are certainly true. If Republican Party leaders were half-way intelligent, they would realize that pushing the country to war is not in their political interest. But the Republican Party is not called the “stupid party” for nothing, and it is in the thrall of the neoconservatives—at least indirectly, since the neocons control Murdoch’s Fox News and strongly influence the popular right-wing radio broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh. Republicans already did irreparable damage to their party by giving whole-hearted support for the war on Iraq, so the Republicans are quite likely to snatch defeat from the hands of victory.

Pipes presents something on the order of the spurious claim of Saddam’s super dangerous WMD to justify the need for a US bombing attack on Iran. “Eventually, they [Iran] could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American’s friends and enemies.” Of course, an Iranian electromagnetic pulse attack is highly theoretical. A high altitude explosion would cause damage to electronic communication devices (a nuclear atmospheric test explosion 800 miles from Hawaii in 1962 knocked out a small percentage of the island’s civilian electronic devices) but that it would disrupt all communications devices to the point of preventing a devastating counter strike is highly questionable. Perhaps China, Russia, and the US possess the capability of developing a weapon that could deliver a knockout blow that would prevent nuclear retaliation (though tests to determine this with certitude would seem almost impossible to conduct), but the likelihood that Iran could do this or would dare to take such a risk would seem very remote compared to threats from other countries against the US that would increase every time the US made an unprovoked attack on another country—the more the US engages in allegedly preventive wars, the more likely it is for a fearful nuclear power to launch a preventive war against the US.

Despite the fantasy aspect of an Iranian electromagnetic pulse threat, it is reasonable to believe that such a claim, if publicized widely, could resonate with a substantial proportion of the American public and help to cause the US to launch a preventive war. In fact, this would seem to be the element that is currently lacking in the existing war propaganda —the American people have not yet been made to believe that Iran really threatens the US homeland.

A previous essay of mine provides similar arguments:

“Strengthening US Defenses in the Gulf as a Step Toward War”
http://america-hijacked.com/2010/02/01/strengthening-us-defenses-in-the-gulf-as-a-step-toward-war/

Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/

Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Cabal-Neoconservative-National-Interest/dp/1932528172/ref=pd

Best,
Stephen Sniegoski

(6) Elie Wiesel ad in N.Y. Times calls for Iran sanctions

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 08.02.2010 06:06 AM

WIESEL NOBEL LAUREATE AD URGES IRAN SANCTIONS

February 7, 2010

http://michaelsantomauro.blogspot.com/2010/02/wiesel-ad-urges-iran-sanctions.html

Elie Wiesel and usual pro-Israel suspects, Dershowitz and Jon Voight (partially obscured in background) protest Ahmadinejad UN speech (AP)

Elie Wiesel’s much ballyhooed full page N.Y. Times ad came out today. It offers strong support for the Iranian reform movement and denounces the clerical regime. The only purely political stance it advocates is sanctions. There is no mention of force. As close as the statement gets is:

Concrete measures much be taken to protect this new nation of dissidents so that their sacrifice is not…in vain.

This statement echoes the current Israeli policy which advocates punishing sanctions to be followed, when they fail, presumably by calls for a military attack. I presume that in a few months we’ll see another ad by Wiesel with those Nobel laureates foolish enough to sell the spirit of their medal for a mess of porridge and a few bunker bombs.

There is one strange notion in the text of this ad. It calls on Presidents Obama, Sarkozy, Medvedev, and Gordon Brown and Chancellor Merkel to “put an end to this outrage.” How are they supposed to do this? And why would Wiesel presume that it would be a good thing for them to do so? This statement could easily be construed as an incipient call for intervention in Iran’s internal afffairs. Certainly, the next step would be an ad with such a call for regime change or military attack.

Another element in the rhetoric to which I object: there’s a distinct notion of western noblesse oblige about the whole thing. Iran’s regime has “now attained new levels of horrror” with “thousands arrested…tortured, raped, and killed, many by hanging.” Sounds pretty bad doesn’t it? Till you stop to think, isn’t there another country in the region which kills on a far larger scale and with far more technological dexterity? One that is currently under consideration by the UN for a war crimes referral to the International Criminal Court. Hmmm, who could that be? And could it be an accident that Elie Wiesel, friend of Dershowitz and Hagee, might have an ulterior motive in pointing to Iran as the supreme menace to world peace?

To be clear, this post is not a defense of Iran’s current regime. Anyone who reads this blog knows that it is not my purpose.

A few interesting notes about the signatories and those who are missing. First, almost all signers are scientists and I’m not sure why we should trust a scientist speaking about Iranian political affairs any more than Iran analysts, academics and Iranian activists, almost all of whom speak of sanctions as counter-productive. Second, Desmond Tutu signed an earlier Wiesel ad which did not call for sanctions. He is missing from this ad. Also missing are Israel’s latest laureate, Ada Yonath, who pointedly attacked the Israeli Occupation the very day she won her award. It must’ve taken some courage for her to resist the urge to sign. Predictably among the signers is perhaps the most extreme right-winger among them, Orthodox pro-settler extremist, Robert Aumann. Other than Betty Williams, Jody Williams and Wole Soyinka, there are no Peace or Literature laureates at all. This includes Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (missing). Missing also is the Iranian Peace Prize laureate, Shirin Abadi. Missing also is Alan Dershowitz, who never won a Nobel. Maybe they’ll have to create a new category for pro-Israel propagandist.

Interestingly, Wiesel also spearheaded an earlier letter after the June Iranian elections that was formulated to support Ebadi. That letter too contained 44 signatories. But not the same 44. In fact, 15 of the original signers are missing in the current ad, which leads me to believe that most, if not all, decided not the join this effort because they disagreed with it.

M.J. Rosenberg reports at Huffington Post that the Senate approved an Aipac-inspired Iran sanctions bill with only FIVE MINUTES of debate and only three senators on the floor! How’s that for democracy?

(7) Israel defrauded Palestinian workers of $2 billion in deductions for non-existent welfare benefits

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 05.02.2010 03:12 PM

Israeli report claims $2 billion stolen from Palestinians

February 4, 2010

By Jonathon Cook | February 4, 2010

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=259113

Nazareth – Over the past four decades Israel has defrauded Palestinians working inside Israel of more than US $2 billion by deducting from their salaries contributions for welfare benefits to which they were never entitled, Israeli economists have alleged.

A new report, "State Robbery," to be published later this month, says the "theft" continued even after the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994 and part of the money was supposed to be transferred to a special fund on behalf of the workers.

According to information supplied by Israeli officials, most of the deductions from the workers' pay were invested in infrastructure projects in the Palestinian territories – a presumed reference to the massive state subsidies accorded to the settlements.

Nearly 50,000 Palestinians from the West Bank are working in Israel – following the easing of restrictions on entering Israel under the "economic peace" promised by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister – and continue to have such contributions docked from their pay.

Complicit in the deception, the report adds, is the Histadrut, the Israeli labor federation, which levies a monthly fee on Palestinian workers, even though they are not entitled to membership and are not represented in labor disputes.

"This is a clear-cut case of theft from Palestinian workers on a grand scale," said Shir Hever, a Jerusalem-based economist and one of the authors of the report. "There are no reasons for Israel to delay in returning this money either to the workers or to their beneficiaries."

The deductions started being made in 1970, three years after the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories began, when Palestinian workers started to enter Israel in significant numbers, most of them employed as manual laborers in the agriculture and construction industries.

Typically, the workers lose a fifth of their salary in deductions that are supposed to cover old age payments, unemployment allowance, disability insurance, child benefits, trade union fees, pension fund, holiday and sick pay, and health insurance. In practice, however, the workers are entitled only to disability payments in case of work accidents and are insured against loss of work if their employer goes bankrupt.

According to the report, compiled by two human rights groups, the Alternative Information Centre and Kav La'Oved, only a fraction of the total contributions – less than eight percent – was used to award benefits to Palestinian workers. The rest was secretly transferred to the finance ministry.

The Israeli organizations assess that the workers were defrauded of at least $2.25 billion in today's prices, in what they describe as a minimum and "very conservative" estimate of the misappropriation of the funds. Such a sum represents about 10 percent of the PA's annual budget.

The authors also note that they excluded from their calculations two substantial groups of Palestinian workers – those employed in the Israeli settlements and those working in Israel's black economy – because figures were too hard to obtain.

Hever said the question of whether the bulk of the deductions – those for national insurance – had been illegally taken from the workers was settled by the Israeli High Court of Justice back in 1991. The judges accepted a petition from the flower growers' union that the government should return about $1.5 million in contributions from Palestinian workers in the industry.

"The legal precedent was set then and could be used to reclaim the rest of these excessive deductions," he said.

At the height of Palestinian participation in the Israeli labor force, in the early 1990s, as many as one in three Palestinian workers was dependent on an Israeli employer.

Israel continued requiring contributions from Palestinian workers after the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, arguing that it needed to make the deductions to ensure Israeli workers remained competitive.

However, the report notes that such practices were supposed to have been curbed by the Oslo process. Israel agreed to levy an "equalization tax" – equivalent to the excessive contributions paid by Palestinians – a third of which would be invested in a fund that would later be available to the workers.

In fact, however, the Israeli state comptroller, a government watchdog official, reported in 2003 that only about a tenth of the money levied on the workers had actually been placed in the fund.

The Finance Ministry has admitted that most of the money taken from the workers was passed to Israeli military authorities in the Palestinian territories to pay for "infrastructure programs." Hannah Zohar, the director of Kav La'Oved who co-authored the report, said she believed that the ministry was actually referring to the construction of illegal settlements.

The report is also highly critical of the Histadrut, Israel's trade union federation, which it accuses of grabbing "a piece of the pie" by forcing Palestinian workers to pay a monthly "organizing fee" to the union since 1970, even though Palestinians are not entitled to membership.

Despite the Histadrut's agreement with its Palestinian counterpart in 2008 to repay the fees, only 20 percent was returned, leaving $30 million unaccounted for.

The Histadrut was also implicated in another "rip-off," Hever said. It agreed in 1990 to the Israeli construction industry's demand that Palestinian workers pay an extra two percent tax to promote the training of recent Jewish immigrants, most of them from the former Soviet Union.

Hever said that in effect the Palestinian laborers were required to "subsidize the training of workers meant to replace them." The funds were never used for the stated purpose but were mainly issued as grants to the families of Israeli workers.

In one especially cynical use of the funds, the report claims, the money was spent on portable stoves for soldiers involved in Israel's three-week attack on Gaza last year.

In response, the Finance Ministry called the report "incorrect and misleading," and the Histadrut said it was "full of lies." However, neither provided rebuttals of the report's allegations or its calculations.

Hever said the government body responsible for making the deductions, the department of payments, had initially refused to divulge any of its figures, but had partly relented after some statistics were made available through leaks from its staff.

Assef Saeed, a senior official in the Palestinian Authority's Labor Ministry, said the PA was keen to discuss the issue of the deductions, but that talks were difficult because of the lack of contacts between the two sides.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. A version of this article originally appeared in The National, printed in Abu Dhabi.

(8) Australian woman arrested by Israeli forces

Posted February 8, 2010 06:26:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812654.htm?section=australia

Israeli security forces have made an incursion into a Palestinian city to arrest two women, one an Australian, who both belong to an organisation protesting against Israel's West Bank barrier.

Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib says the arrest of Australian Bridgette Chappell and Spaniard Ariadna Jove Marti in the city of Ramallah violates interim peace accords that give Palestinians self-rule in parts of the West Bank.

An Israeli army spokesman said the two women "were known to have been involved in illegal riots that interfered with Israeli security operations", apparently in reference to the protests against the barrier.

Both in their 20s, the women are activists with the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement (ISM), established in 2001 to mobilise international support for Palestinian activism against Israeli occupation.

"They were arrested in Ramallah on the grounds of staying in Israel illegally," the military spokesman said, referring to tourist visas the pair received on entering Israel, which controls access to the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad last week urged Israel to end incursions in West Bank areas which according to arrangements established under the Oslo peace process fall under full Palestinian control.

Ryan Olander, an ISM activist who shared an apartment with the two women, said about 12 members of the Israeli security forces arrested the pair in the early hours of the morning.

Palestinian and international activists say Israel, apparently concerned about plans for wider demonstrations, has stepped up a campaign of arrests against protest organisers in the last two months.

The Israeli authorities deported a leading ISM activist last month, the organisation said. Eva Novakova, from the Czech Republic, had also been arrested in Ramallah.

Protesters stage weekly demonstrations in various Palestinian villages against Israel's construction of West Bank walls and fences that have denied them access to their land.

Israel says the barrier, which the World Court has deemed illegal over its construction in occupied land, has stopped suicide bombers in the past and can be removed in the future if the security situation improves.

- Reuters

(9) When Israel joins NATO

From: Tony Ryan <tonyryan43@gmail.com> Date: 08.02.2010 12:00 AM

Galal Nassar; uruknet.info; 7 February 2010

http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=62943&s2=05

Comment by Tony Ryan

A disingenuous article or the words of a prophet?

Zionist Israel has been all but directing NATO's operations since its inception. That Arab powers did not comment is hardly surprising considering the passive collaboration of most. But the overt western cultural gravitation was to be expected following Turkey's move away from NATO and subsequent alliance with Russia.

What does not seem to be seeping through to geopolitical journalists (isn't that an oxymoron?) is that all of this global politics is a game played by distant national and international elites, not by the peoples. This is a highly unstable situation, especially as most Europeans are exasperated by the EU bureaucracy, and it would only take one nation to sack its government and withdraw to set off a chain reaction, and NATO would cease to exist. In almost all countries, around 70% of ordinary citizens eye current developments with apprehension, increasingly aware that they are observing the build up to a permanent WWIII.

NATO is a psychotic joke. It has nothing to do with North Atlantic mutual defence and everything to do with American global hegemony and tyranny, with Zionists barricaded in the wheelhouse. A large minority of Americans are not comfortable with this. Elsewhere in the world citizens are becoming restless, wanting to know why their own political representatives are sitting on the fence. In Australia, around 80% of the electorate is alienated by their government's behaviour, and 70% believe something should be done to restore sanity and democracy.

However, our own Kevin Rudd is preoccupied on Mount Canberra, repeatedly casting spells at the skies and calling down the wrath of global warming; a vision made sadly comedic by his raincoat and umbrella, and by his angry distraction at the delighted cries of farmers as rains fall, breaking a 105 year old record.

When he comes down from the mountain he just might find the locks on his prime ministerial palace have been changed.