20 Richest Ghanaians Minister Protest But Says By God’s Grace He is Not Poor

Minister of Sports Elvis Afriyie Ankrah

Minister of Youth and Sports, Elvis Afriyie Ankara says by the Grace of God, he is not poor and has enough to look after himself and family.

In a reaction to the claim that he is the 13^th richest Ghanaian, Afriyie-Ankrah said since the publication friends and relatives have been calling to congratulate him.

The full text of his rejoinder is published below;

I am by now very used to waking up in the morning to congratulatory messages and phone calls. Reflecting on the year 2013 however, there is a particular call I received one early morning that I wish to refer to, which has compelled me to respond and set the records straight. 

A good friend of mine innocently called to congratulate me for making it to a so-called Forbes list of 20 richest people in Ghana. According to him, I was reported to be number thirteen on the list. I tried brushing him off and wondered why he was playing a silly joke on me but he insisted that he had read it from the internet. When he finally forwarded the list to me, I was amused at what I saw to be a joke but it turned into bemusement when I wondered what my name could be doing on such a list.  

It is true that I am not a personal banker to anybody, however, the figures being quoted for H. E. President Mahama and others including Ibrahim Mahama, who everybody knows is wealthy are ridiculous, to put it mildly. Speaking for myself, I don’t see my name appearing even if a list of ten thousand richest people in Ghana was constructed. Admittedly, I am not poor but it is preposterous for anyone to attribute such wealth to my name. I consider myself blessed, in that by the Grace of God, I have enough to take care of myself and my family and indeed, try to share with the underprivileged. Beyond that, what do I have that somebody will classify me as the thirteenth wealthiest person in Ghana, wickedly quoting a figure of $112 million?

As I mentioned earlier, my initial reaction was that of amusement but with time it has grown to bewilderment and lately a resolve to expose the cowards, especially as I continue to receive ‘congratulatory’ messages from friends and relatives both in Ghana and the diaspora.

There have been wild stories about me in the past but in order to remain focused I have always chosen not to pay attention since most of these are distractions as far as I am concerned.

Before this so-called list emerged, it was alleged that I received GH₵120 million from GYEEDA through the former Minister of Youth and Sports. This allegation was made on a radio station by an NPP member of parliament. In order to mask his mischief, he used the word ‘allegedly’, as if by the use of that word, one could say anything and get away with it.After confronting the issue, the story changed to say that it was Hon. Abuga Pele who gave the said amount. The question is, how much is GYEEDA’s entire budget such that Hon. Abuga Pele was able to siphon enough for himself and throw a surplus of GHC120 million at me? When you hear such unintelligent accusations you don’t know whether to laugh or be angry. I was alarmed when one of our youth organizers in Nima confidently came to ask me about that story.

Without disrespecting anybody, I understand when a certain calibre of persons believes anything they hear on radio or read on the internet.However I was alarmed when I read an article in one of the leading newspapers written by a professor from the University of Ghana, Legon. When a whole professor enters the fray and blatantly believes such concocted stories and goes further to cast insinuations based on the wicked lies, it becomes dangerous. The danger for our dear country is even more pronounced when such intellectuals make uninformed and illogical analysis and draw defective conclusions. To the professor,would it be fair if somebody puts on the internet that he sleeps with his students before awarding decent grades to them? Where are we taking this dear nation of ours?

The worst happened last week when I spoke on phone with one of my aunties who lives in the United States with her husband. After congratulating Ghana for qualifying to the world cup they quickly applauded me for making it to Forbes. I heard ‘Fox’ so I thought they were talking about Fox TV. When I enquired whether it was about the world cup draw, they clarified that they meant Forbes-Ghana’s 20 richest people. They had also read and believed the malicious story on both ghanaweb and peacefmonline. They thanked God for my life for being the thirteenth on the list. As a Chemistry teacher in a High School in USA, I was disappointed that my sister’s husband fell for this, just like the professor emeritus.

Out of bewilderment and bemusement, I decided to really consider the level of circulation. I subsequently found out that the malicious fabrication was given a lot of ‘exposure’. In addition to our traditional print and electronic media (including their online news), a lot of online portals including www.ghanaweb.com,www.modernghana.com,www.ghostinfostv.com,www.spyghana.com,www.highlifetoday.com,www.focusghana.com,www.ghanafilla.net published it. No wonder till date, friends, family and loved ones still see the wicked propaganda and call to verify. 

For the records, I want Ghanaians to know that the alleged list is preposterous. Secondly, although by the grace of God I am blessed, I am neither worth $120 million nor own a fraction of that. Besides, I am certainly not the thirteenth richest person in Ghana. I have been struggling to fathom why my name will be listed among the others in the first place. The ridiculous figures attributed to them notwithstanding, most of those on the so-called list are atleast men of substance and astute businessmen. What mischief is anybody hoping to achieve by including names like mine and Hon. Haruna’s?

For some reason, some of those who don’t wholly believe assume that the figure represents my total assets and not necessarily bank balance. I take this opportunity to categorically deny earlier stories that I “own six houses in a rowat East Legon”, for which I paid cash. My residence at East Legon is no secret and it is easy to ascertain its value. Such stories may be intended for different agenda but they are affecting me in other ways. All of a sudden people have started making outrageous financial demands because they think I am supposed to be the thirteenth richest man in Ghana. The security implications of this mischief are also obvious,since I can become a target of miscreants who falsely believe I have that kind of money.

It is true that I try to begenerous to people from all walks of life including our foot soldiers, most of whom I have personal relationship with. It must however be noted that giving is a spirit. A giver sometimes gives out of his/her lack. There are wealthy people who refuse to give but a natural giver doesn’t mind sharing the little he/she has with others. After rising through the ranks and ending up as the Local Government Deputy Minister and finally a Campaign Manager, I have travelled across the country several times and I am in personal touch with a lot of people who contact me for one help or another. This, I do because I love to share and not because I am the thirteenth richest person. At times, I fall on the networks I have created to support such people.

Before I expose how outlandish the so-called Forbes-Ghana list is let me state in clear terms that I am one of the ministers ready and willing to make my assets known to the public. Indeed, I have already filed my assets with the Auditor General and any citizen can use the laid down procedures to check. 

Although Forbes lists Ghana as No.69 Best Countries for Business and highlights some business/investment stories about Ghana, Forbes has NEVER tracked and for that matter published the wealth of Ghanaians or residents in Ghana. 

Meanwhile, there is nothing like ‘Forbes Ghana’ so how a ghost entity called ‘Forbes Ghana’ managed to ‘intercept’ such hoax of a list of top most rich people in Ghana beats every imagination.

It is obvious that this concocted list is meant not only to throw dust in Ghanaians’ eyes but also calculated to generate hate for H. E. John Mahama and his family, some targeted ministers as well as NDC in general. Notably, names of NDC members dominate the list, giving the impression that NDC and it surrogates are amassing wealth.

What makes it laughable is that President Mahama has been able to allegedly amass $900 million to hit an enviable fifth on the list within the first year of his presidency. Another mischief is the attempt to rope in Alfred Mahama, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata and Tony Lithur. Obviously this is because Alfred is the president’s brother and the accomplished lawyers played leading roles in defending the NDC and the President in the Supreme Court case.

The inclusion of me and some key ministers obviously has to do with the roles we played during the 2012 campaign leading to the one-touch victory for President Mahama within four months. Going by the figures indicated, some of these Ghanaians would have made the top richest list in Africa that was published by Forbes recently. How come such wealthy Ghanaians are only confined to the Ghana list and conspicuously missing from the Africa list?

Just by way of education….. In tracking wealth of African citizens this year, Forbes actually calculated net worths using stock prices and exchange rates from the close of business on Friday, November 1, 2013. Usually, to value privately-held businesses they couple estimates of revenues or profits with prevailing price-to-sales or price-to-earnings ratios for similar public companies. Any African descent that starts making above 100 million is closely monitored by Forbes to ascertain his/her rate of income accumulation or decline.

Monday December 30, 2013

Signed:

HON. ELVIS AFRIYE-ANKRAH
MINISTER FOR YOUTH & SPORTS

Editorial

FINANCIAL TRIBUNAL

Yesterday, the CJA called for the establishment of a Financial Tribunal to deal with cases of embezzlement and misapplication of public funds.

It urged all political parties and civil society groups to join in the campaign to rid Ghana of corruption.

We support the call by the CJA and offer our pages to all you who want to join this campaign.

As a fact corruption robs the country of vital resources needed for development and the fight against poverty.

 We salute the CJA for its vigorous campaign against corrupt in all its forms.

When Will Our Shackles Be Broken?

Goodluck Jonathan

  

By Femi Fani-Kayode

On April 20, 1653 Oliver Cromwell, who was the Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland and the greatest statesman and revolutionary that England ever knew, stormed the English ”Rump Parliament” at Westminster and courageously pronounced the following words after which he sacked Parliament and boldly took power.

He said: ”It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Republic? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the democracy temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!” -OLIVER CROMWELL (1599-1658).

Cromwell was undoubtedly one of the greatest and most courageous men that ever lived and he is certainly one of my heroes. Not only was he moved by a compelling and irresistable zeal and thirst for righteousness in high places and by the power of the Holy Spirit but he, like the biblical Jehu, was ready to pay the supreme price and sacrifice his life in order to effect it and bring lasting change toEngland. He abhorred corruption and injustice and his puritan roots and christian fundamentalist background and upbringing caused him to oppose the excesses of the Catholic church in his day and the awesome power and influence of the Catholic Bishops and their Pope. Quite apart from saving her her from the excesses of catholicism and the sheer brutality of the Jesuit Order and the Spanish Inquisition, Cromwell literally and single-handedly also saved England from the tyranny of absolutist monarchs and the evil of corrupt Parliamentarians. He was indeed the father of modern-dayparliamentry and participatory democracy in Great Britain and it was he alone that shattered the myth and demonic philosophy of the ”divine right of kings” to rule with ”absolute power”.

Let us carefully consider the words that he spoke and read them once again. Let us imbibe their spirit and feel their power and passion. These are sacred and divinely-inspired words that were spoken 360 years ago to a sitting all-powerful Parliament that had just triumphed in a civil war against the King of England and had chopped off his head. Cromwell, who was a Member of Parliament himself, had led the armies of that Parliament into the field of battle on numerous ocassions. He was indeed the Commander of it’s army and the main inspiration and motivator for the revoltion and rebellion against the King. Not only did he defeat the Royal Army of King Charles 1st in various battles and win the civil war but he also apprehended the King, arrested him, brought him to justice before the courts of law and had him executed. This was the first time that a King was brought to justice before a Court of Law and executed in the history of England.

All seemed well and the House of Commons ruled until Cromwell noticed how the new-found power of this new Parliament had utterly corrupted it’s members. They were drunk with power and they wielded it with impugnity and no sense of decency and restraint. Worse still they were hopelessly corrupt. In time he knew that they would have to go as well. He knew that a new order, which truly imbibed the spirit of justice, accountability, good governance, decency, christian sobriety, restraint and democracy, had to be put in place. He knew that only he could effect that change and that is precisely what he did by furiously storming Parliament, courageously confronting it’s members, speaking those chilling yet insightful words and forcefully taking power from them 361 years ago. He risked everything, including life, liberty and limb. Yet, without hesitation, he did it all for his beloved England. He was moved and driven by his deeply religious convictions and his puritanical faith. Nothing could stop him and, for him, failure was not an option because He knew that God was with him. He not only succeeeded beyond his wildest imagination but he also laid a glorious foundation for the future of England and he was probably the greatest reformer that ever ruled that great and sturdy island nation.

I look at Nigeria today and the behaviour of our collective overlords reminds me very much of the behaviour of the pre-Cromwellian ”Rump Parliament” in England. Can anyone be in any doubt that it istime for us to speak those same words that Oliver Cromwell spoke to the English Pariament on April 20th, 1653 to our own our leaders here in Nigeria. Are those words not more appropiate for our leaders today than at any other time in our history? Yet who will utter them? Who will go forth courageously and speak truth to tyranny in the power of the Lord.

When will our God raise our own deliverer? Where is our own Oliver Cromwell or our own biblical Jehu? Where is our Elijah? When will the Jezebels that rule our land be thrown down from the balcony and when will the dogs eat their flesh and drink their blood? When will our Ahab be slaughtered in battle? When will the Nigerian people say ”enough is enough” and demand the change that they so desperately crave and yearn? When will they wake up from their accursed slumber and wipe away the faecel mess with which they have been stained, smothered, blinded, deafened and silenced? When will the luciferian spell that has been placed upon them be finally broken? When will they be free of this unwholesome bondage and be rid of their godless fears? When will their shackles be finally broken and when will they see, feel, hear and live again? When, O when, will our people be free and when will they become the pride of Africa that they were destined to be?

Why has fate been so cruel to us and why has our star dimmed and refused to shine brightly? Why do we always take ten steps forward and twenty steps backwards? Why is our case and example one of constant failure, ineptitude, defeat, shame, lack and incompetence? What is wrong with the Federal Republic of Nigeria and what plagues and afflicts the Nigerian people?

Since 1960 every single one of our potential deliverers have failed. They have not been allowed to emerge and even when they do emerge they have not been allowed to succceed. They have either been killed, jailed, villified, belittled or destroyed by the system and the neo-colonial conservative forces that have sworn to resist change. Worse still the sheer naivety, nauseating timidity and simple lack of insight and foresight of the ordinary people, who seem to have cultivated an extraordinary capacity to tolerate injustice, incompetence, wickedness and evil in their land, does not help. As a matter of fact it is that attitude and that cowardly and weak mindset that has sustained the disasterous sytem that has held Nigeria captive since 1960.

The average Nigerian will rather go to the church or to the mosque to bear his or her mind to the priest or imam and pray about his or her numerous challenges rather than march in the streets and demand a change for the better from their Government and President. Yet it is only in our country that men and women suffer from such a lack of firm resolve and such a sorry and tepid affliction. Karl Marx’s view that ”religion is the opium of the masses” has no greater meaning or significance anywhere in the world than in Nigeria where we all, in a most cowardly manner, hide behind the cleric and imam’s ornate robes and refuse to insist on our God-given rights from the government and the state. What a tragedy we have become. We deserve nothing but pity.

Other nations have been blessed with many Oliver Cromwell’s over the centuries and years yet sadly it is not so with us. Ill-fortune is our portion and we are cursed because we enjoy killing and villifying all of our heroes and deliverers whilst others recognise and reverre theirs and grant them the right and opportunity to do that which they were born to do- that is to take their respective nations by the scruff of the neck, to take them from strength to strength and to lead them to glory.

These were great and noble men and women who made their mark and created a great legacy for their respective nations and peoples even though some of them were murdered, jailed and cut short whilst doing so. Yet in the end each and every one of them triumphed because they made a difference to their generation and to those that came after them from generation to generation.

In the Nigerian context the question is this- when will our great stars emerge and when will Nigeria’s time to shine on the world stage come? When will the words of Oliver Cromwell find relevance in our space and when will the Lord answer our prayer and deliver us from the evil that plagues our land. May God bless and redeeme our beloved homeland. May He have mercy upon her, may He defend her, may He deliver her and may He cause His face to shine brightly upon her. One day our time will come. One day Nigeria shall shine.

Sharon

Late Israeli Premiere Sharon

By Felicity Arbuthnot.

Surgeon, Dr Swee Chai Ang went to help the wounded of Beirut after the 1982 Israeli invasion and witnessed the Sabra and Shatila massacre of unarmed men woman and children, Palestinian and Lebanese, between the 15th-18th September, 1982.(i)

In her book "From Beirut to Jerusalem", she describes the reality:

"As I walked through the camp alleys looking at the shattered homes (many of these houses had just been rebuilt following earlier bombardments by Israel) I wanted to cry aloud, but was too exhausted emotionally even to do that. How could little children come back to live in the room where their relatives were tortured and then killed? If the Palestinian Red Crescent Society could not function legally, who was going to look after the widows and orphans?

"Suddenly, someone threw his arms around me. It was Mahmoud, a little child who had broken his wrist while trying to help his father rebuild their broken home. He had survived and his wrist had mended, but now his father was dead. Mahmoud cried, but he was glad I was alive because, from his hiding place during the massacre, he had seen the soldiers taking us away. He thought they had killed me.

"Soon I was surrounded by a whole lot of children. Kids without homes, without parents, without futures. But they were the children of Sabra and the children of Shatila. One of them spotted my pocket camera, and wanted a picture taken. Then they all stood together, wanting their pictures taken. "They wanted me to show their picture to the people of the world. Even if they were killed and the camps were demolished, the world would know that they were the children of Sabra and Shatila, and were not afraid. As I focused my camera, they all held up their hands and made victory signs, right in front of their destroyed homes, where many had been killed. Dear little friends, you taught me what courage and struggle are about." 

Dr Swee Chai Ang founded Medical Aid for Palestine as a result of her experiences in Beirut and Sabra and Shatila. On the eve of Ariel Sharon's buriel, she wrote the following. It is published with her permission:

The passing of Ariel Sharon brought back the memories of the horrors of the Sabra Shatilla massacre of September,'82. I arrived in August that year as a volunteer surgeon to help the war victims of Lebanon. The people in Lebanon were wounded, made homeless and lost precious friends and families as the result of ten weeks of ruthless bombardment. That was the "Operation Peace for Galilee", launched by Sharon who was then the Defence Minister of Israel in June 1982.

No one knew how many were killed as the result of that offensive - the London newspapers estimated a thirty thousand with many times more made homeless. When a ceasefire was agreed with the evacuation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Sharon broke that ceasefire and drove tanks under air-cover launching a land invasion into Lebanon's capitol Beirut. Part of the tanks sealed Sabra Shatilla and prevented the helpless civilian victims from escaping, while sending in Israel's allies into the camps to carry out the most brutal massacre of defenceless women, children and old people under Israel's watch. The blame was quickly and deliberately shifted to the Lebanese as perpetrators of the massacres, so that today no one can mention that massacre without blaming the Lebanese Phalange, yet forgetting the Israeli organisers of that event. 

I worked in Gaza Hospital in Sabra Shatilla during the massacre trying to save the lives of a few dozen people, but outside the hospital hundreds were killed. My patients and I knew that Sharon and his officers were in control, and without them the massacre would not be possible. The residents of Sabra Shatilla could at least have escaped. Now more than 30 years later, we know that the killers were brought in by Israeli armoured cars and tanks, obeyed Israeli commands, their paths lit by Israeli military flares, and some of them also wore Israeli uniforms. The mutilated bodies of the victims were thrown into mass graves by Israeli bulldozers.

This Sharon continued on to be Israeli Prime Minister, and built the Wall which imprisoned the Palestinians in the West Bank. Sharon's Wall cut through their lands, separating people from their homes, children from their schools, farmers from their orchards,  patients from hospitals, husbands from wives, and children from parents. He marched into the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem 2000 with fully armed Israeli soldiers and tried to have the West believe that his intention was for peace.

He was responsible for other massacres such as in Jenin, Qibya and Khan Yunis just to name a few. The older generation in Khan Yunis in Gaza remembers that he killed all the grown men in the massacre of 1956 and left only the women and children to bury the dead..

I thought these facts should be publicised. Those who eulogise Sharon in his role of building Israel should also remember that he built his nation over the dead bodies of the Palestinian people, and the continued dispossession of those who are still alive.

Dr Ang Swee Chai

What is “Snowden's secret?”

Edward Snowden

By Dr Kevin Barrett

Fifty years before NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden captured the world's attention, the phrase “Snowden's secret” was already becoming a talisman of American literature and popular culture. 

Yet today, as a real-life Snowden leaks secrets right and left, the media has failed to notice that we've heard the phrase “Snowden's secret” before. Incredible as it seems, “Snowden's secret” is the culminating revelation of one of the masterpieces of American literature: Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22, first published in 1961.

It's almost as if the deep background to “Snowden's secret” is being kept secret.

Catch-22 was the greatest antiwar novel of the 1960s –  a darkly hilarious marriage of the sensibilities of Mark Twain and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. The story follows the adventures of Yossarian, an American bombardier nearly driven mad by the horrors of World War II and the military-industrial-intelligence bureaucracy.

The themes and events of the novel are tied together by oblique references to “Snowden's secret.” The brooding, half-crazy Yossarian carries Snowden's awful secret around in his breast, but it isn't until the end of the novel that the reader learns what it is. It turns out that Snowden was a member of Yossarian's bomber crew who was killed in action by shrapnel. Snowden died a terrible death in Yossarian's arms, his entrails spilling horribly out of his belly.

At the book's climax, Yossarian, deeply traumatized by Snowden's awful death, finally explains Snowden's secret to the reader:  “Man was matter, that was Snowden's secret. Drop him out a window, and he'll fall. Set fire to him and he'll burn. Bury him and he'll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden's secret. Ripeness was all.” 

Pondering “Snowden's secret” inspires Yossarian to act heroically – by deserting from the US military and thereby refusing to betray his friends to an insane, out-of-control bureaucracy. Yossarian's courageous act of desertion, inspired by the spilled guts of Snowden, ends the novel on an upbeat note of endless possibility.

Half a century after the publication of Catch-22, a real-life Snowden heroically deserts from the US military (NSA branch), refuses to betray his fellow citizens to an insane, out-of-control bureaucracy, and “spills his guts” to the media. Only this time, there isn't just one “Snowden's secret” – there are thousands! 

Is this merely a case of life imitating art?

Jimmy Walter, the visionary philanthropist who was driven out of the United States for supporting the 9/11 truth movement, doesn't believe in coincidences. Like Naomi Wolf, Kevin Ryan, and Webster Tarpley, Walter suspects that “Operation Snowden” may be some sort of inside job. 

Here is Jimmy Walter's interpretation of the uncanny parallels between “Snowden's secret” in Catch-22, and Snowden's secrets today:

“Snowden's death embodies Yossarian's desire to evade death; by seeing Snowden's entrails spilling over the plane, he feels that 'Man was matter, that was Snowden's secret. Drop him out a window and he'll fall. Set fire to him and he'll burn. Bury him and he'll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage.'  The experience on the plane dramatically changes Yossarian's attitude towards life. He looks only to protect his own life and, to a lesser extent, the lives of his close friends. So the real point of Snowden today is the same as the novel: make people accept that the government is all knowing, all powerful and that it is useless to resist; that is our Snowden's only victory. If the government continues to do as it always has, who will know? Who will dare tell? Who will give up their family, wealth, life as they now know it to accomplish nothing?”

Naomi Wolf offers a parallel interpretation: “It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this.”

9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan – who exposed the cover-up of the controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, was unjustly fired from his job, fought back, yet was completely blacked out of the mainstream media – is understandably suspicious of media darling Edward Snowden: “Presenting documents at a measured rate could be a way to acclimate citizens to painful realities without stirring the public into a panic or a unified response that might actually threaten the status quo. And considering that the number of documents has somehow grown from only thousands to nearly two million, the few insiders could release practically anything, thereby controlling national dialogue on many topics.”

Historian Webster Tarpley points out: “The most obvious characteristic of the limited hangout operative is that he or she immediately becomes the darling of the controlled corporate media... Limited hangouts reveal nothing about big issues like JFK and 9/11.”

In fact, limited hangouts are designed to distract attention from the big issues – and prevent real change.

If, in 1963, the American people had learned that CIA agent George H.W. Bush supervised one of the six shooter-teams that murdered President Kennedy, what would have happened? Bush himself provided the answer to journalist Sara McClendon: "Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us."

If, in 2001, the American people had learned that Vice President Dick Cheney and other top US officials had conspired with Israel to murder almost 3,000 Americans in a false-flag attack on America, even more lynchings would have ensued – and official US policy would have been drastically changed for the better.

If the American people learned that massive, illegal NSA spying on Americans began in March, 2001, and was intended to collect blackmail material on anyone of significance who might oppose the coming 9/11 coup d'état, they would lynch their leaders, destroy their National Security State and exercise their God-given right expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently suggested that as the American and British people begin to understand the real nature of the tyranny that has engulfed them, someone is likely to step forward and assassinate top US and British leaders – and be hailed as a hero.

But to rise up and overthrow tyranny requires courage. Specifically, it requires the courage to be willing to die in a just cause. 

Consider again the culminating revelation of “Snowden's secret” from Catch-22: “The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden's secret.” 

This “secret” can be understood in two ways. One way, the secularist-atheist way, goes like this: “Since the illusions of religion have dissipated, the spirit is gone, and we know this rotten physical life is all there is and death is the end, we should be cowed into submission when our evil rulers threaten to kill us if we rebel.” Snowden skeptics like Jimmy Walter think this is the message the New World Order's “Operation Snowden” is broadcasting to the American people and the people of the world. 

For all I know, Jimmy may be right. That is certainly the New World Order's message, Snowden or no Snowden. But I prefer to interpret “Snowden's secret” differently.

As I see it, if the spirit is gone, man IS garbage. It is the spiritual dimension of existence that makes us human and gives us the courage to risk death by fighting back against oppressors.

Edward Snowden may be a saintly man who is risking death to fight oppression. Or maybe not. 

But either way, the New World Order tyranny descending on the world – as Edward Snowden once suggested – is not worth living under. We must reclaim the spirit, rediscover our humanity, overcome our fear of death, and risk everything in an all-out effort to overthrow the demonic forces of incipient global tyranny.

THAT is Snowden's REAL secret.

Please pass it on.

Don’t sabotage diplomacy with Iran

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

By Kourosh Ziabari

The Geneva interim accord over Iran’s nuclear program signed on November 24 last year was a landmark development in the course of Iran’s relations with other countries, especially the United States, with which it directly negotiated at a high-level for the first time since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

According to the agreement known as the Joint Plan of Action, Iran will voluntarily limit certain portions of its nuclear activities, in return for relief from some of the sanctions imposed against Iran in the recent years, including the petrochemical and automobile industry sanctions. The P5+1 group(Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States) have also agreed to release $4.2 billion of Iran’s frozen assets, lift the ban on Iran’s gold trade, refrain from restricting its oil exports and allow the sale of civilian aircrafts’ spare parts to Iran.

Aside from the fact that the agreement signaled a revival of Iran’s economy that was somewhat troubled under the biting international sanctions, it also opened up new horizons for political and diplomatic cooperation between Iran and the international community and provided opportunities for the resuscitation of Iran’s marred relations with the United States and the European Union. 

It was immediately following the conclusion of this important agreement that the Western officials, diplomats and parliamentarians began to enthusiastically travel to Iran one after the other to hold talks with their Iranian counterparts, exchange views with them and explore the possibilities of future cooperation with Tehran and bringing to an end the longstanding standoff between Iran and the West. 

Delegations from the European Parliament, Italian Senate, German Bundestag, Mexican Chamber of Duties, Irish House of the Oireachtas and UK House of Lords and the foreign ministers of several countries came to Iran, and as reported by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, it’s expected that prominent officials will be traveling to Iran in the coming weeks, including the Swedish and Polish foreign ministers, a parliamentary delegation from Romania and a group of Canadian lawmakers. In the diplomatic culture, such exchanges and communications signify the importance of bilateral and multilateral relations and indicate the foreign policy priorities of different countries.  

In the wake of these determining developments that seem to be quite vital for the future of Iran’s foreign policy and its international standing, a group of hawkish U.S. Senators unexpectedly came up with the plan of introducing a bill that will impose new sanctions against Iran and will even oblige the U.S. government to give logistical support to Israel in case the Tel Aviv regime decides to launch a military strike against Iran.

S.1881, the “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013,” was introduced by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a Republican Senator and former member of the House from Illinois. It’s noteworthy that of the 59 Senators supporting the bill, 16 ones are Democrats. 

When it was first reported that the 100-member Senate will be giving the green light to the bill to impose a new round of sanctions against Iran, even the U.S. government officials were disturbed and frightened, because the deal that was signed with Iran after several days of intensive talks in Geneva, and more importantly after some 10 years of inconclusive negotiations, was not something trivial or insignificant which could be overlooked that easily with the obduracy and adamancy of a group of pro-Israeli Senators.

The White House immediately rushed to denounce the call by the Senators to pass the new sanctions and President Obama, likewise, said he will certainly veto any new sanctions that will derail the negotiations with Iran. “Imposing additional sanctions now will only risk derailing our efforts to resolve this issue peacefully, and I will veto any legislation enacting new sanctions during the negotiation,” said Barack Obama in a statement released by the White House.

Following the remarks made by the U.S. President, the Senate minority leader Harry Reid also announced that he will not allow the bill to reach the Senate floor. Any legislation in the 100-member Senate needs at least 67 votes to be able to override the president’s veto, and with the withdrawal of the Democrat signatories, it will not have any chances of being realized.

However, the very fact that there are some lawmakers and politicians in the United States, who contrary to the commitments entrusted to Washington by virtue of the Joint Plan of Action, are still pushing for new sanctions against Iran is alarming and upsetting. One of the commitments made by the United States and the five other countries talking to Iran is for them to refrain from imposing new unilateral or multilateral sanctions against Iran during the 6 months of the implementation of the interim accord, and after that during the talks for bringing forth the comprehensive agreement. So, any new sanctions by the EU or the United States would be a violation of the terms of the Geneva agreement, a deal-breaker action and will eventually force Iran into revising its approach toward the talks.

Like as the Geneva agreement has critics in Europe the United States who believe that the wave of sanctions should continue to be directed against Iran and there should be no removal of the sanctions until the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program in its entirety, the deal has its own critics in Iran, as well, who believe that the United States and its European allies cannot be trustable partners and holding talks with them will be fruitless and full of loopholes. 

President Rouhani and his diplomatic team have a relatively hard job convincing and satisfying the domestic critics and opponents who dissuade the administration from sitting with the United States at the negotiation table, and the imposition of new sanctions will simply further complicate the situation for him. The critics of President Rouhani that include some lawmakers, journalists and public speakers say that the black background of the U.S. interventions in Iran’s internal affairs, its support for the 1953 coup against the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, its support for Saddam Hussein during the 8-year war, its sponsorship of MKO and Jundallah terrorist cults against the civilians and its policy of sanctions and military threats against Iran have all made it an unreliable negotiating partner and insincere interlocutor. They say when Iran was cooperating with the United States on the security of Afghanistan, the former U.S. President George W. Bush dubbed Iran as part of an “axis of evil”, and so the future of cooperation with the U.S. would be unclear.

President Rouhani and his team argue that Iran and the international community should move towards reconciliation and putting aside the disputes and the acrimonies of the past in order to solve the nuclear standoff once for all. Acknowledging the arguments of their domestic critics, they also concede that the continuation of the nuclear controversy is in nobody’s interests, so in order to find a sustainable solution for this controversy, both Iran and the West should forget about the bitter memories they have of each other, and negotiate in good faith, on an equal footing and based on mutual respect.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has several times reiterated that Iran’s negotiations with the P5+1 are simply limited to the nuclear issue, and this is how the Iranian government has decided to address the concerns of those inside Iran who believe that Iran should not show leniency toward the United States, a country which has already demonstrated its unconditional animosity and hostility toward Iran well over the past three decades.

But the hawkish, extremist figures in the U.S. political sphere, whether in the government, the Congress or the media, should carefully note that the door for diplomacy would not always remain open, and the chances to reach for a categorical, definite resolution of the decade-long nuclear controversy are limited.

They should pay attention to the fact that President Rouhani’s administration has embarked on a very sensitive endeavor for directly talking to the United States, which many people inside Iran don’t think of positively. Any new sanctions against Iran under any baseless pretext would mean a violation of the Geneva agreement, the termination of its implementation and possibly an end to the long-sought talks. A peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the nuclear controversy would be beneficial to all parties, and will immensely contribute to regional peace and security. These pro-Israeli Senators who are certainly fueled and empowered by Tel Aviv should come to the understanding that pleasing Netanyahu and Shimon Peres at the expense of the interests of their own people and the people of the world is not a logical or relevant decision. Somebody should ask them not to kill the unprecedented chances that have emerged for a peaceful and viable diplomacy with Iran.

Misplaced lessons of Tahrir

Fmr Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi

By David Swanson

I still want Dirty Wars to win the Oscar, but The Square is a documentary worth serious discussion as we hit the three-year point since the famous occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo that overthrew Mubarak -- in particular because a lot of people seem to get a lot of the lessons wrong.

I suppose some people will leave Dirty Wars imagining that we need clean wars, whatever those would be. But too many people seem to be drawing from The Square lessons they brought with them to it, including these: 

Thou shalt have a leader; thou shalt work within a major political party; thou shalt have an identifiable group of individuals ready to take power. 

I don't think following these commandments would have easily changed the past three years in Egypt; I don't think they're where Egyptians should be heading; and I'm even more confident they're blind alleys in the United States -- where they serve as supposed remedies for the supposed failings of Occupy.

Many lessons that might be drawn from The Square seem right to me. Did the people leave the square too early? Hell yes. Was the movement divided when the Muslim Brotherhood sought to claim victory exclusively for itself and not for all of the people of Egypt? Of course it was. 

Let that be a lesson to us indeed. We agree, virtually all of us in the US, on a lot of needed reforms. We're all getting collectively screwed. But we divide ourselves over stupid petty stuff, irrelevant stuff, secondary stuff -- cultural issues, ideologies, superficial identities, and -- yes -- big-name leaders (think how many opponents of militarism and Big Brother you could agree with if they weren't "Ron Paulers"). Preferring one tyrant to another because of their religion or race is not a flaw (think of all the Christian support for Bush and African-American support for Obama).

Was trusting the military a horrible idea? No. It wasn't a horrible idea. It was the most catastrophically stupendously stupid notion ever to enter a human skull.

Militaries don't support people. People support militaries through their useful and exploited labor. Costa Rica had to disband its military to stop having coups. When a military exists, appealing to the humanity of its individual members is wise indeed. But expecting the military as a whole to be democratic to the point of handing over power before it's compelled to do so is decidedly foolish. None of which is to say the Egyptians have had much choice or that their project is yet completed. Between them and us the question of which group is learning faster is no contest at all.

Do the people of Egypt need a Constitution rather than a pharaoh? Yes, absolutely. Does the Occupy movement need demands? Yes, of course it does. Must we all create an ongoing culture of nonviolent action? Yes, sir-ee. While The Square doesn't explicitly make the point, would better nonviolent discipline help? Undoubtedly. Is the key lesson to never give up? Indeed. All of these lessons should soak in deep.

But other points are less clear, in both The Square and common discussions of Egyptian revolution. Tahrir Square didn't begin in 2011, and neither did the Muslim Brotherhood. The foundations for the popular movement and for the religious party were laid over a period of years. Foundations are being laid for nonviolent revolution in other places now.

Did the Egyptians fail? And did they fail because they are great protesters but bad democrats who should be condescended to by enlightened Americans? No. 

First, it isn't over. Second, the United States has a failed system of government itself as 80-90 percent of the people here have been telling pollsters for years. Third, although I caught only one very quick little hint at it in The Square, the major financial and military backer of the brutal, corrupt regimes in Egypt -- before Tahrir and since -- is the United States government. To the extent that Egyptians have failed they've failed with our help. And whether we're unaware of the billions of dollars of our grandchildren's unearned wages that we give to Egyptian thugs to assault the Egyptian people every year, or aware and unable to do anything about it -- either way, our democracy hardly shines out as a model for the world.

A leader would have divided the Tahrir movement or the Occupy movement. That we don't think of ourselves as having leaders is a function of the corporate media giving no microphones to people who favor major improvements to the world. Ironically, just like coverage of New York Police Department brutality, this helps us to build a stronger movement. That is to say, it helps us in so far as it allows a movement not focused on a leader. Yes, we'd be much stronger with major media coverage, but the possible development of leaders recognized and named as such would be a downside. And a successful movement behind a leader would only be able to put that leader into power if it succeeded far beyond where Egypt arrived in 2011 -- and it would only be able to get that leader back out of power again if it succeeded even further.

Is the lesson of Tahrir that Occupiers should back candidates in the Democratic Party? Is an organized party that can challenge the Muslim Brotherhood or the Democrats the answer? Not within a corrupt system it isn't. When our goal is not a better regime but something approaching democracy, then what's needed is the nonviolent imposition of democracy on whatever individuals are in power, and the development of a culture of eternal vigilance to maintain it. You can't elect your way out of a system of corrupt elections. You can't impose a group of populist leaders on a government by coup d'etat and then write a democratic constitution afterwards.

No, that is not what happened in the United States, and not just because the old government got on ships and sailed away, but because the Constitution was fundamentally anti-democratic. The United States has gained democracy through nonviolent movements of public pressure, imposed reforms, amendments, court rulings, and the changing of the culture. Reforms are needed more badly than ever now, and whether they're imposed at the federal level or through the states or through secession, they must come through popular nonviolent pressure, as bullets and ballots are virtually helpless here.

The lesson I take away from The Square is that we must prevent the operation of business as usual until the institution itself, not its face, is fixed. We can put up giant posters of a black man followed by a white woman followed by some other demographic symbol, but the posters will still be on the walls of prisons, barracks, and homeless shelters, unless we fix the structure of things. That means:

- Rights for people, and for the natural environment, not for corporations.
 - Spending money on elections is not a human right of free speech.
- Elections entirely publicly financed.
- The right to vote, to have time off work to vote, and to vote on a paper ballot publicly counted at the polling place.
- Free air time, ballot access and debate participation to all candidates who have collected sufficient signatures of potential constituents.
- A citizens branch and public initiative power by signature collection.
- The application of criminal laws to authorities who commit crimes or abuse their office.
- Mandatory impeachment and recall votes for officials facing prosecution.
- The right to a decent income, housing, healthcare, education, peace, a healthy environment, and freedom from debt.
- The rights of the natural environment to continue and thrive.
- The institution of minimum and maximum wages and a ban on extreme wealth.
- Demilitarization.
- Dismantling of the prison industry.

Give me all of that or give me death. Take your bullshit rhetoric about "liberty" and name a square after it.

Texting affects balance and walking  

Mobile Phone

Sending text messages while walking could ruin people’s balance and posture and put them at the risk of serious injury, a new study has found.

A team of Australian researchers from the University of Queensland tracked the movement patterns of 26 people once when they walked normally and then as they walked while looking at the screen of their mobile phones.

The results of the study published in the PLOS ONE journal indicated that their gait clearly changed as “text-walkers” walked more slowly and moved their necks less and their heads more from side to side. They also hunched their shoulders forward. 

The research showed that it is difficult for texters to walk in a straight line, said head researcher Siobhan Schabrun, adding that they “reminded her of elderly robots.”

“They lock their arms, trunk and head together all in aid of keeping the phone steady in front of their eyes,” she explained. 

“Previous studies on older populations shows that this type of more rigid posture puts you at greater risk of falling.”

Schabrun further said that the intense concentration invested in writing a text and the side-to-side movement of the head might have a negative impact on balance.

The study indicated that 35% of its subjects reported having an accident while texting including trips, falls, collisions with other people and walking into an obstacle.

“In recent years, there have been many reports of people involved in traffic accidents, stumbling onto train tracks, into fountains and off piers because they were texting while walking,”  Schabrun said.

A 2013 research conducted by Ohio State University showed that over 1,500 people were treated in emergency rooms for mobile phone-related incidents in 2012.