Who will fall victim to US ‘humanitarian’ intervention next?
| October 3, 2015 | 7:59 pm | Analysis, political struggle | No comments
The decrepit state of Libya today is largely a result of the NATO-led war that was launched in 2011.  It is currently in the throes of a massive terrorist-on-terrorist war in Tripoli and Benghazi

Libyan Crisis: Who Will Fall Victim to US ‘Humanitarian’ Intervention Next?

© AP Photo/ Mohammed el-Sheikhy

After US-NATO forces have bombed Libya into bedlam the question remains open who will fall victim to Washington’s “humanitarian” mission next, expert in political and military affairs Brian Cloughley asks.

NATO’s saber-rattling and muscle-flexing anywhere in the world always looks like a bad omen since the Alliance has never learnt from its mistakes.

NATO’s military campaign in Libya has led to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions, however, Washington is unwilling to admit that it was a grave mistake for the US to topple Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

“US-NATO’s three billion dollar jamboree of aerial destruction that reduced Libya to bedlam was described by the West as a military triumph, and hailed in 2012 by two prominent US-NATO military figures [Ivo H. Daalder and Admiral James G. Stravridis] as demonstrating that ‘by any measure, NATO succeeded in Libya’,” author and expert in political and military affair Brian Cloughley underscored in his article for Strategic Culture Foundation.

Although NATO has “succeeded,” it is at the same time undeniable that the havoc in Libya, torn apart by civil war and Islamist insurgency, will continue, Cloughley noted, citing rightist Washington think tank and intelligence company Stratfor.So what did the NATO chiefs mean by saying that “NATO succeeded in Libya”?

Indeed, under Gaddafi Libya was hardly a paradise, the expert noted. On the other hand, the Libyan leader “did a great deal for his country” and had long been supported by the US and Britain, Cloughley emphasized.

According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) report, before the uprising Libya was “providing comprehensive health care including preventive, curative and rehabilitative services to all citizens free of charge through primary health care units, health centers and district hospitals.”

The CIA Factbook read that Gaddafi’s Libya boasted a literacy rate of 94.2 percent (higher than in Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia). Its life expectancy was 72.3 years, one of the highest in the developing world, the expert noted.

Despite Libya’s high achievements, Gaddafi suddenly “fell out of favor” with Washington and NATO, which decided to support rebel groups and launch airstrikes against the country’s government forces.

“The total turnaround in the West’s attitude had of course nothing to do with the fact that Gaddafi had hinted at nationalizing his country’s oil resources, thus removing profits from Western oil conglomerates,” the author remarked with a touch of sarcasm.

Ironically, during their inglorious war against Libya, US President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron declared: “we are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya,” the expert noted, adding that it was a “spectacularly dim-witted and ill-informed prediction.”Citing the WHO, Cloughley pointed out that the results of the US-NATO bombing in Libya included “shortages of food, fuel, water, medical supplies and electricity, as well as reduced access to health care and public services… The situation of women and children has become particularly vulnerable, since the hospitals are overwhelmed with trauma patients.”

The country still remains in ruins after NATO’s “triumph.”

“And what is next for NATO? Where will it choose to mount another “model intervention” after its destruction of Libya and its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan?” Cloughley asks rhetorically.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151002/1027932576/libya-fell-victim-to-us-nato.html#ixzz3nYYgoPQC

America will never be great with communist Obama – US media
| October 3, 2015 | 7:56 pm | political struggle | No comments

US President Barack Obama

America Will Never Be Great With Communist Obama – US Media



The Obama administration not only restricts the freedom of the nation in a very Soviet-like manner but also does whatever it takes to diminish US influence on the international arena, Washington Times author Todd Wood writes.

The policy of the Obama administration — be it the Iran Nuclear Deal or withdrawal of troops from the Middle East or an artificial fight with ISIL — is just aimed at weakening US international influence. Obama doesn’t love America, Wood believes, and his forecast for the country’s future is quite gloomy.

“America will never be great again until we regain this focus, this passion, this love of freedom, and the will to spread it, support it, nurture it overseas,” he wrote.

Wood compared Obama’s policy with communism which, as he expressed it, is a way of controlling people, “killed the human spirit” and “turned people into slaves of Big Brother.” Much like Islam, which is “not a religion but a political movement”.

The exact same approach lies at the heart of current liberal policy in the US, Wood wrote, and this is what’s happening in America under Obama’s presidency.

“It is quite obvious Mr. Obama is a communist at heart, and a Muslim,” the journalist wrote. “His agenda fits quite nicely with the Islamist agenda worldwide.”

Even ex-president George W. Bush, despite all his mistakes, was at least a principled man, Wood suggests, as he stood for freedom, just like his predecessors.

“Now the communists… are here among us. They are attempting to change America, our way of life,” Wood stated. “Yes, I am talking, sadly to say, about the Democratic Party and all it represents. They no longer represent the America I knew. They see a different future, one controlled by an elite, one which will enjoy communism while the rest of us abide by their politically correct dictates.”

The columnist added that corruption also thrives under Obama, even expanding to the Internal Revenue, Secret Service and Environmental agency, which followed the example of those in power.

“Help me, my fellow Americans, before it’s too late. Let’s stop this change and elect a leader who will stand up for freedom in 2016. I want my country back,” Wood concluded.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151004/1027981843.html#ixzz3nYY0vBmV

Ethel Rosenberg exonerated and honoured
| October 2, 2015 | 9:05 pm | Announcements, political struggle | No comments



Photos of the Ceremony © by Bud Korotzer



Michael and Robert Meerapol








Miriam Moskowitz was there as well at age 99

More photos and links HERE

DesertPeace is proud to join in with the City Council of New York City as they celebrate the 100th birthday of Ethel Rosenberg.

After years of concealing the truth about the Rosenberg spy case, evidence came to light recently  proving the innocence of Ethel.

It was her brother that turned her in to save the life of his wife.

May he burn in hell for eternity!

Sketches of the Rosenbergs by Pablo Picasso

A note from Ethel’s granddaughter Jenn …

After years of hard work by my father, RFC Founder Robert Meeropol, and others, I am delighted to announce that on Monday, September 28th, members of the New York City Council will issue a proclamation honoring my grandmother, Ethel Rosenberg, on what would be her 100th birthday. My father and I, and other members of our family, will be at the announcement at 11 am on the steps of City Hall in New York.

If you’re nearby, we invite you to join us for this historic occasion, which will be open to the public and members of the media. Whether or not you are able to be with us in person, please visit our website for further details, and to read the exact language of the proclamation once we are able to release it following the ceremony on Monday.

Thank you all for being part of the community of support which helped make this possible,


Jenn Meeropol

The Munich agreement: West’s political conspiracy against Stalin?
| October 2, 2015 | 8:52 pm | Analysis, political struggle, Russia, USSR | No comments

From left to right are: Reichsmarschall and President of the Reichstag Hermann Goering, Italian Foreign Minister Count Ciano and Italian Fascist Leader Benito Mussolini shaking hands with Prime Minister of Great Britain Neville Chamberlain during the Four Power Conference held in autumn 1938 in Munich, Germany. Others not identified

The Munich Agreement: West’s Political Conspiracy Against Stalin?

© AP Photo/ Hoffman
Ekaterina Blinova
By signing the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler on September, 30, 1938, major European powers, Britain and France signaled to Nazi Germany: ‘Move East, and we won’t harm you!’ Professor Grover Carr Furr of Montclair State University told Sputnik.

The Munich Agreement inked in the early hours of September 30, 1938 by Britain, France, Italy and Nazi Germany (excluding the USSR and Czechoslovakia) opened the doors to Hitler’s aggression and marked the actual beginning of the Second World War.In accordance with the agreement, Nazi Germany was permitted to seize the so-called “Sudetenland” — northern and western parts of Czechoslovakia inhabited predominantly by German speakers.

Earlier, on May 19-20, German military forces started to concentrate on Czechoslovak borders, prompting a partial mobilization in the country. Hitler’s intentions were crystal clear to European powers. However, they were unwilling to help the Czechoslovak government which faced Germany’s blatant aggression.

The Munich Agreement Handed Over Czechoslovakia to Hitler

On July 20, French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet informed the Czechoslovak minister Stefan Osusky that “France will not make war for the Sudeten affaire… The Czechoslovak government must understand that France as well as England will not go to war. It was important above all that matters should be clear” (Michael J. Carley “‘Only the USSR has… Clean Hands’: the Soviet Perspective on the Failure of Collective Security and the Collapse of Czechoslovakia, 1934-1938”).

The Czechoslovak government was literally coerced into submission by Britain and France.

On September 15, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden to negotiate the cession of Czechoslovakia’s territories. Three days later, there was a meeting between Hitler and French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier regarding the same issue. Needless to say, no Czechoslovak representatives were invited to the negotiating table.

“The Munich Agreement actually did what the liars claim the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did but in reality did not do. The Munich Agreement handed over a country to Hitler. Moreover, the Allies did so without even asking the Czech government or President! Poland was complicit in this. [Warsaw] took the Teschen area, heavily industrial and with a minority Polish population. Winston Churchill compared Poland to a “jackal”, snapping up some morsels while the “lions”, the Great Powers, divided up the big prize. In 1939, when Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia, the Bank of England gave Hitler the Czech gold reserves!” US expert in Soviet history Professor Grover Carr Furr of Montclair State University told Sputnik.

Czechoslovakia was really a “big prize” for Hitler: the country boasted a highly-developed military industry and had a 40 percent share in the world’s arms market. Czechoslovakia’s ten major military factories could produce each month 1,600 mounted machineguns, 3,000 light machineguns, 130,000 rifles, 7,000 grenade launchers, and hundreds of other weapons, including tanks and warplanes.After grabbing the rest of Czechoslovakia, Hitler obtained its enormous military arsenal. So far, by allowing Hitler to annex Sudetenland and not raising a finger when the infamous Fuhrer occupied the whole territory of Czechoslovakia, Western powers provided the aggressor with the unique defense industrial base.

“So why? I think it is clear. The UK and France wanted to tell Hitler that he could move to the East and they would do nothing. Remember that when Poland was attacked, September 1, 1939, the British and French did nothing, despite their agreements to help Poland.  They did nothing until May 1940, when Hitler attacked them!” Furr underscored.

Chamberlain (centre, hat and umbrella in hands) walks with German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (right) as the Prime Minister leaves for home after the Berchtesgaden meeting, 16 September 1938. On the left is Alexander von Dörnberg.
Chamberlain (centre, hat and umbrella in hands) walks with German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (right) as the Prime Minister leaves for home after the Berchtesgaden meeting, 16 September 1938. On the left is Alexander von Dörnberg.

‘Munich’ Was an Attempt to Encourage Hitler to Attack the USSR

“Munich was definitely an attempt to encourage Hitler to attack the USSR. It cannot be interpreted any other way since, as you say, the USSR was excluded [from the Munich negotiations]. Certainly the British and French knew that the Soviets would understand it that way, and they didn’t care. Probably the idea was that Germany, Poland, and Japan would all attack the USSR — that at least would have been the best result for the British and French governments,” the professor highlighted.

Indeed, besides Nazi Germany, Japan and Poland also planned to expand their “Lebensraum” (“living space”) at the expense of the USSR. Up till the beginning of 1939, Warsaw was considering joining Nazi Germany in a war against the USSR in order to seize more territory, Furr noted in his book ” “Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False,” citing Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, who reported in January 1939: “I then talked to M. Beck [Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck] once more about the policy to be pursued by Poland and Germany towards the Soviet Union… M. Beck made no secret of the fact that Poland had aspirations directed toward the Soviet Ukraine and a connection with the Black Sea…”On the other hand, after the occupation of Manchuria in 1931, Japan turned its interests toward the eastern territories of the USSR. In May-August 1939 Japan, the USSR and Communist Mongolia were involved in a direct military conflict at Khalkhin-Gol, Siberia. The Japanese were defeated and temporarily gave up plans to attack the Soviets.

“The USSR was fighting a serious war with Japan at Khalkhin-Gol, in Siberia. There is no question that the Japanese attack was intended to make the USSR fight “on two fronts” — IF it were successful. But it was not successful. Why not? Because the military conspirators in the Far Eastern Army had been removed and arrested, including Marshal [Vasily] Bliukher. If the conspirators had not been stopped they would have aided Japan, and the USSR would have had a two-front war. Remember that it was Siberian troops who, freed up by the peace with Japan, were rushed to the defense of Moscow, and then later to the defense of Stalingrad,” the academic told Sputnik.

Britain was well informed of the militarist plans of Germany, Japan and Poland. Citing British archival documents, Canadian author and researcher Clement Leibovitz noted that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain regarded the Soviet Union as “a country which is likely to be the target of German aggression — possibly with Poland’s help — and of a Japanese aggression” (“The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal,” 1993).

The Munich Agreement a Product of Cynical Collaboration?

It is naïve to believe that the Munich Agreement was a product of an irresponsible “appeasement” of Nazi appetites by the British and French governments, Leibovitz noted, presenting evidence that could have rather been a product of cynical collaboration.

“I affirm that Chamberlain faced the option of either successfully preventing, and later resisting, Germany’s policy of aggressive expansion, or allowing Germany to expand in Eastern Europe. Chamberlain was certain that Germany would end up declaring war against the Soviet Union. Motivated by anti-communism, he chose the second option though, and in doing so, he was gambling with Britain’s security… Furthermore, it can be established that the deal was not a sudden policy but was the crowning of incessant efforts to encourage Japan and Germany ‘to take their fill’ of the Soviet Union,” Leibovitz wrote in his book “The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal.”

Remarkably, in his letter to King George VI written on September 13, 1938 Chamberlain remarked that “Herr Hitler has made up his mind to attack Czechoslovakia and then to proceed further East.” Inexplicably, in the same very letter Chamberlain asserted the king that “Germany and England… [are] the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against communism.”Furr pointed out that in his opinion, the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin “were lucky that the British and French rejected “collective security”.”

“Why? Because the British and French would probably have violated any such agreement. They probably would not have attacked Germany when Germany invaded Poland, even if they had agreed to do so. But why did they do so? And why did they not attack Germany when Germany attacked Poland? The only answer is: British and French governments wanted to continue to signal to Hitler: “Move East, and we won’t harm you!” the professor stressed.

“Remember,” Furr emphasized, “Britain and France were trying to send a force to fight the USSR on the side of Finland during the Russo-Finnish War of 1939-1940. They could not do so, but they had it all planned. So, while they were formally at war with Germany but not doing any fighting, Britain and France were sending aid, and planning to send forces, to fight on the side of Finland, an ally of Germany’s against the Soviet Union, which was anti-German!”

“All in all, the USSR was the only country that acted not just honorably, but also intelligently, in World War II. The Soviet Union saved Europe from Nazism,” Professor Furr concluded.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151001/1027851010/munich-agreement-conspiracy-against-stalin.html#ixzz3nSvCCUsn

Alabama toughens rules for voting while black
Thom Hartmann Program

Alabama Toughens Rules for Voting While Black

Thom Hartmann Program

If you live in Alabama and need to register to vote before the 2016 presidential election, it just got a little harder, especially if you live in any of the counties where black Americans make up more than 75% of the registered voting population.

Because due to “budget constraints” — 31 DMV offices are losing their driver’s licenses examiners. As John Archibald wrote in a column at AL.com, of the 10 Alabama counties with the highest percentage of non-white registered voters, 8 will lose their driver’s license bureaus. Of the 10 that voted in the highest percentages for Barack Obama, 8 of them had their offices closed.

And all five of the counties that voted most solidly democratic lost their driver license offices. Which means that people within those majority-African American counties will need to travel to another county in order to get a driver’s license, and that’s a big problem for people who still need to register to vote. Because the same Alabama Legislature that set up this voter suppression tactic also passed a bill in 2011 that requires all voters to have a photo ID. This is almost certainly not a coincidence, it looks more like a concerted effort to suppress Black votes. Alabama’s Republican-controlled legislature is making it harder and harder for minorities and low-income people to get the type of photo ID that they will need in order to vote in the next elections. But even if this isn’t a targeted effort to suppress minority and low-income votes in the state, the end effect is that it fundamentally undermines our democracy by making it more difficult to register to vote in the counties that just lost their driver’s license bureaus.

This bald-faced attempt to block minorities from voting should face a Justice Department investigation. The simple fact is, from 1965 until 2013, this move would have triggered a federal review under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 required states with a history of discrimination, like Alabama, to have any consequential changes in voting laws reviewed by the federal government. But that part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court two years ago with the Shelby County v. Holder ruling, in which Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Section 4 was unnecessary because “things have changed dramatically” in the South since 1965. With that pesky Voting Rights Act out of the way, for example, North Carolina Republican Governor Pat McCrory and the Republican controlled North Carolina legislature passed sweeping changes to their voter registration laws. Those changes included a reduction in days for early voting, restrictions on voters casting ballots outside of their registered district, and, of course, a requirement that voters have a government-issued photo id. North Carolina wouldn’t have been able to pass those reforms without federal preclearance if Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act were in place. And North Carolina and Alabama aren’t the only Republican-controlled states that have passed voter suppression laws like this. Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia were all covered under Section 4, and have all passed Voter ID laws and other restrictions since the Shelby County ruling in 2013.

And even beyond the Deep South, Republican controlled legislatures around the country are using the phony non-problem of “voter fraud”, which is virtually non-existent, as an excuse to make it harder for people, particularly people of color, the elderly, students, and the poor, from registering to vote or voting. Wisconsin and Ohio, under the governorships of Scott Walker and John Kasich, have both put into place voter suppression laws that require a photo ID to vote, reduce the period for early voting, and make it harder to register other people to vote.

What do all of these states have in common?

Every single one of them has Republican controlled legislatures and executives. And that shouldn’t come as any surprise, because even if this isn’t about specifically suppressing minority and low-income voters along with students and the elderly, this is still about making it difficult to register to vote and to cast a ballot. Which is how Republicans win elections, and it’s been part of their strategy for at least 35 years. But don’t take it from me, take it from Heritage Foundation and ALEC co-founder Paul Weyrich. That’s exactly what’s going on in Alabama, and in Republican controlled states across the country. Because when people don’t, or can’t, vote, the oligarchs win.It’s not just time to restore the Voting Rights Act so that states with a history of discrimination, like Alabama and North Carolina, are required to get federal pre-clearance before they make changes to voting laws. We also must make it easier to register to vote if we truly want our democracy to flourish and to ensure that every person has the ability and opportunity to cast their vote.

States across the country should implement automatic voter registration as Oregon just did, so that people are automatically registered to vote when they register for selective service or receive a driver’s license. And we need to expand early and absentee voting, and push for Oregon-style voting by mail across the country. Because our republic is fundamentally stronger when we make it easier to vote, and it’s time to make our democracy thrive so it can once again work for We the People.

Also, Thom responds to a piece by James Delingpole at Breitbart.com in which he criticizes Thom for suggesting people who push climate change denial should be charged under federal racketeering laws.

You can find Thom’s previous editions here.

And tune in to radio Sputnik three hours a day, five days a week, at 4 pm GMT.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/radio_thom_hartmann_show/20151002/1027908749.html#ixzz3nStrQsdN

Pentagon slams Moscow for using ‘dumb bombs’
| October 2, 2015 | 8:41 pm | Analysis, political struggle, Russia, Syria | No comments
Russia carries out air strikes on ISIS positions in Syria

Despite Video Evidence, Pentagon Slams Moscow for Using ‘Dumb Bombs’

© Photo: Russian Defense Ministry

In Washington’s ongoing attempt to discredit Russian airstrikes in Syria, a senior US Air Force official has claimed Moscow lacks the technology for precision-guided missiles. Footage of the strikes proves his statement to be demonstrably false.

“To me, it was representative of what you’d expect from dumb bombs, being dropped from airplanes at medium altitudes, which is not that impressive,” Lt. Gen. Robert P. Otto, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, told reporters on Thursday.

He was referring to the Russian airstrikes carried out in Syria since Wednesday, which have successfully leveled multiple installations belonging to the self-proclaimed Islamic State terrorist group.

“I think precision matters,” he said. “If they approach this with indiscriminate bombing, then I think it’s going to create second or third effects for them.”

But no matter how the Pentagon tries to portray the situation on the ground, videos released by the Russian Defense Ministry shows just how accurate the Russian air group’s precision strikes really are.

“Throughout the day, the Russian air group continued pinpointed strikes on Islamic State positions in Syria,” Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said in a statement on Friday. “Su-34, Su-24M and Su-25 jets carried out 14 combat missions, conducting six airstrikes.”

Those strikes were conducted with high-precision bombs, hitting an ISIL fortified bunker in the Hama province.

“Objective monitoring confirmed that one of the bombs destroyed a command post and its infrastructure with a direct hit.”

Western media has also published unfounded reports that an alleged lack of precision has led to civilian casualties. The Kremlin has called these allegations part of an “information war” aimed at discrediting Moscow’s role in the conflict.

“As for any information in the media on the civilians suffering, we were ready for such information attacks,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting of the Russian Council for Civil Society and Human Rights on Thursday.

“I draw your attention to the fact that the first reports on civilian casualties emerged before our planes even left the ground.”

US criticism of Russia’s supposed use of “dumb bombs” is especially baffling given the Pentagon’s own lackluster track record.

“Our approach has been to be very cautious with the application of force,” Otto said. “If at the end of the day you inadvertently kill innocent men, women and children, then there’s a backlash from that. And so we might kill three, and create 10 terrorists.”

Yet throughout America’s air campaigns in the Middle East, drone strikes have killed thousands of unintended victims. Human rights group Reprieve released an analysis last November which found that in the process of targeting just 41 men, US drone strikes killed 1,147 people.

An article from the New York Times in April reported that the US is often unsure of who will be affected by drone strikes.

The paper quoted Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations as saying that the trend “highlights what we’ve sort of known: that most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names.”

Yet, it is Russian “dumb bombs” which should be feared.

“Speaking just for myself,” Otto said, “I have a low level of trust with the Russians.”

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151002/1027943624/USAF-Slam-Moscows-Dumb-Bombs.html#ixzz3nSscIE5G

Portugal should consider leaving Eurozone – Communist Party
| October 2, 2015 | 8:37 pm | Party Voices, political struggle | No comments
A young couple enjoys the view from the top of Lisbon's 1902 Santa Justa lift Friday.

Portugal Should Consider Leaving Eurozone – Communist Party

© AP Photo/ Armando Franca

Portugal should consider the exit from the eurozone as a useful measure to bring the country out of a deep economic crisis, a member of the Political Committee of the Portuguese Communist Party told Sputnik.

MOSCOW (Sputnik), Yulia Shamporova — Portugal should consider the exit from the eurozone as a useful measure to bring the country out of a deep economic crisis, a member of the Political Committee of the Portuguese Communist Party told Sputnik.Portugal, currently experiencing four years of profound economic crisis, is bound by financial obligations to international creditors.

“Among the most important measures which can solve the problems of deep economic and social measures in Portugal…is the contemplation of the possibility for withdrawal of Portugal from the eurozone and preparation for the implementation of this step,” Angelo Alves said.

The politician added that the process of eurozone withdrawal would not be implemented quickly.

“The main goal for Portugal in getting out of eurozone is to contribute to the restoration of economic, monetary and budget sovereignty, making Portugal free from the unacceptable and intolerable frameworks and conditions that contradict the interests of the people and the state,” Alves said.

Moreover, Portuguese authorities neglect the right of young people to live and work, forcing them to leave the country, Angelo Alves said.

According to official data, some 485,000 Portuguese young people emigrated from 2011-2014 amid an economic and social crisis in the country. Youth unemployment now stands at above 30 percent.

“Young people in Portugal were forced to leave their country, otherwise it would not be possible for them to survive or have the possibility to build their future,” Alves said.

The Portuguese government has been implementing austerity measures under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the troika and governing Portuguese parties, including the Socialist Party (PS), the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the Democratic and Social Center – People’s Party (CDS-PP).

“Portuguese government denies the fundamental right of half of a million of Portuguese young people, many of them are educated and talented, — the right to live, work and build their future in the country where they were born. But Portuguese government has gone even further: by pushing the Portuguese youth to leave the country it has mortgaged the future of Portugal,” Alves said.

In December 2011, current Portugal Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho suggested that the best way for Portuguese youth to find a job was to emigrate to Portuguese-speaking countries like Brazil or Angola.

Portugal will see parliamentary elections on Sunday, October 4. The Portuguese parliament, Assembly of the Republic, has 230 seats, and members are elected for a 4 year term. The Socialist Party (PS) aims to unseat the ruling center-right Portugal Alliance (PaF) led by Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151001/1027875456/portugal-young-quit-communists.html#ixzz3nSrfp9LB