From Scandal to Exchange

President Obama approved the decision on the exchange of the so-called “group of illegal Russian spies” three weeks before their arrest…

President Obama received his first information on this group from American authorities in early February of this year. At this point, officials concluded that arrests were inevitable. Immediately, they began to collect the information necessary for official sanction for an arrest warrant. Nevertheless, Mr Obama had to take into account the political and practical aspects of the case. On 24 June, he had to act as official host in Washington for the official visit of President Medvedev. As a result, the so-called spies were arrested a few days after Mr Medvedev’s visit. We say “so called” because no evidence of espionage activities was submitted. As stated by the US Attorney General Eric Holder, the Russian agents didn’t obtain any secret information during their stay in the USA. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the alleged Russian spies didn’t dig up any useful data. In this case, US authorities emphasised that they received in exchange for ten losers, four people that they were very interested in. One way or another, such an ending to this scandal was due to the mutual reluctance of the Russian and American leaderships to allow it to fester, for it would have a destructive effect on bilateral relations.

Former FSB Director and RF Gosduma Deputy Nikolai Kovalyov spoke to VOR on the intricacies of the spy scandal. He said, “In my opinion, the main operating principal was that the parties involves did not allow the scandal to be blown out of proportion, they wanted to find a way out [of the situation]. Moreover, they used legal and verified methods. There were no mutual expulsions; no exacerbating actions [were taken]. This case in the global history of intelligence gathering is unprecedented; it has no analogues. This is evidence of the new nature of our relationship. The parties involved have made it clear… this does not stop the ‘reboot’. No attempt to make this incident into a scandal can affect the positive nature of our relationship. Such is what our peoples and our presidents’ desire. I think that both states will continue to follow this line”.

All the children of the expelled spies have decided to follow their parents [home to Russia]. In this case, it includes those children who were born in the USA and who had every right to American citizenship. However, the two sons of Vicky Pelaez are waiting until their mother decides on where she will live, in Russia, or in her homeland of Peru. This scandal, which formerly would have had every chance to damage Russian-American relations significantly, today, ended on nearly a humorous note. Speaking on a TV talk show, Vice President Joe Biden, replied to a question on whether there are American spies, such as the journalist put it, that were “hot stuff” like Anna Chapman. Mr Biden laughingly noted that it wasn’t his idea to send a glamour queen beauty back to Moscow. It seems that, overall, the story of Russian spies in America was a spectacular show that played well, the politicians, intelligence agencies, journalists all reaped the benefits. After all, it played well for those seeking titillation and the ”hot stuff” crowd.

12 July 2010

Sergei Vroblevsky

Voice of Russia World Service

http://rus.ruvr.ru/2010/07/12/12099114.html

Editor’s Note:

The Western Corporate Media did an exceedingly poor job on this story. It is standard intelligence procedure to have “sleeper agents”… there are such in Russia who serve the CIA. I also note that President Obama isn’t getting credit for allowing the proper people to do their jobs, and they are silent over Hillary’s exclusion from the affair. Do remember her recent visit to the Ukraine (a bust… it was arranged before the defeat of the Orangies), Georgia, and the Baltics. I shall say this… everyone whom Hill defended are the spiritual descendants of Nazi collaborators… way to go, Hillary! She smooched up to those whose fathers shoved Jews into the ovens for the Nazis or who launched rocket strikes on sleeping civilians. THIS is what America has fallen to… let’s get out of the imperialism business, and go back to being what we were before the neocon infestation. It can be done… and it must.

BMD

Advertisement

US Attorney General Eric Holder: Children of Exiled Russians Departed for Russia Voluntarily

The home of accused Russian spies “Donald Heathfield” and his wife “Tracey Foley” and their two teenage sons in Cambridge MA. This shows the shallow vapidity and general stupidity of the affluent effluent in the suburban USA… if you look like you “have money”… you’re accepted. Makes ya think of some sorts in the Church, no (Bobby and his wife aspired to this, after all)?

______________________________

US Attorney General Eric Holder said that all of the dependents of the deported Russian spies who were of legal age voluntarily departed for Russia to be with their parents.

“The minor children [of the spies] were deported. We did so in accordance with the wishes of their parents”, he said. He went on to say, the children of the Russian spies who were American citizens and were of legal age (or close to it) were given a choice by the US government. “Those who were old enough to do so were given a choice in the matter, but all of them decided to follow their parents”, Mr Holder said. Earlier, US officials said that Washington gave all the children of the “Russian agents” two options; they could follow their parents or elect to stay in America. “The children chose, it’s what it is”, RIA-Novosti quoted Mr Holder as saying.

12 July 2010

Voice of Russia World Service

http://rus.ruvr.ru/2010/07/12/12063409.html

Reactions to the “Forbidden Art 2006” Verdict

Orthodox pickets protesting the “Forbidden Art 2006” exhibition… these are the kind of people that SVS derisively calls “Orthodox skinheads” so that they can curry favour with the Episkies and secularist academics. Words DO matter, as Rav Lazar points up… it appears that SVS doesn’t want to be part of healthy Orthodoxy…

______________________________

Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, the Executive Secretary of the Patriarch’s Council on the Arts, found that the sentences handed to Andrei Yerofeyev and Yuri Samodurov, the organisers of the controversial art exhibition “Forbidden Art 2006”, were light. “Insulting religious and national sentiment is unacceptable and it is important that the court should have handed down a sentence that would condemn such actions”, he told Interfax-Religion on Monday. At the same time, in his opinion, the fine imposed on Samodurov and Yerofeyev “should have been higher”. When you consider the support that the defendants have in this case, of course, this punishment is purely symbolic”, Fr Tikhon said. He expressed the opinion that the verdict may even be a boon for Samodurov and Yerofeyev, since they will be able to announce to the world that they are persecuted and oppressed. Fr Tikhon doubted that the verdict would make the defendants reflect on their guilt. “Their disgusting little rat’s dance will continue. For them, in a sense, this conviction is a gift, it will just lead to the next phase of the same old vile amusements”, he concluded.

Oleg Kassin, the head of the NGO Народный собор (National Assembly), who filed charges in the criminal case against the organisers of the “Forbidden Art 2006” exhibition, did not rule out that he would press other charges under another article of the Criminal Code. “We will carefully study [the verdict] and do not exclude that we would press charges under the article covering ‘hooliganism””, Mr Kassin told reporters on Monday. In his opinion, the court’s verdict against Samodurov and Yerofeyev reflects the presence of obscene language in the exhibits. “The exhibits should be destroyed as they are criminal instruments”, he concluded. He criticised the verdict as being too soft. “Samodurov the Jailbird got off again with a fine. If an offender doesn’t receive enough punishment, he doesn’t feel that he’s guilty, so, he continues to commit crime”, Mr Kassin noted. He added that those who have initiated the criminal case against Samodurov and Yerofeyev should appeal to the authorities with the plea that the case was not investigated fully.

The Council of Muftis of Russia considered that the sentence against Samodurov and Yerofeyev set a precedent. “It’s not so much that a fine was imposed, rather, it’s the fact that there was a conviction that set a precedent”, Gulnur Gazieva, the press secretary of the Council of Muftis, said to our Interfax-Religion correspondent on Monday. She pointed up that, at the time of the trial, Muslims expressed the opinion that those who held such an exhibition shouldn’t get off scot-free, but as far as prison terms were concerned, the Council of Muftis held the view that “fines would suffice as a punishment”. Ms Gazieva emphasised that everyone has the opportunity to influence the minds and hearts of others, but there “must be self-control. We are opposed to the type of censorship that developed in the Soviet period, we believe that those who have artistic talent, who have the ability to influence other’s consciousness, should feel a great sense of responsibility”, Ms Gazieva said. She added that people should act “without fear of judicial punishment or social stigma, but they should not wish to offend or insult another’s feelings”. She told us that Muslims believe that every person has a moral sense initially, but in some people, it is “buried somewhere, it’s suppressed. We need to revive it, and it shall enrich any artist, poet, or writer [who does so]”, Ms Gazieva noted. She also noted that she knows writers, artists, musicians, and journalists. “Often, ineffectual people hide behind their vulnerability to repel and upset society. Even when you understand them, you still want to call them back to express good feelings rather than to issue outrageous challenges”, Ms Gazieva added.

The conflict between the organizers of the “Forbidden Art 2006” exhibition and believers wasn’t really a legal matter, Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar said. “To drag artists through the court system, no matter what they have created is, shall we say, somewhat boorish. We are dealing with a conflict in the moral order… I think that the right way to combat such manifestations is to use moral condemnation, but not prosecution”, Rav Lazar told our Interfax-Religion correspondent on Monday. In his view, the courts “already have much to do. In our society, unfortunately, there is still a lot of violence, including nationalist or racist violence. As not all such incidents come to court and not all perpetrators receive just punishment, I think that it wasn’t worth going to court against the organisers of an art exhibition, no matter how offensive to me their ideas were”, Rav Lazar said. “You have to understand that the line between free speech and offensive speech often walks a very fine line, sometimes a carelessly spoken word brings more harm than direct violence. The pain of the blow lingers longer than any bruise, the pain of inappropriate words remains in the soul a very long time”, he said. Rav Lazar pointed up that believers do not impose their views on atheists, but they do try to show everyone “something positive, which comes from our faith in God, from the beauty of the religious worldview. Unbelievers may not share our values, but I would ask them not to insult those values. For us, as believers, insulting someone’s religious beliefs… this is the same as if someone insulted your parents, or insulted those who are dearest to you. I think that you only need good sense to refrain from such behaviour, from such expressions of ‘artistic expressions’”, he added.

12 July 2010

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=36434

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=36435

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=36436

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=36437

Get a Load of This One… Professor Teaches Class on Catholic Doctrine… Fired Because He Said He Agreed with Catholic Doctrine!

I’m not joking or jesting… read this…

http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/07/12/professor-fired-over-catholic-doctrine/#axzz0tUhAYMGx

I don’t believe it… a college hires someone to teach about Catholic doctrine… they hire a Catholic. D’oh! That’s a no-brainer. Who else would be an expert on Catholic teaching, but a Catholic… in any case, you want someone who isn’t going to be smarmily attacking the Catholic position with a leering smirk on their face. The college gets a gold star for doing the logical thing. Hell, they deserve a new bike for that, considering the current climate in academe. Then… they turn around and can the poor sod because he said that he agreed with Catholic doctrine. What gives? Hate speech? What utterly ridiculous stuff n’ nonsense. Look at this in the light of the “Forbidden Art 2006” verdict. All of the usual pseudo-intellectual academic poseurs got on their soapboxes and caterwauled, “Censorship! Political show trial! Religion is attempting to strangle free expression!” Guess what, kiddies? THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS. If atheists can express opinions in opposition to religion, then, believers can express opinions in favour of religion. That’s what free speech and democracy are all about. Hmm… they exist in Moscow, but, apparently, not at the University of Illinois. Reflect on this… if Professor Howell had said the same thing at PSTGU in Moscow, an Orthodox institution, Patriarch Kirill would shake his hand for being honest. If Professor Howell went on to say, “I believe that the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church”, His Nibs would pour him a drink and say, “I do think there’s more than one opinion on that one”. Mr Howell would NOT be fired. Hell, last time I looked, aren’t Catholics SUPPOSED to defend the teaching of their confession? At least, that was the impression that I received… I’ll admit that I can become confused at times, but I don’t think that’s the case here. The University of Illinois goes from deserving a shiny new bike to meriting the soggy cardboard box. I realise that it takes all kinds, and “truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction”, but to fire a man who was hired to teach a course on Catholic doctrine for expressing approval of Catholic doctrine… that’s Jabberwockian. Treebeard… wherefore art thou when thou art needed? HOOM-DA-DA-HOOM. I hope that Professor Howell takes the U of Illinois to the bloody cleaners on this one. People are NEVER boring, are they?

Barbara-Marie Drezhlo

Monday 12 July 2010

Albany NY