Obama blames high gas prices on IranDavid JacksonUSA TODAYMarch 24, 2012

For all the domestic political talk abouthigh gas prices, President Obama says onemajor factor can be traced overseas: Iran.

"Right now the key thing that is drivinghigher gas prices is actually the world's oilmarkets and uncertainty about what'sgoing on in Iran and the Middle East,"Obama said in an interview with AAA."And that's adding a $20 or $30 premiumto oil prices, and that affects obviouslygas prices."

Obama also cited Iran during his recenttwo-day western tour to discuss gasprices, and his "all-of-the-above" strategy that includes investment in new sources of energy.

"The main reason the gas prices are high right now is because people are worried about what'shappening with Iran," Obama said in Oklahoma. "It doesn't have to do with domestic oilproduction. It has to do with the oil markets looking and saying, you know what, if somethinghappens there could be trouble and so we're going to price oil higher just in case."

One major worry: the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, slowing the oilsupply and spiking up prices even further.

Obama and aides are working to dissuadeIsrael from a possible attack, asking it togive international sanctions more time toforce Tehran into forgoing the means tomake nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is forpeaceful energy purposes, not weapons,and that Israel and the United States arefear-mongering.

AAA describes itself as "a non-partisan

organization providingunbiased reporting of gas pricesthrough its popular weekly FuelGauge Report."

AAA reports a national averageof $3.89 per gallon today -- upfrom $3.58 a month ago and$3.28 at the start of the year.

Republicans blame the priceescalation on Obama'sregulation policies, and thereare signs that the attacks are

taking a toll on the president's political standing.

The president said:

First of all, I understand what folks are going through, because it wasn't that long ago that Iwas having to fill up my gas tank and drive to work, shuttle the kids back and forth to school andtheir events, and it takes a big bite out of folks' paychecks.

The challenge is that we've been goingthrough this kind of cycle of ups and downsin gas prices for decades now. We don'thave the control over our own energysecurity the way we need to.

And so what we talked about today wasan all-of-the-above strategy that involveshigher oil production here in the UnitedStates but also involves making our carsmore fuel-efficient, expanding biofuels,using all the resources we can to try tolessen our demand for foreign oil, whichmakes us less vulnerable to price spikes overthe long term.

Worrisome Security CouncilPresidential Statement on Syria

Stephen Lendman Infowars.comMarch 24, 2012

After months of internal wrangling, SecurityCouncil members unanimously endorsedefforts to end Syrian violence. Or did they?More on that below.

Presidential statements are non-binding.However, with vague language, they riskpotential slippery slope trouble. More on thatbelow as well.

Media reports called unanimity a setback forAssad. The statement’s also characterized as “Western.”

Hillary Clinton called it “a positive step. The council has now spoken with one voice.” She alsosaid Washington is working with Syria’s opposition “to strengthen its preparation to participate inthe Syrian-led transition process that the Council has endorsed.” By any other name, she meansregime change.

That alone suggests softened Russian support for Syria, or perhaps something else went onprivately to cut an imperfect deal unlikely to end conflict. A greater one may follow, but only thefullness of time will tell.

Russia’s UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin said:

“We are very pleased. The Security Council has finally chosen to take a pragmatic look at thesituation in Syria.”

Russia and China won concessions, but notenough. Interviewed on Kommersant FMradio, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’scomments left unanswered questions. He said:

“It is true that some people have taken up armsto defend their homes and families, but that’snot the whole story.”

He also described a plot to replace Assad witha Western/Saudi/Qatar-backed Sunni regime.In addition, he criticized Assad, saying:

“We absolutely do not justify the Syrianleadership. We consider that (it) reactedincorrectly to the rise of nonviolent protest,that despite the promises that were made inresponse to our numerous appeals, they aremaking many mistakes, and those steps beingmade in the proper direction are happeninglate.”

He suggested a transition similar to howYemen replaced Ali Abdullah Saleh with AbdRabbuh Mansur al-Hadi but left the regime inpower. It’s hard imagining why he believeschanging names and faces suggests newpolicies differing from current ones.

He left Syria’s new Constitution unaddressed. It constitutes a roadmap for change. It lets Syrians,not other nations, decide. In previous comments, Lavrov strongly endorsed the process. He didagain to avoid Western-style regime change.

Russia’s got good reason to worry. Besides strategically important Syrian interests, Washington’sUkraine and Georgia color revolutions put pro-Western regimes on its borders. Putin especiallyfears Moscow may be next. His concerns are well justified.

Washington wants unchallenged global dominance. Achieving it requires client states replacingindependent ones. Russia and China are ultimate targets. Moscow is Washington’s main militaryrival. Between them, they control about 97% of the world’s nuclear arsenal with sophisticateddelivery systems able to target strategic global sites.

China’s an economic powerhouse. It also has significant military strength, including hundreds ofnuclear warheads, sophisticated delivery systems, and other strategic weapons. Beijing andMoscow both are justifiably wary of America’s belligerence, its quest for global dominance, andschemes to control or eliminate potential rivals – by any means, including war.

It’s perhaps why Lavrov told Kommersant radio:

“Neither the UN, nor any other body orgroup of countries have the right todecide who should and who should notgovern a sovereign state. The eventuallyinevitable departure of Mr. Assadshould not look like a regime change.”

On the one hand, Lavrov sees Assad’sdeparture as certain. On the other, it’sfor Syrians to decide either way andwho replaces him if he leaves. Under

international law, it’s their right.Perhaps they’ll get it under newconstitutional provisions. Theyprovide a framework for change, butthe fullness of time alone willdetermine how and what follows.

On March 21, Russian president-electVladimir Putin’s press secretary,Dmitry Peskov, endorsed Assad asSyria’s legitimate leader. He alsostressed Russia’s commitment to endviolence, as well as restore andpreserve security and order. Inaddition, he deplored oppositionviolence without calling it Western-backed.

Moscow also got a Security Council press statement. It condemned last weekend’s Damascus andAleppo bombings “in the strongest terms.” Calling them “terrorism,” it stopped short of blamingresponsible Western-backed killer gangs.

Russia and China yielded. Both know Assad’s more victim than villain. Yet they gave more thanthey got. At issue is why?

Flawed Security Council Presidential Statement

It’s both flawed and worrisome. Though non-binding, it potentially facilitates what Russia andChina fear. Washington’s longstanding policy wants pro-Western leadership replacing Assad. Allmeans will be employed to achieve it, including war.

The statement doesn’t explicitly endorse Assad stepping down. However, it tacitly backs aprocess for achieving it, saying:

“The Security Council expresses itsfull support for the efforts of theEnvoy (Annan) to bring animmediate end to all violence andhuman rights violations, securehumanitarian access, and facilitatea Syrian-led political transition to ademocratic, plural politicalsystem….”

It supports Kofi Annan’s six-pointplan. Like current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, he’s alongstanding imperial tool

appointed at the behest of Washington to advance apro-Western agenda smoothed with diplomaticlanguage appearing even-handed.

Assad’s right saying “no political dialogue orpolitical activity can succeed while there are armedterrorist groups operating and spreading chaos andinstability.” Yet Russia and China agreed with SClanguage calling on Syria to:

“immediately cease troop movements towards, andend the use of heavy weapons in, populationcentres, and begin pullback of militaryconcentrations in and around population centres.”

Assad “should work with (Annan) to bring about asustained cessation of armed violence in all itsforms by all parties with an effective UnitedNations supervision mechanism.”

“Similar commitments” are also sought fromopposition elements, but only after Syria first initiates them. In other words, killer gangs maycontinue in the interim committing what Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemned.

In a March 19 open letter, HRW explicitly explained opposition terrorism, including targetedkillings, summary executions, kidnappings for ransom, torture, hostage taking, and other violentcrimes.

Assad confronted them. It’s his job. Ceasing may facilitate what he, Russia and China deplore –greater conflict producing Western-engineered regime change. It’s planned. The March 21 SCstatement doesn’t deter it.

It wants “the Syrian Government and oppositionto work in good faith to implement ‘fully andimmediately’ (Annan’s) six-point proposal (andto) commence a political dialogue” to do so.

With Western backing, the foreign-based SyrianNational Council (SNC) involved in violencerefuses. The nonviolent internally-based NationalCoordination Body for Democratic Change (NCB)is willing.

The SC statement also calls for “ensur(ing) timelyprovision of humanitarian assistance to all areasaffected by the fighting….”

At issue is how. On March 22, The National

headlined, “Turkey readies Syrian buffer zoneplan,” saying:

Ankara “discretely” began “preparations for abuffer zone on the Syrian side of the borderbetween the two countries amid fears thathundreds of thousands could flee thefighting….”

An unnamed official said “about 500 specializedsoldiers” began inspecting border areas. Militaryoptions are considered. Turkey’s mediareported similar plans.

According to Center for Middle EasternStrategic Studies analyst Veysel Ayhan,preparations show Turkey wants to be ready foran emergency refugee flood. He believesinternational efforts will be involved.

On March 19, Turkey’s Today’s Zamanheadlined, “No decision yet on buffer zone inSyria, says Turkey.” It quoted Prime MinisterRecep Tayyip Erdogan saying:

“There are….considerations about creating a buffer zone and a safe zone. We are evaluatingalternatives,” but no decisions have been made.

Buffer (safe) zones replicate no-fly ones. They require humanitarian corridors, easier access forforeign-supplied weapons, and military protection. It includes air support targeting Syriandefenses, as well as command and control sites.

Doing so means NATO’s involvement in war. It’s precisely what Russia and China oppose. Yetendorsing the SC statement may precipitate it.

It’s more likely given the statement’s final comment, saying:

“The Security Council requests (Annan) to update the Council regularly and in a timely manner onthe progress of his mission. In light of these reports, the Security Council will consider furthersteps as appropriate.”

Emphasis is on undefined “further steps.” It suggests wiggle room enough to wage war. Expect itbecause:

(a) Washington wants regime change by any means;

(b) the road to Tehran runs through Damascus;

(c) weapons will keep flowing to Western-backed killer gangs; who’ll stop them?

(d) violence will continue;

(e) Assad must confront it; it’s his job;failure is dereliction of duty; allgovernments are required to protect theirpeople;

(f) for doing so, he’ll be blamed fordisobeying the SC.

“Further steps” will follow. It’s easyimagining which ones. Blame Russia andChina for allowing what they oppose. IfAssad falls, Iran’s next and may betargeted at the same time.

Washington plans clean sweep regionalregime change. Syria, Iran, Lebanon’sHezbollah, and perhaps Hamas aretargeted. Imagine what’s ahead to achieveit.

A decade of war perhaps was prelude forpotential armageddon. Nuclear weapons may target Iran’s underground facilities. Retaliation willfollow. Expect Russia and China to intervene.

What cooler heads fear now threatens. America’s war lobby spurns peace. What potentiallyfollows is chilling. TS Eliot’s poem “The Hollow Men” ends, saying:

“This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

He likely got it wrong, and it’s the other way around.

This post first appeared on the Information Clearing House website.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

EndGame Blue Print to Global Enslavement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho&ob=av3e

There Are More Americans In Jail ThanThere Were In Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago

Henry Blodget businessinsider.comMarch 24, 2012

There are now more Americansin jail -- 6 million -- than therewere in Stalin's Gulag, reports

Fareed Zakaria, in a columncalled "Incarceration Nation."

And it's not just a relativepopulation thing.

The U.S. has 760 prisoners per100,000 citizens.

How does that compare toother countries?

It's 7X-10X as high:

Japan has 63 per 100,000,

Germany has 90 per 100,000

France has 96 per 100,000

South Korea has 97 per 100,000

-Britain has 153 per 100,000

And it's also a relatively new phenomenon: In 1980, the U.S. only had 150 prisoners per 100,000citizens.

What's to blame?

The "War on Drugs."

More than half of America's 6 million prisoners are in jail for drug convictions, with 80% of thosein jail for "possession." By the way, has the "war on drugs" worked?

Um, no.

There are still drugs everywhere.

So, maybe it's time we stopped throwing people in the slammer for possessing them.

Global oil price may hit $240 if Irancloses HormuzPress TVMarch 24, 2012

A leading US-based energyconsulting firm says oil price mayhit $240 a barrel and economicgrowth may fall by over 25percent if Iran closes the Strait ofHormuz in reaction to theWestern sanctions.

Analysts at IHS Global Insightalso told reporters that Iran caneasily close the strategic strait anddisrupt global oil supplies for upto three months by laying minesthat the US and its allies would have to find and remove, USA Today reported.

“If Iran actually moves to close the Strait of Hormuz, crude oil prices may soar to $240 a barrelfor some time,” said Sara Johnson, senior research director for Global Economics at IHS. Sheadded that oil prices may stay as high as $160 in the second quarter of the year before reverting tosomewhere around $120. Such an oil shock, Johnson stated, can bring back gas lines in much ofthe world, and shave next year’s global economic growth to 2.6 percent from a current forecast of3.6 percent. “If it [oil price] did hit $240 [a barrel], you’re looking at about a doubling of wheregas prices are now; and the US [gas price] is at $4 [a gallon],” said Jim Burkhard, managingdirector of the global oil group at IHS CERA, the firm’s energy-research arm. The expert statedthat the impact would be so large as the global oil supplies are so tight.

“The world has only between 1.8 million and 2.5 million barrels per day of unused productioncapacity, down from 6.2 million in 2009. Tight inventories magnify the impact of any interruptionin crude from nations around the Strait [of Hormuz],” Burkhard added.The US and the European Union (EU) have imposed tough sanctions against Iran, since thebeginning of 2012, to block the country’s oil exports and penalize other states for importing theIranian crude. They claim that Iran’s nuclear energy program includes a military component,ignoring the fact that International Atomic Energy Agency has never been able to prove a militarydiversion in Iran’s nuclear energy program despite meticulous inspections.

Tehran has threatened that if Iran’s oil exports are cut, the country may take retaliatory steps,including the closure the strategic Strait of Hormuz through which a daily total of 15-17 millionbarrels of oil pass.

Israel Committed to Attacking Iran inJune

Kurt NimmoInfowars.comMarch 24, 2012

In an exclusive report,Jerusalem-based DEBKAfilereports that both Israel and theUnited States are on the samepage in regard to launching anattack on Iran.

“American and Israeliintelligence evaluations of thestate of Iran’s program are inaccord – contrary to theimpression gained fromObama administrationofficials,” DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported on March 22. “Both are of one mind on the imperative to paralyze that programeven by force if Iran refuses to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.” On Friday, it wasreported that the United States, European allies and Israel agree that Iran does not have a nuclearweapons program. “Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probablyyears away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead,” the National Post reported. Despite thisevidence, the Israeli government has decided to attack Iran.

According to DEBKAfile, Israeli DefenseMinister Ehud Barak said in a radio interview onThursday that if Israel is resolved to attack Iran,it will have to do so within three months. InFebruary, it was reported that Israel would carryout an attack in June and would use Saudi Arabiaas its base.

DEBKAfile claims Israeli Prime MinisterBinyamin Netanyahu has convinced a majority ofhis Security and Diplomatic Cabinet of theurgency of an attack. “He is now backed by thetwo deputy prime ministers, the defense, foreignaffairs, interior and finance ministers, whileIntelligence Minister Dan Meridor and Ministerwithout Portfolio Benny Begin are unconvinced.Netanyahu can therefore go ahead and safely put

the military option to the vote in the cabinet for thefirst time,” DEBKAfile reports.

With this consensus, Barak sent IDF Chief of Staff Lt.Gen. Benny Gantz to Washington to meet Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. Gantztold Dempsey Israel would “be happy if the US haltsIran’s nuclear program in its tracks, no matter whetherthis is done by economic sanctions, an oil embargo,negotiations between Tehran and the world powers, orsecret US-Iranian diplomacy.” The effort, however,would need to fit within the three month timeline.

Israeli officials then met “discretely” with leadingmembers of Congress and told them about the threemonth timeline.

DEBKAfile states, however, that Israel “may have topart ways with the United States on the Iranian issuethe first time in its short history” and attack Iran“before it is too late.”

Israel is now committed to an attack on Iran that will occur during the height of campaigning forthe 2012 U.S. presidential election. TheRepublican national convention will be held on August 27-30 in Tampa, Florida, and the

Democrat convention will be held onSeptember 3-6 in Charlotte, NorthCarolina. If Israel attacks Iran in June, itwill undoubtedly be the dominant issueduring the convention and the electionin November.

Republican candidates Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich haveall expressed their support of an Israeliattack on Iran. Ron Paul is the onlycandidate who opposes an attack. A pollconducted earlier this month revealedthat a majority of Republicans believethe U.S. will attack Iran this year.

Obama said on March 5 that the U.S.would always “have Israel’s back” butsaid there was still time for diplomacy.

http://www.infowars.com/