Le site Bellaciao: coloré, multiple, ou le meilleur cotoie fort heureusement le pire, mélangé, bizarre, picabien et dadaîste, explorant toutes sortes de registres et de régimes rhétoriques, drole et polémiqueur, surréaliste: rencontre d'un parapluie et d'une machine à coudre sur une table de dissection, têtes de Lénine sur le clavier d'un piano Steinway ou Bosendorfer...
Senal en Vivo
with Bellaciao
Bellaciao hosted by
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !
Bellaciao  mobile version   |   Home  |   About us   |   Donation  |   Links  |   Contact  |   Search
Iran Top Secret: Everything You Know Is Wrong

by : TJM
Sunday May 28, 2006 - 03:35


What if everything that you think that you know for certain about Iran is wrong? After 27 years of status quo, why do you believe that the Brits and the Yanks really want to get rid of the Islamic regime in Iran? Is it possible that the oft-stated slogan of “regime change in Iran” is cloaking a naked, 27-year-old status-quo truth? Is it possible that the British and American emperors are wearing no clothes?

Recent warnings about an impending bombing of Iran may be correct. However, a foreign bombing of Iran will only strengthen the status-quo regime in Iran - just as the explosive events of September 11, 2001 strengthened the status-quo regime in America. U.K. and U.S. support for an insurgency in Iran does exist; however, it is minimal at best.

We may want to feel sorry for U.S. President George Bush. He may be ill-advised on Iran. However, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair knows better. Blair knows that the Brits have initiated, encouraged, and financed the Muslim Brotherhood and related terrorist groups in dividing and conquering the Middle East to achieve Western economic and geopolitical goals for more than 100 years - especially in Iran. Yes, the Brits, the Yanks, and the rest of the West secretly support the Mullahs’ regime in Iran - whether you know it or not.

The not-so-secret history of Iran shows that Brits, Yanks, Russians, and others used the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the Shah and to install the Mullahs as leaders of Iran in 1979. In addition, the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the West have symbiotically supported the Mullahs as leaders of Iran until this very day. Simply said, since Saddam Hussein is gone, and since Osama bin Laden supposedly cannot be found, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are the best enemies that money can buy. The proof for this assertion is 27 years of naked status-quo truth in Iran. (Believe your eyes — not your ears.)

If you do not know the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its symbiotic control of the Middle East with and by the West, then you may allow the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the West to repeat this history for you. Current British, American, Israeli, and Western policy toward Iran may be a quasi-counterproductive, unmitigated farce. If Western leaders truly want to stop or get rid of the crazy Mullahs, then why are they doing and saying all the right things to maintain and to increase the power of the Mullahs in Iran?

What are the Top Secret Western tactics to maintain rule by the Mullahs in Iran? How are the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the West delaying and preventing regime change in Iran? The answers may be Top Secret, but most of the answers are also hidden in plain sight.

#1) Bush & Cheney say that they might invade or nuke Iran. Oh, no! However, what is the perfectly logical result of draconian actions seriously contemplated by two of the least-popular, most-hated leaders in the history of America and the modern world? The people of Iran and the people of the world rush to the Mullahs’ defense. Pretty slick, eh?

#2) Brits, Yanks, and Israelis say that they might bomb Iran to destroy Iran’s nuke sites. Iran says that they are not making nuclear weapons, and U.S. intel officials say that Iran will not have a viable nuke for up to 10 years. What is the logical result? The people of Iran and the people of the world rush to the Mullahs’ defense. Pretty slick, eh?

#3) Bush, Blair, and Europeans say that they will rely on ineffective diplomacy and U.N. sanctions to deter the crazy Mullahs from developing nukes. However, except for what Valerie Plame was investigating before Cheney & Bush stopped her, there is no clear proof of this. The Israelis say that they have proof - but where’s the beef (or the pork)? Russians, Chinese, and others are opposed to U.N. sanctions against Iran. What is the result? More nations and more people are now supporting the Mullahs. Pretty slick, eh?

#4) Bush, Blair, and others are heavily influenced by oil interests. Continued chaos in the Middle East and in other oil producing areas (the only places where chaos seems to occur) maintains high oil prices by decreasing and threatening supplies. Without Saddam Hussein and currently curtailed Iraqi oil exports and without Iranian President Ahmadinejad and now threatened Iranian oil exports, the price of oil would be substantially lower. British Petroleum, Exxon, and others get richer. You get poorer. If you controlled BP, Exxon, and other big oil companies (and the naked-truth-challenged British and American emperors), then who would you want to rule Iraq and Iran for more than 27 years? Pretty slick, eh?

#5) More than 75% of Iranians oppose the Mullahs’ continued rule (as per U.S. intel expert John Loftus and the Mullahs’ own polls). If the West really wanted to get rid of the Mullahs, then having 75% of Iranians on your side might be the only geopolitical card necessary to win a “Revolution for Dummies.” Since 1979, have those super-savvy Brits and those superpower Yanks used these overwhelming gambling odds to win the supposedly-sought jackpot in Iran? No??? If the odds are so in favor of winning, then losing the jackpot in Iran for 27 years may have been very difficult for the Brits and the Yanks. Pretty slick, eh?

#6) There are no competent, prominent Iranian leaders to lead a new revolution for regime change in Iran. The Mullahs, Western bankers, and others stole all the money of the exiled son of the former king of Iran. One prominent prospective opposition leader (a satellite TV program host) promised to fly into Tehran in 2004 with a flotilla of 50 planes - at which time the crazy Mullahs would surely flee Iran in fright (he didn’t - and they didn’t). Prospective Iranian opposition leaders spend much of their time publicly and privately bickering and squabbling about who will lead “regime change” (forget “revolution” - that’s too difficult). These and other fear-and-confusion, divide-and-conquer tactics are privately promoted by the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the West. Pretty slick, eh?

#7) There are viable, promising, but NOT prominent opposition leaders who are ready, willing, and able to lead a new revolution and regime change in Iran (by and for the people of Iran - NOT for the West). An indigenously-led regime change strategy would be more effective, more probable, more permanent, less fatal, less destructive, and less costly - with none of disastrous-for-most geopolitical and economic consequences of an attack on Iran by the Brits, Yanks and/or Israelis. However, as you may know, war is a racket.

Supposedly due to item #6, neither the Brits nor Yanks nor Israelis will talk to any of the real anti-Mullah Iranian opposition leaders (who can marshal upwards of 500,000 effective indigenous fighters against the regime in Iran). The Mullahs and their secret Western supporters are prepared for a foreign attack. However, they are not prepared for a regime-changing revolution by substantial numbers - led by Iranians from within Iran.

Bush and Blair talk about U.N. sanctions (counterproductive). They also talk about a military attack on Iran (also counterproductive). But do Bush and Blair talk about issues that will productively motivate a new revolution and regime change in Iran (by and for the people of Iran)? What did you say? No??? Pretty slick, eh?

If this analysis is correct, then solutions to the crisis with Iran may be simple. If the people of Iran truly favor regime change, then let them do it - by and for themselves (with a little help from their friends). The people of Iran have more than 500,000 fighters in and around Iran who are ready, willing, and able to achieve a new revolution and regime change in Iran - if only the West would get out of the way. The Mullahs and their secret supporters in the West are prepared for a foreign attack, but they are not prepared for a revolution - by and for the people of Iran. After the revolution, Iranians can develop their infrastructure in whatever way they see fit (even with nuclear electric power - if the people so choose).

Many Muslims and predominantly-Muslim nations are secretly frightened and embarrassed by mad Mahmoud and the crazy Mullahs. Muslim nations will support the people of Iran in getting rid of a threat and an embarrassment to the Muslim world. Jews and Israelis are long-time allies of the Persian people. An Israeli interest in regime change is clear. Jews and Israelis will gladly support the people of Iran. Christians and predominantly-Christian nations do not hate Muslims or the people of Iran. In addition, most Iranians love Americans and what Americans represent. Christians too will help the people of Iran. Russians, Chinese, Japanese, French, Italians, and Germans just want their commercially reasonable contracts to be honored. After a new revolution and regime change in Iran, the people of Iran will be more than happy to honor these commercially reasonable contracts.

Bush and Blair get what they SAY that they want: Regime change in Iran. But they will not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They will not be able to say that they want regime change - while doing everything possible to delay and prevent it. Not so paradoxically, bombing Iran would help the Mullahs - just like 9/11 helped Bush & Cheney to solidify political control over America. Others who warn about an impending attack on Iran miss this point. Their warnings about a catastrophic bombing of Iran may not only support the Mullahs but also support Bush and Blair - if any such bombing is less than catastrophic.

Those who are controlling the Iran game have kept the natural allies of regime change in Iran from uniting. If they really knew what was going on, then the Left and the Right, and anti-Iraq-War and pro-Iraq-War factions might all support a new revolution and regime change in Iran. But the slick tactics of the Mullahs’ witting and not-so-witting secret supporters in the West have kept them all apart.

Look again at what the UK and US emperors are saying about Iran. Are those really Iran-regime-changing clothes that you see? Or, after 27 years, do you now see the naked truth?

Since the West cannot lead a new revolution for regime change in Iran, if the West truly wants to get rid of the crazy Mullahs (despite all evidence to the contrary), then the West should either follow the people of Iran — or get out of the way.

Leave a comment
Print this article

Commentaires de l'article

> Iran Top Secret: Everything You Know Is Wrong
Friday June 2 - 01:10 - Posted by c6192e862208d5d3...


You are brilliant love your blog keep informing us.

your No. 1 fan

P. A

> Iran Top Secret: Everything You Know Is Wrong
Saturday June 3 - 19:34 - Posted by 4185d27fb81acb19...

I believe u still living in yr own dream, the writer has difficulty with the reality, the Iranian people r very proud with their system, stop this crab, look inwards, Look at poor America where at leaqst 40 millions of them living below the provity line, look at American debt, America borrow at least 4 to 5 millions in each min see the national debt clock.

> Iran Top Secret: Everything You Know Is Wrong
Sunday June 4 - 21:28 - Posted by e378fdaf8bd0d5a7...



Mainstream Mum on Iran Letter

Iran’s Ahmadinejad quizzes George Bush on human rights, Sept. 11 investigation, Christianity, Israel, terrorism, America’s looting of the world and more . . .

Presented here is the abbreviated text of a letter written by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and addressed to President George W. Bush. Although the mass media in America has mentioned the letter in passing, few Americans have actually had the opportunity to read it. It is the first direct communication between the governments since the U.S. embassy was stormed and hostages seized in 1979. American Free Press is pleased to provide this slightly edited version so that readers can draw their own conclusions about the Iranian leader.


For some time now I have been thinking how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena—which are being constantly debated especially in political forums and among students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions. . . .

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make [opposition to] “War and Terror” his slogan, and finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community—a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed. . . .

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years? At what price?

Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries, and tens of thousands of young men and women—as occupation troops—put in harm’s way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way toward another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the war on Iran, Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President, I am a teacher. My students ask me how these actions can be reconciled with the tradition of Jesus Christ, the messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay who have not received trials, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their condition and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. Investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe, too.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They show old maps and try, [but] we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of World War I and II. One of my students told me that during World War II, in which tens of millions of people perished, news about the war was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. After the war, they claimed 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families. Again let us assume that these events are true.

Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained? Mr. President, I am sure you know how—and at what cost—Israel was established:

• Many thousands were killed in the process;
• Millions of indigenous people were made refugees;
• Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of [Israel’s] establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique—or at the very least extremely rare—in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why this regime is being supported. Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ or Moses or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands . . . to determine their fate runs contrary to principles of democracy? . . .

If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Incredibly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it?

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well. Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is . . . portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime?

Is not scientific research and development one of the basic rights of nations?

Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technological progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering etc, must be opposed.

Mr. President, don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or why they must constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening.

Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth—including minerals—is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights? The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr. Bush: Sept. 11 was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable. . . . Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved. . . . All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security . . . and intelligence systems. . . . Sept. 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services—or their extensive infiltration?

Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why aren’t we told who botched their responsibilities? And why aren’t those responsible identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. . . . After 9-11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people . . . some Western media . . . constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that a service to the American people? . . .

Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity? Some believe that the exaggerations paved the way—and were the justification—for an attack on Afghanistan.

Again I refer to the role of media. . . . Correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs.

This was repeated incessantly—for the public to finally believe—and to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iraq. Will the truth not be lost in a contrived climate?

Mr. President, in countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is: What have the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign produced for the citizens?

As your excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless, and unemployment is a huge problem. These problems exist—to a larger or lesser extent—in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign—paid from the public treasury—be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said are some of the grievances of the people around the world in our region and in your country. But my main contention—I am hoping you will agree to some of it—is:

Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity—raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction—haunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts where would the world be today?

Would not your government and your people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And . . . would there have been an ever-increasing global hatred of the American government?

All prophets speak of peace and tranquility for man—based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity. Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the [End Times], we can overcome the present problems of the world—that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets—and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation?

That is a genuine return to the teachings of prophets to monotheism and justice to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets.

Mr. President, history tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These things tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him. Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption. The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.

The people of the world have no faith in international organizations because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking toward a main focal point—that is Almighty God.

Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is, “Do you not want to join them?”

Mr. President, whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating toward faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

(Issue #21, May 22, 2006)

Public Apology to Women of the World from The American Republic (Hypatia of Alex
Monday 31 - 15:21
by Willam Morgan
Sunday 23 - 18:32
Hillary Clinton will be first female President 2017
Monday 10 - 17:21
by Willam Morgan
Police Shootings: Law, Policy, and Accountability
Thursday 6 - 14:22
by William John Cox
Thursday 29 - 18:02
Back to School for Fascist Dupont-Aignan
Thursday 15 - 11:32
by Nouveau Comité de Vigilance des Intellectuels Antifascistes
The Presidency: Character Matters
Friday 9 - 15:06
by William John Cox
Tuesday 30 - 18:08
Remake of Ben Hur in 2020 planned by new motion picture studio
Friday 26 - 15:50
by Wallace
Monday 22 - 19:32
Thursday 11 - 06:42
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Friday 5 - 00:47
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Friday 29 - 18:13
A message of your fellow striking workers from France
Tuesday 12 - 20:49
by Info’Com-CGT
The Right to Vote, Effectively
Friday 8 - 22:20
by William John Cox
Fourth of July Lies
Sunday 3 - 19:41
by June C. Terpstra
Who Should Make Political Policy, the People or the Politicians?
Friday 24 - 15:14
by William John Cox
Hollow Women of the Hegemon Part II: Atrocity Enabling Harpies
Tuesday 21 - 18:49
by Dr. June Terpstra
The American Republic Manifestum book is being made into a Movie
Saturday 11 - 15:54
by William Morgan
Write-in Voting and Political Protest
Wednesday 1 - 15:05
by William John Cox
Yves Bouvier art battle plays out in online and social media arena
Tuesday 31 - 21:12
by Dean Bagley
Damaged Candidate Clinton Can’t Call Out Trump
Friday 27 - 13:53
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Tuesday 24 - 21:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Thursday 19 - 00:53
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Monday 16 - 15:35
Monday 16 - 15:26
Oligarchs Won’t Let You Vote Their Wars Away
Wednesday 11 - 20:24
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Monday 9 - 20:40
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton support the American Republic Manifestum
Monday 9 - 16:37
by William Morgan
Transformation: A Student-Led Mass Political Movement
Monday 25 - 19:28
by William John Cox
Algerian Feminists react to ’Hijab Day’ in Paris 2016
Monday 25 - 01:13
Friday 22 - 18:45
US is real superpredator pretending to be victim
Monday 18 - 22:23
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Gaiacomm International has accidently created a fusion reaction/ignition.
Sunday 17 - 17:01
by William Morgan
Clinton’s Campaign Continues to Highlight Horrible Hillary
Saturday 9 - 00:57
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Armoiries racistes à Harvard : Plaidoyer pour la réflexion socio-historique
Thursday 7 - 18:56
by Samuel Beaudoin Guzzo
Wednesday 6 - 02:02
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
The PKK in Iraq: “We are ready to fight ISIS everywhere in the world”
Monday 4 - 14:33
by InfoAut
Clinton Crashes and Burns, Sanders Will Win (But hold off on the applause)
Friday 1 - 22:33
by Daniel Patrick Welch
Confirming Supreme Court Justices and Electing Presidents
Friday 1 - 20:59
by William John Cox

home | webmaster

Follow-up of the site's activity
RSS Bellaciao En

rss FR / rss IT / rss ES

Bellaciao hosted by DRI

It is the responsibility of the intellectual to speak the truth and to expose lies. Noam Chomsky
Facebook Twitter Google+
I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name
Thursday 10 March
©Olivier Jobard/Myop I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM IS A RIGHT In the phrase « right to asylum », every word matters. Under the law, every person who is persecuted because of his or her political opinions or because of his or her identity, every person that is endangered by violence, war or misery has a RIGHT to seek asylum in another country The aim of this petition is to collect (...)
Neo-Nazis and far-right protesters in Ukraine 3 live-stream
Friday 24 January
The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region. When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok. This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)
Hugo Chavez is dead (video live)
Wednesday 6 March
by : Collective BELLACIAO
1 comment
President Hugo Chavez companeros venezueliano died after a long battle with cancer.
International initiative to stop the war in Syria Yes to democracy, no to foreign intervention!
Thursday 13 December
Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)
Monday 12 November
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)
Sunday 28 October
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town. Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART III If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities. I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART IV Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges. Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc. Unlike traditional (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART III PART IV Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.” Her words still echo in my mind. Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART II PART III PART IV When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education. This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)
Monday 30 July
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?” Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting. Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)
Thursday 28 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy? If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out. In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)
Tuesday 12 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network. On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)
Thursday 7 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker! At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)
Tuesday 13 March
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?” This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power. I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)