Man punched for refusing to discuss Ferguson shooting
by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | MARCH 30, 2015
A man assaulted by three thugs for refusing to discuss the “Mike Brown situation” while riding the MetroLink in St. Louis last week has spoken out, saying that other passengers not only refused to help, but laughed throughout his ordeal.
The 43-year-old white victim was punched and kicked in the face after one of the attackers sat next to him and asked him what he thought about the “Mike Brown situation,” a reference to the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown last year which prompted widespread unrest and an increase in violence against police officers.
When the victim refused to discuss the issue, the violent assault began. The attackers left the train when a security officer boarded.
Responding to the incident, the unnamed victim told KMOV, “I think it was disgusting that no one [helped],” people were sort of laughing and smiling about it. No one offered to help and no one attempted to call 911.”
The victim suffered numerous injuries, including a laceration on his nose, bruising on his face and forehead as well as a broken bone in his hand.
Video footage of the assault features the person filming the incident laughing and also picks up the sound of passengers sat near the victim laughing.
The victim has started a GoFundMe campaign to help him buy a motorcycle so he doesn’t have to take the train. The money will also be used to help other victims of assault in the area.
Meanwhile, Cahokia resident Lamar Gines has offered a $500 dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of the suspects, commenting, “I’m just fed up with it, just fed up with seeing that, I want to be one of the ones who puts a positive spin on the news. If it starts with me, then that’s what I’m here to do.”
A responsible financial institution would not extend a new loan of between 17 and 40 billion dollars to a borrower already struggling to pay back an existing multi-billion dollar loan
BY RON PAUL,
A responsible financial institution would not extend a new loan of between 17 and 40 billion dollars to a borrower already struggling to pay back an existing multi-billion dollar loan. Yet that is just what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) did last month when it extended a new loan to the government of Ukraine. This new loan may not make much economic sense, but propping up the existing Ukrainian government serves the foreign policy agenda of the US government.
Since the IMF receives most of its funding from the United States, it is hardly surprising that it would tailor its actions to advance the US government’s foreign policy goals. The IMF also has a history of using the funds provided to it by the American taxpayer to prop up dictatorial regimes and support unsound economic policies.
Some may claim the IMF does promote free markets by requiring that countries receiving IMF loans implement some positive economic reforms, such as reducing government spending. However, other conditions imposed by the IMF, such as that the country receiving the loan deflate its currency and implement an industrial policy promoting exports, do not seem designed to promote a true free market, much less improve the people’s living standards by giving them greater economic opportunities.
The problem with the IMF cannot be fixed by changing the conditions attached to IMF loans. The fundamental problem with the IMF is that it is funded by resources taken forcibly from the private sector. By taking resources out of private hands and giving them to IMF bureaucrats, government distorts the marketplace, harming both American taxpayers and the citizens of the countries receiving the IMF loans. The idea that the IMF is somehow better able to allocate capital than are private investors is just as flawed as every other form of central planning. The IMF must be repealed, not reformed.
The IMF is not the only US institution that manipulates the global economy. Over the past several years, a mysterious buyer, identified only as “Belgium,” so named because the buyer acts through a Belgian-domiciled account, has become the third-largest holder of Treasury securities. Belgium’s large purchases always occur at opportune times for the US government, such as when a foreign country sells a large amount of Treasuries. “Belgium” also made large purchases in the months just after the Fed launched the quantitative easing program. While there is no evidence this buyer is working directly with the US government, the timing of these purchases does raise suspicions.
It is not out of the realm of possibility that the Federal Reserve is involved in these purchases. The limited audit of the Federal Reserve’s actions during the financial crisis that was authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act revealed that the Fed actively intervenes in global markets.
What other deals with foreign governments is the Fed making? Is the Fed, like the IMF, working to bail out Greece and other EU countries? Is the Fed working secretly to aid US foreign policy as it did in the early 1980s, when it financed loans to then-US ally Saddam Hussein? The lack of transparency about the Fed’s dealings with overseas central banks and foreign governments is one more reason why Congress needs to pass the audit the fed bill.
By taking money from American taxpayers to support economically weak and oftentimes corrupt governments, the IMF distorts the market, enriches corrupt governments, and harms both the American taxpayer and the residents of the counties receiving IMF “aid.” It is past time to end the IMF along with all instruments of American interventionist foreign policy.
The US capitulation to Iran in the nuke talks is obvious to the world. The Iranians see it and celebrate with screams of “Death to America.”
“Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne,” by Ahmed Vahdat and Richard Spencer, the Telegraph, March 27, 2015:
A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.
Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).
He then appeared on an opposition television channel based in London to say he no longer saw any “sense” in his profession as a journalist as he could only write what he was told.
“There are a number of people attending on the Iranian side at the negotiations who are said to be journalists reporting on the negotiations,” he told Irane Farda television. “But they are not journalists and their main job is to make sure that all the news fed back to Iran goes through their channels.
“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more.” Mr Mottaghi was a journalist and commentator who went on to use social media successfully to promote Mr Rouhani to a youthful audience that overwhelmingly elected him to power.
But he was also subject to the bitter internal arguments within the Iranian regime. One news website claimed he had been forced in to report to the ministry of intelligence weekly, and that he had been tipped off that he might be subject to arrest had he returned to Tehran.
He is said to have been a friend of Jason Rezaian, the Iranian-American reporter for the Washington Post who has been detained in Tehran, and to have campaigned privately for his release.
ISCA, which has come under fire from regime hardliners critical of Mr Rouhani, issued a statement denying that Mr Motaghi was in Lausanne to report for it.
“Amir Hossein Motaghi had terminated his contribution to ISCA and this news agency has not had any reporter at the nuclear talks, except for a photojournalist”, it said.
However, critics said Mr Mottaghi was “prey of the exiled counter-revolutionaries” and had gone to Lausanne with the sole purpose of seeking refugee status in Switzerland.
In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.
“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.
BY MIKE SHEPARD
In order to get respect one must be willing to give it in return. Islamist demand respect from the world but do little to give respect back. If you are non Muslim you are an infidel in the eyes of Islam. I consider that offensive when one man thinks he is better than the next. Since we continue to hear of all the things that offend Islam we should take time to tell Islam what offends us. The Quran 65:4 says it’s ok rape, marry, and divorce pre-pubescent girls and most of us find that offensive. Quran 9:29 instructs Muslims to kill Jews, Christians, and non believers that don’t convert. Quran 9:111 tells Muslims to kill non-Muslims in order to get 72 virgins in heaven. Is Washington still trying to figure out why they picked that date to attack the World Trade Centers? We are all offended by those who wish to kill us but never hear Obama speak out about that.
The president has shown that he stands with Islam which means he does not stand with us. Islam has called for Jihad for over 800 years and that day is fast approaching. If Obama stands with Islam he is nothing more than a Jihadist in a suite. This country is offended that we have a president who stands up for a prophet but refuses to stand up for Americans. Islamist get offended by a cartoon but our president won’t stand up to those who murder the artist. We are offended that we have a president that hugs a racist like Al Sharpton while showing no respect for our fallen. The world is tired of protecting the feelings of a bunch of damned terrorist. The president said the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. I say the future of this country belongs to our kids not the traitor we have running this country. Keep protecting the feelings of these people and one day it will cost us our lives. God Bless America, and may He forever bless all that is good in this world. Semper Fi, Shep
BY KYLE BECKER
Islamic cleric Abdullah Aal Mahmud gave his rules on Bahraini TV in a 2005 interview about how to ‘properly’ beat one’s wife under sharia law. His remarks were reported by MEMRI TV (the Middle East Media Research Institute Television Project).
Here are Abdullah Aal Mahmud’s three simple rules for beating one’s wife as he interprets Islamic law:
- “If the husband wants to use beatings to treat his wife, he must never ever beat his wife. It must remain between him and her.”
- “He must cause bleeding or bruise her body…. [beatings] should not break any bones.”
- “He should avoid her face and other sensitive parts of her body.”
The Muslim legal scholar then concluded:
“If the husband violates these rules, he violates the rules of Allah. If she has been hurt, the husband is held liable for what he’s done, because the woman is not his merchandise, he cannot do to her whatever he wants. Even if the wife forgives her husband, it does not mean Allah will do the same on Judgment Day.”
IJReview certainly does not endorse the Muslim cleric’s comments, which can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. On the one hand, Bahrain is often considered to be a relatively enlightened country in the Middle Eastern region. CNN reported in 2010:
Bahrain also boasts about being the country with the lowest cost of living in the region as well as being the first Gulf state to provide education for both boys and girls from the 1920s onwards.
Bahraini women — who do not have to wear headscarves and are allowed freedom of dress — have had the right to vote and run for office since 2002.
On the other hand, the comments suggest that beating and intimidating a wife is somehow acceptable according to his interpretation of Islamic law.
It is important to understand the context of the cleric’s remarks in the broader view of women’s rights in the Middle East. Sanja Kelly of Freedom House puts these in perspective, based on a 2005 study (data on the subject is difficult to come by):
- As measured by this study, Bahraini women enjoy the greatest degree of freedom in the Gulf region, followed by women in Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman; Saudi Arabia lags significantly behind.
- Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia have improved modestly. Women can now study law, obtain their own identification cards, check into hotels alone, and register a business without proving first that they have hired a male manager. Their overall degree of freedom, however, remains among the most restricted in the world.
- Women in Kuwait have experienced the greatest gains of any Gulf country in terms of their economic participation. The proportion of women participating in the workforce has increased by 5 percent since 2003.
- Oman instituted a new law on evidence, which stipulates that the testimony of men and women in court is now equal in most situations. If properly implemented, this law may serve as an example for many Arab countries where a woman’s testimony is given half the weight of a man’s.
Women’s rights have a long way to go in the Middle East and other nations around the globe.
It is important to bear in mind that culture and religion play a significant role in determining what individual rights women are acknowledged to have. In this way, nations that do understand the importance of gender equality under the law should not be afraid to spread their influence.